in a district where the law of England was in undisputed possession, and illegally sending him by force, not really for trial but for sentence and execution, to one which was kept under martial law, and that two days after the time at which the Commissioners repeat that "it must have been clear to all that the rising was put down;" and when, moreover, as he was a prisoner on board a ship of war, it was certain that the whole population of Jamaica, even if they had been in armed rebellion and in complete possession of the island, could not have rescued him.

Again, whether Colonel Nelson ought to be tried and punished, if found guilty, for ordering the trial of Mr. Gordon by a court-martial, and that a court consisting of three youths, although he avows that he himself greatly doubted whether he was justified in trying by court-martial any person for speeches and acts said to be "seditious, prior to the rebellion;" for approving the sentence of death and ordering it to be executed, and especially for refusing the access of his legal adviser to the prisoner, and destroying the letter with which he was intrusted open by him also for refusing to allow him to see his religious minister before his death. Also for intrusting absolute power to many subordinate officers without giving them instructions, such as the Commissioners have decided ought to have been given for their guidance, by which he made himself partaker in many extreme outrages; also, for the number of executions which he approved and ordered at Morant Bay, and for which he is directly responsible, and which the Commissioners have pronounced to have been "unnecessary.'

Whether Captain Hole ought to be tried and punished, if found guilty, for giving, as he himself states, to sixteen women thirty stripes each with a cat-o'-nine-tails, without trial, as well as many more to a still larger number of men; especially whether a man who openly avows such conduct ought to retain her Majesty's commission.

Whether Colonel Fyfe, a stipendiary magistrate, a member of the Legislative Council, and late custos of Portland, ought to be tried and punished, if found guilty, for shooting without trial a man upon whom he found the Baron's ring. This was on October 27th, six days after it was clear to all that the rising was put down. And it was done so deliberately that he gave the man time to say his prayers. In mentioning Colonel Fyfe, we must add two cases sworn to by him of volunteer officers, whose names are not given, but who were under his command. In one, two volunteers, on leave, saw a girl, named Lindsay, washing at a stream.

They ordered her to go in to Bath. She said she had no clothes to go in a proper way. Perhaps she was a little annoyed at their ordering her. She might have given them some answer; but they ordered her father to flog her, and he did. Q. The father did?-A. Yes, they threatened to shoot him if he did not. Upon hearing of this, I sent for them at once, and put them under arrest, and threatened to try them by court-martial." "There was another case, in which Mr.

Woodrow flogged a person. He was connected with the Maroons. I inquired into the case. I referred to himself, and he made a very candid explanation. Upon his own showing, he was in the wrong." In both these cases Colonel Fyfe, after threatening a court-martial, let off the criminals upon their giving a paltry sum of money to the injured parties. Now, ought English officers thus to compromise offences? and ought not such offenders to be in some way or other punished?

Whether Colonel Elkington and other officers, who have (as Lord Carnarvon truly says) put their names to letters absolutely indecent and disgusting, ought not to be punished for conduct "unbecoming a gentleman and an officer," and whether they are still to be in command over British officers and soldiers, as men upon whom there is no stain?

We might very greatly multiply these questions. We specially insist upon these, in consequence of a remark made by Lord Carnarvon, whose general tone, we gladly observe to have been a marked contrast to that of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Adderley, in that he spoke of the outrages committed with the indignation and disgust natural to a British gentleman and nobleman; while they seemed to regard with strong favour even those which they did not dare wholly to defend. however considered the Commission as answering to a grand jury, and said that it only mentioned the names of two officers (besides that of Ramsay, who is to be tried), namely, those of Ensign Cullen and Dr. Morris; and added, "these two persons consequently will be brought before courts-martial."

He

Should the notice to be taken of the conduct of the military officers be confined to this, we must say great injustice will be done to these two men and great injury to the service. We have already shown that all that was peculiar in their case was that the Commissioners advised inquiry not into their conduct under martial law, but into their veracity in their evidence before the Commission. It will be monstrous, on this account, to leave without inquiry the grave crimes we have mentioned, and many others, merely because the Commissioners, while condemning the crimes, did not feel it right to mention the names of any persons guilty of them.

There is another statement which we do not find mentioned in the Report, we do not know why, although it has always seemed to us among the most important,-namely, that many persons were cruelly flogged before being hanged, some before, some after their so-called trials. If it had been possible to deny this most disgraceful fact, we cannot doubt the Report would have denied it.

From the evidence given before the Commission, as well as all other accounts, we cannot doubt that it is true; and also that Brigadier Nelson, among others, is responsible for it. We need not say this is distinctly the torture. Is its infliction in a British colony to pass wholly unnoticed?

Of the outrages charged by all witnesses against Ramsay we say nothing, because he is to be brought to trial. Whether it is possible that he should obtain anything like a fair trial before a Jamaica jury remains to be seen.

