Eał
1
359
( 66 )
regard to this branch of the case, that I have no doubt His Excellency the Governor may have spoken disparagingly of my law, because my opinion had run counter to his own on more than one point, but I am convinced he could have said nothing more.
The other point which I stated I would bring to the notice of the Commission, is this: The Commission will remember that when I was examined on the 29th, a question was put to me, as to whether it was the practice to consult the Attorney General on cases of pardon. I requested the Crown Solicitor yesterday to obtain the Attorney General's opinion as to a certain case, and the
Crown Solicitor forwarded me a letter with this minute
tensive money lender amongst that people; that the house where he lived, had his office, and conducted the business of the Acting Attorney General, was full of opium, and other kinds of merchandise, not belonging to himself, but deposited with him by their Chinese owners in pawn; that he obtained, and through his position I understood, much higher interest than they could honestly pay—the maximum was so ridiculously incredible, except on the supposition of the goods being stolen goods, that I forbear to mention it; and he said that it was a scandal to the neighbourhood to see how the pawned goods came in and went out through the lower apartment of the houses as I understood. He further said, that the very moment of Dr Bridges's departure from the colony (viz., 15th January, 1856, a fortnight before my arrival) was the signal for all manner of complaints, impeaching Dr Bridges's conduct in office and otherwise and privately made to the Governor, of which the latter had never before had any notice. Finally, His Excellency said, that he deeply regretted he had been weak enough to give some strong certificate in the shape of a letter of credentials, which Dr Bridges had taken away with him, but he said, that he had been very careful to confine it to his ability as a lawyer; and that he had explained in the proper quarter, that by lawyer he did not mean an international lawyer. These were only some of the many things which I was very much pained to hear from him; but I remember well, that so grave were his professions of distrust, that he went on to say, he can do you no harm, for he shall never again hold office in this colony; he repeated that on several occasions afterwards.
I remember Mr Mercer telling me soon afterwards, that he, the Governor, was in the habit of hearing most awful disclosures about Dr Bridges's misconduct, and that he did not know what to think. I remember Mr Mercer telling me, that he took up the Governor roundly, and said "Yes, I know that Dr Bridges's enemies are trying to destroy him, now that his back is turned, but every one of them will live to see his mistake," or words to that effect. I think that occasion led to my mentioning to Mr Mercer, in some way general or particular, the nature of the charges which I had heard against Dr Bridges, and he assured me that they were false, adding these words which make me remember it. "We were at Oxford together, but I am not
on it "The Acting Colonial Secretary having in my presence and hearing yesterday, at a meeting of the Caldwell Inquiry Commission, stated in evidence, that it is not His Excellency's practice or intention to refer applications for grace and pardon in criminal cases—and this is one—to the present Attorney General, I cannot presume to comply with the Crown Solicitor's request on the other page, unless I am officially empowered or required by His Excellency so to do." I wish to state, I do not believe I said a word about intention, and therefore I state, that the Attorney General has distorted an answer on a totally different subject to a question put by himself, merely for the purpose of putting me in a false position.
ATTORNEY GENERAL,—Recalled at his own request to answer Dr Bridges's statement.
ing to doubt that some such communication as he reports may have been made to him by the Governor. On the contrary, I have no doubt of the fact. Dr Bridges knows perfectly well, that in 1856, he believed such a communication as I have reported had been made to me by the Governor, and I can refresh Dr Bridges's memory. I believe Mr Mercer made some such communication. I know he intended to do so. This would be by letter in about the spring of 1856, Dr Bridges being then in England—at least I know it was Mr Mercer's intention at that time to do so. I remember, after some hesitation, informing Mr Mercer of what the Governor had told me—this I did, because I knew from himself that he was Dr Bridges's private friend. In the face of the menace which Dr Bridges in the Governor's name has held out of some official inquiry to begin when the Commission has ended its own, I will state generally what the malpractices were, which were imputed by the Governor to Dr Bridges, and which, or some of which, I re-stated to Mr Mercer at the time. The Governor said, he was never able to obtain an unbiased opinion from Dr Bridges, by reason of his being mixed up with a great quantity of local business; that there was a strange and illicit connection between him and the Chinese community; that he used it to the great discredit of his office by every kind of exaction of an usurious character—he being an extensive money lender amongst that people; that the house where he lived, had his office, and conducted the business of the Acting Attorney General, was full of opium, and other kinds of merchandise, not belonging to himself, but deposited with him by their Chinese owners in pawn; that he obtained, and through his position I understood, much higher interest than they could honestly pay—the maximum was so ridiculously incredible, except on the supposition of the goods being stolen goods, that I forbear to mention it; and he said that it was a scandal to the neighbourhood to see how the pawned goods came in and went out through the lower apartment of the houses as I understood.
