over the depositions with a view to discover if there were any
extenuating circumstances in the case, but could find none, and
after a short and emphatic address sentenced the prisoner to death.
The execution took place on Wednesday, the 3rd February, at
noon. It may be mentioned in reference to this prisoner that he
had to be carried in and out of the Court, in consequence of a fall
sustained by him while leaping from a house in Macao at the
time of his arrest, and from the effects of which he was still
suffering. When arrested, there were found in prisoner's box
sixty watches, a considerable quantity of jewellery, nineteen
pawn - tickets referring to clothes, ear and finger rings and other
articles the proceeds of the robbery and which he had pawned,
besides two knives covered with blood .
Case of Teep
On Thursday, the 28th January, a Sheriff's Court was held to
Ching Leu r.
Lum Ah assess damages in a case of false imprisonment, Teep Ching Leu
Kun, r. Lum Ah Kun, -wherein judgment had been allowed to go
damages
for false by default . The case arose out of a charge of theft brought by
imprison- the defendant and under which the plaintiff was apprehended
ment.
by the Police, and held to bail, himself and two others in $ 50
each. The charge, if well founded , was not proved , and the case
was dismissed by the Chief Magistrate, hence the action for
damages set down with costs at $2,000 . Mr. Anstey appeared
as counsel for plaintiff, with Mr. G. Cooper Turner as his attor
ney. Mr. Day was counsel for defendant, Mr. Parsons being
his attorney. The jury returned a verdict against the defen-
dant for forty shillings costs of writs of inquiry, $ 100 for law-
Extraor yers ' fees, and $ 10 to account of some other special charge, but
dinary in reality no damages to the plaintiff personally. So much for
conduct of the merits of the case, but there was one circumstance con-
Mr. Anstey,
counsel for nected with it which was well worthy of notice. No sooner
plaintiff, in
his private had the jury by their verdict recorded their disbelief of the
capacity. plaintiff's statements and those of his witnesses, than Mr. Ans-
Mr. Anstey tey in his private capacity, as the plaintiff's counsel , had the
causes the
defendant defendant taken into custody on a charge of perjury ! The jury
to be happening to hear of the man's apprehension unanimously
taken into
custody for signed a protest against such an unjust and high- handed pro-
perjury. ceeding, stating their disbelief that the apparent discrepancies
The jurors were entirely attributable to misinterpretation . At all events
protest and
allude there is little doubt that the defendant would actually have
RESULT OF DEFECTIVE INTERPRETATION IN THE COURTS . 463
been put upon his trial for an offence of which, in the belief of Ch. XX § II.
the six jurymen who decided the case, he was not guilty. The 1858.
following was the letter they addressed to Mr. Anstey upon the to defective
interpreta-
subject :- tion .
Hongkong, 1st February , 1858.
To the Honourable THOMAS CHISHOLM ANSTEY, Esq.,
Attorney- General.
Sir, -We learn with surprise and regret that you have caused the defen-
dant in the case Teep Ching Leu and Lum Ah Kun to be arrested for giving
contradictory evidence before the Sheriff, on the writ of inquiry to assess
damages.
The evidence on both sides was certainly far from satisfactory, but it
struck us that a large amount of blame was to be attached to the very de-
fective interpretation. Whether the interpretation of the evidence in the
Police Court to which reference was so often made was better or worse, it is
not in our power to say but from everything we can learn, that however
defective the interpretation may be, in the Supreme Court, it is much more
so in the Chief Magistrate's Court. You, Sir, will also remember that you
had very serious fault to find with the interpreter, for mistaking or mistrans-
lating your questions, not only on the cross, but on the direct, examination.
Taking all this into conside ation, we trust you will not object to withdraw
the prosecution against the defendant Lum Ah Kun.
If the Jury did not think that their functions as jurors had ceased , they
would have thought it their duty earnestly to request you to draw the attention
of the proper authorities to the very defective state of the interpretation in
the Colony .
It was the intention of one of the Jurors to have proposed the matter to
the other Gentlemen of the Jury, but as he supposed that it would be a
breach of decorum to address you as Attorney-General while you were mere-
ly acting as counsel in a private case, he postponed doing so.
Trusting that you will accede to our request, - We have the honour to be,
Sir, your most obedient servants ,
R. B. SHERRARD ,
D. LAPRAIK,
P. RYRIE,
H. F. EDWARDS,
CHAS. JAMESON,
W. F. BEVAN,
Jurors in the Case.
In the meantime Mr. Anstey had left for Canton on a visit, Mr. Anstey
and where by the way, being without a pass, he was arrested by leaves
Canton.for
the Provost Marshal and otherwise submitted to considerable Mr. Anstey's
inconvenience. On his return to Hongkong he placed himself arrest.
in communication with the military authorities relative to his
arrest, but with no satisfactory results to himself. *
On the 5th February Mr. Anstey despatched the following letter His reply
to the jurors in reply to their protest mentioned above, showing to the of
protest
that he had thought better of the matter :- the jurors.
Attorney-General's Office,
5th February, 1858.
Gentlemen,-On my return from Canton, I find your letter dated 1st
* See Parliamentary Papers on Hongkong (31st March, 1860) p. 236 .
464 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Ch. XX § II. instant.
1858. It is no discourtesy towards you to state, that I have no doubt of the guilt
of the man [ Lum Ah Kun] whom I caused on Saturday last to be committed
for perjury.
But as your unanimous opinion to the contrary is at least equivalent to a
verdict of acquittal by a jury of strangers to the case, I, of course, consent
to withdraw the prosecution .
In all that you say on the subject of the deficiency of proper interpreters
I quite concur, and I accede to your wish that I should represent it to Gov-
ernment.
Your letter will accordingly be forwarded to the proper quarter.-- I have
the honour to be, Gentlemen , your obedient servant,
T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY,
Attorney- General.
