CO882-(1-2) — Page 150

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O. 882

1

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

30

ings of the Legislative Council, a copy of which I have here. This is the minute: "That a tax upon dogs they consider desirable, as a valuable measure of police."

4211. In the ultimate shape in which this Act was passed and was sent home for the sanction of the Home Government Mr. Wodehouse concurred?-I have every reason to believe so.

4212. Had you any reason to believe that Mr. Wode- house dissented from that tax?--None whatever.

4213. Chairman.-Do you believe that the Governor caused that tax to be repealed at Mr. Wodehouse's sug- gestion ?—I do.

4214. How do you reconcile the circumstance of his approving of the ordinance with the circumstance of his recommending the Governor to repeal it?-That is a question I have very often asked myself, but have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to it.

4215. Mr. Hume.-Mr. Wodehouse recommended the re- peal of the tax ?--Yes, together with the repeal of other taxes which be supported, and some of which he suggested. I al- lude for one, to the tax upon fire-arms, the passing of which through the Legislative Council Mr. Wodehouse supported. 4216. Mr. Wilson.-In answer to question 4542, Mr. Wodehouse distinctly states that he objected to the dog ordinance as it was enacted and sent home 7-That is not consistent with my recollection of the facts of the case.

4223. Are you aware whether Lord Torrington was in the habit of frequently consulting Mr. Wodehouse pri- vately, as well as in his capacity as a member of the Executive Council, before he left the colony?—I am authorized by Lord Torrington to state that such was his practice; and that in regard to all questions of policy con- nected with the Government, Mr. Wodehouse was made aware of his, Lord Torrington's, intentions, and was con- sulted by him, and gave him his advice and opinion.

4224. Are you aware of any occasion whatever during the whole period that the policy of Lord Torrington was under discussion, in which Mr. Wodehouse, upon being consulted by Lord Torrington, expressed his dissent in any way from the policy which had been adopted?--If the policy referred to in the question applies to the general commercial measures of the Government, the abolition of the export duties and the enactment of the gun-tax, the road ordinance and others; and if it alludes to the policy of Lord Torrington for the suppression of the rebellion; I am authorized by Lord Torrington to stale that no such dissent was ever expressed by Mr. Wodehouse; and up to the period of Mr. Wodehouse taking leave of the Island of Ceylon, Lord Torrington laboured under the full impres- sion, from his communications with him, that Mr. Wode- house entirely approved of bis 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.

4225. Sir J. Walmsley.-Your last answer applies to the general policy of Lord Torrington ?—Yes.

4226. Mr. Wilson.Then in fact, up to the period of Mr. Wodehouse leaving the colony, he did not give Lord Torrington any reason to understand that he dissented from the general measures which had been adopted by Lord Torrington up to that period ?-Certainly not.

Sir E. Tennent had previously stated, in answer to a question whether Mr. Wodehouse was a mem- ber of the Executive Council at the time he recom- mended Lord Torrington to repeal the shop and dog taxes (3233) —

He was not; but he was on such confidential terms with

Tennent.

May 13, 1850.

April 25, 1850.

}

Tennent.

April 25,*1850.

Wodehouse.

May 27, 1850.

31

Lord Torrington, and in such constant communication with him, that though not a member of the Executive Council, his opinion was in almost every instance resorted to in this legislation.

Mr. Wodehouse, on his re-examination in 1850, was questioned again as to the new tax ordinances.

4576. Chairman.-Will you refer to Sir Emerson Ten- nent's answers to Questions 4209, 4210, 4211, and 4212, in which it is stated that you, in the first instance, merely objected to the shape in which the dog-tax was proposed to be levied, and upon that being amended, you did not oppose it; also that you recommended it in 1841. Is that the case-I will not undertake to recollect upon such a subject as that what I may have said in 1841; it is really of

little consequence. very

An ordinance doing all that was required respecting dogs was enacted in 1842, the object of which was to give the Government the power of ordering from time to time the destruction of dogs in the principal towns when they became a nuisance. It worked very well, and there was no necessity for any alteration at all; but some parties having raised objections to it that it was a brutalizing and demoralizing process to have dogs killed, and to see dead dogs lying about, a new ordinance was brought in as an attempt to get rid of it. It was first of all made applicable only to the towns. Sir Arthur Buller drew up the first sketch of the ordinance before he left Ceylon, and it was a perfect caricature. There was a great deal about burning dogs' tails, and things of that kind. At last I pointed out that the existing law which allowed dogs to be killed was not continued by the ordi- nance which was proposed to be brought in, and that therefore the whole thing would be inoperative; there was no means of levying the tax or putting down the dogs, without allowing the power of killing them if they had no owners, or had not paid the tax. That was the only way in which the ordinance could be operative, so it passed in the Legislative Council; but on the very day of the third reading it was extended from the towns, to which it was very fairly applicable, to the whole island. It might be a proper measure to adopt to allow dogs to be killed when they became a nuisance in the towns, and in that shape it remained till the third reading, when all on a sudden it was extended to the whole island, the villages, and everywhere else. I did not approve of the measure. I thought it a matter of absurdity, and my opinions were well known in the colony at the time. I only suggested that one clause, which was necessary in order to enable the dogs to be killed, but I never suggested that it should be made applicable to the whole island, which brought about all the difficulty.

