Rules
and
of Law and Equity at Westminster which by Ordinance No. 5 anthe of
of 1858 , the subject of the Secretary of State's Despatch, were Superior
Courts at
introduced wholesale into the Colony without any debate or con- Westminster
sideration :- which were
introduced
THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO WHICH THE ORDINANCE REFERRED. by Ordinance
No. 5 of 1858.
IMPERIAL ENACTMENTS.
Date ofthe Act. Title or Subject of the Act. Extent of operation intended to be
hereby given to the Act.
19 Vict. c. 117. Principal Officers of the Ord- The whole of the Act.
nance.
20 Vict. c. 47. The Joint Stock Companies' Act, Sections 14, 28 to 31 , both inclusive ;
1857. 41 to 47, both inclusive ; 53 to 57
both inclusive, the whole of part 3
and section 115.
See the debate in Council upon this point and the acting Attorney-General's re-
marks thereon,-Chap. XXV., infrà.
Dr. Bridges acted as Attorney- General on two occasions (1) from the 28th February,
1852 , to the 13th February, 1853,† and (2) from the 12th April, 1854, ‡ to the 15th January,
1856. During the first period that he held the position, no Imperial Act was introduced
into the Colony, but the second time he was acting Attorney-General, several enactments
were passed incorporating Home legislation - see more particularly Ordinance No. 3 of
1854, passed on the 31st October, 1854, " An Ordinance to declare certain Acts of the
Imperial Parliament to be in force in this Colony ;" || Ordinance No. 6 of 1855 " for the
amendment of the civil administration of Justice," passed on the 25th August , 1855 ; and
lastly Ordinance No. 3 of 1856, drafted by him and passed by the Legislature on the 29th
January, 1856, " declaring certain Acts of the Imperial Parliament to be in force in the
Colony of Hongkong."¶
Antè Chap. XVI. § 11. , pp. 376, 382.
* See Chap. x111., ante p. 322.
↑ See Chap. XIV. § 1., ante p. 331.
See Chap. xv., ante p. 343.
§ See Chap. XVI. § II., ante p. 369.
See Chap. xv., p. 355.
¶ See Chap. xvi. § 11., p. 371, note.
544 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXIV . THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO WHICH THE ORDINANCE REFERRED.—Continued.
-
1858.
Date of the Act. Extent of operation intended to be
Title or Subject of the Act. hereby given to the Act.
21 Vict. c. 14. The Joint Stock Companies' Act, Sections 1 , 2, 3, 11 to 21 , both inclu-
1857. sive ; 23, 24 and 28.
21 Vict. c. 54. Punishment offrauds committed The whole of the Act.
by Persons intrusted with
property.
21 Vict. c. 57. Reversionary interests of mar The whole of the Act.
ried Women in personal Es-
tate.
21 Vict. c. 77. Probates and Letters of Admi- ¦ Sections 2, 3, 4, 21 to 38, both inclu-
nistration. sive ; 40, 42, 45, 53 to 91 , both
inclusive ; 94, 95, and 96.
21 Vict. c. 85. Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Sections 2 , 6 , 7, 13 to 26, both inclu-
sive : 33 to 54, both inclusive ; and
59, (except so far as the said sec-
tions, or any of them, relate to the
dissolution of marriage).
THE SECOND SCHEDULE TO WHICH THE ORDINANCE REFERRED.
RULES, ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS, OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF LAW AND
EQUITY AT WESTMINSTER.
Subject matter ofthe Rule Extent of operation in-
Date of the Rule or Order. or Order. tended tobe herebygiven
to the Rule or Order.
Rule of Court, Michaelmas | Writs issued under the Bill ofEa- The whole of the Rule.
Term 1855. change Procedure Act, 1855.
Orders of Court of 30th Novem- Decrees and Entries. The whole of the Orders
ber, 1855. 1, 2 , and 3.
Rule of Court of the 8th May, Service of Pleadings and Pro- The whole of the Rule.
1856. ceedings at Law.
General Orders of the 12th No- Business to be disposed of at The whole of the Orders.
vember, 1856, Chambers.
The like of the 15th Novem- Leases and Sales of Settled Es- The whole ofthe Orders.
ber, 1856. tates.
General Order of the 2nd Feb Service of Writs and Proceed- The whole of the Order.
ruary, 1857. ings in Equity.
Rule of Court of the 23rd April , Notice as to Costs endorsed on The whole of the Rule.
1857. Writs of Summons on Con-
tracts under £ 20.
General Orders of the 18th Attachment and Sequestration. The whole ofthe Order 1 .
July, 1857.
Regulations of the 8th August, Conduct ofbusiness at Chambers. The whole of the Regu
1857. lations, except so far
as they require pro-
ceedings to be printed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON CARELESS LEGISLATION. 545
Being a matter of considerable importance, the author has Chap. XXIV .
obtained from , and the sanction of, the Government to publish a 1858.
copy of the Secretary of State's despatch before alluded to, which, The Se-
cretary
together with the report of Sir Frederic Rogers , to Mr. Her- of State's
man Merivale, C.B., the permanent Under- Secretary of State despatch.
for the Colonies, is now reproduced in full. The following was
the despatch of the Secretary of State, Sir E. B. Lytton : -
Downing Street, 11th June, 1838 .
Sir,
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 35 of the 25th
March last enclosing an Ordinance, No. 5 of 1858, " for extending to this
Colony certain Imperial enactments and certain Rules and Orders of the
Superior Courts."