R. B. SHERRARD, Esq., Foreman,
D. LAPRAIK, etc., etc., Jurors.
The man was discharged the following day. If Mr. Anstey
-not in his character as a professional man conducting the
case on behalf of his client, the plaintiff, but officially -felt
assured that the defendant had really perjured himself, he had no
right whatever to discharge him upon the protest of any man or
body of men, but was bound as Attorney- General to press the
charge ; if, on the contrary, he had the slightest doubt
the subject, he might well have hesitated before taking such a
decisive step, and thereby subjecting himself to a charge of what
The question was construed as excessive zeal in the discharge of his duty. In
of interpreta-
tion treated. no instance was the insufficiency or inefficiency of the staff of
Discharge interpreters more clearly exemplified, * for not only was the cause
of the of justice jeopardized , but a poor unfortunate man might have
defendant.
been sentenced to a long imprisonment, through the blundering
Criticisms.
of a man acknowledged by himself to be incompetent for the
discharge of his office.
Complaints Complaints had arisen against the fee paid for marriage in
against the
fee paid for Hongkong to the Chaplain and Clerk. It now appeared that
marriage
to the the payment of fees was quite optional, the following letter
Chaplain. from the Attorney-General to the Colonial Secretary, expressing
Mr. Anstey's the grounds of his opinion with brevity and clearness :--
opinion.
Attorney-General's Office,
February 17 , 1858 .
Sir, I have the honour to return Bishop Smith's letter of the 15th instant,
(forwarded under cover of yours of yesterday, No. 94).
My opinion upon the question now presented by the Bishop to His Ex-
cellency, was certified to the Governor under date the 29th December, 1857 ;
and it cannot be affected by any documentary evidence short of a Parliamen-
tary or Colonial enactment.
Ecclesiastical fees are levied in England , either by statute or by custom.
Statutes in such cases have no extra-territorial vigour, but are strictly cou-
fined to the realm to which they relate. Custom in Hongkong can have no
existence, for the occupation is one of the most recent facts in history, and
the custom could not have preceded that.
* For previous references as to interpretation, see antè p. 454, and also Chap. XVI.
II. p. 381, note.
HEAVY SENTENCE AGAINST A PAWNBROKER. 465
I am therefore clearly of opinion, that the receipt of any fees on marriages Ch. XX § II.
by the officiating minister, is a matter unauthorized by law ; that the law
1858.
does not forbid his receiving them by way of free gift ; but that he ought not
to solicit them, nor can he enforce their payment in invitos. - I have, etc. ,
etc.,
T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY,
The Honourable Attorney- General.
The Acting Colonial Secretary.
On the 16th February Mr. Hazeland , the solicitor, arrived in Admission
of Mr.
the Colony, by the Wild Flower which had left London on the 20th Hazeland ,
September, 1857. He was admitted an attorney of the Court the as an
attorney
next day, and on the 15th March following he joined Mr. G. of the
Cooper Turner, the Crown Solicitor, who was a relation of his , Court.
He joins
as partner . Mr. Cooper
Turner,
The first occasion upon which the name of a Chinaman ap- the crown
peared on the jury list was in that prepared by the Registrar for Solicitor.
the present year and wherein figured the name ofWong A Shing, Wong
Shing, A
a well-known and respected Chinaman . At a meeting of the the first
Legislative Council on the 24th February , a discussion followed , Chinese
juryman in
ending in the name being retained and the list adopted . Mr. Hongkong.
Wong A Shing was therefore the first Chinaman to whom the
privilege of serving as a juryman was extended. * He is , it
may be mentioned , still alive , and was for a time on the roll of
interpreters of the Supreme Court, and in 1884 became a mem-
ber of the Legislative Council.†
In consequence of an application from Mr. Anstey, on the Mr. Anstey
26th February, for Police protection , induced by his fear asks for
Police
that the position he held as Crown Prosecutor may have en- protection.
gendered the spirit of revenge amongst some of the worse classes
of the inhabitants, he was informed by the Governor on the
2nd March that, if public convenience admitted of it, a police-
man would be granted for the protection of his neighbourhood.
As will be seen hereafter, consequent upon the refusal of the
Governor to comply with his request, Mr. Anstey addressed
the Secretary of State. ‡
The Criminal Sessions for March opened on the first of that of Conviction
two
month. Tong A Sin and Chun A Cheong were charged with lar- Chinese,
ceny of a watch. The second prisoner was a pawnbroker. The one a pawn-
broker, for
jury found the first prisoner guilty of stealing the watch and larceny and
the second of receiving it, well knowing it to have been stolen . stolen
receiving
The Court, addressing the prisoners, said this was a case which property.
it was called upon to visit with the utmost severity, especially
as against the receiver, remarking, as had done Mr. Anstey,
Heavy of
that were there fewer receivers , there would be fewer thieves, sentence
and sentenced the first prisoner to fifteen , and the second , the transporta-
See also Chap. XXVI., infrà.
† See Vol. II., Chap. LXXVI.
See Chap. XXII., infrà.
466 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Cha. XX § 1. pawnbroker, to fourteen years' transportation . The latter, on
1858. hearing the sentence, asked that he should be executed instead,
tion against
the pa and it was only by the united exertions of half-a -dozen police-
wn-
broker, men that he was removed from the dock. Through some outside
the receiver. influence, believed to be the recommendation of Mr. Caldwell,
The pawn-
broker's the sentence against the pawnbroker was afterwards reduced to
sentence is two years' imprisonment. Mr. Anstey was not consulted in
commuted
without the the matter, and the Chief Justice, though the petition had been
Attorney- referred to him , had reason to be dissatisfied afterwards with
General
being this interference with his sentence by the Executive .
consulted.
The Chief This case may have had the effect of hurrying on the Ordi-
Justice
and the nance No. 11 of 1858 , dated the 6th July, which relates to the
Executive. trade of a pawnbroker .