Lord Carnarvon says that Mr. Eyre has already been punished. This, however, is a mistake. Mr. Cardwell has declined, in an apologetic tone, to employ him in organizing the new system of government in Jamaica. That is all. In doing so he has highly praised a great deal of his conduct, and has said that he is "compelled to disapprove other parts of it." On the whole, he resolves to "intrust the arduous task of inaugurating the new government to some other person, who may approach it free from all the difficulties inseparable from a participation in the questions raised by the recent troubles." Is this punishment? Is it even censure? Would it prevent any minister from intrusting him with another government, or even with that of Jamaica itself, as soon as the new government is inaugurated? And in considering this, it is impossible not to bear in mind his own conduct. Before leaving Jamaica, he declares solemnly and publicly, "There has been nothing in my public conduct to occasion self-reproach, nothing to regret. On the contrary, I carry with me into my retirement the proud consciousness that at all times and under all circumstances I have endeavoured, to the best of my power, to do my duty as a servant of the Crown, faithfully, fearlessly, and irrespective of personal considerations." Nay, he declares "the very acts which have led to my dismissal have saved a noble colony from anarchy and ruin." As to Mr. Gordon, of whom Mr. Russell Gurney declared in the House of Commons not merely that he was not legally convicted, but, much more than this, that he was not guilty of the offence attributed to him, or of complicity in a conspiracy, Mr. Eyre declares that "there was evidence which would have been legally admissible in a civil court, and which would have satisfied a civil jury as to his guilt." He therefore VOL. VII.—NO. XIV. [New Series.]

2 D

openly appeals from the Commissioners to "the British public." And it must be acknowledged that the same men who urge the censure of the Commission as a reason why he ought not to be legally proceeded against, do not scruple to accept this appeal in his favour. He comes to Southampton, and is met on the shore by an address from the mayor and a portion of the clergy and laity, with three earls, who echo his applause of himself, condemn his recall, and anticipate his restoration to the public service. He replies in a speech in which he magnified himself as having "protected the lives and properties of the colonists, and saved an important colony to the Crown. Severity was in reality the truest mercy." Of the Commissioners, who blamed the long continuance of martial law, he says, in a patronizing tone, that he could respect their opinion as that of men acting in sincerity and under good impulses, but that they were no judges of the real state of things. Next he is invited to a public dinner, at which above 100 gentlemen sat down, with nearly an equal number of ladies in the gallery. His conduct was eulogized without a drawback by the Earls of Cardigan, Hardwicke, and Shrewsbury, who declared they were met "to uphold the character of a distinguished man, and justify his conduct before the world," to "support a man who had done his duty." Mr. Charles Kingsley called upon every one to "take him on trust," and expressed his expec

tation that he would see him "attain the honour of a seat in the House of Lords; an assembly in which he would not be the least noble man among the peers of England." Then a subscription is started for a "testimonial," and although this is afterwards changed to a "defence "fund, it is still avowedly to magnify not merely his general character but his conduct in Jamaica. Many names of considerable authority are given to the committee, and Mr. Carlyle publishes a letter declaring "that penalty and clamour are not the thing this governor merits from any of us, but honour and thanks, and wise imitation (sic), should similar emergencies arise, on the great scale or the small, in whatever we are governing." He goes on specially to speak of the example to "to all the colonies and governors the British empire has."

Nor can we say that it is at all unlikely that some future minister may wholly remove any censure upon him by appointing him to some other public office, when we see already that Mr. Adderley declares in Parliament "that the only two things that could be assigned as faulty in Governor Eyre were the continuance of martial law and the excessive punishments under it," and that these were mere errors of judgment." In a word, unless the nation at large bestirs itself,

we think it far from improbable that when the first excitement is gone by he may claim and receive a reward which will make his act an encouragement and example to all British governors, instead of a warning. A more fatal end of this unhappy affair could hardly be imagined.*

Another point which ought to be more distinctly cleared up by judicial proceedings is the real meaning and nature of the proclamation of martial law. Mr. Eyre understands it to mean that the Governor may do what he pleases. Thus he assumes, that if it had been proclaimed in Kingston, no objection whatever could possibly have been raised against all that was done in the case of Mr. Gordon. Colonel Nelson goes so far as to declare that it placed the whole population of the proclaimed district-every man, woman, and child-in the position of "the enemy." The Commissioners asked, "You looked upon St. Thomas-in-the-East as an enemy's country, is that your meaning?" He answered, "Decidedly so; perfectly as an enemy's country, in full possession of the enemy;" and this was to last as long as martial law was continued. Now, "martial law" may be proclaimed at any time in any colony, or even at home. And if it is unlikely to be proclaimed in England, no one can say that it is very unlikely in Ireland. Few questions, therefore, are of more practical importance than to inquire whether the view taken by Mr. Eyre and Colonel Nelson is correct.

A lawyer (Mr. Finlason) has lately published a book upon this subject, in which he says virtually that any outbreak in England or elsewhere, which the Government considers to amount to a rebellion, fully justifies the proclamation of martial law, and that, once proclaimed, the whole inhabitants are placed in the position of enemies who have none of the rights of belligerents-i. e. of spies, deserters, or brigands. Of course, he holds that this power ought not to be abused; but, if we understand him, he strongly maintains that the Government is the sole judge how it ought to be used, and cannot be called in question afterwards for any use made of it. It seems that if a party of miners were to make a riot in Cornwall, the Government would have a full right in law to send a regiment of horse to burn the city of Chichester, and put to the sword every man, woman, and child in it, nor could they afterwards be called in question for doing so. We do

Under these circumstances it is curious that Sir Samuel Baker should condemn those who blame Mr. Eyre, for being "so un-English as to hit a man when he is down." If Mr. Eyre is down, he certainly has not himself discovered the fact.