ENGLISH EXTRACTS. LORD TORRINGTON AND THE AFFAIRS OF CEYLON. [From the "Times," February 13.]

New Zealander, Volume 6, Issue 450, 7 August 1850, Page 3

ENGLISH EXTRACTS. LORD TORRINGTON AND THE AFFAIRS OF CEYLON. [From the "Times," February 13.]

" In theeye» of the world," (.ays Mr. Roebuck, "the story of tbe Ceylon grievancei have become ridiculous." At all eventi, the public accusers in tins care have dove their best to damp.ge the cause. If Monday's debate did not exculpate the Government, it at least tended to discredit the opposition. Ihe public will certainly begin to look upon Lord Torringtou's poli< y a» a mere bonnet i ouge in a political contest. T.> judge from the recriminations whuh have been so freely oandied about, there is no disinterested wis>h either on one side or the other to ascertain the truth ; or, <o apeak a little more charitably, we should say perhaps thai neither side can afford to be unpaitial. Lord Toningtuu is charged with gross and illegal cruelty in the administration of the colon? committed to his care. A committee of the Honee is appointed to investigate and report upon these cluiges. In a short time the Government appears to think that the Committee is bent upon a conviction, and the Committee comes to a couclusion that Government desires to screen the offender. One party proposes a stbte tiial in the colony itself, to which the other opposes an obpetion sustained equally by precedent ai-d reason. The next demand is for the production of ceitam witnesies, on Yfhith n is argued that the nomination of thet>e wituesseß should nol rest With one side alone. Government will not I consent to the Committee's selection, and the Committee denounce the refusal as an interruption of the course of justice. An obvioui compromise would be to give each party free scope to summon any witne-ses they please, but here the interests of a third par y come in. The expense of bringing over theoe witnesses is enormous, and the public have decidedly no jnc' ination to feed a party quarrel by paying for the transplantation of half the population of Ceylon at .£7ljO a head. So there the matter stands L rd John Russell piofesses to think that Loid Tor.ington would have no chance of a fair liial if the proceedings werp arranged according to the fancy of Mr. Bailik-. Mr. Baillie declares, very reasonably, that if the committee are not allowed to set at the truth, they cannot pronounce any conclusive decixion. Meantime, to increase the intricacy of the squabble, the Committee are consenting to proceed without the information which they desenbe as indi»pen»able, and to conduct an inquiry from which they proleak to anticipate no serviceable result. But such resolutions unavoidably sugueit the conclusion either that their previous compliutits of the want of evidence was groundless, or that they wibh to invalidate beforehand an acquittal wh eh they may be compelled to pronounce, or that they are determined to damage Lord Torrington's credit, if not as Ut as they woula, yet as far as they can. Inconiistency like this had but little chance of eicapingthe lash ol Mr. Roebuck, who with a seventy not undeserved exposed the contradictions and follies of a courbe so compromising to the sincerity of the accuiers. Why did they undeitake a duty which they anticipated no means of dibchaiging ? Why tint lea«e Government with the onus of self-exculpation by throwing up their tiu»t? Their demands, however plausible i» sound, were unwarrantable in substance. Eveiy court of judicial inquiiy slu>nld include some provision for the lights of the accusid. What security wa» there that the Committee, if indulged with the privilege of bunging over an unlimited nuinl cr of •uorted wi.neßses, at the expense of the Government attacked, would do equal justice to the iequireu.enu of the defence? No person can lead the invectives „ m PiirlLiiient diainst Lord Tomn b ton

without feeling convinced th.it the i it^hts of fair play demand some interference in his hehaU. 'I hi- interference has been somewhat obnoxiously supplied by the refusal o( Government to produce all the witnesses asked for. Lud John Rus-cll had reason on his 6ide when he laid that neither in justice nor propriety could the Committee demand uncontrolled authority ovo-r the Secretaries of State ; but what a pass have things come to when a question like that before the House was liable to be so perverted to the purposes of paity quairelb I Nothing cm he more reasonable than th.it a committee of inquiry should summon its own witnessess ; nothing rooie unjust than that they should thus pack them for the confirmation of a foregone tO'lcluS'Ot). The very arguments of the accusers in this case almost preclude the belief that their motives are wholly sincere. There certainly is not, prima facie y such a case against Lord Torrington as would provoke'inrdluntary indignation on the part of well-informed and uninterested observers. Certain native inhabitants of the colony were brought to summary trial and execution without the usuhl forms ot law ; but'this was done in the supprtssipn of an overt rebellion, whena large" portion of the population was in arms against the Government, and in a country where such insurrections less inomptly checked had repeatedly resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. Charges were made agairibt the Governor, it is true, on the spot itself, and some of the chief civil uuthoiitjes diisented from his course of proceeding. But, on the other hand, the policy which he was cxpreisly commissioned to carry out in the colony was such as necessarily created enemies, und in that case especially f.ora which the accusations have been puncipally foithcoming. We do not say that it wa» not a case for inquiry, but we wholly deny thac it was a case of manifest guilt. The motives o agitators on'this subject must needs be sought else where. Nobody ean -asset t that they are dUcoverabl in tne visible enormity of the alleged misconduct. Respectfor human, life, when sincerely exptessed is one of the veiy sur«s.t signs of advancing civilization j but it is miseiably carricalured by such a plea us Mr. Baillie'h, and it is directly belied by avowals like that ot Mi. G )Men, who anerted in this very debate that tl e ( Bornean pirateb should have been permitted to do a great deal in -iv havoc before they were punished theaustlvis, and that the destruction of life was greatly aggravated by the inct that no live* were destroyed on the other side. To talk of proceeding by forms of law in the heat of an Ojien'al insurrection, or against a hundred boats' load of savagei, it so clear an absurdity that it cannot be otherwise than wilfully maintained. If the advocates of such a course w«re sincere enough to require any reply, we might commend them to a lesson from the very ca-e in point. Lord Torrington did try the delinquent course of law—by such law as he was undoubtedly authorized to declare. His accusers are for trying the whole case over again and changing ' venue to England, and yet they find it impossible, lv I thin compaiauvely cncuuiscribed investigation, ta agree upon the testimony required, or to conduct the proceedings in such as way a to insure the result they demany. We think, that each party to this dispute is acting iv a way which can ouly be justified by a presumption ol foul play on the other side ; but it is a lau.eutable prospect lor the administration of ju.-tice m d the Well-bein,; of aS ate when a cdunterpoise is sought in the secret influence of Government against the undieguised prepossessions of a political tribunal.