Ordinance
No. 11 of
1858. On the 3rd March three convicts escaped from Gaol . One
Escape of of them was acting as servant to the turnkey, and through him
convicts the others got access to the tower where the turnkey lived , and
from Gaol.
from thence made their escape. Mr. Inglis, the Governor of
A turnkey
the worse the Gaol, was away on duty at the time and on his return
for liquor. found the turnkey the worse for liquor !
The validity
The following was a despatch from the Foreign Office , re-
of marriages
in China. garding the validity of marriages of British subjects at Chinese
Despatch ports , and the doubtful question as to the legality of the cere-
from the
Foreign mony celebrated in Macao, which, as may be seen, was still
Office. doubted as being a Portuguese possession : * -
Foreign Office, March 9, 1858.
Sir, I have had under my consideration , and have referred to the proper
law advisers of the Crown, your despatches Nos . 452 and 7 of the 26th Dec-
ember and 9th January last, on the subject of the doubts which had arisen
as to the validity of the marriages of British subjects at Chinese ports ; and
have to acquaint you, in reply, that the Statute 12 and 13 Victoria, Cap. 68,
empowering a consul to solemnize marriages, does not affect the validity of,
or in any way interfere with, any marriages which would have been valid
independently of that Statute, in which category are marriages celebrated in
China by ministers of the Church of England, according to the forms of that
Church,
With regard to the case (specially referred to) and to the validity of mar-
riages celebrated by a clergyman of the Church of England, and not under
the Act 12 and 13 Victoria, Cap. 68, at Macao : if Macao is Chinese terri-
tory, and not a Portuguese possession, such marriages will be valid as being
celebrated in China, a pagan country. If, however, Macao is a possession
of Portugal, then it has a Christian law of marriage as its " lex loci," and
marriages of British subjects must, in order to be valid, be solemnized there
either in accordance with such " lex loci," or with the provisions of the Act
above mentioned . -I am, etc.,
MALMESBURY.
Sir JOHN Bowring,
etc., etc., etc.
* On this subject, see antè Chap. XI ., p. 246, and reference there given.
MR . MURROW PROSECUTED FOR LIBELLING SIR JOHN BOWRING . 467
Mr. G. S. Morrison , Secretary to the Superintendency of Ch. XX § II.
Trade, proceeded to England on leave of absence on the 16th 1858.
March, his place being taken by Mr. George Whittingham Mr. G. W.
Caine,
Caine, now First Assistant at the Amoy Consulate alluded to Colonel
in this work in November 1854 ,* and who had but recently Caine's son ,
appointed
returned from leave in England . Mr. Caine was the eldest son Secretary to
of Lieutenant- Colonel Caine, the Lieutenant- Governor. the Superin-
tendency of
At a meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 17th Trade,
Morrisorice
n,
March, it was ordered that Ordinance No. 2 of 1858 , passed on on leave."
that day and entitled " An Ordinance for licensing and regu- Ordinan
lating the sale of prepared opium, " be published in English and 1858.
Chinese in the next Government Gazette, for general information , First
Ordinance
which was accordingly done. This was the first instance on published in
Chinese.
record where a local law was ever published in Chinese.
At a subsequent meeting of the Council held on the 22nd Motion
of the
of the same month, it was determined , on the motion of the Chief Justice
Chief Justice, that the votes and proceedings of the Council that procecd-
ings of
should henceforward be published in the shape as recorded in Council be
the Journal kept by the Clerk of Councils, but the Governor recorded as
published
reserved to himself the power of withholding from such pub- in the
lication any matters to which it might appear to him unad- journal of
the Clerk of
visable to give publicity. Councils.
Ordinance No. 3 of 1858 was passed on the 22nd March, No. Ordinance
3 of
1858. It was an Ordinance for regulating proceedings in the 1858.
Supreme Court, and was much more favourable to the lawyers
than the one previously in force. The principal point of inter-
est seemed to be the increase of the jury from six to seven .
One excellent provision of the new Ordinance was , that four
clear days ' notice from the service of the plaint must be given
in summary jurisdiction cases before the hearing ; and that no
postponement would be allowed without twenty- four hours '
notice having been given to the Registrar, the latter improve-
ment upon the old state of affairs being no doubt in consequence
of the complaints before referred to.f
On Monday, the 19th April, the long pending case of the The Crown
against Mr.
Crown against Mr. Yorick Jones Murrow, the editor of The J. Murrow
Daily Press, whose name has already appeared in this work, for Gover
the libelling
nor,
for libelling Sir John Bowring, the Governor, came off for trial Sir John
before the Criminal Sessions. It had been postponed from the Bowring.
last Sessions owing to the alleged illness of the defendant . The
Attorney- General, with Mr. Cooper Turner, the Crown Solicitor ,
represented the Crown , while the defendant was represented The interests
by Mr. Day as counsel , and Mr. E. K. Stace as solicitor. The of the firm of
Jardine,
* See antè Chap. xv., p. 353 , and reference there given.
† Antè pp. 454, 455.
‡ Antè Chap. XIX., p . 447, and reference there given.
468 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Ch. XX § II. libel charged was against Sir John Bowring's public and private
1858. character. It charged him in effect with lending his powers as
Matheson, a Governor to advance the interests of a local firm- that of
& Co., in
which the Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, & Co. , in which he had a son as
Governor
had a son a a partner.
partner. The Attorney- General stated the case to the jury, and said the
defendant was charged with publishing a malicious libel, reflec-
The facts.
ting on the character of His Excellency Sir John Bowring, in
his capacity of Governor of Hongkong. The libel itself consisted
in an article which appeared in The Daily Press. Mr. Anstey
here read the paragraph which was as follows :-
" It is well known that our Governor has a near relative in one of our
eminent houses. The Phæbe Dunbar, a ship consigued to that house, was
chartered by Government without any tender having been advertized, at an
unheard -of rate. The same thing occurred in the case of the Lancashire
Witch, also consigned to the same eminent firm. The steamer Ava was de-
tained (at least it was so alleged on the authority of General Ashburnham)
in order to enable a steamer belonging to the same firm to reach Calcutta
first with important advices upon the opium market. The same influential
establishment has enjoyed the exclusive privilege of having a special agent
at Canton during the late occurrences, where 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 on one occasion sup-
pressed until after the departure of the mail, and another 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 wanted
to interpose a salutary check on practices usually considered mercenary and
disreputable."
