(137)
Attorney General.—Was he under Mr Caldwell's influence?
Dr Bridges.—(Smiles.)
Attorney General.—Because, if you had answered in the negative, I was going to ask if he was under Ma-chow Wong's influence?
Attorney General—[Reads from Hongkong Register, of June 22d 1858, see page 132 supra.] There, that is the episode "And we call upon the spirit of truth," down to "presume." Is not that more libellous, and more seditious than this of Tarrant's?
(136)
Attorney General.—The inquiry you say lasted some weeks?
Dr Bridges.—Several hours were devoted to the case, the course of meetings at different times, extending over two or three weeks.
Attorney General.—Have you seen Mr Day's notes in which it appears?
Dr Bridges.—I have,
Attorney General.—Do you think this passage highly libellous as a lawyer? [reads from Hongkong Register of 6th July 1857, see page 131 supra.]
Attorney General.—On the 1st July (see page 64 supra) you corrected that, and said the reference to Mr Mongan was after the appearance of the article, and most probably in consequence of it. Yesterday, when giving your evidence, you went back to your original statement of the reference to Mongan being before the article appeared; pray tell us, remembering that you are on your oath, which of these statements is the truth? You have had ample time, and your attention has been specially drawn to ratifying your memory.
Dr Bridges.—Mr May produced them at the Council meeting; whether they were placed in my hands, I cannot say. At all events, they did not remain there. They were placed on the table of Council; I cannot say whether they actually passed through my hands at all.
Attorney General.—I must warn you that you are on your oath.
Dr Bridges.—Yes, I now wish to correct that. Mongan can best tell what took place; he was under the direct orders of Sir John Bowring. Mr Mongan was not an officer in my department; he belonged to the Superintendency. My impression is that the reference was made to him by Sir John Bowring personally, and not by Sir John Bowring in the Executive Council.
Dr Bridges.—I am perfectly aware of that; there is no occasion for the warning; I have given my evidence hitherto in a very straightforward manner, and I expect to be treated as a gentleman.
Attorney General.—Mr Tarrant's article does not name Sir John—This does [reads other passages] Is not this seditious?
Dr Bridges.—I do not think it is so libellous, and I doubt that it is libellous at all.
Dr Bridges.—(Returns the same answer.) I now hear these passages read for the first time.
I read the article in the Friend of China on which this trial is based. I did not read the next article.
Attorney General.—But defendant asked why he was selected for attack when others had written what was equally as deserving of it, and they had not been noticed. I wish to read to you this part of Mr Dixson's evidence at the Police Court.
Attorney General.—Well, then, as Mr Mongan can best tell, I will read to you what that gentleman deposed at the Police Court. [Reads from page 103 supra.]
“Mr Caldwell was the principal party in the investigation of these papers; I was secondary. I never saw the books, and had nothing to do with them until the articles appeared in the China Mail."
Mr Tarrant, on cross-examining Mr Mongan, pointed out to him the discrepancy which existed between his evidence and what you gave on the 29th of June, and asked him if he was still sure that it was after the articles appeared in the China Mail. Now be steady in this, for it has a good deal to do with the clearing up of the "trick." Was not Mr Caldwell employed after this article appeared?
“Mr May was then called in, produced his memoranda, and read them item by item. The Council appeared to be perfectly astonished. Dr Bridges said he did not know whether he was standing on his head or his heels, and asked, "Why have I not seen those documents before?" Mr May gave some explanation which I forget. The Governor then referred Mr May to Mr Mongan's translation. Mr Mongan was then called in and, in answer to the Governor's question, stated that he had not made a very close examination of the books, but merely a cursory one. The Council then broke up in some confusion, and I believe Mr May left his memoranda in their hands. The documents read by Mr May were the same I had previously perused. I do not think Mr Mongan sat down at all."
Dr Bridges.—By or to—not to or from.
Attorney General.—What distinction do you draw? You stated that Mr Mongan was employed before the article in the China Mail?
Dr Bridges.—I made some mistake in my evidence before the Caldwell Commission, about Mr Mongan's interpretation.
Attorney General.—On the 29th of June, (see page 52 supra) you told the Commission that Mr Mongan was employed before Mr May's Memoranda were heard of, or the article in the China Mail appeared. Mr Mongan contradicted that, and said he was employed in consequence of the article.
Dr Bridges.—Yes.
