BRE
391
(133)
Dr Bridges.—Yes; if I spoke of the matter, I did it on my own responsibility. The Governor had nothing to do with it.
Attorney General.—Then you assume, as one of your rights as member of the Executive Council, that of publishing their proceedings to all the world?
Dr Bridges. If the Governor wished that nothing should be said, then all mouths were shut. As to this matter he made no complaint of any violation of confidence, nor gave any notice of secrecy.
(132)
Dr Bridges. It might very possibly have been written by Mr Wilson. The two are not I believe of the same creed in that matter. I have no reason to think it was written by Sir John Bowring.
Attorney General.—This report was published by the Government?
Dr Bridges. Yes.
Attorney General.—And all this time the Attorney General was complaining that up to this hour he had no explanation of the precise grounds on which he was to be suspended. Does that article contain a true statement of those grounds?
Dr Bridges. It is just like other newspaper accounts, a mixture of truth and error. There is a good deal of truth about it.
Attorney General. You have seen the paper of 26th August?
Dr Bridges.—I think not.
Attorney General.—Was it not made a subject of bitter comment on the part of the Attorney General that the documentary evidence was withheld?
Dr Bridges.—Yes, I remember that perfectly well.
Attorney General.—Did not Mr Davies state that it was a distinct breach of faith with the members of the Commission, that the printing of these documents was refused, as the evidence was to a great extent based on them?
Dr Bridges.—The China Mail is the only paper I ever saw.
Attorney General. Did not the Attorney General on the 23rd of July state in a letter that he could not make any statement unless he had the documents before him on which the committee founded their report?
Dr Bridges.—Yes.
Attorney General. You have seen this long and able article, in which he enters upon the Caldwell matter at great length; are you aware of the general nature of Mr Dixson's evidence in the Ma-chow Wong business?
Dr Bridges. Yes.
Attorney General.—Do you think it possible this article could have been written by Mr Dixson himself, or by some one taking a very different view of the question, and devoted to the recent conduct of the Attorney General, and we know no reason to cast discredit on the prevalent rumour that that officer was called on to show reason why he should not be suspended; that the reasons he gave in were not considered valid; and that, unless he makes out a case more satisfactory to the Executive, he will be suspended at once.
This matter so exclusively concerns the reputation and honour of the Government itself, that the less said upon it by outsiders the better; and we trust only that the Executive will act temperately but boldly on its own judgment.
Dr Bridges.—I have not read these articles, but they would have made no difference to me.
Attorney General.—Why did you not prosecute the writer of these articles?
Dr Bridges. In the first place, you are begging the question that I advised this prosecution; and secondly, I do not consider those articles libellous. They are written in my opinion by a lawyer, who knew exactly how far to go without committing himself.
Attorney General.—The minutes of evidence are unintelligible to a stranger without the documents to which reference is made. The government have in a legal sense published this report?
Dr Bridges. Yes, I suppose so.
Attorney General.—In fact everything in the matter was done as publicly as possible?
Dr Bridges.—Yes.
Attorney General.—After the 18th of May was it not the intention of the Government that the fullest publicity should be given to both sides of the subject?
Dr Bridges.—Yes, certainly, to both sides.
Attorney General. Who communicated the copy of the report to the China Mail?
Dr Bridges. I have no idea, I did not even know it had been furnished.
Attorney General.—Do you think Sir John Bowring did?
Dr Bridges. I have no reason to suppose so.
Attorney General.—Because it is clear Sir John Bowring must have read and analysed the report before it was sent to the printer.
Dr Bridges.—The report was sent direct from the Commission to the press, after which the Government saw it.
Attorney General.—As Executive Councillor, you are not at liberty to give information to any one outside?
Dr Bridges. No.
Attorney General. Who furnished the Editor of the China Mail with information on the 5th August, of the grounds for suspension of the Attorney General, which was decided on at the Council Meeting of 7th August?
Dr Bridges. I have no idea.
Attorney General. No belief?
Dr Bridges. None whatever; the only document I ever forwarded to the China Mail was an account of the trip to Sunon.
Attorney General.—Who furnished this statement?
[A passage from the China Mail, August 5, 1858, discussing the report of the Commission on Mr Caldwell and the suspension of Mr Chisholm Anstey is omitted due to its length and the fact that it is not a direct part of the dialogue.]
Dr Bridges.—I know nothing about it.
Attorney General.—As a matter of fact, the writer of those articles has never been prosecuted?
Dr Bridges.—No.
Attorney General. Did you never write any of the articles in the China Mail?
Dr Bridges.—Never.
Attorney General. Do you know or have you any belief as to whether Sir John Bowring ever wrote any articles for the China Mail?
Dr Bridges.—I will not express any belief; I have no grounds to form an opinion one way or another upon the subject.
Attorney General.—Is not the Editor of the China Mail pretty frequently with Sir John Bowring, for the purpose of obtaining suggestions or corrections for his paper?
Dr Bridges. I hardly ever saw him at the Government Offices. I have seen Mr Wilson once, and I think Mr Dixson once or twice with the Governor.
Attorney General.—Had you the Governor's sanction for so doing?
Dr Bridges.—I never had any communication with him on the subject. I never had any doubt that when the matter was over I might speak about it.
Attorney General.—How could the matter be at an end before any decision was come to about it?
Dr Bridges. It was over so far as this place is concerned.
Attorney General.—Was it not one of the grounds of the protest and appeal that the Executive Council had not communicated to the Attorney General the grounds on which they were going to act?
[The article referred to is included here.]
The Executive Council has held some meetings of late...