Jn 11050/51
281
# MEMORANDUM
Addressed to the JUSTICES OF THE PEACE by His Excellency Sir JOHN BOWRING, and relative Correspondence.
## MEMORANDUM
In a Commission issued on the 4th October 1855, by His Excellency the Governor, thirteen Gentlemen were nominated Justices of the Peace, they not being invested with other Official authority. The number has been augmented by subsequent Commissions to Fifteen in all.
His Excellency has caused a Return to be made of the number of attendances at Petty Sessions since the time of the issuing these Commissions.
He finds that one gentleman has given six attendances, five gentlemen have given two attendances, and two gentlemen have given one attendance, while seven gentlemen have given no attendance since their appointment.
He has to remark that there have been only two occasions on which more than one Justice has assisted the stipendiary Magistrates with their presence and advice.
On these two occasions four Justices attended, three of whom for the first time since they were sworn in. They are stated to have been present at the special request of the Acting Chief Magistrate—and on the first of those occasions (the 23rd May) there was, as it appears, an unanimous concurrence in a decision by which, in the judgment of His Excellency, the obvious intent and meaning of the Law were abrogated and annulled by the action of the Bench.
On the 2nd June, invited again (as is officially reported) specially by the Acting Chief Magistrate, three of the Justices who had been present at the sitting of 23rd May, and another Justice who took his seat then for the first and only time in which he has ever acted, formed the Bench, and these Justices again supported the Chief Magistrate in his determination not to give effect to the Law. His Excellency is informed that one of the Justices present—a member of the Legislative Council—distinctly pointed out to his colleagues the error which had been committed on the 23rd May and which had been the subject of reference to the Legislative Council. That gentleman, of course, dissented from the conclusion by which a majority co-operated with the Chief Magistrate in his extraordinary course of proceeding.
For the maintenance of that supreme authority of the Law which, in the great interests of the whole community, every Government is bound to provide for, and of which all Justices of the Peace are expected to be instruments and auxiliaries, His Excellency directed an application for a mandamus against the Acting Chief Magistrate to be applied for to the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of the Colony, which mandamus has been granted by His Honor, calling upon the Chief Magistrate to enforce the Law. Its granting was accompanied, as His Excellency is informed, by a declaration from the Bench that "the Magisterial Decisions were against the Law," and a prompt obedience was recommended to its requirements.
His Honor expressed a hope that there would be an immediate and satisfactory return to the mandamus, showing that there is no disposition to overturn the authority of the Law, but rather to give effect to its provisions.
His Excellency concurring in that wish, and desirous of promoting that unity of purpose and of action, which should undoubtedly be the object of all who are invested with Public authority for the maintenance of Law and Order, has directed the memorandum to be circulated among all the Justices of the Peace.
(Signed)
By order of His Excellency the Governor, with the concurrence of the Honorable Members of the Executive Council.
L. DE ALMADA E CASTRO,
Clerk of Councils, Government Offices, Victoria, Hongkong. 19th August, 1856.
Addressed to,
The Honorable W. T. MERCER, Esq; The Honorable J. F. EDGER, Esq; CHARLES MAY, Esq;
JOSEPH JARDINE, Esq; GEORGE LYALL, Esq; JOHN D. GIBB, Esq
CHARLES F. STILL, Esq;
R. S. WALKER, Esq;
JOHN RICKETT, Esq;
Captain T. V. WATKINS, RN,
W. H. MITCHELL, Esq;
R. C. ANTROBUS, Esq;
T. C. LESLIE, Esq;
ANGUS FLETCHER, Esq;
A. C. MACLEAN, Esq;
WILLIAM LAMOND, Esq;
The Honorable T. C. ANSTEY, Esq;
SAM GRAY, Esq;
JOHN SCARTU, Esq.
HONGKONG, 26th August, 1856,
To The Honble. W. T. MERCER, Esq.,
Colonial Secretary.
SIR—We have the honour to address you with reference to a Memorandum dated 19th Instant, addressed to the Justices of the Peace of this Colony, by order of His Excellency the Governor, with the concurrence of the Honorable Members of the Executive Council.
The first four paragraphs being of a general nature we pass over for the present, but the remainder of the Memorandum demands more particular notice from us, as the Justices immediately alluded to therein.
We deem it unnecessary to enter into any discussion regarding the merits of the cases to which particular reference is made, or to the decision at which we arrived after careful deliberation.
If the complainant was dissatisfied therewith, recourse was open by appeal to the Supreme Court.
We cannot however permit the charges and insinuations contained in the Memorandum to pass unnoticed, impugning as they do our motives of action while sitting on the Bench as sworn Magistrates.
We observe that in the "judgment of His Excellency the obvious intent and meaning of the Law were abrogated and annulled by the action of the Bench on the 23rd May, and, that on the 2nd June, invited again (as is officially reported) specially by the Acting Chief Magistrate, three of the Justices who had been present at the sitting of 23rd May, and another Justice who took his seat then for the first and only time in which he has ever acted, formed the Bench, and these Justices again supported the Chief Magistrate in his determination not to give effect to the Law, and co-operated with the Chief Magistrate in his extraordinary course of proceeding."
We know not by what course of reasoning His Excellency may have arrived at these conclusions, but, while we, with all due respect, indignantly deny the imputations thus cast upon our motives, we challenge the right of His Excellency, the Executive Council, or any other authority to dictate our course of action while on the Bench, or to publicly question, in such terms, our decision when given.
We would also point out to His Excellency that the inference which may be drawn from the Memorandum under notice, that the writ of Mandamus issued by His Honor the Chief Justice had reference to the decisions of the Justices on 23rd May and 2nd June, is an incorrect one. The question submitted to His Honour was, whether, under the Ordinance No. 8 of 1856, a Magistrate could decline to hear a fresh complaint on a case which he considered already decided. His Honour decided that he could not refuse to hear such a complaint, and desired the Acting Chief Magistrate and Mr. May to enquire, without delay, into the complaint, and adjudicate thereon; but so far as we are able to learn, His Honour from the Bench made no reference to and gave no opinion upon the decisions of 23rd May and 2nd June.
Reflections, involving a slur upon our character, have been cast upon us, for which we were quite unprepared; and, feeling deeply their injustice, we have submitted our conduct in the cases which have given rise to them to our Brother Justices, whose opinion thereon will reach His Excellency in another form,—We have, &c., &c.
To The Honorable
GEO. LYALL. WM. LAMOND,
THOS. C. LESLIE.
R. C. ANTROBUS.
HONGKONG, 20th August, 1856.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY of Hongkong,
SIR,
We, the undersigned, Justices of the Peace for the Colony of Hongkong, have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Memorandum issued by His Excellency the Governor, under date the 19th instant, addressed to all the members of the commission of the Peace, as well official as non-official.
A meeting of the Justices, duly called by circular, took place on the 25th instant, for the purpose of taking the memorandum into consideration. The meeting was attended by the undersigned, and by the four non-official Justices specially alluded to in the memorandum, comprising the whole of the non-official Justices in the commission at present in the colony, with the exception of one who was prevented from attending by indisposition. None of the official Justices attended.
The grave importance of the imputations made by His Excellency in the memorandum, and of the principles involved in it, compelled our most serious attention, and we beg respectfully to submit to His Excellency the following observations in reply.
The remarks in the memorandum regarding the return of attendances of Justices at Sessions appear to imply a complaint...