CO882-(1-2) — Page 204

། ?། ། ‛། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ول

Reference :-

C.O. 882

1

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

evidence, I determined on the occasion of the priest's trial to attend throughout, and closely to watch all proceedings. I did so from the opening of the court until the delivery of the sentence, and the conclusion forced upon me by the clear and simple evidence I heard, was, that there could not exist in an unbiassed man's mind a shadow of doubt as to the guilt of the priest. The court-martial appeared to me to be conducted with the greatest possible fairness towards the prisoner; as one instance of which I may mention that the president, Major Lushington, seeing some of the Kandy bar in the court, notified to them that he would gladly permit any of them to aid or advise the priest, in questioning or cross-examining the witnesses. This was also communicated to the prisoner, but neither did he seem to wish to avail himself of this assistance, nor did Ifelt con- any of the legal gentlemen tender it to him. vinced at the time, and am so still, that a jury free from faction and aware of the obligation of jurymen's oaths, must have brought in a verdict of guilty. I should not have required five minutes' consideration had I been on a jury to make up my mind on the evidence I heard produced before that court-martial.

Yours, &c.

(Signed) 8. Owen Glenie.

The Government Agent, Mr. C. R. Buller, also

reports as follows:

But I will now proceed to the trial of the priest. So Parliamentary Papers, 1850;

far as I can recollect, the only persons present were the Rev. Mr. Owen Glenie, the chaplain; Mr. Wilmot, advo- cate for prisoners; Mr. J. J. Staples, the district judge; Mr. Charles Stewart, the Deputy Queen's Advocate; Mr. Jonklass; Mr. Dunuwille Lokoo Banda, superintendent of police? Mr. James Dunuwille, his brother; Mr. Edema, Mr. Vanderwall, Mr. Edema, and some planters.

Major Lushington, the president of the court, asked the prisoner if he wished that any one should defend him; he looked towards Mr. Wilmot, the advocate for prisoners, as his natural protector, but that gentleman touched his hand and asked for the kasie (money); he said he had none; and as no one would take up the cause, the trial proceeded. The priest then commenced his defence; when he had finished, and while the court was closed, several of the gentlemen present said, “his own defence convicts him." He admitted in it all the leading points stated in the @vidence of the Basnaike Nilleme; the coming to him; the conversation regarding the pretender; the swearing him on the Banna book; but he gave a turn to it by saying that the Baanaike Nilleme forced the con- versation on him, and that in regard to the King, be pre- tended that he meant the Governor; and here his own

p. 132.

6554, 6775.

41

words would have convicted him, for the Kandyans, in speaking of the Governor, use the term "otooman wa- hanne," but their own King they style rajah;" he always used the latter term, and the falsity of his defence was apparent.

It is to be regretted, and deeply to be regretted, that although there were no less than five legal practitioners present at the trial, Mr. Wilmot, Mr. John Selby, Mr. Smith, Mr. James Dunnville, and Mr. Vanderwall, not one of them could be prevailed upon to undertake to con- duct the defence from pure philanthropic motives, or at least to tender their evidence regarding the credibility of the Baaike Nilleme, which they are now so ready to offer, and which can be of little avail, except to serve their own purposes or that of others, at the expense of the Basnaike Nilleme.

The Queen's Advocate, Mr. Henry Selby, who, if the report be true, has been so zealous in the cause, could have gained his information only from others; and if it be true that he has asserted that all in court were of opinion that the priest was not guilty, he has decidedly been misled, for my own opinion coincided with that of the district judge; and the Deputy Queen's Advocate, Mr. Chas. Stewart, Mr. Jonglass, and the superintendent of police, who is himself a Kandyan, and Mr. Wilmot's own remark on hearing the priest's defence, showed his opinion at the time. If Mr. Glenie is saked, I have no doubt his impressions were the same, and if these pseudo philan- thropic gentlemen who gave Mr. H. Selby the informa- tion, were legal practitioners, and were present, I can only regret their want of good feeling in withholding their services from the prisoner, when called upon to give them upon so important an occasion.

In the case of Nichalle Puncheralle-in which it is alleged that a wrong man was shot-the only witness produced to support this charge, distinctly made in the House of Commons by Mr. Baillie, was a Mr. John Selby, an advocate, who, with Mr. Elliott, the editor of the "Observer," was actively engaged in getting up a case against Lord Tor- rington, and was one of the witnesses summoned by Mr. Hume and Mr. Baillie. He can neither speak or read the Cingalese language, and his evidence is wholly founded upon what he extracted from natives, subjected to no cross-examination, and who were invited to make complaints against the local Government by him and Mr. Elliott.

The main facts, na elicited by the exammation of Mr. Selby, were as follows:

i

T