I shall not imitate the example of Dr Bridges. I say, in pretending to doubt that some such communication as he reports may have been made to him by the Governor. On the contrary, I have no doubt of the fact. Dr Bridges knows perfectly well, that in 1856, he believed such a communication as I have reported had been made to me by the Governor, and I can refresh Dr Bridges's memory. I believe Mr Mercer made some such communication. I know he intended to do so. This would be by letter in about the spring of 1856, Dr Bridges being then in England—at least I know it was Mr Mercer's intention at that time to do so. I remember, after some hesitation, informing Mr Mercer of what the Governor had told me—this I did, because I knew from himself that he was Dr Bridges's private friend. In the face of the menace which Dr Bridges in the Governor's name has held out of some official inquiry to begin when the Commission has ended its own, I will state generally what the malpractices were, which were imputed by the Governor to Dr Bridges, and which, or some of which, I re-stated to Mr Mercer at the time.
( 67 )
punish the man, but to be contented with a proclamation, those papers. But I will refer to the date of only one, which he directed somebody, I think Mr Caldwell, to make simply to show that, as early as the 5th February, the date to the Chinese—it appearing that no promulgation of our of a communication on the subject from Mr Rienaeker, I laws and customs against bribery had as yet been made was hard at them; and I must crave leave to ask the Commission to call upon His Excellency to furnish them with a correspondence, partly private and partly official, referred to by Mr D'Almada to me under date 23d August 1856, No. 620. [Reads letter.] It states, "that the Governor differs from Mr Anstey in his reading of a case which he had cited to support his opinion; and proposed sending a case home to the law officer of the Crown." This was done, and by return a despatch was received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which said the "law officers" concurred with my reading. The despatch administered a severe reprimand to the Governor, blaming him for a want of generosity and justice. I produce another letter from Sir John Bowring in reply to my application to release Mr Grand-Pré from his obligation of secrecy, and that he would suffer him to state certain facts, and if necessary Myself, appear as a witness in the case of Mitchell v. ... which had caused me great pain and annoyance. [The letter read. Among other things it stated, that the case was Mr Anstey's own concern, and the Governor refused to acquiesce in the request made.] If the Commission had all my letters in reply before them, of which I have not kept copies, they would see that I neither wished for, nor desired to institute the inquiries referred to, but that they were thrust upon me by the Governor.
I had otherwise fully intended to make an example of that second man. It will be unfair to draw any inference from these facts, and much more unfair to repeat what I am heard on the subject of them from other persons; I am bound to say, that, having pursued my enquiries into the malpractices of my own department, I was quite unable to discover more than the existence of a very unpleasant impression amongst the Chinese as to those malpractices, and that there was a good deal of vague imputation amongst certain members of the European community. A specific case was mentioned to me by one of the latter, a merchant, on the day when I brought the Chinaman tendering the
I have therefore, I think, finished my answer to the first bribe before the Supreme Court, but as he would not tell me that by Attorney General he meant my immediate predecessor Mr Sterling, or either of the Acting Attornies General who had at various times been appointed in his place, I of course declined to pay the slightest attention to his statement. In consequence, I did certainly as Dr Bridges has stated, determine not to refuse his acquaintance if offered to me on his return, but neither was I forward to seek it—my maxim in such cases being neque prope, neque procul; and I met him by accident in the Colonial Secretary's room, where Mr Mercer introduced us. It is true, I believe, that the Governor called upon Dr Bridges on his return, and acted in a manner quite inconsistent with his belief in the malpractices; but I will say, in Dr Bridges's presence, that I witnessed the disgust and indignation which Dr Bridges himself expressed at a reception so little consistent with the treachery of which he said the Governor had been guilty towards him. I shall not repeat the language he used, although I do not affect prudism, having stated in a mild way its effect. I know that Mr Mercer was even more indignant, and so was I. I did not gather from Dr Bridges's vicarious contradiction of my account of my private conversation with the Governor, that either he or the latter mean to deny that I was requested by His Excellency to make the reformation of Police abuses at least my particular charge:—and in that view, not wishing to protract this inquiry by a matter affecting nobody but the Governor and myself personally, I do not hand in
My answer to the second is necessarily very short. I have too often protested both by letter and by word of mouth, as to the mode of recording evidence taken before this Commission, to allow anybody to suppose that I am concluded by the printed minutes as to the accuracy of the report. The Commission will hear my statement, and say if it be correct, Dr Bridges did not say "very seldom, if ever." The question was asked, "Are they ever?" and the answer was "Certainly not to the present Attorney General." The Clerk was not asked until some time afterwards, what had he taken down, and then it was found by Dr Bridges that he had taken it down incorrectly; his note referred to the Attorney General, without specifying the present, and then Dr Bridges corrected him, and said with emphasis "the present Attorney General." In either case however his evidence is contrary to the fact, for if the practice of references to the Chief Justice is to be inferred, as Dr Bridges would infer it from three or four cases of pardon or mitigation, I can name at least four such applications to myself, There was even more indignant, and so was I. I did not gather from Dr Bridges's vicarious contradiction of my account of my private conversation with the Governor, that either he or the latter mean to deny that I was requested by His Excellency to make the reformation of Police abuses at least my particular charge:—and in that view, not wishing to protract this inquiry by a matter affecting nobody but the Governor and myself personally, I do not hand in was the case of the Sookunpoo murderers, where that absurd second trial took place before an incompetent Executive Council, at His Excellency's wish but against the will of every Member of the Council. There was a case not three months ago of a reference to me, and, by the way not communicated to the Chief Justice, where the question was, whether the summary punishment and subsequent ...