666 THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 12TH NOVEMBER, 1879.
Therefore as far as that case of MOK A-KWAI stands, it is thus. I had a consultation with the Chief Justice. I acted upon his advice, not to allow the man to be prosecuted for returning from banishment, unless the original order of banishment had been legal. I subsequently referred the matter to the Executive Council, and the majority of the Council supported me in that course. But in that very case, the Honourable gentleman (Mr. KESWICK) by an oversight, did not look at the next page. He forgot to turn over the paper, and did not see my minute "Let the man be prosecuted."
That is, I found the deportation in his case had been legally carried out, and accordingly I ordered his prosecution for returning from deportation. Does the Honourable member find fault with that? No. He admits he made a mistake in bringing forward the case of MOK A-KWAI. I certainly cannot complain that it has been brought forward at this Council table, seeing that it has been already placed before a higher Assembly by command of the QUEEN. MOK A-KWAr's case will be found in the despatches printed for the information of Parliament. I did not select those des- patches. They are a group of despatches-I am sorry to say only a few out of the many I have written since I came to this Colony-they have been selected by Her Majesty's Government, and some of them refer to the case of Moк A-KWAI; and, as the Honourable member has brought this case to the notice of the Council, I will state briefly what this case was. The last flogging the man got was of this nature. Sir ARTHUR KENNEDY'S warrant said:- "Let the said MOK A-KWAI be discharged from custody and prohibited from residing in the Colony for five years from the date hereof." That was on the 21st October, 1876. In spite, however, of that, the man was not discharged on the 21st October. He was kept in custody until the 30th, on which day he was flogged and deported. But, more than that, he was taken from the Hospital to be flogged, and his name is recorded in the sick list of that day. The Honourable gentleman (Mr. KESWICK) was a visiting justice at that time. And, here I may mention that I found two other prisoners had been illegally flogged in July, 1876, and that the visiting justice, in August, 1876, who saw the records, if he did his duty properly and looked at the books when he visited the prison, was the Honourable gentleman himself. Twice only in that year, in April and August, did he act as visiting justice. Did he go through the books and see if any illegal punishment had, in the interval, been inflicted? If he did, he saw the illegal punishments and took no notice of them. But I presume the answer is that he did not. And in the opinion of Mr. PHILLIPPO, who, I must say, always gave his opinion with great reluctance in cases of this kind, the floggings were illegal. From a return prepared for me by Captain DUCAT, there were, according to the Attorney General's opinion, no less than 828 illegal floggings, of one class of illegal floggings alone, in ten years in the Hongkong Gaol.
MOK A-KWAI was committed for trial for returning from deportation. He died before he could be brought to the Supreme Court. An inquest was held. The Colonial Surgeon swore he had been suffering from phthisis for years. The Jury found he died from phthisis. I called for the records of the gaol relating to him. I saw he had been flogged four times. The last one being in October 1876. The papers were sent to the Attorney General, who recorded his opinion that not one of the corporal punishmens inflicted on MOK A-KWAI had been authorised by law. I reported all the facts of the case to the Secretary of State. I have endeavoured, and I believe successfully, in spite of some little local opposition to check such abuses. No one shall prevent me from doing so, as long as I represent Her Majesty, and enjoy the confidence, as I believe I do, of Her Majesty's Government.
It is due to Lord LYTTON, the Viceroy of India, whose name is put in a minute by Mr. PHILLIPPO, that I should say this:-that Mr. PHILLIPPO was not justified by the position he held here as my legel adviser-or, what is of more importance, by the plain facts of the case-he was not justified in making that official minute on the conduct of Lord LYTTON. He said if I censured in any way the Magis- trates I should be guilty of the blunder committed by Lord LYTTON, who had censured a Magistrate who had lightly punished a European for killing a native. This has come out publicly to-day, as the Honourable member brought on the case relating to it, but it has long been known in the Colony. Nor in this case did I proceed to censure-which I might have done-Mr. PHILLIPPO; but I sent for him, and said: "I will say nothing about your addressing an admonition to the Governor of the Colony, but here is your opinion about Lord LYTTON; that is copied for you by a clerk, it is the talk of the whole Colony; you did not send it in a confidential manner, but in an Ordinary C.S.O., seen and read by every clerk in the Colonial Secretary's Office." Mr. PHILLIPPO, after some consideration, remarked that he was sorry he had given the minute to his clerk to be copied out, and he was also sorry he had sent the paper in an Ordinary C.S.O. and not in a confidential form. Though it was generally said by those who talked of his minute that Mr. PHILLIPPO deserved to be severely cen- sured, I did not censure him. No censure was pronounced upon any one-except that extraordinary censure upon Lord LYTTON. And I may say this: whatever may be the private opinion of Mr. PHILLIPPO and my Honourable friend (Mr. KESWICK) they are entitled to hold it, but as this admo- nition is recorded in an official minute, I am bound to say Her Majesty's Government entertain a very different opinion of Lord LYTTON's conduct in the FULLER'S case, from the opinion of Mr. PHILLIPPO. So far from thinking that the Viceroy had committed a blunder, Lord SALISBURY, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, then Secretary of State for India, wrote to him saying the Government entirely approved of the course he had taken and the minutes he had made in the case, and the des- patch concluded by saying Her Majesty's Government desired to express to him their hearty sym.