4577. Mr. Hume.-Are the Committee to ‘understand

to say

that you

recommended such an ordinance as a you matter of police ?-I did not recommend it; I knew that a very proper ordinance had been passed in 1849, which did all that was necessary.

4578. Mr. Wilson.-Was not it always treated as a

K

Page 150Page 151

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

1

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO|

32

matter of police?—Yes, but then it was extended to the whole of the villages.

4579. So far as regarded the last dog ordinance, as I understand you, you objected to it when it was first intro- duced, because it had not a clause which you afterwards suggested?—Yes, which was in the existing law.

4580. But which was ultimately added, and then the ordinance had your support --My support so far as this, that it did no harm and did no good; I considered the existing law which was then in force to be quite sufficient for everything, But it became a different matter when it was extended to the whole island.

4581. Did you oppose the ordinance as a member of the Legislative Council ?—No.

4582. Did you as a member of the Legislative Council oppose the proposed extension of the ordinance to other districts ---I did not say a word upon the subject; I was a member of the Executive Council, and I did not consider

it of sufficient importance to get up at the last moment and oppose the Government on such a question.

The Chairman refers him to Sir E. Tennent's answer 3520 (page 28), and asks :

4587. Is that statement correct?—It is not the fact that the announcement was made upon the first day of the meeting of the Legislative Council. If the Committee will refer to the first Blue Book Report, they will find, at page 231, that Lord Torrington incloses the speech which he made at the opening of the session of the Legislative Council, which was opened on the 22nd of October, and there is no mention whatever at that time of the repeal of the taxes, nor of any such intention, nor any allusion to it. The announcement that he was going to repeal them, as will be seen at page 274, was not till the 6th of November. 4588. Mr. Hawes.-Do you understand by the answer to which you have referred, that the word "announced," means announced in the Governor's speech ?—Yes. There was no intention of doing it before the 6th of November.

4589. Chairman.--The Committee have been informed that the dog-tax and the shop-tax were repealed, and the licences for guns made permanent at your

recommenda- tion; when did you make that recommendation ?--I made it on the 6th of November, two hours before Lord Tor-

rington made that announcement.

4590. In answer to Question 3238, Sir Emerson Ten- nent has stated that you were 'then on such confidential terms with Lord Torrington, and in such constant commu- nication with him, that though not then a member of the Executive Council, your opinion was in almost every instance resorted to by Lord Torrington, and certainly in every instance with reference to this legislation: why did not you recommend those changes soster ?—That is hardly

■ fair description of my position at the time, nor of the manner in which that took place. The time at which I made that recommendation was the first opportunity I ever had of telling Lord Torrington that my opinion was, that the taxes ought to be repealed. It arose out of a

matter connected with the road ordinance.

Wodehouse

May 27, 1850.

Minutes of Legislative Council. January 11, 20, and 31, 1848.

33

He then states the occasion of the interview. That no arrangements had been made for bringing his road ordinance into operation on the 1st January, 1849, according to its original provisions; that he had consequently prepared an amending ordinance to postpone its operation until the 1st June; that afterwards some of the planters and other people were anxious that it should come into operation on the 1st of January; that Lord Torrington upon this sent to him, and that he waited upon Lord Torring- ton on the 6th November, and advised in what manner Lord Torrington's expressed wish that the ordinance should come into operation on the 1st January might be carried into effect. The distur- bances had intervened, and Mr. Wodehouse thought,

to ensure the safe working of the ordinance, with reference to the condition of the country, the shop and dog-tax should be repealed, and the fire-arms tax amended.

As to the stamp ordinance, it is perfectly true, as represented by Mr. Wodehouse, that in Com- mittee there were several divisions on the schedule, January 31, April 3 and 10, 1848. and that he did not vote in any of them; and that

the licences were struck out of the schedule on the day of the third reading of the Bill.

As to the shop bill, Sir E. Tennent is mistaken. After the second reading, the Council resolved itself into a Committee; the bill was not otherwise referred to a Committee. If Sir E. Tennent had in his mind the sub-Committee on the stamp bill, be is mistaken as to this also, for neither Mr. Wodehouse por Mr. Stewart were members of that Committee, and two others, whose names he has not given, were members of it.

As to the dog hill, Sir E. Tennent says that Mr. Wodehouse objected merely to the shape in which the dog-tax was originally proposed. Mr. Wode- house says he objected on matters of substance, and that he objected to the ordinance as finally enacted; that there was already a sufficient ordi- nance on the subject; that the ordinance, as pro- posed to be brought in, did not continue the old power of destroying dogs, and that the new ordi nance was unnecessarily extended from the town to the whole island.

The original dog ordinance (No. 9 of 1842) au- thorized the Governor to issue orders, to be in forde for ten days, at such times as he should think fit,