CO882-(1-2) — Page 154

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O. 882

minimiin

1 ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

38

Evidence, 1850.

April 13, 1847. Page 101.

Page 18.

One other tax remains to be noticed, the fire- arms ordinance. Sir E. Tennent, in 4215, says that Mr. Wodehouse recommended the repeal of the dog-tax, "together with the repeal of other taxes which he supported, and some of which he suggested. I allude, for one, to the tax upon

fire- arms, the passing of which through the Legislative Council Mr. Wodehouse supported." The fire-arms Report of Earl Grey's Committee. was suggested by Sir E. Tennent in his report. In the report of Lord Grey's Committee, "no objec- tion" is offered to it, but inquiry recommended as to its probable effect, before any conclusive step is taken (ante, page 7); and it is perfectly true that Mr. Wode- house, in his first minute, after recommending the entire abolition of the general and cinnamon èxport duty, and of the imposition of a tax upon cinnamon and coffee lands, at the same time adds these words: "I would also then require licences to be taken out for carrying arms." In what manner he supported the passing of this ordinance does not appear, nor is it very material to inquire, for he himself did not oppose it; that he was not so much opposed to that as regards the principle of registra tion ;" and that as to the annual licences, he "did not at first anticipate the same difficulties."

says he

In closing this part of the case relative to Mr. Wodehouse's evidence on Lord Torrington's financial measures, it may be remarked that many of his answers evince great fairness and consideration towards Lord Torrington.

Thus (4678), he is "not at all certain that he would have given up the export duties at that time;" yet his last minute is "certain" enough pagainst such a course.

The merchants of Colombo took Mr. Wodehouse's view. They protested against the repeal of those duties until the consequent deficiency should be pro- vided for. (3486, 3488, 4689.) Mr. Wodehouse says they are a small section; "and it does not follow "that because a thing is opposed by the mercantile body or the European, that it is itself bad for the colony." (4699.)

Vindicates the Governor for not informing Lord Grey of opposition to stamp ordinance. (4502-- 4513.)

Mr. Wodehouse opposed the shop-tax; it was unpopular; and he subsequently procured its repeal; but he takes no credit for this as his own act.

Evidence, 1849.

4542.

4500.

4501.

Minutes of Executive Council.

Papers, 1849. Page 181.

Appendix to Evidence, 1849. F'age 428.

Evidence, 1849. 4908.

39

(4554.) He states that the original ordinance was fully discussed in the Executive Council. (4530.) Is pot aware of any circumstance to justify a report that the measure was "forced through.” (4576.) The shop-tax could, “directly, have had nothing to do with the disturbances, because no disturbances took place in the towns to which it applied.” (4559.) In answer to Mr. Hume he says, (4663) “It is hardly possible to give the dog-tax so serious a name as a grievance. In the villages it could never have been carried into effect."

It be allowed here to adduce as another in-

may stance also, although the subject matter is uncon- nected with Financial policy, that he justifies the Governor for not laying the grounds on which the Buddhist ordinance was disallowed before the Legis lative Council. (6568, 6569.)

Mr. Wodehouse's evidence respecting martial law must now be adverted to. The substance of that evidence has been briefly given in the first page of this

paper.

The disturbances at Matelle, in the district of Kandy, occurred on the 28th July, 1848. On the same day the Executive Council met at Colombo and issued a proclamation of martial law for the district of Kandy. Lord Torrington, Major-General Smelt, and Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, were the only members who attended this Council. The other three members, Sir Emerson Tennent, Mr. Wodehouse, and Mr. F. J. Templer, were absent from Colombo.

The disturbances at Kornegalle occurred on the 30th July, 1848. On the 31st July, the Executive Council met again at Colombo, and issued a pro- clamation of martial law for Kornegalle. Mr. Wodehouse and all the other members of Council were present.

On neither of these occasions did any member of Council oppose the proclamation of martial law.

The reason assigned by Mr. Wodehouse for his concurrence in the second proclamation has been already mentioned (page 1); martial, law had been already proclaimed at Matelle, "and it would have been most inexpedient when another town had boon attacked to have halted in that policy." But to the question whether the military, under the direction M