310 CHAPTER XVII.
community gave great offence and the irritation increased when
the fleet retreated from Canton, foiled by Yeh's obstinacy, and
more particularly when his placards appeared at every street 1
corner calling upon all loyal Chinese residents of Hongkong to
avenge his wrongs and to make war against all Europeans which
they could do only by dagger, poison or incendiarism. The
European community now felt the enemy lurking in their midst ,
the British flag successfully insulted, the navy defeated, the
Governor indifferent to their danger. What measures the
Governor did take, served only to increase the excitement which
now commenced to take hold of the community . On 30th
December, 1856 , a general rising of the mob being apprehended.
H.M.S. Acorn was anchored near the Central Market to overawe
the Chinese rowdies congregating in that neighbourhood . On
the same day an auxiliary Police Force was organized and an
attempt was made to enrol volunteers as special constables. The
new-year opened with the news that the S.S. Feima, having been
attacked by Chinese soldiers, was hulled in several places, and
that incendaries had been at work in different parts of the
town. The Governor now issued (January 6 , 1857 ) in great
haste a draft Ordinance for better securing the peace of the
Colony. But the measures it resorted to, greater stringency
as to night-pass regulations, deportation of suspected emissaries
or abettors of enemies and compulsory co-operation for the
extinction of fires, gave no satisfaction to the community in
the absence of a Draconic form of compulsory registration . It
was once more suggested that every Chinaman not carrying on
his person an official badge and registered voucher of his honesty
should be deported . The feeling of insecurity increased . Jardine
Matheson and Company found it necessary to obtain a detachment
of blue-jackets and marines to guard their premises, and the local
papers now published a ' daily chronicle of Chinese atrocities ."
Within the first fortnight of 1857 this chronicle contained daily
items of local outrages such as ' shooting of four men with fire
balls upon them ; temporary stupefaction of three Europeans
after eating poisoned soup ; discovery of a headless body in the
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 311
Wongnaichung valley ; firing matsheds on Crosby's premises in
Queen's Road Central ; capture of S.S. Thistle (January 13 ,
1857 ) by Chinese soldiers disguised as passengers , who murdered
eleven Europeans and several Chinese and burned the vessel.'
On the morning of January 15th, 1857 , a few hours before
the mail carrying to England the foregoing budget of news left
the harbour, the foreign community was seized by a general
panic, as at every European breakfast table there arose the
simultaneous cry of ' poison in the bread. Some 400 Europeans ,
partaking that morning of bread supplied by the E- sing bakery,
owned by a Heungshan man called Ab-lum , suffered more or
less from arsenical poisoning. Every 4 lb. loaf of white bread,
subsequently analysed at Woolwich (by F. A. Abel) , contained
grains 92 per cent. of white arsenic. Toasted bread contained
the smallest proportion ( 15 grains per cent . ) of poison, yet
4 ounces of it were found to contain 24 grains of arsenious acid .
Brown bread contained about 2 times and white bread about
6 times the quantity found in the toast . Those who ate least
suffered the most . Some, Lady Bowring for one, were delirious
for a time ; many had their health permanently injured ; all
received a severe nervous shock by the sudden consciousness
of being surrounded by assassins. No immediate death was
caused by this poisoning incident but some, as for instance
Lady Bowring, who had to return to England and failed to
recover, were evidently hurried into the grave by it. Even
after the lapse of a year (January 17 , 1858 ) the local papers
asserted, with reference to the death of a Mr. S. Drinker and
Captain Williams of the S.S. Lily, that their deaths had been
medically traced to the arsenic swallowed by them on the great
day of poisoning. On that memorable morning the excitement
was of course most intense. The medical men of the Colony,
whilst personally in agonies through the effects of the poison.
were hurrying from house to house, interrupted at every step
by frantic summons from all directions. Emetics were in urgent
request in every European family. Ah-lum, the baker, who
for some weeks previous had been worried by messages from the
312 CHAPTER XVII.
Heungshan Mandarins to remove from Hongkong , had left
for Macao that morning with his wife and children , but they also
found themselves poisoned, and Ah-lum was returning voluntarily
to Hongkong when he was arrested . Strange to say, his work-
men did not run away even after the poison had taken effect,
but remained at the bakery until the police, after a delay of
many hours, came and arrested 51 men . As many as 42 of them
were kept for 20 consecutive days and nights on remand, in an
underground police cell, 15 feet square by 12 feet high. It was
thenceforth justly termed the Black Hole of Hongkong.' The
local papers seriously urged the Governor to have the whole
of the poisoning crew of E-sing's bakery strung up in front of
the shop where the scheme was concocted .' Justices of the
Peace, shrinking from the application of lynch law, entreated
the Governor to proclaim forthwith martial law and to deport
every Chinaman whose loyalty could not be vouched for.
Though every member of his family suffered from the poison,
Sir John remained calm and rejected all suggestions of hasty
measures. But to the eyes of the terror-stricken community
his firmness bore at the time the aspect of callous indifference.
When, by the end of the month, the excitement had somewhat
abated, the European residents still complained that nothing was
done by the Governor to assure public confidence against the
recurrence of a similar or worse catastrophe, and that the
deportation (to Hainan) of 123 prisoners, released owing to
the overcrowded state of the gaol, increased the general feeling
of insecurity.
The result of the criminal prosecution instituted against
Ah-lum and his workmen was equally unsatisfactory to the
public mind. There was no evidence incriminating the persons
arrested, and Ah-lum, who was defended by the Acting Colonial
Secretary (Dr. W. T. Bridges ) , was acquitted by the verdict
of an impartial jury. He was, however, re-arrested as a
suspicious character and detained in gaol until July 31st, 1857,
when he was released, by order of the Secretary of State, on
condition of his not resorting to the Colony for five years.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 313
A civil action had meanwhile been brought against Ab-lum by the
editor of the Friend of China (W. Tarrant) who obtained (June
24, 1857) $ 1,000 damages for specific injuries, that resulted from
eating the poisoned bread sold to him by Ah-lum. The latter
was, however, by this time reduced from affluence to bankruptcy.
He may have been innocent of any direct complicity, but the
community, which unanimously attributed the crime to the
instigations of Cantonese Mandarins, would not believe otherwise
but that Ah-lum had, in some measure, connived at the diabolical
attempt to poison the whole of the foreign residents of Hongkong.
