of State communicating the above illegal measures.
00
referring to my long intercepted letter of the 17th May 1850, and appealing against the suspension as illegal and unjust towards myself, and of most alarming consequence upon the minds of the Chinese. The open duplicate of that letter, having been detained in Sir John Bowring's hands for at least one Mail, I again, on the 16th of August, and, upon the duplicate of that letter being likewise so detained, on 21st August 1850, forwarded (also in Originals & through the Governor and post office) my grounds and reasons for such Appeal
131. In an almost dying state, and against the earnest remonstrances of my friends, who were also my Medical Adviser and the Colonial Surgeon Dr Menzies, I remained in those regions until the 30th January 1856, when, as Correspondence with your Grace's Department shows, the increasing "pressure of sickness" was such as to compel me, most reluctantly, to accept leave of absence from my duties and proceed to Europe, without waiting any longer for the delayed decision of the Secretary of State.
132. My letters of the 20th January, 6th February, & 4th April 1859, to Sir E. P. Lytton, M.P., and of the 14th June 1859, to the Earl of Carnarvon, refer to the Proceedings in the case v. Farrant; ubi supra.
132. In the meantime, Sir John Bowring, as though unsatisfied with the decision of the Commission of Inquiry and its consequences, determined to refer to another tribunal of his own choosing the question, whether the character of his Government was to any and what extent compromised by its protection of Mr Caldwell and, more especially, in respect of the alleged acts towards Mah Chow Wong.
An information for libel was accordingly filed against the Proprietor of a Newspaper, which had charged the burning of the papers as a "contemplated and damnable trick of Sir John Bowring's Government" with the deliberate intent to screen criminals. The Defendant pleaded in justification that the statements of the Article were true. The Acting Attorney General informed the Court that he was instructed to say, that Sir John Bowring felt that the Plea of justification was quite satisfactory, but had himself as much at stake as the Defendant. Dr Bridges, Mr Montgomery, and the Surveyor General were examined for the prosecution, and his witnesses were examined for the defence, and all the documents demanded for the latter from the Secretariat were brought into Court. The Jury was a Special Jury of Merchants and Bankers of great credit and little disposed to give a factious verdict. But their verdict was an unanimous one, given immediately on the closing of the Case for the prosecution and without hearing the defence. It was for the Defendant - on both Issues - found him not guilty, and it found that his plea of justification was true.