106
to
tuted.
The Hongkong Government Gazette.
HONGKONG.
[JUNE 19, 1858.
ANNO VIGESIMO PRIMO VICTORIE REGINE.
No. 10 of 1858.
By His Excellency SIR JOHN BOWRING, Knight, LL.D., Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of Hongkong and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same, Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary and Chief Superintendent of the Trade of British Subjects in China, with the Advice of the Legislative Council of Hongkong.
An Ordinance for Penal Servitude.
[15th June, 1858.]
Be it enacted and ordained by His Excellency the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-
Until Places of I. Where no Place hath been or shall hereafter be appointed by Her Majesty or Her Governor of Transportation are Hongkong, whereunto Offenders convicted in this Colony, and being under Sentence or Order of Transporta- appointed, Penal Ser- vitude may be substi- tion, may according to Law be sent or transported, every such Offender shall (subject to Section Three) be kept in Penal Servitude within the said Colony for any Period not exceeding à Period of the same duration as the Term or Terms, or unexpired Portion of the Term or Terms, of Transportation under which the said Offender now is or shall hereafter be; and until no such Place as aforesaid is appointed, and so often as no such Place shall be hereafter appointed as aforesaid, any Offender who, but for this Ordinance, might have been sentenced to Transportation shall (subject to Section Three) be liable to be sentenced to be kept in Penal Servitude for a Period or Periods not exceeding a Term or Terms of the same Duration as the Term or Terms of Transportation to which such Offender would, but for this Ordinance, have been liable, and subject to the same Discretion on the part of the Court.
Laws of Transporta-
tion to apply to Offen- ders under Penal Ser
vitude.
Computation of Time.
Gangs made respon- sible for escapes.
Certain Convict Pri-
Bon Laws extended this Colony.
II. All Laws and Gaol Regulations relating to the Removal, Transportation, Care, Custody, Manage- ment, Employment, and Discipline of Offenders under Sentence or Order of Transportation, and the punish- ment of such Offenders if at large without lawful cause, whilst the said Sentence or Order is in force, and all other Laws relating to such Offenders, shall apply to Offenders kept in Penal Servitude.
III Any of the said Offenders may be removed and transported to any such Place as aforesaid during his Term of Punishment, and the whole of the time (if any) during which he may have been kept in Penal Servitude or Imprisonment during the Term specified in his Sentence or Order, shall be computed and allowed unto him in determining the Duration of his Term of Transportation.
IV. In case any Offender kept in Penal Servitude shall escape, under Circumstances which, being proved by lawful evidence before the Court of Petty Sessions, shall satisfy the said Court that any other Offender with whom, or Offenders with or amongst whom, the said Offender was at the Time of his said Escape, might, if so disposed, have prevented him from effecting or attempting it, the said Court shall have power to order and adjudge that any Term of Penal Servitude not exceeding Three Years shall be allotted unto every such Offender: in addition to, and by way of increase of, the Periods or Period still unexpired of the Punishment to which such Offender as last aforesaid was liable at the Time of the said Escape.
V. The Laws for the time being in force within England for the Prevention or Punishment of the to Offences of Prison Breach, Escape, Rescue, and bringing or carrying in or out of prohibited Articles, when committed, attempted, or allowed by, or with reference to, or in favor of, Prisoners ordered to be detained in Convict Prisons, shall be applicable to the like Offences, when committed or attempted by, or with reference to, or in favor of, Offenders kept in Penal Servitude, whether original or substituted as aforesaid.
VI. His Excellency The Governor in Executive Council is hereby empowered from time to time to eellency in Council to make, alter, repeal, or revive such Regulations (in any manner, not being inconsistent with this Ordinance) make Regulations.
for the Diet, Clothing, Maintenance. Employment, Instruction, Discipline, Correction, Removal, and Discharge of Offenders undergoing the said Punishment of Penal Servitude, and for the Duties and Conduct of their Keepers and Overseers, and other the Officers employed in or about the Premises, as to His said Excellency in Council shall in the Premises seem meet; yet so as that every such Regulation, Alteration, Repeal, Power of Imprison. and Revivor, be forthwith notified in the Hongkong Government Gazette for general information.