When the news of the outbreak of hostilities at Canton
reached England, the several political parties in opposition
formed a coalition with a view to censure the Ministry . Lord
Derby, supported by Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords
(February 24, 1857 ) , and Mr. Cobden, supported by Mr. Gladstone
and Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons (February 26, 1857 ) ,
heroically espoused the causeof that innocent lamb-like Yeh
and condemned the proceedings initiated by Sir John Bowring
in the most unsparing terms. It was said that the Government
had one rule for the weak and another for the strong, and that
the conduct of Sir John Bowring had been characterized by
overbearing insolence towards the Chinese Authorities. Lord
Palmerston warmly defended the action of Sir John but, as the
debate proceeded, it soon became evident that the question
involved was not merely the proposed appointment of a
Committee to investigate British relations with China, nor even
the recall of Sir John, but the fate of the Ministry. However,
when Mr. Cobden's vote of censure was carried in the Commons
by a majority of 16 votes, the Ministers, instead of resigning,
announced (March 5 , 1857 ) that, after passing certain urgent
measures, they would dissolve Parliament in order to appeal,
on the Chinese question, to the nation . They added that mean-
while the policy of the Government with regard to China would
continue to be what it always had been, viz. a policy for the
protection of British commercial interests, and that the question
of the continuance or recall of Sir John Bowring was one that
314 CHAPTER XVII.
had been and still was under the grave consideration of the
Cabinet. Without waiting for the result of the coming elections,
Lord Palmerston sent orders to Mauritius and Madras to mobilize
troops for service in China, and forthwith selected the Earl of
Elgin and Kinkardine to proceed by the mail of April 26 , 1857 ,
as special Plenipotentiary to China . A supplementary force of
troops, steam-vessels and gun-boats was immediately dispatched
from England. The Viceroy's placards and the poisoning of the
Hongkong community, which the Cantonese Mandarins had
considered a master stroke of their policy, exercised , at the
general elections, a considerable influence towards bringing
about the deliberate adoption by the nation of the warlike
policy of Lord Palmerston . He returned to power stronger
than ever. However, so far as Sir John Bowring was concerned ,
the debate in Parliament blasted in one fell swoop all his
ambitious hopes. Lord Clarendon indeed wrote to him sym-
pathetically, saying, I think that you have been most unjustly
treated and that in defiance of reason and common sense the
whole blame of events which could not have been foreseen and
which had got beyond your control was cast upon you .' But
there was no comfort to Sir John in such a private declaration
of his innocence, seeing that it was accompanied by the official
announcement that he had been superseded in his office as
H.M. Plenipotentiary in China. This measure virtually left him
but the Governorship of Hongkong. But what was that in
the eyes of the man who had been accustomed to say, ' I have
China, I have Siam, I have no time for Hongkong ' ? Moreover,
the loss of personal friends like Cobden and others, who could
not get over the fact that the late President of the Peace
Society had been the originator of the latest war, cut him to
the quick. Fame now seemed to him but a glorious bubble and
honour the darling of but one short day.
Owing to the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny (May, 1857 )
nearly a year passed by before the troops sent out to China
and opportunely diverted to India, were ready to recall the
Chinese Government to a sense of Treaty obligations. Meanwhile
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 315
Viceroy Yeh continued his irregular warfare. The S.S. Queen
suffered (February 23, 1857) the same fate as the Thistle and
her captain and European crew were assassinated . Incendiarism
flourished in a petty way in Hongkong, and Duddel!' s bakery,
inaccessible to poisoners, was fired (February 28, 1857 ) . Man-
darin proclamations once more (March, 1857) peremptorily
ordered all Chinese to leave Hongkong on pain of expatriation ,
but as yet with little result. A vast conspiracy was discovered
(April 15, 1857 ) to have been organized in Canton to make
war in Hongkong against British lives and property. Attacks
on British shipping and even on British gunboats were of
frequent occurrence until Commodores Elliot and Keppel (May
to June, 1857 ) , by a series of dashing exploits, drove Yeh's
war-junks out of the delta of the Canton River and, by a brilliant
action near Hyacinth Island, destroyed Yeh's naval headquarters "
in the Fatshan creek .
On 2nd July, 1857 , Lord Elgin arrived in Hongkong.
Reluctantly he condescended to receive an address from the
British community, but departed presently for Calcutta . He
left upon Sir John and the leading residents, whose suggestions
he treated in supine cavalier fashion, the impression that his
sympathies were rather with poor old Yeh than with his own
countrymen. He shewed plainly that he looked upon the Arrow
incident as a wretched blunder. Hongkong residents rejoiced
to learn that his instructions (of April 20 , 1857) included ,.
