96
the decision of the Commissioners,
in no other light than as a justification of Mr. Caldwell. The
This supposed failure of the Charges against the latter, I was further informed, seemed to His Excellency good ground for proceeding my own suspension as having thereby proved myself to be entirely deficient in the qualities necessary to the discharge of my functions by my inability, in that matter to distinguish between real guilt & the mere effusions of private malice or common report. I was further charged with having given my own opinion before the Commission with precipitancy and intemperance, an appearance of malignity and partiality, and with having introduced into it vituperative and defamatory matter without in any way furthering the objects of the Commission or the promotion of the Public good! His Excellency concluded by calling upon me to furnish a satisfactory defence or explanation of my conduct, and, he intimated that, in the event of its not being satisfactory, he should proceed in Executive Council.
105. I lost no time in sending the demanded Defence and Explanation.
106. Apprehending from the tenor and tone of the demand Letter from myself of the 30th July 1858 to the Acting Colonel Secretary, Mr. Bridges, that the proceedings in Executive Council were designed to be taken Exparte, I prefaced my Defence and Explanation with a protest of the illegality of the measure, claiming, as of right, the benefit of the Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service promulgated by the Secretary of State (Revised Edition 1854) p. 25,6. And see Cases (in Privy Council) Welles & Remontague vs. Montague; Parl. Pa: on the ban Montague fa Van Diemen's Land; Chief Justice Pedder vs. Lester (No: 1154) from (N=454) Bridges to myself - 28th July 1858.
To answer them, open trial, and the opportunity of being personally present were essential. It is however one of the peculiarities of my case that neither then or afterwards, was any notice whatever taken by any person of this Claim of right and justice.
107. My defence and explanation contained as close an analysis of the Report and Minutes of Evidence, as was possible, under great difficulties - that is to say, the shortness of the time allotted me (only two days from the date of the Minutes being placed in my hands), pressure of Official occupation, sickness, and above all the Governor's deliberate and final refusal, in defiance of the protests of the injured Commission, to allow any portion of the documentary evidence to be printed; - refusal which was a breach at once of his own engagement to the public to print the whole of the evidence and his Order in favor of furnishing me with a printed Copy of such Evidence. I was not even allowed any Copy or access to those Documents, although so interwoven with the viva voce portion of the same, as to be absolutely essential, in the opinion of the Commissioners themselves, to the due understanding of the latter.
Letter to myself (et is]) & From H. Bridges 24 July, to the Chief Magistrate 24 July 1858.
Memorandum.
108. If that Defence and Explanation is, as it should be, in the Colonial Department it will speak for itself.
To recapitulate its contents here would be to reiterate much of what I have already stated. The same ground is taken, the same refutation to the suggestion, that the Report of the Commission deserved to be considered by his Excellency in the light in which, according to the letter of his acting Colonial Secretary, Sir John Bowring considered it.
109. The Commissioners had themselves repudiated one portion of the Suggestion. On the day of the date of my defence and explanation, and whilst I was putting the last hand to it, received, through their Chairman, the following communication signed.