CO882-(1-2) — Page 136

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

·| 2།

Reference :→→→

C.O. 882

1

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

2

him, that Mr. Wodehouse entirely approved of his Evidence, 1850. policy, and that his opinions, if expressed in this Committee, would be in defence of that policy, and in support of Lord Torrington's Government."

Mr. Wodehouse was examined in reply, and, in order to vindicate his credit, by showing that he "had not been in that position of confidential adviser of Lord Torrington throughout these trans. actions, which is supposed in these answers, or that" he "had betrayed him," produced certain private and confidential letters addressed to him by Lord Torrington.

The first question is, whether the evidence of Mr. Wodehouse was fairly given?

The second, whether he was justified in the pro- duction of Lord Torrington's letters?

First. Was that part of Mr. Wodehouse's evi- dence which represented his dissent from some of Lord Torrington's financial measures, fairly given?

Mr. Wodehouse, in explaining to the Ceylon Committee his views of Lard Torrington's financial policy, stated that he had resisted some parts of it.

and had passively dissented from others; and he also intimated that he might perhaps have carried his opposition further, if he had not been restrained by the belief that Lard Tarrington was acting upon very distinct instructions from the Home Govern- ment. Sir E. Tennent, in order to show that Mr. Wodehouse had thus taken exception to measures which had really received his support in the Execu- tive Council, produced certain minutes submitted by Mr. Wodehouse for its consideration, with reference to these very measures; and gave a great deal of other evidence with the same object. Mr. Wodehouse, when called in reply to this con- tradiction, relled for his justification upon these same minutes, as clearly expressing his decided As these dissent in several important particulars. minutes, therefore, are the foundation, to a great extent, both of the charge against Mr. Wodehouse, and of his answer to it, it will be necessary to advert to the cecasion on which they were written and laid before the Council, and also to give extracts from them.

But it may facilitate the application of the evi- dence, to premise at once, that the financial measures with respect to which Sir E. Tennent endeavoured

Wodehouse.

4514-4627.

4601.

3

to establish this charge of inconsistency, were an ordinance to abolish the general export duties, and to reduce those upon cinnamon; an ordinance requiring persons keeping fire-arms to take out an annual licence; the same as to shops; the same as to dogs; and a stamp ordinance. There were other minor tax ordinances, upon which no question arises. The stress of this part of the case was laid on the export-duties ordinance. This ordinance, from the 1st September, 1848, abolished the ex- port duty of 24 per cent. on coffee and all other articles, except cinnamon, and reduced the cinna- mon duty from Is. to 4d. a lb. Mr. Wodehouse, in 1849, after stating (4677) that he has no doubt Lord Torrington was instructed to repeal the general export duties, as bad in principle, though he is not aware that these instructions are precisely stated in the official papers, says, in answer to ques- tions whether he was in favour of the repeal at that time, or against it? (4678, 4680) "I am not at all certain that I would have given up the export duties at that time. I do not think anybody much

felt the pressure of them, they were only 2 per cent.; but the export duty upon cinnamon was most objectionable, it amounted to 75 or 100 per cent. ;" and he adds (4679), “I should have been glad to have seen the reduction in the cinnamon duty carried farther than it was, or even to have seen the duty entirely abolished." His objection is, (4742) “That there was no sufficient reason, had we been left altogether to ourselves, for giving up 10,0001. or 20,0001, a-year at that time." (4723) "I could see no justification in point of principle, when you took away 24 per cent. on anything else, why you were to leave 25 per cent. on cinnamon." (4724) “I think it would have been better to have kept the 24 per cent. upon coffee, and not to have kept 25 per cent. on cinnamon.” He stated, how- ever, (4679) that, in the Legislative Council, there was no opposition to the reduction of the cinnamon duty; not much opposition (4679) or even discus- sion (4687) as to the repeal of the general export duties; and he did not say that he himself opposed either of these changes. In 1850 (4135, 4136), Sir E. Tennent is examined on this subject: "Were the members of the Executive Council unanimous upon this question of the repeal of the export duties !-They were; the only difference of