besides the demands for compensation, for a restoration of Treaty
rights and the establishment of a British Minister at Peking,
also permission to be secured for Chinese vessels to resort to
Hongkong from all parts of the Chinese Empire without
distinction.' But this hope, like every other local expectation
centering in Lord Elgin , was doomed to disappointment . Before
his departure he would not even listen to Sir John's urgent
advice that the reduction of Canton was a necessary preliminary
to an expedition to the Peiho. But when he returned from
Calcutta (September 20, 1857 ) , together with Major-General
C. van Straubenzee and his staff, he yielded the point as it
316 CHAPTER XVII.
was then too late in the year for operations in the North. A
further delay was necessary to await the arrival of the French
Plenipotentiary, Baron Gros, and his forces, as the French ,
under the pretext of having the murder of a missionary to avenge,
desired to co-operate in the humiliation of China. Meanwhile
the Canton River had been blockaded ( August 7 , 1857 ) by the
British fleet and a Chinese coolie-corps of 750 Hakkas had
been organized. When all was ready at last, fully a year had
passed by since the British retreat from Canton . At last the
formulated demands of the Allied Plenipotentiaries were forwarded
(December 12 , 1857 ) to Yeh. After ten days ' consideration,
Yeh calmly replied by a lengthy dispatch, full of what even
his friend Lord Elgin characterized as sheer twaddle. He
promised nothing but was willing to go on as of yore. An
ultimatum was now presented ( December 24, 1857 ) giving him
48 hours to yield or refuse the demands of the Allies . Meanwhile
5,000 English and 1,000 French troops moved into position
in front of Canton city without opposition . Yeh had notified
the people that, as the rebellious English had seduced the French
to join them in their mutinous proceedings, it was now necessary
to stop the trade altogether and utterly to annihilate the
barbarians . But this appeal to a people without popular leaders
was fruitless. Yeh replied to the ultimatum by a reiteration
of his trite arguments. So the bombardment of Canton, or
the ' Massacre of the Innocents ' as Lord Elgin termed it,
commenced (December 28 , 1857) . The fire was, as on former
occasions, exclusively directed against the (untenanted ) official
buildings and Tartar quarters and against the city wall and
forts. Lin's fort blew up by accident. Yeh quietly continued
ordering wholesale executions of Chinese rebels. Next day
(December 29 , 1857 ) Magazine Hill , which commands the whole
town, was captured and the city walls occupied without much
loss. Yeh remained obstinate. At last, after a strange pause
in the proceedings, detachments of British and French troops
entered the city simultaneously from different points (January
5 , 1858) and, after a few hours of unopposed search, Yeh as
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 317
well as the Civil Governor (Pih Kwei ) fell into the hands of
British marines, while the French captured the Tartar General.
The question now arose what to do with Canton city and its
captured officials. Lord Elgin reluctantly admitted that a
successful organisation of the government of Canton city was
impossible so long as Yeh was on the scene. So he sent him
to Hongkong en route for Calcutta where he died two years
later. Whilst Yeh was in Hongkong, Sir J. Bowring had at
last ( February 15, 1858) the long desired pleasure of an interview
with Yeh on board H.M.S. Inflexible, but Yeh would not enter
into any conversation and referred him to his interpreter
(Ch. Alabaster) . Meanwhile the government of Canton city had
been settled by the appointment (January 10, 1857 ) of a Mixed
Commission consisting of Consul Parkes, Colonel Holloway of
the Royal Marine Light Infantry, Captain Martineau des Chénez
of the French Navy and Governor Pih Kwei . This Commission ,
thanks to Sir 11. Parkes ' organizing genius, succeeded , with the
aid of a small force of Anglo - French police and by means of
re-instating all the executive and administrative officers under
Pih Kwei, in restoring forthwith public confidence and in
maintaining perfect order . These arrangements were made by
Lord Elgin, at the suggestion of Consul Parkes who was the
head and soul of the Commission, contrary to the advice of
Sir J. Bowring. The latter opposed such a mixed form of
government on the ground that a dual administration of this
sort, containing so many elements of discord, would fail to inspire
public confidence, produce mutual distrust and clashing of
authority, and give the Chinese in other provinces the idea that
the barbarians did not really conquer and govern Canton city.
Events disproved these vaticinations. For several years, the
most turbulent city of the Empire was successfully and peacefully
governed by the Allied Commissioners . Trade was immediately
resumed and the industries of Canton carried on as usual. The
village volunteers in the adjoining districts, with whom Pih
Kwei was secretly in league, were kept in check by occasional
military expeditions, organized at the suggestion of Consul Parkes
318 CHAPTER XVII.
and dispatched to Fatshan and Kongtsun ( January 18 , 1858 ) ,
to Fayen (February 8th) and far up the West River to a distance
of 200 miles (February 19th to March 3rd) . The government of
Canton city and these military expeditions into the interior
of Kwang-tung Province were indeed the only operations in
the whole Arrow War that made a good and lasting impression
upon the Chinese people. These measures shewed conclusively
the ease with which large masses of Chinese can be controlled
by a moderate but firm display of European power. They
demonstrated also the benefits that would accrue to the Chinese
as well as to foreign trade by a real opening up of South-China
to the civilizing influences of British power.
Lord Elgin, with his maudlin misconception of the true
character of the Manchu Government, proved a signal failure .
Like Sir H. Pottinger, he did well so long as warlike operations
proceeded, but the moment parleying commenced he allowed
himself to be duped. After sending the demands of the Allies
to Peking ( February 11 , 1858) and finding them to his surprise
treated with contempt, he took the Taku forts (May 20 , 1858 )
and occupied Tientsin with ease. But instead of pushing on to
Peking and dictating his terms there, he stopped at Tientsin and
negotiated a Treaty (June 26, 1858 ) void of any material
guarantees apart from money payments. Instead of retaining
at least possession of Tientsin until the ratification of this
compact, he retreated forthwith to Shanghai to settle commercial
regulations. Next he yielded the main point of his own Treaty
(permanent representation of Europe in Peking) and returned to
England (March, 1859 ) only to find, three months later, when
the Treaty ratifications came to be exchanged , that the wily
Chinese had fooled him. The success with which Yeh had for
years disregarded the Nanking Treaty in the South, naturally
encouraged the Mandarins in the North to signalize their
disregard of the Tientsin Treaty by their action at Taku (June
25 , 1859) which permanently injured British prestige in China.