I have laid this Ordinance before the Queen, and Her Majesty has been
pleased to confirm and allow it. You will make known Her Majesty's deci-
sion to the inhabitants of Hongkong by a proclamation to be issued in the
usual and most authentic manner. In communicating to you the above deci-
sion I desire to draw your attention to the careless manner in which some of
the Imperial Acts are adopted by the Legislature of Hongkong as pointed
out by the Legal Adviser to this department, a copy of whose report I en-
elose for your information and guidance.
I have, etc.,
(Signed ) E. B. LYTTON.
Governor
Sir JOHN BOWRING.
The following was Sir Frederic Rogers' report upon the Or- The report
of Sir
dinance under consideration : - Frederic
Rogers to Mr.
Emigration Office, 2nd June, 1858 . Merivale.
Sir,
In obedience to the Secretary of State's directions conveyed by your letter
of the 25th ultimo, I have perused and considered the undermentioned Ordi-
nance passed by the Legislature of Hongkong in the month of March last
entituled-
No. 5 " For extending to this Colony certain Imperial enactments and cer-
tain Rules and Orders of the Imperial Courts."
It may not perhaps be necessary to withhold the Royal sanction from this
Ordinance. But I cannot refrain from remarking on the careless mode in
which some of the Imperial Acts are adopted by the Legislature of Hong-
kong.
The Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856, in the sections which are adopted
from it, provides (sections 41 and 47) for the proceedings of Companies
which it describes as registered and (sections 28 and 31 ) limited. But in
Hongkong as far as I am aware there is no registration of Joint Stock Com-
panies, nor any provision for limiting their liability, and in the absence of
registration the whole Aet (as far as I can see) becomes nugatory . Again
sections 45 and 47 and elsewhere, refer to certain proceedings to be taken
under Scotch Law which, I presume, it is not intended to introduce into
Hongkong. Section 57 declares that penalties shall form part of the conso-
546 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XXIV. lidated fund . Section 83 provides for paying money into English Scotch or
Irish Banks . Section 103 for giving notice in English, Scotch, or Irish papers.
1858.
All these clauses ought either not to have been extended to Hongkong, or to
have been accompanied by such an explanation as should render them applic-
able to the Colony.
One of the clauses adopted from the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1857,
(section 28 ) that if any Company required to register by that Act shall fail
to register before November 2nd , 1857 , every Director shall be subject to a
penalty of £ 5 per diem. This provision is applied to Hongkong, where, I
believe, there is no machinery for registration, by an Ordinance passed on the
28th March, 1858 , some months after the day from which the penalties run.
In the Act relating to probates reference is made to a machinery of Re-
gistrars and Deputy Registrars (sections 21-27 , etc. ), Commissioners of Her
Majesty's Court of Probate (section 27 the County Court and its Officer ( section
54 et seq.). It should be explained how the functions allotted to these offi-
cers are to be performed in Hongkong. No sufficient explanation is given
by the enactment ( section 2 ) that the provisions of the Imperial Act shall be
so construed as to enable the provisions thereof to be executed and enforced
by any Courts or officers (howsoever designated ) having or exercising the
same or similar or analogous functions to those of the officers designated in
the Imperial Act.
Section 66 of the Imperial Act provides that there shall be one place of
deposit of original wills in London or Middlesex . I presume it is not in-
tended to apply this clause to Hongkong. It is , however, so applied in fact.
Again, I do not see anything in the local Ordinance which would prevent its
application to Chinese wills. It should certainly have been explained whe-
ther or not this is intended .
The principal provisions of the Divorce Act of last Session are adopted,
except so far as they relate to the dissolution of marriages-a power not gene-
rally entrusted to Colonial Legislatures . I do not see that any error has
been committed in extending these clauses to Hongkong, nor in respect to
the Imperial Acts 19 Vict. Cap. 117 and 21 Vict. Capp. 54 and 57 .
I have, etc. ,
(Signed) FREDERIC ROGERS.
HERMAN MERIVALE , Esq.,
etc., etc., etc.
The Secretary of State's despatch after being read at a meeting
of the Legislative Council held on the 4th January, 1859 , was
Disallow ordered to lie on the table. One of the immediate results of
ance of
Ordinance the Secretary of State's action , consequent upon his despatch,
No. 13 of
1858. was the disallowance of Ordinance No. 13 of 1858 ,† relating to
Chinese passenger ships , passed by the local Legislature on the
* See Chap. XXV., infrà.
"An Ordinance for the continuance of the heretofore existing regulations respect
ing Chinese Passenger Ships ; and in the case of British Ships, respecting the treatment
of the passengers therein while at sea, and for making regulations in addition thereto."
According to the preamble to this Ordinance, it was passed with a view "to make
further provision, in addition to that made by the Chinese Passengers' Act, 1855,” ie,
Act 18 and 19 Viet , c. CIV., for the regulation of Chinese Passenger Ships.
DR . BRIDGES AS COUNSEL TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TRADE . 547
21st October, 1858. * The disallowance, however, was not noti- Chap . -XXIV.
fied to the public until the 16th December, 1859 , although, as 1858.
will be seen hereafter, the matter was mooted in Council so Disallowance,
early as in January, 1859,† in consequence of instructions from when
notified.
the Secretary of State . Subsequently, to meet the necessities of
the case, Ordinance No. 13 of 1858 was duly modified and, as
Ordinance No. 6 of 1859 , passed the Legislature on the 26th
December, 1859.‡
Mr. Anstey now returned from Manila , and discovered that, Sir John,
Bowring's
on his suspension from office , the Governor, whilst appointing appointment
the late Mr. Day to the acting Attorney- Generalship, had of Dr.