VII. The Jurisdiction to sentence Offenders to Imprisonment with or without hard Labour, and the Execution of such Sentences, are not affected by this Ordinance.
JOHN BOWRING.
Power to His Ex-
ment not affected by this Ordinance.
Passed the Legislative Council of Hongkong,
this 15th Day of June, 1858.
L. D'ALMADA E CASTRO,
Clerk of Councils.
REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS
•OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO
CERTAIN STATEMENTS INVOLVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY,
ORDER OF REFERENCE.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL inquire into the Statements involving the integrity of the Acting
OF HONGKONG.
No. 11 of 1858.
FRIDAY, 7th MAY, 1858. PRESENT:
His Excellency The Governor and all the Members, except the Lieutenant-Governor and the Chief Justice.
*
The Acting Colonial Secretary, with the Governor's permission, called the attention of the Council to certain Statements in the last issue of the Hongkong Register Newspaper, affecting his character as
Governor, the Chief Magistrate, and Mr Dent, be requested to Colonial Secretary, as connected with the Opium Monopoly.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF HONGKONG.
No. 12 of 1858.
MONDAY, 10th MAY, 1858 PRESENT:
His Excellency The Governor, and all the Members.
*
•
*
•
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor (who was absent at an Officer of this Government. He expressed his wish that the the last meeting) stated his unwillingness to form part of the Com- Council should, in some manner, afford him an opportunity of prov-mittee to inquire into the conduct of the Acting Colonial Secretary, ing the utter groundlessness of the insinuations contained in the as connected with the Opium Monopoly; whereupon,- above-mentioned Newspaper. Whereupon,--
Debate ensuing,
It was moved by Mr Lyall, seconded by Mr Dent, and carried unanimously,-
That a Committes, consisting of the Honourable the Lieutenant-
It was moved by the Attorney General, seconded by the Lieuten- ant-Governor, and agreed to, that such Committee do consist of the Chief Magistrate and Mr Dent.
The Hongkong Government Gazette,
JUNE 19, 1858.]
Extract from the " Hongkong Register" of the 4th day of May, 1858.
REPORT.
Your Committee considering that the words of the order of refer- The cases of Isaac Butt, Esq., Barrister and M.P. for Young- ence should be taken in their widest sense, and that the integrity of the Acting Colonial Secretary implies not merely ordinary honesty, but the ball, and W. T. Bridges, Esq., D.C.L.. Barrister and Member of wholeness and singleness of his character as Colonial Secretary, have the Close Corporation-the Legislative Council of Hongkong, seem
enquired into his entire conduct in reference to all matters connected us to run on fours. Mr Butt has been acquitted by the come with the grant of the Opium Monopoly. Your Committee have also tee appointed to investigate his conduct, and we hope Dr allowed themselves as wide a range as possible in their method of Bridges would also be acquitted were a committee appointed to investigate his connection as standing counsel for the Opium Mono- inquiry. They advertised in the local papers the publicity of their as to the witnesses to be examined and the questions to be put to them. polist. There has unfortunately for Dr Bridges been no committee proceedings, and invited and made use of suggestions from all sources appointed, and so the slander goes unrefuted--and slander of this They permitted themselves great latitude in the kind of evidence We fortunately are not the guardians of Dr which they admitted, and only struck out as inadmissible one question kind never dies. Bridges's good name, and as simple barrister his name may be as
and its answer, and part of the answer to another question.They Back as his gown for anything we or the public would care about omitted to call only one witness suggested to them, as his evidence he matter, but as a member of the British Government representing would not have referred to the matter under enquiry; and every person British justice to the Chinese, we confess to a more tender care invited to give their information did so, with the exception of Mr of it. He stands in the position of Caesar's wife; he should not Hoey. His evidence would have been important, but he refused to Only be-not guilty, but he should not even be suspected. That attend, whence they conclude that he dared not deny before them Dr Bridges like Mr Butt is not guilty we are happy to believe, but having made those defamatory statements (though he has elsewhere that he is suspected we are sorry to say cannot be denied. What denied having made them) which gave rise to the present inquiry.