In Hongkong the turmoil continued in one way or other
to the end of Sir J. Bowring's administration. On the day when
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 319
the bombardment of Canton commenced (December 28 , 1857),
there was among Europeans in Hongkong a serious apprehension
of an emeute which found expression in a startling Government
notification to the effect that in case of fire or serious dis-
turbance ' notice would be given by beat of drum and residents
would find 100 stand of arms ready for volunteers willing to
assist the police. Owing to the frequency of conflagrations,
ascribed to a gang of incendiaries headed by the famous pirate
chief Chu A-kwai , the Governor offered ( May 17 , 1858 ) rewards
of $500 for the arrest of the man and $ 100 for each of his
accomplices. This appeal to sordid cupidity in order to further
the ends of justice naturally appeared to the Chinese as ou a
par with Yeh's system of retaliating for the bombardment of
Canton by offers of head-money to private assassins and patriotic
incendiaries in Hongkong. That barbarous mode of warfare
against the Colony was steadily continued by the Mandarins of
the neighbouring districts who, in spite of the occupation
of Canton by the Allies and even after the conclusion of the
Tientsin Treaty, continued to worry Chinese residents of
Hongkong into hostile attitude against Europeans . In January,
1858, the Legislative Council had represented to Lord Elgin
the continued exactions practised by the Chinese Authorities at
Heungshan and especially at Casa Branca (near Macao) on the
Chinese in the employ of Europeans in Hongkong, but Lord
Elgin would not listen to the suggestion of the Council that a
forcible demonstration be made against those Anthorities . When
the Mandarins found how comparatively fruitless their pro-
clamations were, they moved the rural militia - associations to
compel all village elders to cut off the market supplies of the
Colony and to send word to their respective clansmen in
Hongkong to leave the Colony immediately on pain of their
relatives in the country being treated as rebels (including muti-
lation and forfeiture of property) . This popular measure had
its effect . Many Chinese in the Colony now resigned lucrative
employment for very fear. A sensible exodus of individuals of
all classes commenced and by the middle of July European
320 CHAPTER XVII.
residents began to feel themselves boycotted . A public meeting
was therefore held (July 29 , 1858 ) to discuss the extensive
departure of Chinese from the Colony and the stoppage of food
supplies. In accordance with the urgent resolutions unanimously
passed by this meeting, Sir John boldly departed from Lord
Elgin's line of policy and issued (July 31 , 1858) a proclamation
emphatically threatening the Heungshan and Sanon Districts
with the retributive vengeance of the British Government if
servants and food supplies were withheld any longer. Copies
of this proclamation were successfully delivered at Heungshan
by a party of British marines, but when H.M.S. Starling conveyed
copies of the same proclamation to Sanon, a boat's crew, while
under a flag of truce, were fired upon by the braves of Namtao .
Thereupon General C. van Straubenzee and the Commodore
(Hon. Keith Stewart ) proceeded to Sanon with a small military
and naval force and took the walled town of Namtao by assault ,
with the loss of two officers and three men . This measure had
its effect in an immediate restoration of the market supplies of
the Colony and an altere l attitude of the Mandarius.
In addition to all the excitement which the Arrow War
and its by-play of poisoning, incendiarism and boycotting
involved , the public life of Hongkong was, throughout this
administration, convulsed by an internal chronic warfare the
acerbities of which beggared all description . It is not the duty
of the historian to drag before the public eye the private failings
of individuals nor is it proposed here to enter upon all the details
of the mutual criminations and recriminations in which the
public men of the Colony and the local newspapers indulged
during this liveliest period in the history of Hongkong. But as
the eruptions of volcanoes reveal to us the secrets of the interior
of the earth, so these periodical explosions of feeling in the
Colony give us an insight into the inner workings of local
public life. It is necessary therefore to characterize, and trace
the real cause of, these dissensions which disturbed the public
peace, the more so as these matters became subjects of debate
in Parliament to the great injury of the reputation of Hongkong.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 321
When Sir John arrived in the Colony (April, 1854) , the
public mind had for some years been, and still was, in a state of
tolerable tranquillity, and peace reigned within the Civil Service.
The only disturbing element was a local newspaper, the Friend
of China, edited by a discharged Civil Servant, who generally
criticized the Government and most public officers with some
animus and repeatedly insinuated that the Lieutenant-Governor
(whilst Chief Magistrate) had been in collusion with his com-
prador's squeezing propensities. The fact that the Lieutenant-
Governor allowed five years to pass before he stopped these
unfounded calumnies by the appeal to the Court which, as soon
as made, consigned that editor to the ignominious silence of the
gao! (September 21 , 1859 ) , encouraged in the Colony a vicious.
taste for journalistic personalities. The more wicked a paper
was, the greater now became its popularity. Soon another local
editor (Daily Press) who, in certain business transactions in
connection with emigration , had been crossed by the Registrar
General, outstripped in scurrility his colleague of the Friend of
China, and commenced to insinuate that the Registrar General
was the tool of unscrupulous Chinese compradors and in league
with pirates . The Registrar General sent in his resignation
(June 11 , 1855) but the Government, as well as the Naval
Authorities, having perfect confidence in him, he was later on
(December 6, 1856 ) induced to resume his office.
The next source of trouble was the system of Petty Sessions
devised by Sir G. Bonham and continued by Sir J. Bowring
who appointed (October 4 , 1855) 13 non-official Justices of the
Peace (subsequently increased to 15 ) to assist the stipendiary
Magistrates. The non-official Justices, however, did not attend
the Sessions unless they were specially sent for and the Chief
Magistrate, as a rule, sent for them only when he had a difficulty
with the Executive. In spring 1856, the Governor several
times took occasion to remonstrate with the Chief Magistrate
(T. W. Davies) regarding his interpretation of the new Building
Ordinance (No. 8 of 1856 ) in cases of encroachments on Crown
land. The Magistrate, disregarding the minutes of the Executive
21
322 CHAPTER XVII.
Council on the subject of that Ordinance, twice (May 23rd and
June 3rd) sent for non-official Justices to assist him in cases
in which the Crown was prosecutor, and these Justices,
representing the interest of house owners, emphatically concurred
in his interpretation of the Building Ordinance. Thereupon
the Governor addressed (August 19 , 1856 ) a severe remonstrance
to the Justices of the Peace, blaming all for habitual neglect
of their duties in not giving regular attendance at the Petty
Sessions (at which half of them had never attended at all) and
censuring four Justices with having (May 23rd) concurred in
a decision by which the obvious intent of the law was abrogated,
and with having (June 3rd) supported the Magistrate in his
determination not to give effect to the law. An angry
correspondence ensued, in the course of which the Justices,
alleging that they had attended in Court whenever they were
requested to do so, claimed the right to frame their decisions
according to their own convictions and characterized the
Governor's action as an attempt to intimidate the stipendiary
6
Magistrate. The question at issue, ' they wrote, is in effect
this, whether the law is to be administered according to the
judgment of the Magistrates who are sworn to dispense it
according to the best of their knowledge and ability, subject
to correction by appeal to the Supreme Court, or according to
the dictation of the Governor and Executive Council.' The
dispute culminated in a passionate public meeting ( October
16 , 1856) . This meeting complained of the retrospective
character of the new Building Ordinance ( 8 of 1856 ) and the
insufficiency of the Surveyor General's staff, of the right given
to the Crown to recover costs at common law (Ordinance 14
of 1856) , of the exclusion of the public from the meetings of
Legislative Council and of the absence of a Municipal Council.