Dr Bridges.—The instructions did not pass through me, and I cannot answer. They must have been from the Governor direct to Mr Mongan and Mr Caldwell.
Attorney General.—Was your attention directed to the article?
Dr Bridges.—I had not so much to say about it as in other matters.
Attorney General.—As to any directions given to Mr Caldwell, I was not present. Mr Caldwell came to me, and I told him to go to the Governor himself.
Attorney General.—I am only cautioning you for your own good.
Dr Bridges.—Thank you.
Attorney General.—Do you agree with Mr Dixson's statement that Mr May's memorandum contained distinct reference to Mr Caldwell?
Dr Bridges.—To the best of my belief, there were some passages referring to payments made to and from Mr Caldwell,
SECOND DAY.
Examination of Dr Bridges continued.
Attorney General.—Who were the two persons to whom you communicated the decision of the Executive Council about the Attorney General's suspension?
Dr Bridges.—To the best of my belief, it was to Mr Lyall and Major Romer.
Attorney General.—Not to Mr Wilson or Mr Dixson?
Dr Bridges.—No.
Attorney General.—You have had a long intimacy with Mr Caldwell.
Dr Bridges.—No, I have not.
Attorney General.—Did you not once or twice, before the Caldwell Commission, say that you took a great interest in the matter, because Caldwell was a freemason?
Dr Bridges.—I saw a statement in a newspaper that I had had a friendship for Mr Caldwell as a freemason, because he was; but I have made no such assertion.
Attorney General.—Was your attention directed to the averments in the China Mail of 17th September, 1858, about Ma-chow Wong being let loose again on the community? Here you see it is distinctly stated that the book proved Ma-chow Wong's connections with certain foreigners. By foreigners, particularly referred to, Mr Dixson at the Police Court said, (see page 114 supra.)
"My statement in the Mail, that certain money transactions with Foreigners were referred to in Ma-chow Wong's books, referred to Mr Caldwell.”
Again, I refer you to that passage in the China Mail of the 17th of September, in which piracy, resetting, and murder...
Dr Bridges.—I did not speak to Mr Day to that effect; I do not remember whether I made any reference to it at the Commission. So far as my impression goes, I did not say anything about it. If anyone swore that I did say so, I should be inclined to give way.
Attorney General.—Do you remember Caldwell saying that the fact of his being a free-mason ought to weigh favourably with the Commission?
Dr Bridges.—No; I was not present.
Dr Bridges.—If that had been said by the Editor of a newspaper, I should have thought it libellous, but it was merely a report of what you said.
Attorney General.—You are here to prove every inducement and every innuendo. Do you mean to say that a Newspaper is privileged to report statements of a witness not protected by Judicial authority?
Dr Bridges.—No.
Attorney General.—Are you not aware that the person who spoke those words is at this moment liable to prosecution for uttering them?
Dr Bridges.—No doubt. If it were decent and becoming for the Colonial Secretary to prosecute the Attorney General, I would. In Council, you were protected from prosecution.
Attorney General.—In what way was the speaker protected from prosecution?
Dr Bridges.—As Colonial Secretary, I considered it would be an indecent thing to prosecute the Attorney General. If any man made use of those words in a place where I could deal with him, I should know what to do.
Attorney General.—If it were indecent for one public servant to prosecute another, was it not still more indecent and unbecoming to do so ex-parte, and before a secret tribunal?
Dr Bridges.—I am not going to answer hypothetical questions. Put me a fair question, and I will answer it.
Attorney General.—Very well, then, the Jury will judge from your answers. Was it more decent for you to get up secret charges, and refuse the party you prosecuted all knowledge of what was said of him?
Dr Bridges.—I deny those facts; I never prosecuted anyone before a Secret Tribunal.
Attorney General.—The Executive Council is a Secret Tribunal.
Dr Bridges.—There was no prosecution before the Executive Council. I declined to vote in matters where you were concerned. I did so because of our personal feud?
Attorney General.—Did you not inform Mr May that you were employed by the Governor to weave a narrative?
Dr Bridges.—The Governor ordered me to look through the despatches, and see reports of insubordination against you; and I obeyed the Governor's instructions.
Attorney General.—Was not the narrative produced before the Executive Council?
Dr Bridges.—Yes; by the Governor.
Attorney General.—Under whose influence was the Governor at that time?
Dr Bridges.—You had better ask him yourself.
Attorney General.—Was he under your influence?
Dr Bridges.—Sir John has been under my influence in some matters, not in all.
21