A.D. 1865.

for himself (sixty on line of march). Nelson, at Port Antonio, hanging like fun by court-martial." Nor was it the officers alone who had life and death in their hands-it was the soldiers individually; above all, it was the Inspector of Police, Gordon Ramsay. For instance, some soldiers, accompanied by the same Dr. Morris who fired two shots with his revolver into the body of the negro Donaldson as he was hanging,* dragged out of his cabin one Ned Bryan, tied him to a tree, and forthwith shot him. Bryan and his brother had been at Kingston all through the riots, and only landed at Manchioneal on the 15th October! That is one instance, literally taken at random from a mass of evidence. To illustrate Ramsay's proceedings is easier still, but it is a loathsome task which we would willingly pass by. He owned to the hanging of 184, six of them females; to the flogging of 237, eight of them femalesbut in this last respect he was perhaps outdone by Captain Hole, who owned before the Commission that he had flogged sixteen women, and among them one woman twice! Here we may end the catalogue of executions and floggings, only referring those who care to read of Ramsay's brutality, and of the nature of the "cat" frequently used-whipcord mixed with knotted wire-to the evidence of R. Clarke, of P. Bruce, and of Ramsay himself. The pen almost refuses to write the horrible details.

But the story would only be half instructive were we to omit the record of some of the quasi-judicial proceedings by which some of the barbarities were guaranteed. Three memorable reports of trials are printed at the end of the Commissioners' blue-book, and to them, as showing what a court-martial may be, what a foregone conclusion, what a mockery of justice. we may refer any curious readers. The cases are those of William Grant, George M'Intosh, and Samuel Clarke-all of whom were sentenced to death by court-martial. The case of M'Intosh is, perhaps, the most instructive of the three.

He was

sentenced by Colonel Lewis, and General Nelson approved the sentence, literally for no crime at all, except for having spoken at a public meeting in the house of Mr. George William Gordon, whose friend he was. The evidence which hung the others was about equally valuable.

But the case which was the most outrageous, and which rapidly became the most famous of all, was that of Mr. G. W. Gordon himself. On his trial and execution were based the greater part of the attempt to obtain legal redress in the English courts of law; around his body, so to speak, was fought the question of the legality of martial law, of the responsibility of officers and colonial governors, and of the rights of colonists. The story need not be told at any great length. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Gordon was a negro gentleman, a member of the Jamaica Assembly, a prominent Baptist and leader of Opposition, the friend of the poorer classes of negroes, and in high disfavour with Governor Eyre. This gentleman, who was about as much responsible for the riot at Morant Bay as M. Gambetta was for

"Royal Commission Minutes,” p. 715, Captain Hole's Evidence.

155

the excesses of the Commune, was residing peacefully at Kingston at the time of the outbreak. Governor Eyre's own words shall show how little he, the representative of law, cared for legality. "Throughout my tour in the Wolverine and Onyx," writes the Governor to Mr. Cardwell, "I found everywhere the most unmistakable evidence that Mr. George William Gordon, a coloured member of the House of Assembly, had not only been mixed up in the matter, but was himself, through his own misrepresentation and seditious language addressed to the black people, the chief causo and origin of the whole rebellion. Mr. Gordon was now in Kingston, and it became necessary to decide what action should be taken with regard to him. Having obtained a deposition on oath that certain seditious printed notices had been sent through the Post-office, directed, in his handwriting, to the parties who have been leaders in the rebellion, I at once called upon the custos to issue a warrant and capture him. For some little time he managed to evade capture; but finding that, sooner or later, it was inevitable, he proceeded to the house of General O'Connor, and there gave himself up. I at once had him placed on board the 'Wolverine' for safe custody and conveyance to Morant Bay.”

Now, even supposing the proclamation of martial law to have been legal, which we believe it not to have been, it expressly excluded Kingston from the operation of martial law. What Governor Eyre did, therefore, was to seize a political opponent, to carry him off in a ship of war from a district under civil jurisdiction to a district under military jurisdiction, and then to hand him over to the tender mercies of a court-martial. There is an account in Thucydides of what was done by the Lacedæmonians to the defenders of Platea when the town fell into their hand, which forms an instructive parallel. The defenders were promised a trial. They were taken one by one before a Spartan court-martial; they were asked one question, and one only-" whether, during the war, they had done any good to the Spartan cause ?" As they failed to answer yes, they were taken quietly and put to death without further question. So with Mr. Gordon. He was brought before a court-martial, composed of two naval lieutenants and an ensign lately gazetted; one of the lieutenants being the same Lieutenant Brand who, with a couple of "dingy boys" from his ship had "had the pleasure" (his own words) of hanging the first "rebel," and shooting him with his own revolver as he hung; who had openly said that "nothing would give him greater pleasure than hanging this who, some time later, when a newspaper-writer who had offended him was ill, went into his bedroom, revolver in hand, and threatened him; and who afterwards awoke the laughter of all England by sending a letter, richly garnished with oaths, to Mr. Charles Buxton (a prominent member of the Jamaica Committee), challenging him to fight a duel. To such temperate-minded men was Mr. Gordon delivered. He was an old man; he had been barbarously treated; he was wretchedly ill. Before his trial he was called out by Ramsay, the Provost-Marshal, to witness the execution of Grant, who