In his reply the Governor clearly had the best of the argument
but promised a reconstruction of the Legislative Council. He
added, however, that this reconstruction would not be based on
a representative principle, to which the circumstances of
Hongkong are, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 323
and of a majority of the members of the Executive Council,
far from adapted.'
But now a more potent element of discord appeared on the
scene in the person of a testy Attorney General who for some
reason or other had been sent out, fresh from the House of
Commons where he had represented the electors of Youghal
(1847 to 1856 ) . While considering it his mission in life to
set things right in Hongkong, he seemed to combine. with
thorough uprightness of character, a lamentable want of self-
restraint . He was hardly a month in the Colony before he
quarrelled with both Magistrates, and scenes of mutual re-
crimination were enacted in the Supreme Court (June, 1856 ) .
This was followed, two months later, by an action for defamation
brought by the junior Magistrate against the Attorney General.
With the exception of an allegation of defalcations in the Colonial
Treasury, which had been placed (in 1854) in charge of its
chief clerk ( R. Rienacker) and necessitated the appointment
(June 13, 1851 ) of a Commission of Inquiry, there was
brief lull in this internal turmoil, while the public mind was
occupied with , and wrought up to great nervous tension by,
the Arrow War and its local consequences . In spring 1858,
however, the shattered nerves of the community were thrilled
anew with a series of Civil Service disputes. The editor of
the Daily Press, having gone so far as to accuse the Governor
of corruptly favouring the firm of Jardine, Matheson & Co. in the
matter of public contracts, was promptly brought to book and
sent to gaol for six months (April 19 , 1858 ) . About the same
time the Acting Colonial Secretary who, being a barrister, had
taken over the office on condition of his being allowed private
practice, was charged by the Attorney General with collusion with
the new opium farmer (an ex-teacher of St. Paul's College ) from
whom he had accepted a retainer. A Commission ( H. T. Davies
and J. Dent) inquired into the charge (April, 1858) but, though
some slight blame was laid on the Acting Colonial Secretary,
his honesty and honour were held unimpeached. Next the
Attorney General resigned the Commission of the Peace unless
324 CHAPTER XVII.
the Registrar General were excluded from it (May 14 , 1858 ) .
The Governor at once asked the Justices to nominate a Committee
of Inquiry. The Justices declined to do so but, when the
Committee appointed by the Governor (Ch. St. G. Cleverly.
H. T. Davies, G. Lyall, A. Fletcher, John Scarth ) advised the
retention of the Registrar General in office (July 17 , 1858 ) ,
four of the Justices (J. D. Gibb, P. Campbell, J. Rickett ,
J. Dent) published their dissent from the verdict of the Com-
mittee. Now in the course of this inquiry side-issues had
meanwhile been raised which carried the conflict still further.
The Attorney General not only impeached the Acting Colonial
Secretary's integrity by insinuating that he had burned the
account books of a convicted pirate (Machow Wong) to screen
himself and the Registrar General against a charge of com-
plicity with pirates, but the Attorney General also publicly
divulged an unfavourable opinion, as to the character of the
Acting Colonial Secretary, which the Governor had expressed in
confidential consultation with the Attorney General . Naturally,
the Governor now suspended the Attorney General , and referred
the case to the Home Government . Although the Secretary of
State, in reply, expressed himself satisfied with the conduct of
the Acting Colonial Secretary, the latter voluntarily resigned
his office (August 28 , 1858 ) . However, when he commenced
an action for libel ( with reference to the burning of the
books of Machow Wong) against the editor of the Friend of
China, the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty and the
Court awarded costs against the Government (November, 1858 ) .
The conduct of the Governor who, to avoid a subpoena
served on him in this case, had hurriedly departed for Manila
(November 29, 1858 ) being too ill to attend, provoked much
criticism at the time. But unfortunately matters did not
stop here. Elated by this measure of success, the editor of
the Friend of China, and the suspended Attorney General,
commenced an agitation in England which only served to
bring upon the Colony greater odium and the contempt of
the nation.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 325
In January, 1859, a public meeting held at Newcastle-on-
Tyne, in the belief that the books of Machow Wong had been
burned to screen a public officer from conviction of complicity
with pirates, petitioned Parliament to direct such an inquiry as
would vindicate the honour of the British Crown and do justice .
This example was followed by meetings held at Tynemouth,
Macclesfield and Birmingham, and at some other towns public
meetings were convened for the same purpose. On March 3rd,
1859 , Earl Grey brought the Newcastle petition before the House
of Lords, while Sir E. Bulwer- Lytton dealt with the matter
before the Commons. The latter stated , that the documents
in the case had been referred to a legal and dispassionate adviser
of the Crown ; that he discovered in them hatred, malice and
uncharitableness in every possible variety and aspect ; that the
documents might consequently be considered a description of
official life in Hongkong ; that the mode in which the Attorney
General had originated and conducted the inquiry, and the breach
of official confidence which occurred in the course of the trial,
had led the Governor to suspend him ; that, after a dispassionate
-consideration of the papers, he could come to no other conclusion
than that the Governor's decision ought to be confirmed ; that
it was, however, his intention , as soon as possible, to direct a
most careful examination into the whole of the facts. Of course
the public press treated the whole case in a variety of ways, but
the verdict of public opinion in England was, no doubt, that to
which the Times gave utterance ( March 15 , 1859 ) in a scathing
article of which the following is a brief digest .
6
Hongkong is always connected with some fatal pestilence,
some doubtful war, or some discreditable internal squabble, so
much so that, in popular language, the name of this noisy,
bustling, quarrelsome, discontented little Island may not inaptly
be used as a euphemous synonym for a place not mentionable to
ears polite. Every official's hand is there against his neighbour.
The Governor has run away to seek health or quiet elsewhere.
The Lieutenant- Governor has been accused of having allowed
his servant to squeeze. The newspaper proprietors were, of late,
326 CHAPTER XVII.
all more or less in prison or going to prison or coming out of
prison, on prosecutions by some one or more of the incriminated
and incriminating officials. The heads of the mercantile houses.
hold themselves quite aloof from local disputes and conduct
themselves in a highly dignified manner, which is one of the
chief causes of the evil. But a section of the community deal
in private slander which the newspapers retail in public abuse.