Bridges
appointed Dr. Bridges as counsel to the Superintendency of as counsel
to the
Trade on the full emoluments attached to that office, thereby
Superin-
adding another to the mistakes with which his administration tendency of
abounded, having regard especially to what he had professed to Trade on the
suspension of
be his ideas upon private practice being allowed to Government Mr. Anstey.
officials. Again, after his resignation of the acting Colonial
Secretaryship, it will hardly be believed that Sir John Bow-
ring allowed Dr. Bridges to retain the position now the subject
of controversy between himself and Mr. Anstey, who, although
under suspension, at once addressed the Secretary of State upon Mr. Anstey's
the subject. In his letter to Sir Bulwer Lytton , dated the 12th to
complaint
the
October, Mr. Anstey observed inter alia as follows upon the Secretary
of State.
further anomaly of the position :-
" You, Sir, will perceive that, at the very time when Dr. Bridges was
active in the measures for my suspension, the salary of £250 a year, part of
my expected spoils, was being allotted to him, as his contingent share, al-
though such allotment was directly forbidden by the terms of Lord Claren-
don's Despatch.................. on the supposed limits ( to the right of the
Attorney-General to advise private clients here and at the five ports) Dr.
Bridges has, since his acting appointment to the office in question , acted freely
for clients in appeals coming before Sir John Bowring, as such Superinten-
dent.
The expression, " greedy for my succession, " on which so much indignant
censure was passed by His Excellency and the Executive Council ,§ is, I sub-
mit, fully justified by the facts now first brought to light by the death of Mr.
Day, with whom the arrangement was effected. "
As was to be expected , Sir John Bowring fully absolved Dr.
Bridges of all blame in (what may be correctly termed ) this
As has before been recorded (antè Chap. XXIII. , p . 517, note), except for short trips to
Canton andMacao, Mr. Anstey's longest absence from Hongkongwhen holding the Attorney-
Generalship was in September, 1856, when he was in Shanghai, and from 27th July to
13th December, 1857, when on leave in India. In that interval no Home legislation was
introduced , so that he was mainly answerable for the Acts of Parliament to which local
effect had been given from the time of his arrival in the Colony until his suspension on
the 7th August, 1858.
Chap. XXV., infrà.
See Chap. XXV., infrà.
This expression was used by Mr. Anstey in one of his memoranda to Dr. Bridges,
alluded to ante Chap. XXIII., p. 513, and which probably was one of the reasons which
induced the latter to adopt the course he did in the Executive Council in not voting for
the suspension of Mr. Anstey (id., p . 514) . See also § 88 of Sir John Bowring's despatch-
id., p. 533.
548 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXIV. fresh piece of jobbery. That Dr. Bridges had asked for the
1858. position on the suspension of Mr. Anstey and that he had
arranged with Sir John Bowring the terms on which Mr. Day
should take the temporary vacancy, there cannot be the shadow
of a doubt. Could Sir John Bowring have imagined for one
moment that, after all the disclosures in connexion with Dr.
Bridges ' conduct generally, and after what must be looked upon
as a necessary, if not compulsory, resignation on his part, that
the Home Government could have shown such weakness as to
entertain any application for permanent employment or recom-
mendation ever so strong on his behalf ? That, however, is the
only conclusion to arrive at after perusal of the Governor's des-
patch to the Secretary of State in vindication of Dr. Bridges'
conduct. But, as has been shown , Sir John Bowring was under
great obligations to Dr. Bridges " for active and valuable ser-
vices, * and who, moreover, must have afforded him considerable
assistance in his various communications with the Home Govern-
ment, for it is impossible to peruse some of them, especially those
referring more particularly to the disputes between the Executive
or Dr. Bridges and Mr. Anstey, without seeing that they betray
the hand of one accustomed to more than the ordinary curricu-
lum of official documents .
After this additional false step on the part of Sir John Bow-
ring, his allusion to private practice cannot be looked upon
Sir John otherwise than in the light of gross irony. The following was
Bowring's
despatch. Sir John Bowring's despatch giving cover to Mr. Anstey's
letter :-
Government Offices, Victoria,
Hongkong, 16th October, 1858.
Sir,
I have the honour to forward a letter addressed to you by Mr. Chisholm
Anstey on the 12th instant (received on the 13th) .
I thought it desirable to communicate to Dr. Bridges the charges made
against him by Mr. Austey. I send copy of Dr. Bridges ' communication to
me in reply.t
Dr. Bridges is quite justified in his utter denial of the truth of Mr. Aus-
tey's averments. They but add to a mass of unwarrantable statements with
which the archives of this Colony have been encumbered by Mr. Anstey's
precipitancy.
I have already stated that Dr. Bridges (with honourable and becoming for-
bearance) avoided taking any part or voting in the Executive Council on the
question of Mr. Anstey's suspension.‡
* See antè Chap. XXI., p. 476.
Not reproduced. Dr. Bridges ' letter was a mere denial upon his honour' of ' the
truth of every statement made by Mr. Anstey. See Parliamentary Papers relating to
Hongkong. 1860, p. 242.
Naturally enough. He was a candidate for the Attorney -Generalship ( as he had
been some years before- see his precipitate departure noticed antè Chap. XVI. § II., p.