Mr. Anstey then called the printer of the paper who proved
the authorship of the defendant, and Mr. Joseph Jardine† who
stated that the article was a tissue of falsehood from beginning to
end. This was all the evidence adduced , and after the libellous
The defence. article was put in and read, Mr. Day addressed the jury for the
defendant, and in a very ingenious speech expatiated, it is said ,
largely on the liberty of the press, and the rights of our fore-
fathers , and earnestly begged the jury not to forgo their rights,
by their verdict. Continuing, Mr. Day said that it was impos-
sible to bring the Government of this Colony into contempt, as
the indictment alleged ; everybody knew it was contemptible
enough, without the aid of the defendant. It was notorious that
similar articles had appeared in all the local journals, but Gov-
ernment had not dared to indict them, but had pounced upon
his client. He was sure the jury would establish their privileges
by acquitting the defendant.
The Chief Chief Justice Hulme addressing the jury said, first, that they
Justice's
summing up. must consider if the article was libellous, and was calculated to
bring Sir John Bowring's conduct into contempt, and reflected on
* See this son mentioned , antè Chap. XIII. § 1., p. 322.
Sce antè Chap. XVIII., p. 427.
MR. MURROW CONVICTED OF LIBELLING SIR JOHN BOWRING . 469
his private as well as his public character ; and secondly, if the cb. XX
-- § II .
defendant was the author. If they were satisfied of this , they 1858.
would find the defendant guilty ; if, on the other hand, they
believed the publication of the article not calculated to injure
Sir John Bowring's character, or bring him into disrepute, they
would return a verdict of not guilty.
The jury then retired , and returned in fifteen minutes with a The verdict.
verdict of Guilty, unanimously. The defendant was then called
up for judgment.
The ChiefJustice, in a feeling address , said he feared the defen-
dant's pen had been emboldened by the reluctance ofthe Govern-
ment to prosecute such scurrilous and defamatory articles as
sometimes emanated from the press in the Colony, and further,
that defendant's pen had been emboldened by the very lenient
sentence passed in a recent case before the Court -a simple fine,
which was raised by subscription , thus setting the law at
defiance. * He had a painful duty to perform, but he should not
shrink from it ; he was determined to vindicate the law, and put
a stop to the unmeasured abuse of public individuals . He there- The defen
fore felt compelled to sentence the defendant to imprisonment dant
for the period of six calendar months, and further that he do sentenced to
imprison-
pay a fine of one hundred pounds to the Queen, and be further ment
fine. and
imprisoned till such fine be paid .
The law having now vindicated Sir John Bowring's character, Mr. Murrow
it was felt he would not insist on the sentence passed upon the in the
debtors'
defendant being fully carried out. Mr. Murrow was accordingly prison.
placed in the debtors ' side of the prison and allowed every com-
fort. Sir John Bowring had therefore shown that he bore no
unworthy animus against a person who deserved and had no
right to expect mercy at his hands, although Mr. Murrow, it Afflicted
with
Bow Bowring-
was known, was afflicted with what was called locally " Bow-
ring-phobia ". " We hate Sir John Bowring," as he had said in phobia.'
a late article, had ever been the burden of his song, but on the
other hand it must be admitted that Sir John Bowring's admi- Sir John
Bowring's
nistration of the affairs of the Colony had been a shame, if not shameful
administra-
a disgrace, to the British name. His ignorance of ruling, as tion.
events recorded herein so far and that as regards the adminis-
tration of justice alone, had made his government one tissue of
folly from beginning to end, which must have made him by this
time the laughing- stock of all.
After his incarceration Mr. Murrow continued to conduct his conducts Mr. Murrow
paper, writing his editorial effusions within the prison walls , hispriso paper
in n.
and needless to say that his scurrilousness and attacks against His attacks
Sir John Bowring continued unabated. A perusal of the local against
Sir John
* Sce the case against Mr. Tarrant for libelling Dr. Bridges, antè Chap. XIX. , p . 144.
470 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC., OF HONGKONG.
Ch. XX § II. papers on the subject of these attacks affords at this date con-
1858. siderable amusement .
Bowring
continue The Illustrated London News of the 3rd July, 1858 , in its
unabated. leading article, contained some pertinent remarks relative to
The Illus- Mr. Murrow's case and the weakness shown by Sir John Bow-
trated
London ring and his immediate advisers in dealing with the prisoner , as
News follows :
upon the
case and the " From China we have nothing of interest, except that a Mr. Murrow, of
weakness of Hongkong, has ' got ' six months' imprisonment for libelling Sir John Bowring.