The Hongkong press, which every one is using, prompting,
disavowing and prosecuting the less we say of it the better.
A dictator is needed, a sensible man, a man of tact and firmness .
We cannot be always investigating a storm in a teapot where
each individual tea-leaf has its dignity and its grievance.'
Black as the case thus put before the home country was,
it did not cover the whole extent of Hongkong's internal war-
fare . The dissensions which, as above recounted, disgraced the
public life of the Colony, invaded also the Legislative Council.
In the first instance the Members of Council, both unofficial
and official, frequently overstepped during this period the limit
of their proper functions, occupying themselves with matters
having no concern with legislation, and really trenching on
the powers of the Executive. Next, the official Members,
and notably the Attorney General and the Chief Magistrate,
claimed an extraordinary measure of independence. On more
than one occasion , and without any previous communication
to the Governor or Colonial Secretary, these officials censured
the Executive in strong terms. The Attorney General, with
whose advent the character of the Legislative Council under-
went a marked change, often repudiated the authority of
the superior Law Officers of the Crown when their opinions,
formally conveyed to the local Government, differed from his.
With equal nonchalance he declared that he took his seat in
Council as an independent legislator, not as a servant of the
Crown, and that he was there, if he thought fit, to criticize
and oppose the views of the Executive. Naturally the unofficial
Members felt under these circumstances justified in claiming
equal liberties.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 327
When Sir J. Bowring became Governor, the Legislative
Council was presided over by the Lieutenant-Governor and
consisted of 6 Members of whom 2 were non-officials. In 1855
Sir John submitted to the Secretary of State ( Mr. Labouchere) a
proposal to enlarge the basis of the Council by introducing 4
additional official and 3 non-official Members, giving a total
of 13 Members exclusive of the Governor. Mr. Labouchere
disapproved of so great an enlargement but sanctioned a
moderate addition . This was given effect to by the introduction
of the Colonial Treasurer, the Chief Magistrate and one non-
official Member, the relative proportions being thus preserved
and the Legislative Council then consisted of 6 officers of the
Government and 3 members of the community. Sir John
however added (in 1857 ) the Surveyor General and in November.
1858 , probably with a view to secure the passing of the Praya
Ordinance, he further introduced the Auditor General, so that
there were 8 official to 3 non -official Members . Against this
measure the unofficial Members at the bottom of the table,'
as Sir John humorously styled them, put in a formal protest
(November 20, 1858 ) and suggested that the nomination of
the Auditor General should remain in abeyance until the original
number of 6 officials be returned to by the occurrence of
vacancies or that the original proposition of Sir J. Bowring as
to the number of non-official Members should also be carried
out. A memorial impeaching the Governor was talked of, just
before he left for Manila, but after further consideration the
idea was abandoned . From after the close of the session of
1857 the proceedings of the Council were regularly published
and from March 25th, 1858, the Governor allowed the public
to be present at the debates.
The principal bone of contention between the Governor
and his Legislative Council was the construction of a Praya
or sea-wall which was to extend along the whole front of the
town from Navy Bay to Causeway Bay and to be named Bowring
Praya. The Council heartily approved of the completion
(October 1 , 1855 ) of the new Government House (at a total
328 CHAPTER XVII.
cost of £ 15,318 spread over many years), the erection of a
number of water tanks (1855) and the completion (in 1857)
of two Police Stations (Central and Westpoint Stations) and
four new Markets. But the projected Praya and particularly
its proposed name aroused determined opposition . Sir John's
scheme had the support of an official Commission appointed
by him to weigh all the objections which could be urged against
it, and he assiduously hoarded the surplus funds of several years
to provide the means for carrying out his pet scheme . The
scheme was published (November 10, 1855 ) with the announce-
ment that the Governor had power to enforce it under the
alternative, offered to unwilling lot-holders, of resumption
according to terms of lease. Most of the Chinese lot-holders
appeared to be willing to come to terms with the Government,
but a public meeting of European owners passed (December
5, 1855 ) resolutions to the effect that the Governor's plan was
defective and inadequate as a public measure, onerous upon
individuals and infringing on the rights of holders of marine-lots.
The opposition view thus formulated was ably maintained and
put before the Colonial Office by the Hon . J. Dent with the
support of the other unofficial Members of Council . The
Governor's contention was that many marine- lot holders had,
for years past, recovered from the sea and appropriated to their
own use, against the rights of the Crown, land measuring
298,685 square feet which had been arbitrarily superadded to
the respective leases granting in the aggregate other 260,326
square feet. The owners of marine-lots, having thus doubled
their respective properties, were naturally opposed to a scheme
intended to re-establish the rights of the Crown. However,
the Secretary of State ( Mr. Labouchere), after considering the
objections raised by Mr. Dent, decided against the marine-lot
holders and instructed the Governor to proceed with the
reclamation work as soon as the needful funds were available.
The Chinese owners of marine-lots consented (in 1857 ) to
reclaim , under Government supervision , and to pay rent for
a large portion of the Praya in front of their holdings. As
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 329
their work proceeded , the Governor succeeded in making amicable
arrangements also with most of the European holders of marine-
lots in front of the city, and that part of the Praya the frontage
of which properly belonged to the Government was forthwith
taken in hand. But two British firms (Dent and Lindsay) ,
holding the small portion of land situated between the parade-
ground and Pedder's wharf, obstinately resisted , though the
estimates for the sea-wall and piers for this section amounted
to less than £ 14,000 . Finding, in 1858, that a sum of £20,000
of hoarded surplus funds was available for public works , the
Governor, who had been advised by the Acting Attorney General
(J. Day succeeded by F. W. Green) to proceed by Ordinance ,
had a draft Bill prepared by a Committee consisting of the
Acting Attorney General, the Colonial Treasurer ( F. Forth) and
the Surveyor General (Ch. St. G. Cleverly) . These officers
assured the Governor that they were satisfied with the Bill which
they prepared and which was published in the Gazette (October
23, 1858). The first reading of the Bill was opposed by
Mr. Dent, voting alone. Owing to the Governor's absence on
a trip to the Philippine Islands, the second reading of the Bill
was delayed until 4th February, 1859. On that day the
Governor was confident of success . The Acting Attorney General
had assured him that the Bill would pass and would even have
the support of one of the unofficial Members. But when the
Council met, to consider this Bill on which the leading merchants
were at issue with the Governor, the Chief Justice and the
Lieutenant-Governor were absent, and Mr. Dent's motion that
the Praya question be adjourned sine die was, to the intense
surprise of the Governor, carried by six votes against three.