Your Committee have now to report as the result of their pro- are the ideas impressed on the Chinese mind, and we understand openly stated by Chun-tai-kwong, the Opium Monopolist? "That ceedings, as follows: Dr Bridges is a very clever man, all powerful with the Governor or
1st. It appears that the tender of the present Monopolist (Chun- the government; that he can make, unmake, or remake law as he tai-kwong), and those of two other persons, were not received by the pleases; "a man therefore to be feared and propitiated. All this Acting Colonial Secretary until the 14th March, the day after the may be true, and the Acting Colonial Secretary may still be a last day for tendering; that Chun-tai-kwong's tender was the worthy, honest, hard-working government servant, who would highest, and, the reason given for the lateness of his tender being Born to receive a bribe directly or indirectly-directly, in the shape. satisfactory to His Excellency, that it was accepted by him, with say, of money paid as a douceur indirectly, say in the shape of a a full knowledge of the facts, on the 15th March; that two days after beavy retaining fee to which his legal abilities by themselves alone this, on the 17th March, the Opium Monopoly Ordinance passed the would not entitle him. We do not believe in the douceur; and Legislative Council, on which day various changes highly favorable to although the retaining fee is said to be a heavy one, we certainly the Monopolist, and suggested by him or his partners to the Acting cannot look upon it as an improper thing that a barrister should get Colonial Secretary, were introduced into the Ordinance on the Acting what he asks, he is not compelled to sell his services at any parti-Colonial Secretary's motion, but that this was done with the most cular price, and if they are thought worthy by the purchaser of the perfect openness the Members of the Legislative Council being fully sum demanded, the thing is between the seller and buyer, the attorney informed by Dr Bridges of his reasons for proposing the alterations. and client, or rather the more unusual connection, of barrister and It does not appear that any undue influence was used in obtaining the client. The only ground on which we feel called upon to remark grant for the present Monopolist; or that any corrupt motive existed on this subject is, the effect it has on the Chinese. We pointed out for making these changes in the Ordinance; and there is not the the discordaut nature of the duties to be performed as a private slightest ground for believing that anything in the nature of a donceur practising barrister, and as an Acting Colonial Secretary, and bere was offered to, demanded by, or accepted by, Dr Bridges. we have the evil realised. Dr Bridges is in the Chinese eye mandarin in power, a person having a voice in giving a monopoly we and all Englishmen well know that when the monopolist engages his services as counsel that there is, there can be, no back-stairs influence brought to bear for the fee. Shortly, however, the Monopolist 'fhag himself compelled to resort to law; perhaps he may expect this counsel to attend for him before the Magistrate's court, but is informed that so high a mandarin as the Acting Colonial Secretary cannot plead before an inferior Mandarin, the Chief Magistrate, and in addition that as a justice of the peace, he cannot appear for a client in his (the J. P's.) own court. All this is simple and straightforward enough to English people, but to the Chinese the impression is conveyed of the great dignity of the Mandarin Bridges; and with great dignity of place great power is associated. That is the impression conveyed in any case, how much more so in the present case when we have one man in three characters -first, as one of the law-makers, then, as one of the granters, and finally, as the legal adviser and supporter of the monopolist in his monopoly.
2d. The above matters being the only ones connected with the grant of the Opium Monopoly, in which it has been suggested that the honesty or honour of the Acting Colonial Secretary could be involved, your Committee are clearly of opinion that the honesty and honour of Dr Bridges, in reference to all proceedings connected with the grant of the Opium Monopoly, reinain wholly unimpeached.