Sir John
Bowring. The Judge referred to the fact that in a recent case in which a fine had been
inflicted it had been paid by public subscription, " and expressed his determi-
nation to vindicate the law. Without reference to this particular case, there
is much sense in this mode of treatment. There is, though it falls rather
hard occasionally, and in this instance the offender had to suffer both for his
own sins and for those of others. We expressed a hope that Sir John Bow-
ring would remit the sentence of imprisonment, instead of which he appears
to have fallen into the error of attempting to treat Mr. Murrow like a child,
by keeping him shut up in a closet but allowing him his playthings . Natu-
rally enough the soul of Murrow revolts at this treatment. Had he been
imprisoned among the convicts he might have enjoyed the profitable society
of Eli Boggst and Ma Chow Wong, ‡ considered himself a martyr to the cause
of free discussion, but free confinement in a debtor's jail could hardly be
borne, even though (as he himself assured the public ) he was deeply sympa-
thized with in his sufferings by all his lady friends. The mistake fallen into
by His Excellency is made apparent by some recent events, of which the
strictly correct account is as follows, and has been gathered from a variety
of sources : Sir John Bowring instructed the Governor of the Gaol to treat
Mr. Murrow with every indulgence, and to give him every facility for carry-
ing on his paper. Owing to certain libels which appeared in that paper,
General Straubenzee demanded the suppression of it ; and instead of acceding
to this, Sir John directed Mr. Inglis to bring the matter before Mr. Murrow,
and to enforce the ordinary Gaol rules in regard to written documents . Wheu
doing so Mr. Inglis reminded his prisoner that it was extremely difficult to
enforce the Gaol rules as to written documents on persons confined in the
Debtors' Prison, and that, unless he behaved more discreetly, it might be
found necessary to remove him to a neighbouring building. On this natural
and humane remark, Mr. Murrow has raised up his cock and bull story of
His Excellency having ordered him to be imprisoned among the convicts,
and of Mr. Inglis having interfered and become responsible censor ; and,
what is especially worthy of notice, whenever he was left bound only by a
promise to the late (sic) acting Colonial Secretary, he came out with this
story, in order ( for we can see no other reason) to annoy the two men who
have been most considerate towards him .
As to the course pursued by His Excellency, we have no further good
word to say. He virtually made himself responsible for Mr. Murrow's
paper keeping within the bounds of moderation, and he has failed so to keep
it ; he has excited no gratitude in Mr. Murrow, and has got no satisfaction
out of him. Such are the results of pursuing a middle course : crush a snake
or leave it alone."
On his
release And that is exactly what took place. Mr. Murrow's treat-
Mr. Murrow ment in Gaol excited no gratitude at his hands , and after
claims $5,000serving his time, ' on his release from confinement he in-
damages
* The Crown against Tarrant, antè Chap. XIX., p . 444,
Antè Chap. XVIII., p. 436.
Antè Chap. XIX., p. 444.
DEATH OF LADY BOWRING. 471
stituted an action for assault and false imprisonment against Ch . XX § II.
Sir John Bowring, claiming $ 5,000 damages, which came on for 1858.
hearing on the 30th December this year, as hereinafter referred against
Sir John
to. *
Bowring.
Attempts at incendiarism had become frequent recently, Frequent
and undoubtedly they were to be traced to outside influence. attempts at
incendia-
The authorities , baffled in their endeavours to arrest the cul- rism.
prits, notified on the 17th May that " a reward of $ 100 would
be given to any person causing the apprehension and convic- Chu Aqui, a
notorious
tion of an incendiary, and as it had also come to the knowledge pirate, at the
of His Excellency that the notorious pirate Chu Aqui was at head of
incendiaries.
the head of these incendiaries, a reward of $ 500 would be
given for his apprehension."
At a meeting of the Executive Council held on the 19th Mr. King-
May, Mr. Kingsmill was sworn in as a Justice of the Peace smill, J.P. ,
and Assistant
and as Assistant Police Magistrate during the temporary ab- Magistrate,
vice Mr.
sence on sick leave of Mr. W. H. Mitchell . Mitchell on
leave.
Lady Bowring, who had never fully recovered from the Departure
effects of the poisoning, by the Esing ' bakery in January last of Lady
Bowring.
year, and whose case at the time was considered one of the Her death.
worst, left for England on the 23rd May, and died on the 27th
September at Taunton , Somersetshire, at the age of sixty -four.Divorce
and Matri-
monial
The sections of the Act of Parliament 20 and 21 Vict. c . 85, Causes
relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, extended to the Act, 20 and
21 Vict.
Colony by Ordinance No. 5 of 1858, were published in the c. 85.
Gazette on the 26th May. Ordinance
No. 5 of
1858.
* Chap. xxv., infrà.
† See antè Chap. XVII. § II., pp. 415, 423, 424.
472
CHAPTER XXI .
1858 .
Suspicious conduct of Dr. Bridges in relation to the opium monopolist. -Dr. Bridges
compelled to ask for an inquiry. - Disclosures made in the Police Court.- Dr. Bridges in
the Legislative Council. -A Committee appointed . - Dr. Bridges' attack upon Mr. Anstey.
Accuses him of being the real accuser.-The report of the Committee.-Discredit to the
Government of the Colony. - Mischief attributable to incongruous position of acting Colo-
nial Secretary, with private practice as a barrister.-Astonishment at Dr. Bridges not resign-
ing.- Sir John Bowring attempts to clear Dr. Bridges of all imputations of mala fides.--
Mr. Anstey as an alleged instigator of the charges . --Sir John Bowring on private practice.—
His despatch to the Secretary of State. — Sir John Bowring forwards evidence taken at the
opium inquiry.--Attacks Mr. Anstey. -Daring robbery with violence upon Messrs. Haze-
land and Stace.- The ruffians never brought to justice.--Paper by Mr. Anstey on slavery
and the Dred Scott decision . -Ordinance No, 10 of 1858.
Chap. XXI.
Suspicious SERIOUS Complaints began to be ventilated at this period in
conduct regard to the conduct of Dr. Bridges, in connexion with the
Dr. Bridgof
es
in relation to opium monopolist. His double position of acting Colonial Secre-
the opium tary and standing counsel to the monopolist gave rise to grave
monopolist.
suspicions as to the means by which the tenders for the opium
farm had been accepted and dealt with. In consequence of the
Dr. Bridges strong remarks as to the dual position held by him, and the
compelled comments passed by the local press upon the subject , Dr. Bridges,
to ask for
an inquiry. to clear his character, found himself compelled to call for an
inquiry into the whole matter of the monopoly, but not until
Disclosures certain disclosures had been made in a case heard in the Police
made
Policein the Court on the 15th April , 1858 , wherein Chun Tai Kwong, the
Court.
monopolist, had prosecuted a Mr. Hoey for boiling, etc. , opium
without a licence.