The effect on the audience was startling. There was a tragico-
-comical tableau, which a local artist forthwith perpetuated by
some woodcuts published in the Daily Press. It appeared
that none voted in favour of the Bill except the Acting Attorney
General, the Colonial Treasurer and the Auditor General . The
Colonial Secretary (W. T. Mercer) had quite lately returned
from furlough and thought the Bill might be considered later
330 CHAPTER XVII.
on ; the Chief Magistrate (H. T. Davies) had not been consulted'
and thought water-works more urgent ; the Surveyor General
(Ch. St. G. Cleverly) said he had changed his mind ; and all
of them claimed the right of voting against the Government.
It must be said to the credit of Sir John that he did not
dispute the right of the official Members of Council to vote·
according to their conscientious convictions. But he had not
expected them to vote against his darling scheme without giving
him previous notice . Sir John, however, drew one important
lesson from this painful fiasco of his Praya Bill, viz. that the
leading firms can defeat a Governor and that the public service
must suffer if functionaries and especially the higher ones
(Attorney General and Surveyor General) are allowed to accept
6
private practice. The enormous power and influence of the
great commercial houses in China, when associated directly or
indirectly with personal pecuniary advantages which they are able-
to confer on public officers, who are permitted to be employed
and engaged by them, cannot but create a conflict between duties
not always compatible... One of the peculiar difficulties against
which this Government has to struggle is the enormous influence-
wielded by the great and opulent commercial Houses against
whose power and in opposition to whose personal views it is
hard to contend .' These words of Sir John, as well as the whole
story of this first Praya Bill, indicate a recognition of the fact
that the commercial aristocracy created by his predecessor had
by this time commenced to exercise a political influence liable
to be inspired, occasionally, by the interests of individual firms
rather than by unselfish consideration of the public good .
The legislative activity of the Council was, particularly
after the arrival (in spring 1856 ) of the Hon . Chisholm Austey.
the Attorney General, somewhat excessive. He had a passion
for reform and set to work, revising local procedure in civil and
criminal cases (Ordinance 5 of 1856 ) and in Chancery (Ordinance
7 of 1856 ) , limiting the admission of candidates to the rolls
of practitioners in the Supreme Court (Ordinance 13 of
1856) , regulating the summary jurisdiction of the Police Court
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 331
and appeals to the Supreme Court (Ordinance 4 of 1858 ) and
declaring sundry Acts of Parliament to be in force in the Colony
(Ordinances 3 of 1856 and 3 and 4 of 1857 ) . As many as 15-
Ordinances were passed by the Council in the year 1856 aud
12 Ordinances in 1857. Mr. Anstey received, however, small
thanks for his zeal. Shortly after his departure a Colonial Office
dispatch was read in Council (January 20, 1859 ) stating that
the legal advisers of the Crown had severely commented on the
careless manner in which British Acts of Parliament had been .
adopted in Hongkong. A lamentable state of affairs was revealed
when Mr. Anstey's successor, in admitting the justice of the
censure, stated that his own tenure of the office was too uncertain
to admit of his commencing any new system of legislation or
correcting mistakes for which he was not responsible.
Among the Ordinances of the year 1857 there is one (No.
12 of 1857 ) which requires special mention as it constitutes
the first attempt made by a British legislature to grapple with
and control the evils arising from prostitution, by the introduction
in Hongkong of the system of registration , compulsory medical
examination and the establishment of a Lock Hospital . This
Ordinance was the work of Dr. W. T. Bridges, the Acting
Colonial Secretary, who was an enthusiastic believer in the
philanthropic virtues of Contagious Diseases Acts. Sir J.
Bowring, with some diffidence, permitted the Ordinance to pass ,
stating that he reserved his opinion as to its value ; but, when
the Chinese community made an energetic stand against the
application of the measure to the inmates of houses visited by
Chinese, Sir John yielded and thereby deprived the scheme of
a fair trial in Hongkong. The problem involved in such a
C. D. Ordinance requires, for a just and charitable solution.
that unbiassed mind which but few possess . Let it be granted
that, in the rural surroundings of the domestic and social life
of Christian England, where every form of moral and religious
influence is at full play, regulations of the nature of the C. D..
Acts would fall under the condemnation of morality and religion
as being not only not required but distinct reminders and
332 CHAPTER XVII
encouragements of immorality. But it must then also be granted,
from the same Christian point of view, that the practice of
taking young men away from those moral and religious influences
of their rural homes and transplanting them, in the interest
of the nation, in an enervating climate, in the midst of all
the demoralising surroundings of sensuous native communities,
is a proceeding equally to be condemned on the score of both
morality and religion . The correct thing would therefore be,
to abolish our army, our navy, and our Colonial commerce.
This application of the Christian ideal is practically impossible.
If, then, we cannot nationally realise the higher ideal of the
Christian life and must perforce provide for war and commerce
abroad, it is neither a consistent nor a moral or charitable
proceeding to apply that impracticable ideal by withdrawing
from the men thus placed, in the interest of the nation , in
unnatural positions, the small measure of medical safeguards
which C. D. Ordinances provide.
The legislative work of Sir J. Bowring's administration
is further distinguished by the great attention paid to the
interests of the Chinese residents . In March, 1855 , Sir John
ordered an investigation to be instituted concerning the extensive
gambling system which had been in vogue among the Chinese
employees of the Government. Strict regulations were made to
prevent a recurrence of the evil. The right which Sir J. Bowring
gave to Chinese lessees of Crown -lands, to become owners of
British ships and to use the British flag in Colonially registered
vessels (Ordinances 4 of 1855 and 9 of 1856) , has already
been mentioned in connection with the Arrow War . As the
laws in force in the Colony appeared to tend to the avoidance
of all wills male in the Chinese manner, Sir John authorized
(Ordinance 4 of 1856) the recognition in local Courts of Chinese
wills when made according to Chinese laws and usages. Chinese
burials which hitherto studded the hill sides in all sorts of places
with graves, were regulated by the establishment of special
Chinese cemeteries (Ordinance 12 of 1856 ) . Chinese domiciled
in the Colony (and other alien residents) were granted (by
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 333
Ordinance 13 of 1856) the privilege of seeking qualification
as legal practitioners. The government of the Chinese people
by means of officially recognized and salaried head-men (Tipos )
under the supervision of the Registrar General was organized
(by Ordinance 8 of 1858) and a Census Office established..
