CO882-(1-2) — Page 160

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TELEC.O. 882

1

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

50

companies already dispatched. The Council consi- dered the offer on the 8th August, and declined it.

During the continuance of martial law, it may be said the Civil Government had so far delegated its functions to the military authorities, that it would of course decline all interference with measures in execution of military law. Lieutenant-Colonel Drought, for instance, on the 8th August, issued a proclamation announcing that he had ordered the property of persons who had joined the rebellion to be seized. He did this on his own responsibility, as commandant of the forces in the district to which the proclamation applied. Could it be expected that Lord Torrington would bring such a matter before his Council? There was, however, another proclamation issued on the 18th August, of a similar character. This proclamation was issued by the order of Lord Torrington himself, and signed by the Colonial Secretary. Its operation was not limited to any particular district.

The lands and property of all persons who shail, after this 18th day of August, 1848, be found to have been absent from their ordinary places of residence during the last twenty days, without giving a satisfactory account of themselves, will be declared forfeited and confiscated to the Crown.

Lord Torrington, in a despatch of the 14th September, addressed to Earl Grey, incloses this proclamation:

I caused a proclamation to be issued, with the advice of the Queen's Advocate, calling upon the people to return to their villages and resume their usual occupations within twenty days, under pain of forfeiture of their lands.

This proclamation was not laid before the Council, and it appears most clearly from the correspondence between Lord Torrington and the Queen's Advo cate, that the proclamation was not issued with the advice of the Queen's Advocate

On the 7th April, 1849, Mr. Selby, having seen the above despatch in the Blue Book, addressed a long letter to Lord Torrington, in contradiction of the statement that this proclamation was issued with his, Mr. Selby's, advice. The letter asserts that he was with Lord Torrington on other business when Sir E. Tennent came into the room where they were with the proclamation ready drawn; that it was read over by Sir E. Tennent or Mr. Bernard, Lord Torrington's private secretary; that he, Mr. Selby, quitted the room immediately afterwards,

Evidence, 1849.

5536.

Evidence, 1850..

3070.

Papers, 1849. Page 218.

Page 221.

Page 218.

Appendix to Evidence, 1849.|

Pagen 542-545.

51

"neither having been desired to give, nor having given any advice or opinion on the subject." The proclamation was suggested in a memorandum by Sir H. Maddock, on several matters in connexion with martial law. On the 22nd August, this memo- randum is sent by Mr. Bernard to Mr. Selby for his opinion. Mr. Selby sends back an opinion, that "to the confiscation of the property of rebels a conviction and judgment thereon," &c., is necessary. On the 24th August, Lord Torrington writes to Mr. Selby:

Your letter to Mr. Bernard respecting the whole ques- tion, I may say, of our policy with regard to the Kandyan rebellion, has caused me much anxious consideration. I shall be very glad to have a quiet consultation with you, Mr. Stewart (the Deputy Queen's Advocate), and Sir H. Maddock, any hour, &c.

The consultation took place.

"I then," says Mr. Selby, "repeated, but at greater length and more decided language, my entire dissent from the proceedings, which had taken place with regard to the confiscation of property by the military authorities.”

All this is recited in Mr. Selby's letter of the 7th April. He asks how it was that if he had been considered as advising the proclamation on the 18th, which he pronounced illegal on the 22nd, an explanation was not required from him of so sudden a change of opinion; and adds,—

Was it for me, then, by whose advice the proclamation was not issued, and who therefore felt no responsibility on the subject; was it for me, by whom it was not drawn up (as in the ordinary course of business it would have been had I been consulted), to step forward at the last moment, when the measure had been determined on, &c., and when my advice was not desired} &c.

* • *

Lord Torrington's answer of April 12, 1849, is: My recollection, and that of the Colonial Secretary, is, that the object of this proceeding was explained in your presence.

Bearing in mind that, as my legal adviser on such matters, I should have expected an expres- sion of your disapproval in the event of your dissenting from the proposition; and that no such disapprobation was conveyed to me, I think, in the absence of all such explanations, I was warranted in regarding your silence as an implied assent.

It admits :

The phrase in the despatch that you had advised the proclamation conveys the idea of a much more active share in the matter than you really took, inasmuch as it would convey the impression that the proclamation originated in that advice. The expression, then, is innocurate, and will be corrected.

P