Dr. Bridges At a meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 7th May,
in the
Legislative Dr. Bridges, with the Governor's permission , called the atten-
Council. tion of the Council to certain statements in regard to the disclo-
sures mentioned above which had appeared in The Hongkong
Register of Tuesday, the 4th May, which he said affected his
character as an officer of the Government. He expressed his
wish that the Council should , in some manner, afford him an
opportunity of proving " the utter groundlessness of the insinua-
tions contained in the above newspaper."
A Committee Accordingly a Committee consisting of Colonel Caine, the
appointed.
Lieutenant-Governor ; Mr. Davies, the Chief Magistrate ; and
*
Mr. Dent, was appointed to inquire into the statements . Subse-
quently, at a meeting on the 10th May, upon Colonel Caine
* Antè Chap. XIX. , p. 449 ,
THE COMMITTEE ON DR . BRIDGES AND THE OPIUM MONOPOLY. 473
stating his unwillingness to form part of the Committee, it was Chap. XXI.
moved bythe Attorney - General, seconded by Colonel Caine, that 1858.
such Committee consist of the Chief Magistrate and Mr. Dent only,
and agreed to, and also that the inquiry be held with open doors.
The Committee, after holding several meetings, closed its sit-
tings on Friday, the 28th May, at noon, the last witness
examined being Dr. Bridges himself. Mr. Anstey's concluding
evidence at the previous sitting was given in reply to a question
on the subject of Dr. Bridges ' infringement of professional
etiquette. The reply set forth at length the Attorney- General's
opinion of Dr. Bridges ' conduct in the affair, and the opinion he
expressed was very much adverse to the acting Colonial Secre-
tary. Dr. Bridges stated that from the course which the inves- Dr. Bridges'
attack upon
tigation had taken " there was no doubt left in his mind that Mr. Anstey.
the Attorney- General was his real accuser in the matter, using Accuses
him of being
the columns of The Hongkong Register as the means of his anony- the real
mous attacks." It is hardly necessary to say that this was accuser.
stoutly denied by the paper in question .
The following was the report of the Committee dated the 31st The report
of the
May, 1858- Committee.
Your Committee, considering that the words of the order of reference should
be taken in their widest sense, and that the integrity of the acting Colonial
Secretary implies not merely ordinary honesty, but the wholeness and
singleness of his character as Colonial Secretary, have inquired into his entire
conduct in reference to all matters connected with the grant of the opium
monopoly. Your Committee have also allowed themselves as wide a range
as possible in their method of inquiry. They advertized in the local papers.
the publicity of their proceedings, and invited and made use of suggestions
from all sources as to the witnesses to be examined and the questions to be
put to them . They permitted themselves great latitude in the kind of evidence
which they admitted , and only struck out as inadmissible one question and its
answer, and part of the answer to another question . They omitted to call
only one witness suggested to them, as his evidence would not have referred
to the matter under inquiry ; and every person invited to give their information
did so, with the exception of Mr. Hoey. His evidence would have been
important, but he refused to attend, whence they conclude that he dared not
deny before them having made these defamatory statements (though he has
elsewhere denied having made them) which gave rise to the present inquiry.
Your Committee have now to report, as the result of their proceedings ,
as follows :-
1st . It appears that the tender of the present monopolist (Chun Tai Kwong) ,
and those of two other persons, were not received by the acting Colonial
Secretary until the 14th March, the day after the last day for tendering ;
that Chun Tai Kwong's tender was the highest, and the reason given for the
lateness of his tender being satisfactory to His Excellency, that it was ac-
cepted by him, with a full knowledge of the facts, on the 15th March ; that
two days after this, on the 17th March, the Opium Monopoly Ordinance
passed the Legislative Council, on which day various changes highly favour-
able to the monopolist, and suggested by him or his partners to the acting
474 HISTORY OF THE LAWS, ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XXI. Colonial Secretary, were introduced into the Ordinance on the acting
--
Colonial Secretary's motion, but that this was done with the most perfect
1858.
openness, the Members of the Legislative Council being fully informed by
Dr. Bridges of his reasons for proposing the alterations. It does not appear
that any undue influence was used in obtaining the grant for the present
monopolist ; or that any corrupt motive existed for making these changes in
the Ordinance ; and there is not the slightest ground for believing that any-
thing in the nature of a douceur was offered to, demanded by, or accepted by,
Dr. Bridges.
2d. The above matters being the only ones connected with the grant of
the opium monopoly, in which it has been suggested that the honesty or
honour of the acting Colonial Secretary could be involved , your Committee
are clearly of opinion that the honesty and honour of Dr. Bridges, in refer-
ence to all proceedings connected with the grant of the opium monopoly,
remain wholly unimpeached .
3d. It further appears that, early on the morning of the 17th March—
the day when the Ordinance passed, and when the alterations referred to
were made in it -or of some subsequent day, the monopolist retained Dr.
Bridges as his counsel ; that on the 25th March, immediately after the
monopolist had executed a bond to Government connected with the mono-
poly at the Government Offices, Dr. Bridges called the Clerk of the Councils
into the Colonial Secretary's room, that he might hear Dr. Bridges tell the
monopolist that, though he was his counsel, he could not act for him against
the Government ; that the fee on the retainer was paid in the evening of
the same day to Dr. Bridges at his house, and that the monopolist had
ascertained some days previously from Dr. Bridges's comprador what the
amount of the fee should be, but without the knowledge or sanction of Dr.