As to the latter, Sir John all along recognized the practical
impossibility of individual Chinese registration, but insisted upon
a registration of houses. He revised also the night pass
regulations extending the time, when Chinese had to keep indoor,
from 8 to 9 P.M. The markets of the Colony having hitherto
been worked under a system of monopoly, which augmented
the price of food stuffs in the Colony, Sir John introduced an
Ordinance ( 9 of 1858 ) which to some extent diminished the
evils of monopoly and transferred to the Government, in the
shape of augmented rental, a portion at least of the profit
which was before in the hands of two or three compradors
supposed to enjoy special official patronage.
But the most effective and beneficial legislative act of this
period , and one for which Sir J. Bowring deserves much credit,
was the so-called Amalgamation Ordinance (No. 12 of 1858 ) .
This Ordinance empowered barristers to act as their own
attorneys and thus gave the public the choice of engaging an
attorney and barrister in the persons of two or of one member
of the legal profession. The evil which it was intended to
counteract by this measure consisted in the excessive amount
of pettifogging, needless litigation and worthless conveyancing
that prevailed in the Colony for many years previous. This
evil was supported by adventurers, the riff-raff of Australian
attorneys, who had infested the local Courts. Indeed the legal
profession of this period was in even greater need of reform than
the Civil Service. The Courts were in a continual ferment
and the lower one of the two branches of the legal profession was
a by-word. Evidence was produced before the Council, shewing
not only that the public was systematically fleeced by exorbitant
attorneys' bills for worthless work, but that attorneys kept
Chinese runners whose duty was to hunt up and to stir up
334 CHAPTER XVII.
litigation cases, and that the percentage payable to these men was
sometimes as much as two hundred dollars a month. There
was among the leading merchants as well as among the principal
barristers (Dr. Bridges, J. Day, H. Kingsmill ) a strong and
unanimous feeling in favour of an amalgamation of the two
legal professions as a permanent remedy of the existing state of
things. This proposal of an amalgamation was further supported
by a letter addressed by 50 local firms to the Attorney General,
and even the the leading attorneys (Cooper- Turner, Hazeland,
Woods) were either in favour of amalgamation or remained
neutral . But the other attorneys raised a powerful opposition .
The question was under the consideration of Sir J. Bowring for
six months and he gave both sides full and patient hearing.
When the Amalgamation Bill was considered by the Legislative
Council (June 24, 1858 ) , Mr. Parsons was heard and examined
on behalf of the attorneys but, when he claimed to represent also
the local Law Society, it was proved that he had received no
authority from that body. After the most painstaking inquiry,
the Bill was passed by seven votes against two and exercised
thereafter a beneficial influence as long as it remained in
force.
The cause celebre (apart from the actions for libel above
referred to ) of this period was a dispute raised by General
J. Keenan who , since July 11 , 1853, officiated in Hongkong as
U.S. Consul. After some animated correspondence with the
Colonial Secretary (in October, 1855) , concerning his views
as to Consular rights and jurisdiction over American subjects
on board American ships in harbour, the gallant General forcibly
took the law into his own hands. In result, he had to answer
(November 13, 1855 ) a charge of rescuing a prisoner (American)
from the Civil Authorities charged with assault and battery. The
cise was, however, amicably arranged and General Keenan became
a very popular man in the Colony.
The finances of the Colony gave Sir J. Bowring much
anxiety. Finance was supposed to be one of his strong points.
But he was hampered in every way and could not achieve much.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR J. BOWRING. 335
He succeeded, indeed, in increasing the revenue by the sale of
Crown-land, principally marine lots. He was aided in this
respect by the surrender ( in 1854) of the ground at Westpoint
previously occupied by the Navy Department for stores which
were removed to Praya East. Sir John succeeded in doubling
the revenue within the five years of his administration and the
last year of it, when compared with the revenue of the last year
of his predecessor, presented an increase of £37,776 . But he
could not keep the expenditure within the limits of the revenue,
although he restrained public works as much as possible . Con-
sequently he had to fall back once more upon Parliamentary
grants, obtaining £ 10,000 per annum for the years 1857 and
1858. These grants were made for hospital and gaol buildings.
But by an advantageous exchange with the Rhenish and Berlin
Missions he obtained a new hospital at little cost, and by reducing
the proposed limits of gaol extension he made some further
savings, so that the greater part of the Parliamentary grants,
laid out at interest, could be left to accumulate for the purposes
of his great Praya scheme, which however broke down at the
last moment. After raising the police rate to 10 per cent ., Sir
John reduced it again (in 1857 ) to 8 per cent., only to find
that it after all proved insufficient to pay the cost of the police
and gaol departments owing to the extra expenses caused by the
disturbances consequent upon the Arrow War. In spring 1858 ,
Sir John stated that he had intended to claim from the Chinese
Government compensation for the increased expenditure caused
by the disturbed state of the neighbouring Districts, but that
the appointment of Lord Elgin had taken the power out of his
hands. As a matter of fact, the Colony never received any
compensation when the accounts between England and China
were settled at Canton, at Nanking or Tientsin. The Imperial
Exchequer appropriated in each case the whole amount of war
compensation paid by China. Sir John deserves credit for
having initiated the practice of depositing the surplus funds of
the Government in local chartered Banks, paying interest, instead
of leaving large sums of money lying idle in the vaults of the
336 CHAPTER XVII.
Treasury. The opium monopoly was re-instated by Sir John
(April 1 , 1858 ) to swell the revenue, but failed to fetch its true
price, being let at $33,000 a year. Sir John removed one impost ,
the productiveness of which, he said, was small whilst its.
annoyances and inconveniences were great, viz. that upon salt.
Sir John claimed credit for having wholly freed salt from