369) —and it would have been an outrage on decency under the circumstances had he taken
any active part or voted for Mr. Anstey's suspension. As will be recollected , Sir John
Bowring, on the very day he reported Mr. Anstey's suspension to the Secretary of State,
also recommended Dr. Bridges, should Mr. Anstey's suspension be confirmed- see antè
Chap. XXIII., p. 516.
MR. ANSTEY AND DR. BRIDGES IN OPEN COURT . 549
No case is within my knowledge, and I believe none exists, where Dr. Chap. XXIV.
-
Bridges having accepted a fee as the professional adviser of a litigant party 1858.
in cases of appeal, has been called upon by me to give advice under such
appeals. I have applied the rule strictly, both to Mr. Austey and Dr.
Bridges, and have refused to consult either in cases in which they have been
employed professionally.
With respect to the " division of the spoils " neither Mr. Day nor Dr.
Bridges had any knowledge of my purposes. I nominated Dr. Bridges , pend-
ing the approval of Her Majesty's Government, to the position he had
formerly occupied and creditably filled , that of Counsel to the Superinten-
dency, and mentioned to Mr. Day my intention of doing so. Mr. Day
was thoroughly satisfied with the arrangement, but was not consulted upon it.
All these discussions will, I hope, prove to Her Majesty's Government the
desirableness of disallowing private professional practice to the Attorney-
General, and of augmenting his salary in consequence to £ 1,500 a year
from the Colony, and £250 from the diplomatic service. 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. *
I have, etc. ,
(Signed) JOHN BOWRING.
Το
The Right Honourable Sir EDWARD B. LYTTON, Bart., M.P.
On the other hand, it was certainly detrimental to the public Mr. Anstey
good to find that Mr. Anstey and Dr. Bridges, the former and Dr.
Bridges
suspended and the latter now out of the service, never to be resume their
old conflict.
employed again as will hereafter be seen, though still an aspirant
to the Attorney - Generalship , seemed bent on resuming their old
conflict whenever an opportunity showed itself. Though sus-
pended from his public functions , Mr. Anstey continued his
private practice, and on his return from Manila, as before stated,
he set actively to work again, although in bad health.
An unpleasant scene took place in the Supreme Court on An unplea-
the 19th October, between him and Dr. Bridges, when both sant
in thescene
were engaged in the matter of a Mr. W. M. Robinet, an Supreme
insolvent, when Mr. Anstey charged Dr. Bridges with Court.
'fraud' and ' sharp legal practice,' though apparently there
were no grounds for doing so , and on appeal to the Chief
Justice by Dr. Bridges, the former condemned Mr. Anstey's
remarks as uncalled for and improper. There had been already
quite enough of these conflicts in Hongkong and the public
were beginning to get quite tired of them . On the case being
resumed on the 29th October, Mr. Anstey called the attention
of the Chief Justice to what he described as an " infamous,
mendacious , libellous , and degraded misreport " of what had
taken place in the Court at its previous hearing of this matter
as given in The China Mail. He qualified it a contempt of Court,
See previous references to this subject, antè Chap. XXI., p . 476 ; also Chap . XXIII. ,
p. 528 § 58.
550 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXIV. and appealed to the Chief Justice for an expression of opinion ,
1858. but the Chief Justice paid no attention to Mr. Anstey's remarks.
The Chief Doubtless silence had come to be looked upon as golden by Mr.
Justice's
attitude. Hulme, whose advanced age and infirmities, besides a natural
unwillingness to be mixed up in local squabbles from which he
had all along wisely kept aloof, were now but too apparent.
Mr.Dr.
on Anstey Mr. Anstey then alluded to a postponement of the case on the
Bridges. previous sitting of the Court through his illness and which, he
alleged , Dr. Bridges had " so much paraded through the press
He breaks as a concession of his. " " I owe him no thanks," said Mr.
out in poetry. Anstey , " for his so- called concession, " and, breaking out into
poetry, continued :
" It reminds me of Matthew Prior's case--
To John I owed some obligation-
But John unluckily thought fit
To publish it to all the nation :
So John and I are more than quit ! ' "
The case then continued after some observations by Dr.
Bridges, who said he only wanted a statement of simple facts .
Dr. Bridges' But this preliminary wrangling was not to end here. On
gorgeous
Signboards, resuming active private practice, Dr. Bridges had put up two
gorgeous signboards at the entrance to his office in Queen's
Road, the upper one with large Roman letters " W. T. Bridges,
D.C.L., Practitioner in Law," hanging horizontally over an
other with Chinese characters setting out his qualifications, the
letters and characters being brightly gilt on a black lacquer.
This signboard naturally was made the subject of derisive
remarks in the local press and treated as a curiosity, one local
paper, in a sarcastic article dealing with the impropriety of the
step, reproducing the facsimile of the boards in its columns and
calling the attention of The Illustrated London News to it.*
Having regard to professional etiquette, a matter strongly dis-
cussed in the early days, before the amalgamation of the two
professions , it may not be inappropriate to reproduce here
the article alluded to together with the fac-simile of the sign-
boards in question :-
" Dr. Bridges's signboard in the Queen's Road is such a curiosity in its
way, that, our readers will agree with us, it is deserving more than the few
words devoted to a notice of it in our last issue.§ There are two boards-
an upper one, with large Roman letters, hanging horizontally over another
with Chinese characters. These boards are neat, if, indeed, they may not be
called gaudy- the letters and characters being brightly gilt on a black lae-
quer. We may be wrong in saying the ground is black - it may be green,
but it is very dark green , and quite illumined with the yellow hue of the
* See The Friend of China, 27th October, 1858.