Gordon ;"

law-according to no known rules of right or justice, could possibly have been admitted." But even supposing it had been admitted, all that was proved was that Mr. Gordon had written letters to, and been on friendly terms with, some of the rioters; but none of the letters were produced except one, where he said that "the people of Jamaica were very wretched." He was proved to have called the Governor "a bad man." He was proved to have had an action-at-law against the late Custos von Kettelholt. Above all, he was proved to have spoken at

On evidence of this kind, the evidence of men who had had the promise of their lives if they would accuse him, Mr. Gordon was tried. As to the taking of the evidence, we have the words of the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Alexander Cockburn, in his famous charge to the grand jury in the case of Nelson and Brand: "He could not be tried on that evidence. No competent judge acquainted with his duties could have received that evidence. Three-fourths-I had almost said nine-tenths of the evidence upon which that man was convicted and sentenced to death, was evidence which, according to no known rules-not only of ordinary, but of military

negroes and the way in which their case was misrepresented to the Colonial Office. For these offencesliterally for none other-he was sentenced to death. Lieutenant Brand signed his sentence, and Brigadier Nelson approved it. "He asked to see the Reverend Mr. Panther, Wesleyan minister," wrote Brigadier Nelson; "I considered it inexpedient." Without the consolations of religion, condemned on less than no evidence by an unauthorised and incompetent tribunal, Mr. Gordon was hanged on the 23rd October, 1865. He had been in life the representative of the negroes of Jamaica in their cry for equal government; in death he is their representative in their cry for justice.

A.D. 1865.]

"The total number of deaths caused by those engaged in the suppression amounted to 439, and the total number of dwellings burned was 1,000. . . . The whole number subjected to the degrading punishment [of flogging], during the continuance of martial law, we think could not 'be less than 600." These are the words of the Report of the Royal Commission, consisting of General Sir Henry Storks, Governor of Malta, Mr. Russell Gurney, Recorder of London, and Mr. Maule, Recorder of Leeds, who were sent out to Jamaica in the beginning of 1866, and who sat for fifty-one days examining witnesses. Long before

157

murder to be preferred against Mr. Eyre and the other persons concerned in the trial and execution of Mr. Gordon, and that no other mode of vindicating the law in reference to those facts is open to them, they have instructed their solicitors to proceed forthwith with an indictment against Mr. Eyre." They did proceed with an indictment against Mr. Eyre, Brigadier Nelson, and Lieutenant Brand. Mr. Eyre was domiciled in the country-he had been recalled from Jamaica and superseded-and the question of committing him for trial was argued before a Shropshire bench of magistrates. The

the Commission went out. however-in fact, as soon as the news of the "suppression" arrived in England-public opinion had been roused. Public meetings took place, and a committee was formed, under the name of the Jamaica Committee, to see that full investigations were made, and that legal remedies should be sought against those who had been guilty of illegal excess. The battle of opinions, the fierce disputes in the newspapers and in Parliament, which followed are, perhaps, more properly to be treated under the history of 1866; but one point may be dwelt on here, that the responsibility of the Governor and his officers may be seen to be fully established. The Jamaica Committee announced that "having been advised that the facts disclosed in the Report of the Royal Commissioners afford a proper ground for an indictment for VOL. IX.-No. 428.

Shropshire bench of magistrates declined to commit him. The London stipendiary magistrate, being a trained lawyer, understood his duty differently in the case of Nelson and Brand; he committed them for trial at the Central Criminal Court. The prosecution failed in the end; but not before it had elicited from the Lord Chief Justice a charge to the grand jury so elaborate, so learned, so telling, and so clear, that it may be said to have once for all defined the scope of "martial law," and to have once for all settled the rights and duties of local authorities in dealing with riot or insurrection. That charge, which during the six hours of its delivery chained the attention of all who heard it, contained a complete review of all the statutory limitations of martial law in England, of all the notable opinions of great lawyers as to its nature and

