The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, 22nd JANUARY, 1859,
...up by Mr. Anstey. The Council knows that some of these statements are untrue, and I denounce them not only as untrue, but as the very opposite of true; slanderous they clearly are. Had I been allowed to speak in favor of my motion, I could have given facts in evidence of their untruth. I shall only here state that I have no doubt that the honorable Mr. Lyall would if called upon relate circumstances which manifestly contradict the notion that I was actuated by any hostility to Dr. Bridges. I say I could have given facts in evidence, but I should not have considered it necessary to do so until I had ascertained by the production of the correspondence that the above statements had been made in it.
We have dates from Canton to yesterday. The expedition to Fatshan had left at noon. It consisted of nine gunboats, the Coromandel, and 1,600 men. They took three days provisions. They were accompanied by some Mandarin boats, and it was hoped that the great strength and efficiency of the force would overcome all idea of resistance, and that its mission would end peaceably and satisfactorily.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
Hongkong, 20th January, 1859.
The Council met pursuant to postponed (or announced) adjournment. H. E. the Governor was in the Chair, and all the members were present.
After the usual preliminaries had been disposed of, the Chief Magistrate addressed the Chair relative to a motion he had made at the last meeting of the Council, at which the Lieut. Governor presided, which motion His Honor had refused to put or to allow any discussion whatever upon. In accordance with the rule made and provided to meet such a contingency, he now begged leave to record his protest against the Lieut. Governor for having so refused, upon the minutes of the Council with his reasons affixed as by the standing regulations laid down. The Honorable Member then read the following Protest and Reasons for protesting.
At a Council held on the 4th Inst., I submitted the following motion for debate.
That his Excellency the Governor be requested to lay before the Council, all correspondence between the local Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies with respect to the proceedings of this Council on the subject of the Opium farm privilege, and other matters referred to it by Dr. Bridges, then member of the Council, and particularly with respect to the selection of the committee of enquiry, thereupon appointed by this Council; the conduct of its proceedings, the drawing up of its report, and the confirmation by this Council of the said report.
The Honorable, the Lieut. Governor, then acting Governor and Chairman of the Council, refused to allow any discussion whatever on the matter. I now respectfully enter this my protest against such refusal of the Lieut. Governor with my reasons for thinking the motion a proper one to be discussed. My reasons are that:
It is obviously desirable, unless special reasons be shown to the contrary, that this Council which appointed the Committee of enquiry, and unanimously adopted its report, should be officially and certainly informed, whether any, and if any, what communications on the subject have been sent by the local Government to the Secretary of State; and whether any, and if any, what communications in reply have been received by the local Government from the Secretary of State; and it is neither advisable nor respectful to this Council, that it should thus be left as a body in complete ignorance on the subject. It is still less advisable when many members, if not every individual member of the Council, must have heard and read in the local newspapers reports as to the nature of the correspondence referred to. If the correspondence is such as it is reported to be, it contains a great amount of error, falsehood, and slander, and it is only by the production of the correspondence that the Council can ascertain the truth or falsehood of these reports.
I have been informed that some members of this Council have stated, and I have read on more than one occasion in the local newspapers, that Dr. Bridges, then Acting Colonial Secretary, and himself the party whose conduct had been under enquiry by the committee referred to, forwarded to Downing Street the report of the committee immediately after it was presented to the Council, before the evidence was printed, and with his answer to it, in which answer he charged Mr. Dent and myself, the only members of the committee, with injustice and falsehood and hostility to himself. He stated, it is reported, that through some management of Mr. Anstey, we were appointed because we were hostile to him, that we conducted the proceedings of the committee under Mr. Anstey's influence, and that the Report, which purported to be ours, was not so, but was really drawn...
that no communication has ever been made to the Council. Until I know whether this statement is true, I refrain from remarking on it; I might be but fighting shadows. But how am I, how is this Council, to be informed of its truth or falsehood except by the production of the correspondence? The reports do not even stop here; they allege that a dispatch has been received from the Secretary of State highly complimentary to Dr. Bridges and approving of his conduct in reference to the Opium monopoly. Surely, if there be a dispatch of this nature virtually condemning a report unanimously adopted by this Council, it is desirable that the Council be informed thereof, and it can only be properly informed by the production of the correspondence.
These reports of communications sent home, which should not have been sent home, of facts not communicated to the Secretary of State, which ought to have been communicated to him, of a dispatch received from the Secretary of State virtually reflecting on the conduct of the Council, may be true or may be untrue, but they are certainly very widely known and believed, and one of them relating to the dispatch of the Secretary of State appeared in the "China Mail," a newspaper which, although it is denied that it is the Government organ, does certainly appear to have more ready access to official information than the other newspapers, and which in its account of the Proceedings of the Council which adopted the report of the committee of enquiry, curiously enough omitted all mention of the important fact that the Report was so adopted.
It will scarcely be contended, therefore, that it is not of importance that the truth or untruth of these reports should be known to Mr. Dent, Mr. Anstey, and myself, whose honor and honesty it is said have been called in question; to the Council, whose conduct also has it is said been disapproved by the Secretary of State; to the Government here, that these reports so injurious to its character for sincerity and justice may, if untrue, be contradicted to the Secretary of State, that he may learn whether he has been deceived or not; to the public, who are present by their representatives at our sittings, in order that they may know whether any secret injustice has taken place. It is only the production of the correspondence before the Council which can satisfy anyone on these points.
For the above reasons, I think that the motion for the production of the papers was a proper one for debate, and for the same reasons, I respectfully protest against the refusal of the Acting Governor to allow any discussion whatever on the subject.
(Signed) H. TUDOR DAVIES.
Page 58
Page 60
Page 61