CO882-(1-2) — Page 162

། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

1

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

54

the members of the Council was recorded, that they enger- tained no moral doubt of the guilt of the Maha Nileme; can you take upon yourself to say that that was not recorded?--I am prepared to say that that was

recorded.

not

Mr. Selby appears to understand Sir E. Tennent as meaning that the opinion that the members had no moral doubt of the Maha Nileme's guilt, was recorded on the minutes of Council.

It certainly appears that the case was not very strong at first, for the arrest of the Maha Nileme and others is announced to the Executive Council on the 23rd September, 1848, by a note from Colonel Drought, and the Council resolved that

Colonel Drought be instructed not to bring the pri- soners to trial for the present; but to keep them in safe custody, and endeavour to get such information as may insure their conviction.

On the 7th November, 1848, the minutes of Council say merely :

Resumed consideration of the proceedings in the case against the Dewe Nileme at Kandy, for supposed high

treason.

Resolved, not to put him on his trial, it appearing doubtful to the Council whether the evidence against him would insure his conviction.

It may be that Mr. Selby has misapprehended Sir E. Tennent's meaning, or that the minutes of this day are defective.

As any portion of the evidence which tends to illustrate the comparative accuracy of Sir E. Tennent and Mr. Wodehouse may become im- ♦portant, the two preceding points have been intro-

duced as much on that account as on account of their intrinsic connexion with the general head of inquiry upon which these two witnesses were at

issue.

With the same object of illustrating their com- parative accuracy, one or two other heads of evidence will be referred to as briefly as possible. These will also furnish additional instances of con- tradiction. It will appear hereafter, when the second question is considered, whether Mr. Wode- house was justified in the production of Lord Tor- rington's letters, that the contradictions, of which so many have been already noticed, on account of their bearing on the first question in this paper,

Evidence, 1849.

4138, 4167.

55

whether Mr. Wodehouse's evidence was fairly given, may then have another bearing on the second question, because the letters not only supplied evidence on the relations between him and Lord Torrington, which was a fact in dispute, but they also contained expressions most injurious to the honour of Sir E. Tennent. The contradictions, therefore, may indirectly assume a new importance as illustrative of the motives of Mr. Wodehouse in resorting to these letters; for every one of these contradictions may have contributed, more or less, to excite in the mind of Mr. Wodehouse a feeling of resentment against Sir E. Tennent, as well as a feeling of alarm and anxiety concerning his own credit. Mr. Wodehouse states that the Ceylon Governors generally, have not consulted their Executive Coun cils so much as they should have done; that some matters are not submitted to Council at all; others, not until the Governor has advanced to a certain

stage so as to become compromised; and that Governors have been in the habit of consulting members of Council privately on matters before they are submitted to Council, and that this some- times embarrassed members in the discharge of their Evidence, 1830. duty. Sir E. Tennent differs. It is unnecessary to inquire which is right, for Sir E. Tennent agrees as

4068, 4088,

4086.

Evidence, 1849.

4252, 4280.

4261.

to the fact, that "the Governor is in the habit of privately consulting the members of the Council before the Council meets, with a view to ascertain their views;" and whether embarrassment did or not ensue from this is mere opinion. The testimony of Mr. Wodehouse, so far as it may intimate that Lord Torrington did not consult his Council suffi- ciently, appears at all events to have been expressed to the Committee bosd fide, for he intimated the same thing to Lord Torrington himself. Lord Torrington,

in his private letter to Mr. Wodehouse of 3rd May, 1849, says—

One other remark on your last letter the day you sailed, in which you say, consult your Council oftener; why surely you must allow that I have done that more than any other Governor, and not one act have I committed without their advice and sanction. The minutes prove that.

Again Mr. Wodehouse doubted whether chiefs and headmen, generally, were implicated in the rebellion, and was of opinion that many of “the most active members of the insurgents were men from the low country, mere marauders." When Q