+ See antè Chap. XVI . § II., pp. 371-373.
Antè Chap. XXII., pp. 480-494.
See The Friend of China, 23rd October, 1858.
DR. BRIDGES'S SIGNBOARDS . 551
gold. The horizontal board is about a foot and a half long by one deep or Chap. XXIV.
broad - solidly constructed . The perpendicularly hung board is upwards of 1858.
three feet long, and, say, a foot wide. These are the inscriptions :-
W. T. BRIDGES.
D. C. L.,
PRACTITIONER IN LAW.
Eng
狀 Chong 英
Sze Kwok
師
Keun
MÉ Chun
權 進
理Lhe + Tsze
T
各Kok 未 Me
Gna Sze
士
大Tai 必 Be
小Sin 列L.e
Oan Jhe
者
Ching +Sze
情 士
For the information of ignorami, we have furnished , with the characters,
the pronunciation in the local dialect . The literal rendering of these charac-
ters is very curious. Eng is the term for England or English. As a rule it
is written Tai-Eng -Great England. Kwok is country or nation . Chun-tsze
signifies Literary graduate of the third degree. In the opinion of the sino-
logue who furnished these characters, Chun-tsze appears to have been con-
sidered equivalent to Doctor of Civil Law-Me-sze is the nearest approach in
Chinese to the sound for Mister, for which it is intended . In this instance
the characters seem superfluous, -reading with as much propriety as would
Doctor Bridges, Esq .-Be le jhe sze approximates to Bridges - Chong- sze
is lawyer.
Only professors of the language, natives, can conceive the peculiar floweri-
ness of the four next characters. In their crudity, they stand as- Keun,
Note. - The Chinese mode of reading is from right to left, therefore the first syllable
to commence reading in the above board is that on the top of the second column Eng,'
proceeding to the bottom then reading anew from the top of the (or what would be our)
first column from ' Chong ' downwards,
552 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONG KONG .
Chap. XXIV. power or authority- Lhe, to guard or take care- Kok, every - Gna, Court-
-
1858. Chinese, we apprehend , will understand the characters to imply " The g
duate authorized to transact business in law Courts."
Tai is great - Siu is small - Oan cases - Ching circumstances ; reada
by natives as " whatever the circumstances of cases -be they large or sm
in magnitude - clean or dirty- this literary graduate of the third degree is th
English Mister who can manage them properly ; "-or in Ethiopian minstrel's
vernacular it might be-" Dis ere Chile can put em right trew." There-
that is Dr. Bridges's signboard ; and if The Illustrated London News' artist
does not send home a special picture of it, the English public will not be
treated with the attention they deserve. Such an emblem, in connexion with
civil law, was never exhibited in any British city before, and we have much
pleasure in embalming the memory of it. For the information of the curious,
and as an exhibition of our public spirit, we have to state that we engaged
a teacher for the special business of furnishing the very perfect translation
here given. "
Professional ' Clean or dirty,' in reference to Dr. Bridges, who took no
etiquette.
notice of this press attack, may have been considered sufficiently
Mr. Anstey significant, but, as was to be expected , the signboards were looked
and Dr.
Bridges upon as an advertizement and in that light adversely commented
in Court upon, nor did it, of course, escape Mr. Anstey's acute eye or
again.
sense of humour. Being so strong upon professional etiquette,
'Legal
practitioners he naturally took advantage of it to make an attack upon Dr.
who swing Bridges when the latter again appeared in Court on the 2nd
Chinese
signboards November in the Robinet bankruptcy case before mentioned . *
upon the
public road.' On the case being resumed on that day, Mr. Anstey asked for
the production of a certain letter which was in Dr. Bridges'
possession, when the following conversation took place :-
The Court (to Dr. Bridges) -You will get that letter.
Dr. Bridges- Let him wait. When I go to my chambers, I'll get it and
then produce it.
Mr. Anstey-Yes, when the Court has risen. I say this is not the prac-
tice of the Courts in England !
Then, alluding to the famous signboard , Mr. Anstey exclaim-
ed :-
66
But what can be expected from people calling themselves legal practi-
tioners who swing Chinese signboards upon the public road ? This is not
the practice of the bar at Home ! "
But the scene was not to end here - neither the Chief Justice
nor Dr. Bridges, of course, had paid the slightest attention to
Mr. Anstey's remarks regarding the signboards. Mr. Anstey
proceeded to challenge the truth of the insolvent's schedule and
questioned him as to his having falsely represented himself as
being the subject of various nations, when the insolvent retorted-
" That is a lie, Sir. "
After a pause —
Mr. Anstey to the Court-" It does not move me, my Lord "- (then trying
to get the Court to interfere)—“ Your Lordship has heard the insolvent's au-
swer ?"
Antè p. 549.
MA CHOW WONG TRANSPORTED TO LABUAN. 553
The Court-" That is a very improper answer." Chap. XXIV .
bro
th And doubtless it was, but the Chief Justice evidently con- 1858.
ered he had said quite enough without paying more attention The decorous
behaviour
these questionable digressions , and, according to the report, of the
he matter proceeded without further interruption . The records Chief
Justice.
show nothing further in reference to Dr. Bridges ' signboards ,
but it is not to be presumed that he removed them, though the
supposition is, that they must have met with the scorn they
deserved, especially after their publication by the press .
