#
3. – The outbreak of hostilities which followed on the seizure of the lorcha (Arrow) towards the end of 1839 induced commercial ruin and I was involved in financial difficulties. I started a daily paper under the title of the Hong Kong Daily Press, an adventure which met with singular and permanent success. On the 28th February 1858, an article appeared in that paper of which the following is an extract: “Look at the abuses to which this system gives rise! It is well known that our Governor has a relative in one of our eminent houses. The ship consigned to that house was chartered by government without tender having been advertised at an unheard of rate. The same thing occurred in the case of the Lancashire Witch also consigned to the same eminent firm. The Ava was detained, at least so it was alleged on the authority of General Ashburnham, in order to enable a steamer belonging to the same firm to sail with important advices to persons at Calcutta upon the Shanghai market. The influential establishment has enjoyed the exclusive privilege of having a special Agent at Canton during the late occurrences whereby they secured extensive premises before any rival could be in the field to compete with them. The notices of the removal of the blockade and regulations of trade, although placed in the Governor's hands to be made as public as possible, were suppressed until after the departure of the mail and on another occasion issued on the day subsequent to the date of the Gazette. We shall find the sequel will be jobbery, favoritism and dishonesty riding rampant, clean hands being wanting to impose a salutary check on practices usually considered mercenary and disreputable.
4. The portion of the article thus extracted (excepting the two passages scored under) formed the subject of a criminal prosecution against me for sedition. I was indicted for attempting to incite the Queen's subjects to hatred and contempt of the Queen's Government. I was arraigned at the Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong on the 1st March 1858. The person referred to was Sir John Bowring who had a son or partner in the firm of Jardine Matheson & Co. The charge of sedition precluded my counsel, the late Mr. Day (so at least he informed me), from pleading justification. It may appear unnecessary on me to pass an opinion on the evidence brought forward by the prosecution, but I may safely say that the circumstances set forth in the alleged libel were notorious facts and I say further with confidence and respect that Mr. Jardine, the principal witness brought forward, admitted rather than controverted my allegations. Under the direction of the Court, upon the above facts, a verdict of Guilty was returned by the jury who afterwards stated that they did so in the belief that a reprimand or deterrent injunction would be the only consequence to myself. But the sentence was six months imprisonment and a fine of $100. Although the period of imprisonment embraced the entire summer in that dreadful climate and although the gaol accommodation was severe, this sentence was carried out in its fullest severity. My commercial prospects were thus entirely and permanently destroyed and the punishment so preyed on the mind of my brother, then resident in Hong Kong, that he died, his health being wretched to the last degree. My health too sustained a shock from which it never recovered. I mention this circumstance to account for my apparent reticence during what is known as the first Caldwell enquiry, which I proceed to refer to.
Page 230