PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
T།།TT TcO. 882
1
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
42
The returns of the proceedings of the courts martial on September 6, show that a man named Nichalle Puncheralle was shot at Matelle, under
Captain Watson's orders. Mr. Selby says that this
man was not executed, but that a man of the name "There being a village of Nomberalee, was shot. named Nichalle and three Puncheralles in it; and none having been apprehended or tried, it fol- lows that Nichalle Puncheralle of the Blue Book was the name under which Nomberalle was shot.” He adds, that he has no means whatever of know- ing whether Nomberalle was tried; and when asked whether the person tried might not have given a false name, been tried under a false name, and shot under a false name, but that the identity of the person was still the same," he answers, case of that kind might certainly happen;" and in answer to a question whether the "person who was tried and found guilty was the person who was shot under the name of Nichalle Puncheralle," he replies, "I do not know." On the other hand, Captain
"a
Selby, 6695.
6714, 6717.
Watson states that the name of Puncheralle is a 1149, 1160, 1161.
very common name; that he saw the man when
arrested, and that he was shot in his presence after his conviction.
The utmost the evidence tends to show is, that a man was tried, found guilty, and shot under a false name; and this rests upon the statement of a native, taken down by Mr. Elliott, witnessed by Mr. Selby, and translated by a proctor of an "abolished District Court, there being no justice of the peace or notary to attest it."
An incidental proof of the fairness and regularity
of the courts-martial is obtained from the evidence
of Colonel Braybrooke, an adverse witness, as follows:
6695
5949. Mr. Hume. A return has been laid before this Evidence, 1850.
Committee purporting to be a return of all the courts- martial that were bold in the island in August and Sep- tember 1848; there are no returns in that Hat of courts- martial held on soldiers of the 87th, or any other regiment, for plundering temples and other property. Is it within your knowledge that any soldiers of any of the regiments were tried for plundering temples and priests' houses, and other offences It is within my knowledge that a corporal and a private of the 37th were tried at Dumbool by Colonel Cochrans, for plundering the temple of Dam- bool, or the house of a priest.
Conduct of the
Military and other Partias during Martial Law.
P
Selby, Evidence, 1850.
43
5950. Mr. Hawes. Was that a court-martial under the Mutiny Act?—It was conducted in the usual way of courts-martial, I believe. I saw the proceedings.
$951. That was the trial of a soldier?—You
5952. Mr. Villiers. Had that anything to do with mar- tial law?—Yes; martial law was in force at that time. It is also within my knowledge. that two or three man of my own regiment were tried by Major Layard, at Kornegalle, for some act of plundering.
5953. Mr. Hume. Were they tried by a court-martial, as directed by the Mutiny Act, or were they tried in the wara way that trials take place, without reference to the Mutiny Act?—They were tried with all the formalities prescribed by the Mutiny Act; but Majer Layard in- formed me that he had referred the question to Colonel Drought, az to what mode of proceeding he should adopt in the case of soldiers who were offenders during the continu- ance of martial law, and the answer he received was, that he was to try them precisely as he tried the natives.
5954. Under martial law ?—Yea
It was alleged that many abuses prevailed during the continusace of martial law. It is highly pro- bable that individual cases of abuse did occur, bot that they were numerous or notorious is most improbable. That in all such cases the Government was anxious to detect and punish the offenders, seems clear, from the statement of Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, as follows:
2203. Did individuals complain respecting the seizure of their property or the conduct of the military, to any of the authorities in Ceylon, in the course of the your 1848 —I cannot answer that question; any such com- plaints would have been sent to the Governor, and have gone to the Colonial Secretary; they would not have come under my cognisance at all, unless brought before the Executive Council by the Governor.
2904. Did you or did you not hear of the existence of sny such complaints at the time you were in Kandy, after the 8th of August, 1848 —I must have heard something about it when I was in Kandy in November 1848, because I find that on the 90th November, 1848, in writing to the Governor, I called his attention to what I had heard.
1905. What did you bear at that time?-This is what I wrote to the Governor upon that subject: “ Since I came here I have board from several quarters the sunfirmation of mary reports that had previously resched me of vary bad angoings så "Minselie, during marthal law; and yester day afternoon I learnt that several affidavits það bæos
N