extent, and of all the important instances of its exercise. Two points stand out clear from the Chief Justice's charge: first, that martial law, exercised in Great Britain or in any of her dependencies, means the law administered by courts-martial-the law, that is to say, which is laid down for the trial of military offenders by military courts; secondly, that, by the Petition of Right and all the statutes and examples which have confirmed it, civilians are in no case amenable to this law. The statement of the Duke of Wellington, "that martial law is neither more nor less than the will of the general who commands the army," though it may be sound as to what may be done in an enemy's country in time of war, is repudiated by the Chief Justice as to England and her dependencies. Nothing so arbitrary or unfixed has any validity or any legal existence. Martial law means military law-that is, the law administered under the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act, with recognised procedure, recognised principles, and recognised limits. Moreover, no civilian can ever be tried under this law; it simply applies to soldiers; and even a phrase in an old law of the island of Jamaica, that "the martial law shall prevail," must be taken (says the Chief Justice) to mean that the militia are to be called out, and that those who compose it are, while it is called out, to be subject to military discipline and military jurisdiction. It was with high approval, and with a just pride in the supremacy of the civil courts, that the Chief Justice quoted the celebrated case of Wolfe Tone, a notorious Irish rebel in 1799, which may be told in the shorter words of another authority.*

"The rebellion was in full activity, and the state of martial law in force, when the famous leader of the Irish insurrection was taken on board an enemy's ship-of-war in an enemy's uniform. He was tried by court-martial, and sentenced to death. But the Court of King's Bench instantly granted a writ; and by a noble exertion of the judicial authority, tore a notorious criminal from the illegal fangs of a military tribunal. It established that the most flagrant traitor was amenable to the law, and not to the sword; that martial law exists only in reference to operations in the field; that civil justice will confront and arrest the red weapon of the soldier on service, in defence of the meanest of those who are committed to its keeping."

What, then, the Governor and the military authorities in Jamaica had the right to do, was to use all diligence in suppressing what, for a moment-though probably wrongly -appeared to be a formidable insurrection; and to do this by military force. They had undoubtedly the right to put to death or flog any rebel captured with arms in his hands; their justification in this was, that highest law -necessity and the right of self-preservation. They had also the right to seize any dangerous persons, and hand them over to the civil courts. But they had no right to assume a jurisdiction over the whole actions of civilians, to hang and flog and burn on mere charges of

66 com

Mr. Frederic Harrison: "Six Letters on Martial Law, to the Editor of the Daily News." 1867.

plicity" or of past guilt. The trial of Mr. Gordon—all the trials that took place in the county of Surrey in that dreadful time-were no trials at all; they were military cruelty and race-tyranny aping the forms of law.

The grand jury threw out the bill, but made a formal presentment, "strongly recommending that martial law should be more clearly defined by legislative enactment." Mr. Eyre and his subordinates escaped; but their ac tions afford, let us earnestly hope, the last example in the history of England of insurrection being met by giving free leave to a furious soldiery to hang, burn, and torture as they please.

It is a consolation that the changes which followed upon her ordeal of fire have been fruitful to Jamaica. After Sir Henry Storks returned from his temporary government of the island, a new Governor was found in a distinguished and very able Indian official, Sir John Peter Grant. Under his rule, Jamaica has flourished in every way; security was established first, and has brought prosperity in its train. No better conclusion to this long and sad history of Jamaica's time of trial could be given than the accompanying figures from the returns of revenue, &c., during the years that succeeded Governor Grant's appointment :

The Reform Question: Its History since 1832: It becomes a Govern. ment Question-Statistics Collected-The Compound Householder Meeting of Parliament-The Government Reform Bill: Great Speech of Mr. Lowe: Formation of the "Cave"-The Easter Recess-Mr. Gladstone at Liverpool-The Debate on the Second Reading: Mr. Gladstone's Speech: Lord Grosvenor's Amendment; Mr. Lowe's support of it: The Division-The Redistribution Bill: Concessions of the Government: Continued Contest and frequent Divisions: Small Majorities for Government: Mr. Lowe on Redistribution: Tactics of the OppositionThe Question of Rateable Value: Mr. Ward Hunt's Motion is Defeated: Lord Dunkellin's Motion: Speech of Mr. GladstoneDefeat of the Government-Resignation of the Ministry: Mr. Gladstone's Statement.