3d. It further appears that, early on the morning of the 17th March, the day when the Ordinance passed, and when the alterations referred to were made in it-or of some subsequent day, the Monopolist retained Dr Bridges as his Counsel; that on the 25th March, imme- diately after the Monopolist had executed a Bond to Government connected with the Monopoly at the Government Offices, Dr Bridges called the Clerk of the Councils into the Colonial Secretary's Room, that he might hear Dr Bridges tell the Monopolist that though he was his Counsel, he could not act for him against the Government; that the Fee on the Retainer was paid in the evening of the same day to Dr Bridges at his house, and that the Monopolist had ascertained some days previously from Dr Bridges's Comprador what the amount of the Fee should be, but without the knowledge or sanction of Dr Bridges; that when Dr Bridges accepted the Office of Acting Colonial Secretary in February, 1857, it was on an express understanding with the Governor that he should be allowed to practice as a Barrister, and that his time should be his own; and that it did not occur to Dr Bridges at the time he accepted the Retainer from the Monopolist, that there might on future and various occasions be questions connected with the Opium Monopoly fo which his duty to the Government as a Member of the Executive Council would seriously clash with his duty as Counsel to the Monopolist. It further appeared to your Committee that the Monopolist did say to Mr Hoey," Dr Bridges is a very clever man; he can do what he likes with the Governor, and cau make a Law and tear it to pieces again the next day."
Mr Isaac Butt is, we understand, a very talented man, and £10,000 for his services were, in view of their extent, no great sum, certainly a small sum when we remember that a Mr John Laing, little known to fame as a barrister, received that sum as counsel for defending Jotee Persand; infinitely less when Sir F Thesiger gets a retaining fee with his brief of 1000 guineas with refresher of 500 guineas per day in the trial of the British Bank Directors. But the money is not the point, and the service to be rendered for the money is not the point. The point is, that be appears as the paid advocate, at the same time he holds the position-though the Monopolist now denies it, and the evidence is conflicting of one of the judges in the cause. This is the case as Dearly as we can understand it of Dr Bridges, if it be not perhaps a little stronger in his case. The House of Commons, not doubting the honor of its members, is yet so jealous of its privileges that it will Bot suffer a member to underlie the shade of an imputation, and in this the constituencies agree. Here we have the Close Corporation the Legislative Council, shewing no great impatience as to it or its members underlying a grave charge. Most probably they do not believe the charge, and in that they are perhaps joined by the respectable British population, but behind this is a population British and Foreign, and native above all, who, not understanding the question know not what exactly to think, and as every thing un known is supposed to be worse than it really is, perhaps prepared to make up their mind to think the very worst.
༣
We ask, in conclusion, our general readers to peruse with care the accompanying article from the Daily News on Mr Butt's case We ask our government whether or not it would not more consort with their honor and open dealing, if all the facts of the case as to granting a most odious and oppressive monopoly on sealed tenders when it could have been sold in open and fair market, then as to the withdrawal of the first grant, and finally as to the regranting it on the same terms to the same person, were made known. And we do not think we ask too much, in asking the Acting Colonial Secretary to give the public, which pays him, some explanation of the very doubtful position in which he at present stands:-
[Here follows Extract from the “ Daily News."]
54
4th. These proceedings in the opinion of your Committee shew the want of a due appreciation by Dr Bridges of the demands of his high and important offices as Acting Colonial Secretary, Member of the Legislative Council, and Member of the Executive Council; and denote an absence of that proper sensitiveness which should have made him, above all other persons, foresee and avoid all positions of possible con- flict between his Public and Private Duties, which, in the case of the Opium Monopoly, were sufficiently obvious.
That Dr Bridges should hold the offices mentioned, and at the same time retain the privilege of practicing as a Barrister, however undesirable a state of things, is one for which he cannot be blamed; but the limits within which he would avail himself of this privilege were under his own control. He fixed the limit that he would not act against the Government, and the place in which he informed his client of this fact was most unhappily chosen. Further, he should have seen that any one, more particularly a Chinaman, must think that he would greatly gain by employing as his Counsel a high officer of Government, through whose means changes so beneficial to himself had been made at the last moment in a Public Ordinance, and that the Monopolist and the Chinese community generally would conclude, however erron- eously, that the official so retained, and the Government of which he was a Member, were open to private influence. That such must be the effect of Dr Bridges's conduct on the minds of the Chinese, there