D
F
I
!
E
Third.---With having claimed and obtained from Mr. Norman Masson, half the fees appertaining to the said office of Registrar of the Court, during the time that Mr. Masson was fulfilling the duties of the office upon Mr. Alexander's absence. Mr. Alexander had no legal claim whatever to the same---according to the regulations made and provided, the whole should have been paid into the Treasury, the acting officer being paid a moiety and the other moiety dealt with as the Governor might please to direct.
Fourth. With having made a similar arrangement with Mr. Huffum who became acting Registrar upon Mr. Alexander being made acting Colonial Secretary.
As for the charges against Dr. Bridges-Your Grace limits me to such as may enable the Government to prosecute him criminally. I therefore confine my charges to three.
First. I call attention to a letter which Mr. May, the Superintendent of police, wrote to Dr. Bridges, then Acting Colonial Secretary, under date of 20th July 1857-[to be found in the last Hongkong Blue Book page 70.] The whole tenor of the letter has reference to the illicit connexion between Caldwell and Mahchow Wong. Near the conclusion of the letter it is stated that Wong Akee's (Malchow Wong's real name) books and papers had been seized, and that they implicated Caldwell.
On the 22nd or 23rd November 1858, in the trial of the Queen v Tarrant Dr. Bridges admitted on oath that he ordered those books and papers to be burnt about March 1858-he further swore, that up to that time he had not been made aware of any illicit connexion between the pirate and Caldwell-nor had he the smallest idea that the papers implicated the latter. The following parties amongst many others heard Dr. Bridges give this evidence. Mr. Tudor Davies, Mr. Mongan, Mr. Chisholm Anstey, Mr. May, Mr. Tarrant, and myself. There can be no plea urged on the ground of lapse of memory for Dr. Bridges garbled and distorted Mr. May's letter of 20th July 1857 ere the Governor saw it, and would have succeeded in procuring Mr. May's suspension as well as Mr. Ans- tey's, but for the death of his nominee, the acting Attorney General, Mr. Day.
Here Your Grace, I submit is a clear charge of perjury and of burning pu- blic papers of which he was Custos.
I now turn Your Grace's attention to page 20 of the Report of the Caldwell commission. It will be there seen that Dr. Bridges having with malice aforethought, arranged matters with Caldwell, induced and instigated that individual to swear that a number of the inmates of a brothel had escaped into a house occupied by Mr. May. Mr. May, immediately appealed to the Governor, Sir John Bowring, who required Caldwell to prove or to retract this false and damaging accusation. Caldwell retracted and apologised on 31st March 1858; (Vide Civil service abuse Enquiry page 76) Dr. Bridges, then act- ing Colonial Secretary, suppressed and concealed that despatch. Dr. Bridges as will be seen, repeated the falsehood, though not on oath, before the Caldwell Commission on 9th June 1858---as so also did Caldwell, which will be seen from Mr. Cleverly's evidence at page 73 of the Civil Service abuse Enquiry. Finally about one year afterwards Caldwell published a pamphlet called a Vindication wherein the same falsehood was repeated, of which pamphlet Dr. Bridges corrected the proofs. Here is a case of subornation of perjury.
Even should there be some insuperable difficulty in obtaining legal proofs of these charges, there can be no question as to the moral guilt of the accused; and I ain at a loss even now to discover a reason why Dr. Bridges should have been excluded from the action of the enquiry instituted by the Executive Council, for surely public opprobrium should at all events have been evoked towards his misdeeds, subtle, design- ing, and corrupt as they were. In this behalf I should apprise Your Grace, that im- mediately after the arrival of Sir Hercules Robinson, Dr. Bridges wrote a letter to His About one Excellency, stating that he invited the most searching enquiry into his acts. year afterwards, when I laid a series of charges against Dr. Bridges, he refused to meet them, alleging as a reason that I was a convicted libeller!
The whole of these charges are so plain and straight forward, that unless their bare existence be denied (which is impossible) I am at a loss to comprehend how Your Grace can fail to entertain them. I have no desire beyond that of purging this Colo- ny of the old leaven of that corruption which has cast so foul a blot on British institutions in the South of China. I profess the most profound respect for Your Grace, and in true devotion to the Queen and the Country, I would unwillingly admit myself second to any mau breathing. Should Your Grace deem me captious, impracticable, and insolent to the powers that be, by reason of the freedom of thought and speech which our laws secure to the most humble, let me assure Your Grace that a greater mistake on a small matter could hardly be imagined.
I lay these charges at Your Grace's door, holding myself at your disposal to substantiate them at any time and place H. M. Government may require of me to do so.
I am,
My Lord Duke,
Your Grace's most obedient servant.
YpMurrow
No. 484,
SIR,
Copy of Correspondence referred to.
210130/
253
Colonial Secretary Office, Hongkong, 7th August, 1862.
I am directed by His Excellency The Administrator of the Government to imform you that he has received a Despatch from the Duke of Newcastle acknowledging the receipt of your letter to His Grace of the 11th April last.
I am also to state that a Dispatch has been received from His Grace acknowledging the receipt of your Communication of the 24th April, and in respect to the latter His Grace directs you to be informed that he will always hold it to be his duty to consider carefully any charge against any Public Office which is either accompanied by proof of its truth, or which is such as to leave on his mind, after receiving the explanation of the Officer inculpated, any serious suspicion of his misconduct.
His Grace observes that the explanations furnished by Sir Hercules Robinson in the present case are such as to leave no such impression in regard to any of the statements made by yourself,
The Duke of Newcastle adds therefore that if you wish to carry the matter any further it will rest with you to produce proof of such of your allegations as you conceive yourself able to establish, retracting those which on further enquiry you may find yourself to have made without foundation.
Y. J. MURROW Esq.
SIR,
If
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your most Obedient Servant,
W. H. ALEXANDER. Acting Colonial Secretary.
Honghong, 14th August, 1862.
I am in due receipt of your favor of the 7th inst. which partly from absence at Macao, partly from indisposition, and partly from excessive occupation, I have been unable to reply to until this morning.
you will be kind enough to furnish me with copies of Sir Hercules Robinson's despatches to His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, forwarding mine of 11th and 24th April last, as also a copy of His Grace despatch upon which your favor now acknowledged is based, I shall be ready to lay in a formal manner the charges I have made, and shall proceed with all speed to their substantiation.
The Honorable,
W. H. ALEXANDER. Aeting Colonial Secretary, Hongkong.
No. 614
SIR,
I am
Your Obedient Servant.
Y. J. MURROW.
Colonial Secretary's Office. Hongkong, 15th August, 1862.
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date requesting me to furnish you with copies of Sir Hercules Robinson's despatches to the Duke of Newcastle forwarding your letters to His Grace of the 11th and 24th April last, and also a copy of the Duke of Newcastle's despatch upon which my letter to you of the 7th instant was based.
In reply I am directed by His Excellency the Administrator of the Government to state that in neither case has he any authority to meet your request.
Y. J. MURROW Esq.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
your most obedient servant.
W. II. ALEXANDER, Acting Colonial Secretary