Bridges ; that when Dr. Bridges accepted the office of acting Colonial
Secretary in February, 1857 , it was on an express understanding with the
Governor that he should be allowed to practise as a barrister, and that his
time should be his own ; * and that it did not occur to Dr. Bridges at the time
he accepted the retainer from the monopolist, that there might on future
and various occasions be questions connected with the opium monopoly, in
which his duty to the Government as a Member of the Executive Council
would seriously clash with his duty as counsel to the monopolist. It further
appeared to your Committee- though the monopolist now denies it, and the
evidence is conflicting- that the monopolist did say to Mr. Hoey, " Dr.
Bridges is a very clever man ; he can do what he likes with the Governor,
and can make a law and tear it to pieces again the next day.” †
4th. These proceedings in the opinion of your Committee show the want
of a due appreciation by Dr. Bridges of the demands of his high and important
offices as Acting Colonial Secretary, Member of the Legislative Council, and
Member of the Executive Council ; and denote an absence of that proper
sensitiveness which should have made him, above all other persons, foresee
and avoid all positions of possible conflict between his public and private
duties, which, in the case of the opium monopoly, were sufficiently obvions.
That Dr. Bridges should hold the offices mentioned , and at the same time
retain the privilege of practising as a barrister, however undesirable a state
of things, is one for which he cannot be blamed ; but the limits within which
he would avail himself of this privilege were under his own control. He
fixed the limit that he would not act against the Government, and the place
in which he informed his client of this fact was most unhappily chosen.
Further, he should have seen that any one, more particularly a Chinaman,
must think that he would greatly gain by employing as his counsel a high
* See antè Chap. XVIII. , p. 426.
It may here be mentioned that the monopolist Chun Tai Kwong was an English
scholar, and at one time was on the Roll of Interpreters of the Supreme Court. See
further reference to him, p. 477, ubi suprà.
DR. BRIDGES' CONDUCT AS TO OPIUM GRANT BLAMEABLE. 475
officer of Government, through whose means changes so beneficial to himself Chap. XXI.
had been made at the last moment in a public Ordinance, and that the mono-
1858.
polist and the Chinese community generally would conclude, however erro-
neously, that the official so retained, and the Government of which he was
a Member, were open to private influence. That such must be the effect of
Dr. Bridges's conduct on the minds of the Chinese, there cannot be any
doubt. Viewed in this light therefore, your Committee regret to say that
they consider Dr. Bridges's conduct in reference to the opium grant blame-
able, though, as they have before stated, they consider his honesty and
honour quite unimpeached .
H. TUDOR DAVIES , Chairman.
JOHN DENT.
Council Chamber, 31st May, 1858 .
This report could not be taken in any other light than that to the .
Discredit
of a severe and pointed rebuke. At all events it disclosed a Government
state of affairs reflecting discredit on the Government of the ofthe
Colony.
Colony, and the mischief was to be attributed to the Governmen t Mischief
alone for allowing Dr. Bridges to take the office of acting Colo- attributable
to incon
nial Secretary and holding it in conjunction with the incon- gruous
gruous office of a private practising barrister. position of
acting
Colonial
Astonishment was expressed at Dr. Bridges not resigning his Secretary,
appointment at once, though he endeavoured to do so in July with private
following, ostensibly because Mr. Mercer had obtained an exten- barrister.
sion of three months' leave, and also because he was anxious "to Astonish
resume the exercise of his profession," * but in reality because he ment at Dr.
was aware of the turn that affairs had taken in connexion with Bridges not
resigning.
Mr. Anstey's charges against Mr. Caldwell and which would
have enabled him, as he himself admitted in Council on the 7th
August, to again hold the office of Attorney-General if offered
to him. * He had asked for the Committee and the Committee
had not quite cleared him of the charges.
Naturally, having appointed Dr. Bridges to the office of Colo- Sir John
Bowring
nial Secretary with private practice, Sir John Bowring had to attempts
clear him of all imputations of mala fides, and this he did, as to clear Dr.
Bridges
the following despatch to the Secretary of State shows, in a very of all
mild manner . Mr. Anstey, of course, comes in as an instigator imputations
of mala fides.
of the charges laid at Dr. Bridges' door and for a share of the Mr. Anstey
blame imputed to the latter. What Sir John Bowring said as to alleged as an
private practice in Hongkong in those days is, in a community instigator
such as Hongkong, (as is, moreover, pointed out by the Com- of the
charges.
mittee in the foregoing report in reference to the Chinaman ) as Sir John
applicable to-day, as when Sir John Bowring wrote : — Bowring on
Government Office , Victoria, private
practice.
Hongkong, 4th June, 1858.
My Lord , His despatch
to the
I am sorry to be compelled to trouble Your Lordship on a subject which Secretary of
has caused much discussion and no small amount of scandal in this Colony. State.
* See Chap. XXIII., ubi suprà.
476 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXI. An article appeared in one of the local newspapers, which I herewith
enclose, containing imputations on the acting Colonial Secretary, felt by him
1858.
to be so injurious to his reputation that he brought the subject before the
Legislative Council, who appointed a Committee to inquire and report. Their
report, with the accompanying evidence, I have the honour to enclose.
Whoever was the author or the adviser of the article complained of, there
can be no doubt that the Attorney-General, Mr. Chisholm Anstey , has been
most actively engaged in the present attempt to discredit and condemn Dr.
Bridges.
It would be impertinent for me to anticipate Your Lordship's judgment in
a matter so especially referred to the Supreme Authority. Great inconvenience
would have resulted to the public interests had Dr. Bridges thrown up his
office ; and I am glad he has reconsidered his intention, especially as the
leave of absence granted to Mr. Mercer, the Colonial Secretary, is near its
expiration, and he may be expected here in the course of the coming month.
I venture, however, to make a few observations on the general subject.
I have long come to the conclusion that the permission, in a Colony like
this, granted to any public functionary to be engaged in, and to derive peeu-
niary benefit from, private professional practice, is necessarily compromising
and disparaging to himself, and injurious to Her Majesty's service.