However scandalous such disputes in Court as those described
between Mr. Anstey and Dr. Bridges must have been , the re-
served and decorous demeanour of the Chief Justice on the
other hand stands forth in marked contrast with the disgraceful
scenes enacted in this very Court in 1880 between Chief Justice
Smale and Mr. Gibbons, the Registrar, when the community,
apparently taking pleasure at the frequent and uncalled - for dis-
putes between these two Court officials , assembled in large num-
bers in the Court House to witness them. *
On the 5th November, a Court-martial assembled on H.M.S. Execution of
Calcutta for the trial of James Kain, Private of the Royal Ma- aofprivate
the Royal
rines, for the murder of Mr. William Sage, assistant engineer on Marines
board
of H. M. S. Hesper. He was found guilty and sentenced to H.M.S.
death. The Commander- in - Chief, Admiral Sir M. Seymour, for exper
murder.
having approved of the sentence, the execution took place on the
morning of the 10th November at half past six, when the crews
of all the ships of war in harbour were mustered and the articles
of war read to them ; after which the parties ordered on duty
embarked in the Niger, Coromandel, Haughty, and Firm, and
passed outside the shipping towards the Lyeemun , where the
Hesper was at anchor. At five minutes to eight, the crews of
the various ships manned the rigging ; and precisely at eight , on
a signal gun being fired from the Hesper, the miserable wretch
was run up to the starboard fore -yard-arm with a jerk, says
the report, that turned his body right over, so that death was
instantaneous. After hanging for half an hour, the corpse was
lowered into a boat and sent on shore . The civil authorities
had not been put into requisition in this case.
A subse-
The military authorities, however, in February , 1861 , in a quent case
similar case where a soldier murdered a comrade, handed the in which who
a soldier
prisoner over to the civil authorities for trial .† murdered
a comrade
The Governor received further instructions on the 13th No- was handed
over to the
vember to despatch sixty more ‡ Chinese convicts to Labuan, and civil
authorities.
* See Vol. II., Chap. LXXII .
† See Vol. II., Chap. XXXII.
See antè Chap. XIX., p. 440,
554 HISTORY OF THE LAWS, ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXIV. amongst the batch despatched early in December was Ma Chow
1858. Wong, the now famous pirate- informer, so often before alluded to.
Ma Chow How much Mr. Caldwell , " who had been for years the steady sup-
Wong
and other porter of Ma Chow Wong,'" must have grieved over this
convicts
deportation, those who have now been made familiar with the
despatched 6
to Labuan. disclosures in the Caldwell Inquiry, ' t and of Mr. Caldwell's
Mr. Cald- exertions to obtain his release after his conviction in September,
well's grief. 1857, may well imagine. Sir Hercules Robinson , the Governor ,
Ma Chow
Wong in in alluding to this notorious offender in a despatch to the Duke
Labuan.
of Newcastle, dated the 31st December, 1861 , further bears out
Conspiracy his character even after banishment in the following passage :-
to murder.
His sentence
increased. " Since Ma Chow Wong's removal to Labuan, to which Colony he was
sent in penal servitude , his sentence has been increased by five years, as he
was proved to have organized a conspiracy for the murder of every European
in the Settlement and the liberation of all the convicts. Fortunately, the
plot was discovered the day before that fixed for carrying it into effect by the
confession of one of the convicts who could not reconcile himself to such
indiscriminate slaughter."
The free
pardon From inquiries made by the author, it would appear that
subsequently through the good offices of Mr. J. R. Howard, Superinten-
granted him. dent of Convicts at Labuan , and of Mr. Pope Hennessy, when
Governor of that Colony, Ma Chow Wong obtained a free par-
don in 1869 , when he returned to Hongkong. On his arrival,
he was arrested by the Police and brought before the Magis-
trate, but producing his free pardon he was afterwards released .
Shortly after, Ma Chow Wong proceeded to Canton and, during
his stay there, the Chinese Colonel Tang offered him a fifth
rank mandarin button,' and an appointment in the military
service at Canton, but Ma Chow Wong declined both honours
and preferred ending his days peaceably in Hongkong under
the British flag, which had shown him so much consideration .
Again during the Franco- China hostilities in 1884-1885 , Ma
Chow Wong was offered military office by the Chinese, which he
declined . During his stay in Hongkong, Ma Chow Wong, who
was now elderly and quite reformed and, moreover, had ap-
parently lost all influence amongst his own people, led a quiet
life without having any occupation , dying, according to accounts,
in the Colony as late as in 1892 , at the age of seventy, leaving
him surviving a son named Wong Cheong with whom he had
lived, and who is still alive at this date.
* See ' Finding in Mr. May's case, ' Vol. II. , Ch. xxxv.
† Ante Chap. XXIII.
Antè Chap. XIX.. pp. 444-447.
555
CHAPTER XXV .
1858-1859 .
SECTION I.
1858 .
Mr. Tarrant prosecuted for libelling the Government. - Act 6 and 7 Viet, c. 96 .-- · A
contemptible, damnable trick.'- Mr. Anstey's previous advice to the Government. - Colo-
nel Caine as one of the advisers of the Government. -At the preliminary inquiry Mr.
