justified the course pursued by the local government
towards Jotee Pershaud. The trial referred to was, he
believed, most impartially conducted. As for the papers
demanded, he had no objection to their being produced
as soon as they were ready.

The papers were ultimately ordered to be laid on the
table.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS on Thursday, May 29th,
the adjourned debate on the Ceylon question was
resumed. Sir J. W. HOGG defended the conduct of Lord
Torrington, contending that not only the proclamation
of martial law, but its continuance, was justified by the
circumstances of the case.—Sir F. Thesiger entered at
great length into the whole history of the insurrection,
showing that the taxes hastily imposed, and as hastily
repealed afterwards, were the cause of the disturbances;
that these were not of an aggravated character, the
rioters never having made head against the troops; that
the proclamation of martial-law was by no means proved
to have been necessary; that after it was proclaimed there
was a total absence of directions to insure its being
carried out with fairness and equity; that confiscation
formed part of the system adopted under its operation;
that Mr. Selby had opposed those illegal proceedings,
and that his conduct had been placed in a false light
before Earl Grey in Lord Torrington's despatches: that
more especially the confiscation and other proceedings
of Captain Watson at Matelle had been characterised by
the greatest irregularity; that martial law had been
continued long after the necessity for it had ceased, and
even after the capture of the Pretender, the real object
being to continue it until an act of indemnity for Lord
Torrington should have been passed; that so far from
the proceedings of the courts-martial having been fair
and regular, they had been conducted by young and
inexperienced officers, and men had been convicted,
sentenced, and executed on the spot, against whom
there was not a tittle of evidence to warrant their
conviction; that Lord Torrington had only most reluctantly
consented, upon the representation of Sir A. Oliphant,
to the commutation of the sentence of the seventeen
individuals capitally convicted by the Civil Court; which
latter circumstance, Sir F. Thesiger observed, might
assist them in appreciating the different accounts given
of the scene which took place when Mr. Selby applied
for a delay in the execution of the priest. Sir F.
Thesiger commented, in strong terms, on the conduct of
Earl Grey in expressing his entire belief of Lord
Torrington's version, and yet sending back to the colony
Mr. Selby, who, if Eaii Grey believed that version to be
true, was, in the estimation of the noble Earl, a
convicted libeller; and concluded by making a powerful
appeal to the house not to compromise, by its decision,
the character of this nation for honour and humanity.—
Mr. HAWES denied that any understanding, as to the
recal of Lord Torrington, had preceded the report of
the committee. He reduced the main question into two
heads—first, whether the state of the island justified the
proclamation of martial law; and secondly, whether any
undue severity had been used in carrying that law into
execution. He argued at great length in support of the
affirmative of the former, and the negative of the latter
of these two propositions. With regard to Earl Grey's
approbation of Lord Torrington's conduct, Mr. Hawes
contended that it was a mere matter of course, in
conformity with the invariable rule of the office when a
colony was reported in a state of rebellion, and did not
imply approbation of all the acts done; and after
referring to the addresses presented to Lord Torrington on
his leaving the colony, to which he attached great
importance, he called upon the house to reject the resolutions.
—Mr. GLADSTONE began by condemning strongly
the personalities towards absent persons, of which the
defenders of Lord Torrington had been guilty. With
regard to the main question, he denied that the object
of the resolution was to cast censure on Lord Torrington;
their object was to bring the conduct of her Majesty's
government under discussion, and to vindicate the high.
and sacred principles on which the government of
mankind ought to be carried on, which were involved in this
case. The main issue to be tried was, whether there
had been in this case a judicious and wise, or an unwise
and wanton administration of the highest and most solemn
prerogative of government, which consisted in taking
into its own hands the work of the Creator, and
determining when the span of human existence shall be
brought to a close. After adverting to the causes of
dissatisfaction which had existed in Ceylon, and which
accounted for, though they did not justify the rebellion,
Mr. Gladstone proceeded to show that there was no real
necessity for continuing martial-law for the space of
three months, and that in the executions which had
taken place there had been an unnecessary effusion of
human blood, and, in conclusion, he appealed to the
house to vindicate by their vote the sacredness of freedom
and of human life.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL denied
that the house was competent to come to a decision upon
the question different from that at which the committee
had arrived, as there were few honourable members who
had waded through the whole of the evidence contained
in the blue books. He contended that the facts had
been grossly exaggerated; and, after pleading the
circumstances of the colony in justification of Lord Torrington's
conduct, expressed a hope that national injustice
would not a second time be connected with the name of
Byng.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL dwelt on the disordered
state in which Lord Torrington found the colony, and
on the generally beneficial character of his government,
which had been conducted throughout under the advice
of the executive council. In reference to the approbation
of Lord Torrington's conduct expressed by Earl
Grey, the noble lord read an extract from one of the
despatches, in which that approbation was qualified by
recommendations to moderation and clemency; and
after stating his belief that it would be dangerous to
intimidate governors placed in positions of extreme difficulty
by the prospect of votes of censure from the House
of Commons, declared that in his opinion it was the duty
of a government to support a governor who acted with
the best of intentions, and that a government which
should, under such circumstances, sacrifice a governor,
would at the same time sacrifice the colonies, and incur
the deserved reprobation of the people of England.—
Mr. Disraeli supported the resolutions.—Mr. Baillie
briefly replied; and the resolutions were negatived by
182 to 202.

On Friday, May 30th, in the committee on the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, the question, that Clause I. stand
part of the bill, gave rise to a debate in which Sir James
Graham, the Attorney-General, Mr. Hatchell the
Attorney-General for Ireland, and Lord John Russell,
took part. On a division, the question that the first
clause stand part of the bill, was carried by 244 to 62.

Mr. DISRAELI called for information from the government
respecting the measures taken to obtain the release
of Lieutenant Wyburd, an English gentleman, who was
sent, in 1835, on a diplomatic mission from Persia to the
Khan of Khyva, but was seized on his journey by the
Ameer of Bokhara, and kept in captivity ever since.
Answers were given by Mr. J. E. Elliot and Sir J. W.
Hogg, from which it appeared that the authorities in
India had made various attempts to obtain Lieutenant
Wyburd's release, but hitherto without success, owing
to great local difficulties, and small hopes were held
out of a favourable result.

On Monday, June 2d, Mr. Hume having proposed
to nominate the Select Committee on the Income-Tax,
Mr. FRESHFIELD opposed the nomination, and moved
that the order be discharged. A discussion took place,
which terminated in a division of 193 to 94 in favour of
the committee.

In committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, an
amendment by Mr. Walpolc was withdrawn, and amendments
by Mr. M'Cullagh and Mr. Moore were negatived
by large majorities.

There was no House on Tuesday, the 3d. This
circumstance led to some conversation on the following
evening. Sir J. WALMESLEY complained of the distance
of the committee-rooms from the house, which had
prevented his arrival in time at the door.—Sir R. H. INGLIS
suggested the use of the electric telegraph, to communicate
between the house and the committee-rooms.—
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he had found no fewer than fifty
members at the door at four o'clock, and, in endeavouring