The Attorney-General, the Surveyor-General, and the Colonial Surgeon
have been allowed this privilege ( though in the case of the two last-named
functionaries the privilege has been lately withdrawn), and in the embarras-
sing position in which I was placed by Mr. Mercer's departure, I had to con-
sider whether the fact of Dr. Bridges being a practising barrister (in some
respects an advantage to the Governor) was sufficient to counterbalance his
many claims to my confidence ; these claims earnestly advocated by Mr.
Mercer, who was on terms of great intimacy with Dr. Bridges,† and who
thought it most advisable that Dr. Bridges' services should be secured to the
Colony, with which he had been long officially connected, and of whose affairs
he had intimate knowledge and considerable experience. I concluded that, on
the whole, Dr. Bridges was the best appointment I could make, and the
appointment was confirmed by Mr. Secretary Labouchere.
In reviewing Dr. Bridges' career as acting Colonial Secretary, I am not
unaware of his defects, attributable, no doubt, to his inexperience of his novel
position. He has not always consulted the Governor in cases where official
authority has been exercised . It is difficult sometimes to draw the line
between those details where the action of the Colonial Secretary is becoming,
and those graver matters which should be referred to his chief. But looking
at Dr. Bridges' connexion with the Colonial Secretary's Department, he has
on the whole, in my judgment, rendered active and valuable services, espe-
cially in the improvement of our finances, and the reform of our Police, and
the general good government of the Colony. And I am compelled to add,
that far from having received appropriate and friendly aid from the Attorney-
General, whether from professional rivalry, or from an uncontrollable, restless,
and turbulent temper, or from both united, Mr. Anstey has greatly augmented
the difficulties of Dr. Bridges' position , whether by publicly depreciating his
* In a later despatch to Sir Edward Lytton, dated the 16th October, Sir John Bow-
ring again alluded to the inadvisability of allowing private practice to the Attorney-
General as follows : " All these discussions will. I hope, prove to Her Majesty's Government
the desirableness of disallowing private professional practice to the Attorney-General ...
the jealousies and bickerings created by the existing state of things are prejudicial to the
Queen's service, and I fear are an inevitable consequence of the clashings of public
interests and private emoluments." See Chap. XXIV., infrà, and on the subject of private
practice, see also Vol. II., Chap. LXXXIII ,
See antè Chap. XVIII ., p. 425.
SIR JOHN BOWRING'S ATTACK ON MR. ANSTEY. 477
merits as a lawyer, or by failing in that decorous bearing towards one holding Chap. XXI.
--
a superior rank, which is essential to the preservation of order and harmony. 1858.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) JOHN BOWRING.
P.S. — The evidence not having yet been received from the printer will be
sent with the next despatches and the duplicate of the present .
(Signed ) J. B.
7th June.
By the mail of the 21st June, the Governor forwarded to Sir John
Bowring
Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State, the evidence taken at the forwards
inquiry connected with the grant of the opium monopoly, and taken
evidence
at
with it a report which, while saying but little or nothing in the opium
favour of Dr. Bridges was nothing but an attack upon Mr. inquiry.
Attacks
Anstey. The following was the report in question : — Mr. Anstey.
Government Office, Victoria,
Hongkong, 21st June, 1858.
My Lord,
I now send to Your Lordship the evidence which had not been returned
from the printer when I forwarded despatch No. 73 of the 4th instant, on the
subject of Dr. Bridges' connexion with the grant of the opium monopoly. I
find it is stated in this evidence that the opium monopolist is in great favour
with " his patron ," the Governor, who often received him on deputations ;
and the personal influence of the said monopolist with the Governor is repre-
sented to have kept one of the witnesses in dread.
Though the Attorney-General avoids making himself responsible for these
inventions (for such they are), he gives them as far as he can the sanction
and support of his authority.
I beg to assure Your Lordship that, at the time of granting the monopoly, I
did not recollect ever having heard the monopolist's name (Chun Tai Kwong) ;
that his person is even now unknown to me ; that I have no remembrance of
ever being in his presence until one day going into the Colonial Secretary's
Office, Dr. Bridges, pointing out a group of Chinamen, said, " These are the
Chinamen who have had the opium grant." I did not remain in the room a
minute. Long after the monopoly was granted, I was informed that Chun was
a Christian Protestant convert (whose wife was living at St. Paul's College) ,
of whom I had heard from the Bishop and others, but his identity with the
opium monopolist was to me, a discovery. *
I can scarcely pass over in absolute silence the liberties taken by the
Attorney-General with the character and the conduct of the Governor and
the Government, which would indeed deserve little credit if either Governor
or Government were blown about by the shifting though boisterous gusts of
Mr. Austey's violence. Though Dr. Bridges is, by the report of the Com-
mittee, perfectly cleared from the charge of corruption, and no stigma is left
upon his honesty and honour, I should have been much better satisfied if, in
his peculiar position, he had not undertaken to be Chun Tai Kwong's adviser ;
and it would have been well if Mr. Anstey had learned a little more about
the character of his client, Mr. Hoey, who has managed to pocket ten thou-
sand dollars for his share in the monopoly, before forwarding his letter of the
24th April, to the Government, and, to a certain extent, identifying himself
with statements of a very questionable character. If I were to listen to and
investigate all the tittle-tattle of the Colony, and mix myself up with the
* In reference to Chun Tai Kwong, see also antè p. 474, note.
478 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXI. libels and lies which the tropics appear, with other noxious things, to gene-
rate, I must lay aside all the graver duties of my office to fan noisome fires,
1858.
which, left alone, are speedily extinguished in their own foul smoke.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) JOHN BOWRING.
Daring A daring highway robbery with violence was perpetrated on
robbery
violence with the morning of Wednesday, the 2nd June, upon Mr. Hazeland,
upon Messrs, the solicitor. That gentleman and Mr. Stace were returning from
Hazeland
and Stace. Stanley by the military road, early in the morning, when the
former pushed on before his companion who waited on the
road for their horses, which were being brought up by attend-