Anstey appears on behalf of Mr. Tarrant.-- Mr. Day's report to the Government. -At the
trial Mr. Anstey appears against the Crown. - The anxiety of the Government. -The dis-
closures. -The relations between Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell. -The defendant pleads
justification. The case for the Government. -Mr. Anstey is stopped by the Jury who
unanimously return a verdict of not guilty. - Costs against the Crown. - Payment of fees
to jurymen.—Result of case damaging to Mr. Caldwell. — Mr. Green's opinion on the
case.-Mr. Anstey's hands strengthened.- The troubles of the Government increased . Sir
John Bowring takes leave on Mr. Mercer's return . - Colonel Caine, Lieutenant-Governor,
administers the Government. -Mr. G. W. Caine in charge of Superintendency of Trade.—
Sir John Bowring leaves for Manila.- He reports Mr. Anstey for taking retainers against
the Crown. - The unofficial members of the Legislative Council protest against the ap-
pointment of Mr. Rennie, Auditor-General, to the Council. - The pork butchers and Mr.
Caldwell as prosecutor in an alleged unlawful assembly case. - The defendants, defended
by Dr. Bridges and Mr. Anstey, are discharged.- Mr. Anstey's application that Mr.
Caldwell be fined for malicious arrest. -On Mr. Anstey leaving the Court, Mr. Caldwell
takes the Bench as a Justice of the Peace.-Action for damages against Mr. Caldwell.-—
Application for rule nisi to quash the action dismissed. -The result. - Prosecution and trial
of Mr. Wilson, editor of The China Mail, for libelling Mr. Anstey. -The facts. - Verdict
for the Crown. - The sentence and apology.- Colonel Haythorne, member of the Executive
Council. ―Murrow r. Sir John Bowring. Action for assault and false imprisonment. —Mr.
Anstey, counsel for plaintiff.-The plaintiff's case. -Acting Attorney-General submits no
case to go to Jury. - Verdict for the defendant. New trial refused.- Mr. Anstey's deter-
mination to work the destruction of Sir John Bowring's corrupt and wicked administra-
tion . The year 1858 a memorable one in the dark pages of Hongkong's history.—A sus-
pended Attorney-General seeking the punishment of the Governor. -Prosecution of deadly
feuds between officials and others.
SECTION II .
1859 .
Mr. Davies, Chief Magistrate, moves in Legislative Council for production of correspon-
dence relative to Opium Farm privilege and Dr. Bridges. - Protest of Mr. Davies against
the refusal of Government. - Secretary of State's refusal to confirm two Ordinances without
alteration.- Ordinance No 8 of 1858.-Ordinance No. 1 of 1859. - Ordinance No. 10 of 1858.
-Ordinance No. 2 of 1859.- Statement of the Governor on the instructions to the Attorney-
General "to keep pace with the progress of the times " relative to the introduction of Acts
of Parliament.-Ordinance No. 5 of 1858. - Sir John Bowring asks the Council to repeal
the Ordinance in accordance with instructions from Secretary of State. - Ordinance No.
13 of 1858. - Imperial enactments inapplicable to the circumstances of the Colony. -The
Governor as to the steps he had taken.—The acting Attorney-General's suggestion that the
matter stand over until the Attorney-Generalship be permanently filled. - The Chief
Justice's approval of the course suggested and the superfluous piece of legislation .'- The
Governor as to such subjects being left to the law officers. - Mr. Davies, Chief Magistrate,
and the ' unmerited slur ' cast upon Mr. Anstey.-The Governor's reply.-Mr. Davies' de-
fence on behalf of an absent member.'--Comments upon Mr. Davies' action. - His
anxicty to defend his friend, Mr. Anstey. - Departure of Mr. Anstey for England.— Ordi-
nance No. 5 of 1858, when repealed. - Ordinance No. 5 of 1860.-The distinct legislative
measures.'-Ordinance No. 5 of 1860. - Ordinance No. 7 of 1860. - Ordinance, No. 5 of
1858. -Ordinance No. 13 of 1858.- Ordinance No. 6 of 1859.
556 HISTORY OF THE LAWS, ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Ch. XXV § I. THE charge, before alluded to, against Mr. Tarrant, the editor
1858. of The Friend of China, for commenting unfavourably upon the
Mr. Tarrant decision of the Caldwell Inquiry Commission * now came on for
prosecuted Mr. Tarrant was indicted criminally on the 18th
For libelling hearing.
the Govern November for having, in his issue of the 28th July, published
ment.
a libel against the Government in connexion with the above
Act 6 and 7 matter, under the Act 6 and 7 Vict. c. 96 (entitled " An Act
Vict. c. 96.
to amend the Law respecting Defamatory Words and Libel ) ,
by stating that " the principal charge ( meaning the charge
A contemp against the said Daniel Richard Caldwell ) broke down through
tible,
damnable a contemptible, damnable trick on the part of the Government. "
trick.'
Mr. Anstey's Before entering into the facts of this case it is necessary to
previous state that on the 2nd August, before his suspension from office,
advice to the
Government. Mr. Anstey had been consulted by the Government upon the
article which had appeared in the paper in question, and
while holding that it was libellous ' and " that the true course
of proceeding, Sir John Bowring not being personally named ,
would be for Dr. Bridges ( acting Colonial Secretary ) to swear
an information on oath at the Police Court," he took care, how-
ever, to add in the most emphatic manner " that in the face of
Dr. Bridges' evidence before the Caldwell Inquiry Commission,
he could not advise His Excellency to commence any proceed-
ings whatever in this case, being quite certain that any jury
would return a verdict against the Crown upon such evidence being
laid before them by the defendant. " Notwithstanding this advice,
Sir John Bowring, ' better advised ' apparently, determined to
proceed against Mr. Tarrant.
