(48)
intended to convey, gave me very little just as well have been left out. In speaking on the subject at all, the point in my mind was not Mr Pitman to whom I have never spoken—but the fact that, taking the statement to be correct, the Chinese petition did not possess that spontaneity which the method of its publication seemed to me to imply, a subject which the Chamber of Commerce, as well as myself, had a perfect right to discuss. Official Report.
Under these circumstances it is due to myself to state publicly the facts which I would have stated on oath had an opportunity been afforded to me.
When the report of a Chinese petition having been presented to His Excellency the Governor appeared in the Daily Press, I asked the Bank's Compradore, whose duty it is to inform me on Chinese matters, who were the Chinese moving in the matter. He replied, “I have not seen the Petition, but I hear it is being got up by Mr Pitman." I instructed him to make enquiries, and later on the same day he informed me that the Petition was got up by Mr Pitman that friends of his had seen Mr Pitman taking the Document about for signature, naming especially one of the English Banks to which he had taken it. In conversation with friends to whom I spoke on the subject it seemed to be (and I may say still is) quite understood that this was the case.
That my speech is contained in the Report of the Chamber is, I venture to say, no discredit to that institution. Had any member expressed disapproval, his remarks would have been there too, and had any statement of mine been shown to be incorrect, my withdrawal thereof and apology would also have appeared.
Yours faithfully,
H. H. NELSON,
To the Editor of the "CHINA MAIL."
Hongkong, June 10, 1880.
SIR—Referring to my letter forwarded to you this morning for favor of publication, I shall be obliged if you will also publish the following correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
H. H. NELSON,
(Copy.)
Hongkong, June 10, 1880,
The Hon. W. Keswick,
Chairman, Hongkong Chamber of Commerce.
DEAR SIR,—In connection with the recent prosecution of Mr Pitman for libel, you will have observed the significance which has been attributed in several quarters to the observations made by me at the annual meeting of the Chamber held on 23rd February last. May I ask that, as Chairman of that meeting, you will be good enough to state how you regarded my speech, printed on page 22 of the Chamber's Report, and whether you considered then, or consider now, that, either from my words or manner, my remarks meant or were intended to convey more than appears plainly on the face of them?
Now as to my speech at the Chamber of Commerce, which has been referred to as so pregnant with gibe, sarcasm and insinuation, I beg to state most distinctly, that those qualities, if they are there at all, owe their existence to no wit of mine. In referring to Mr Pitman I merely described rather than named him, as one instinctively would do in speaking publicly of a private person with whom the speaker had no personal acquaintance. That and nothing else. The word "rather," to which His Lordship the Chief Justice so pointedly referred might, so far as any meaning went, ...
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) H. H. NELSON.
(Copy.)
Hongkong, 10th June, 1880.
H. H. Nelson, Esq.
DEAR SIR,—In reply to your favor of this day's date I beg to state that, as Chairman of the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce at which the observations to which you referred were made, I regarded your remarks as simply expressing the ordinary meaning the words conveyed, and such I consider was the signification attached to them, at the time, by Mr Ryrie and others who took part in the discussion.
(49)
as simply expressing the ordinary meaning the words conveyed, and such I consider was the signification attached to them, at the time, by Mr Ryrie and others who took part in the discussion.
The subject of legalizing the currency of the "yen" in this colony was not expected by me, nor do I think by other members, to be raised at the meeting, and I believe the observations made by you and others were wholly unpremeditated. It was however, I believe, a matter of notoriety that a petition signed by some of our Chinese fellow residents, was not the spontaneous expression of their views, on the subject of making the "yen" current, and it seemed to me, in the discussion that took place in considering the important question of introducing the "yen," that it was most legitimate to comment upon the significance to be attached to what had been represented as the expression of Chinese opinion.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. KESWICK,
III.
To the Editor of the "CHINA MAIL,"
Hongkong, 11th June.
SIR,—With reference to the letter of the Hon. Mr Keswick in your issue of last evening I am anxious to correct an impression which it might convey to the public mind, viz., that my opinion as expressed at the Police Court of Mr Nelson's utterances was an afterthought and that I did not entertain the same opinion at the meeting.
Hearing in mind the extreme attention that had of late been paid to expressions of native opinion equally spontaneous in their character, they might safely come to the conclusion that something was being done, and he thought it would not be out of place to invite some little confidence towards the Chamber on the part of the Government. He suggested that the Secretary of the Chamber communicate with the Government with a view to ascertaining whether anything was being done in the matter.
THE PRESS OF HONGKONG
ON THE TRIAL.
(China Mail, June 10th, 1880.)
The case of Regina v. Pitman will long be remembered in this Colony, not only from the unusual character of the case itself, but also from its peculiar and probably unprecedented surroundings. Under ordinary circumstances it would have been our pleasant duty, in the interests of freedom of speech, to have espoused the cause of the libeller; but even the plain-speaking China Mail, rough as it may sometimes be, draws the line at the reputations of honest men, and shrinks from attacking the private character even of those who in this respect may be but sparely clad. The public acts of public men form not only the fair text of our little homilies, but it is our bounden duty, as servants of the people and independent exponents of public opinion and feeling, to criticise the acts and the actors in the arena of public affairs. On this point we can agree with the Counsel for the Defendant, when, in his able efforts to "make ...