A.D. 1866.]

followed upon their defeat. And first we may briefly recapitulate the history of the Reform question since the original Reform Bill of 1832.*

That Reform Bill aimed at redressing the disorder and confusion into which, through the irregular restriction of the suffrage to certain corporate bodies, and through similar causes, the franchise had fallen. Originally, the right of electing representatives had belonged to all freemen of the town or shire; but gradually the very term "freeman" had become limited in the sense in which we still talk of "the freedom of the city;" that is, had become applicable-so far, at least, as it implied a right to the franchise-to the "freemen," or members of a close corporation. In a similar way, other limitations had crept in; so that, at the time of the Reform Bill, the "representation of the people" really meant the representation of a number of "deserted villages," owned by territorial grandees, while many great and growing towns were left without a voice in Parliament. Power was wholly in the hands of what Mr. Disraeli, in 1867, called "a heartless oligarchy." To remedy this (if we may still quote Mr. Disraeli), "the Whig party seized the occasion that was before them, and threw the Government of the country into the hands of the middle class." A property qualification was introduced, and the old rights of privileged corporations were either destroyed or greatly lessened. The occupation of a house worth £10 annually became the qualification for the borough franchise. The result of this was twofold: a vast number of voters of the upper and middle classes were enfranchised; and, on the other hand, a considerable number of the working class, who, under the old system, had rights as "scot and lot voters," &c., were positively disfranchised. As time passed on, and as the working classes became at once more numerous and better educated, the imperfections of the Act which excluded them from the franchise began to be felt. Statesmen on both sides of the House came to admit that, great as had been the results of the Act of 1832, it needed amendment. Lord John Russell, with whose name that of the Act of 1832 will be always associated, brought in a bill, in 1852, to reduce the borough franchise to £5, and the county franchise to tenants of lands rated at £20 annually. Again, when that bill had been dropped, through the change of Ministry which happened in 1852, he brought in another similar one two years later, proposing to fix the standard at £6. That bill also fell through, on account of the Russian War, which came to absorb the attention of Parliament and the country. The question was not re-opened till 1859, when Mr. Disraeli introduced a bill into the House of Commons, proposing what was afterwards known as "lateral," instead of "vertical" extension. That is, he gave a lodger franchise to persons who paid a high rent for their lodgings, a "savings-bank franchise" to persons who had a certain sum in deposits, and a degree franchise" to persons who had taken an University degree. But he did not by this extend the right of voting downwards. He did not

66

In this we have been much helped by Mr. Homersham Cox's valuable "History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867."*

159

The Whig party

attempt to enfranchise the artisans. saw this, and contrived to throw out his bill; and after the dissolution which followed they carried a vote of want of confidence. Lord Palmerston's Government, which then came into office, brought in a bill not very much unlike that of which we are about to speak: it proposed a £6 franchise in boroughs, and a £10 franchise in counties; it also contemplated a limited redistribution of seats. The bill was in the end defeated on a collateral issue, and Lord John Russell withdrew it.

The cause of the defeat of the Bill of 1860 was undoubtedly the indifferent attitude of Lord Palmerston. In 1865, as has been told in a former chapter, Mr. Baines brought in a bill, which was defeated. Soon after, Lord Palmerston died, and the principal barrier to a successful bill was removed. Even before his death, in the months that were spent in canvassing for the general election, "both among Liberal and Tory candidates," said Mr. Bright, "the question of Reform was mentioned in some way or other, either in their written or spoken addresses to their constituents." But when, after the news arrived that the veteran Prime Minister had died, Lord Russell succeeded to his place, and Mr. Gladstone took the position of unfettered leader of the House of Commons, it was at once known that Reform was to be immediately approached as a Government question.

The whole of the autumn and winter of 1865 was spent by the Government in collecting statistics and an enormous mass of general information, on the subject of borough and county constituencies, for future use. The machinery of the various Poor Law Unions throughout England was set in motion, and statistics poured in. The task of arranging them was given to Mr. Lambert, well known for his special knowledge of electoral questions, and to him was owing the blue-book of electoral statistics which appeared in the following year. Considerable light was thrown by it upon the question of the "compound householder," that unfortunate being, the product of the "Small Tenements Act," over whom the battle was to rage so fiercely in 1867. The "compound householders" are "the tenants in towns whose rates under various local and general Acts are paid, not by themselves, but by their landlords." And, as the Reform Act of 1832 had made burgess suffrage depend upon the pay. ment of rates, large numbers of such tenants, persons occupying £10 houses and otherwise qualified to vote, were excluded from the franchise at every election, on the ground of the non-payment of rates. "The overseers," said Mr. Bright, in 1860, "refuse in the majority of cases to put anybody's name on the register who does not pay his own rates. They put the landlord on who pays the rates of a street, but the tenant's name is not entered. Therefore, when they come to make out the list of voters from their rate books, they find the names of the landlords, of course, but do not find the names of the tenants; and the tenants under these circumstances are left off the list, and actually disfranchised." The Parliament of 1860, however, refused to do anything for the compound householder," and he remained a bone of