At the At the preliminary inquiry Mr. Anstey, now under suspen-
preliminary
inquiry Mr. sion , appeared for the defendant. The Government could hard-
Anstey ly believe its own eyes, and set moving about to find out the
appears true facts of the case. Mr. Cooper Turner, the Crown Solicitor,
on behalf
of Mr. was put in motion to make inquiries and the Executive found
Tarrant.
itself, as the Americans would say, in a fix. Mr. Day, the late
acting Attorney- General, was sent to the Police Court to find
out the real position of things, and there, true enough, to his
amazement, he found Mr. Anstey in the full discharge of his
duty as advocate for Mr. Tarrant. The next day he wrote to the
Government communicating the fact to the Executive . How
far Mr. Day was correct in his facts in the letter hereinafter
reproduced, as to the part taken by Mr. Anstey in the institu-
tion of the prosecution before his suspension, the reader may
well judge for himself, from Mr. Anstey's written opinion given
above, not losing sight, however, of the fact, that quite apart from
Dr. Bridges who had been a moving, if not the moving, spirit
* See ante Chap. XX111., p. 511 , and references there given.
COLONEL CAINE'S ABSTENTION FROM COMMITTEES . 557
in the matter, Mr. Day, who was a friend of Dr. Bridges, now Ch. XXV § I.
betrayed his own anxiety as to the ultimate result of this rash 185 .
proceeding, the consequences of which would undoubtedly re-
flect upon the Government of the Colony.
Nor was Colonel Caine to be left out of this matter, as one of Colonel
Caine as
the advisers of the Government. He had, so far, cautiously kept one of the
aloof from Mr. Anstey as far as he could, avoiding sitting on any advisers
of the
Committee except where compelled to do so , as on the occasion Government.
of Mr. Anstey's suspension by the Executive Council , when he
had been specially requisitioned by the Governor. * Carrying
therefore into execution his determination not to sit upon any
Committee to avoid disturbing the ashes of the dead ' probably,
having regard to his own conduct, if not sad past experience, in
reference to the respected Chief Justice Hulme and Sir John
Davist and the repeated and constant attacks upon himself by
Mr. Tarrant in relation to his compradore, Colonel Caine, it
will be recollected , left the Legislative Council when the im-
portant question respecting the amalgamation of the legal pro-
fession was being seriously discussed and a Committee was
about to be formed , on the plea of indisposition.§ Again, when
the Committee of Inquiry into the Bridges opium monopoly
question was about to be formed he stated his unwillingness to
form part of the Committee, || " because," according to Sir John
Bowring, " he entertained a strong feeling of friendship for
him , " and his relations with Mr. Caldwell were none the less
cordial , inasmuch as the latter was a protégé of his and had been
introduced into the service by him ;** he accordingly for the
same reasons as before avoided having anything to do with the
Caldwell Inquiry Commission, although his abstention did not ,
however indiscreetly, escape Mr. Anstey's criticism at the
time. ***
With regard to Mr. Tarrant and Colonel Caine and his com-
pradore, alluded to above, it may be mentioned that Mr. Tarrant
never ceased recurring to the subject of his old complaint in re-
gard to Colonel Caine. No new official from a Governor down-
wards ever set foot in Hongkong without being made fully
acquainted with Mr. Tarrant's past grievances, either by direct
petition to the new Governor or through his paper, The Friend
of China. These grievances Mr. Tarrant ventilated when-
* Antè Chap. XXIII., p . 531 § 77.
See ante Chap. VII., p. 141 , and Chap. VIII. § I., pp. 158, 159.
Ante Chap. VII., pp. 143 , 150 ; Chap. VIII. § 1., p. 170, and subsequent references.
Ante Chap. XXII., p. 489 .
Ante Chap. XXI., pp. 472, 473.
Ante Chap. XXIII., p. 532 § 87.
** Ante Chap. III. § II., p. 82.
*** Antè Chap. xxIII., p. 515.
558 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG ,
Ch. XXV § I. ever occasion offered under the cognomen of Colonel Caine's
66
1858. compradore " or " compradoric methods," or " system ,” or
varied sometimes to " mandarin style of squeezing ," and it is
therefore a matter for wonderment that, in the midst of such an
entourage and knowing things as he undoubtedly did , Sir John
Bowring could have allowed himself to be influenced instead of
acting at once on his own unbiased mind .
Mr. Day's
report to the The following was the late Mr. Day's letter alluded to
Government. above :-
Attorney-General's Office,
Hongkong, 4th September, 1858 .
Sir,
Having been yesterday informed by the Crown Solicitor that Mr. Anstey
had been retained by and was about to appear at the Police Court in defence
of Mr. William Tarrant, in the prosecution against him for a libel on the
Government, I went in person, to the Magistracy, that I might be satisfied
how far the information could be relied on, and there saw Mr. Anstey in the
active discharge of his duty as advocate for the defendant.
I deem it to be my duty to bring this matter to the notice of the Execu
tive.
It will be borne in mind that Mr. Anstey, in his capacity of Attorney - Gene-
ral, was consulted on the subject of the very article in The Friend of China
in respect of which this prosecution has been instituted, and, in fact, was
instituted during his own tenure of office, and that he at once pronounced it
libellous . Further, that Mr. Anstey has been already called and examined
as a witness on the part of the defendant ; and in the course of his evidence
stated that the language of that article was in effect but a paraphrase of his
own words, previously uttered ; and lastly, that he, who, when so giving his
evidence, openly claimed and asserted himself to be still Her Majesty's
Attorney-General in this Colony, now appears in opposition to the Crown, a
the retained and paid advocate of the admitted author of the article he had
himself pronounced a libel on the Government, in the case of a prosecution
for libel, founded on that very article.
I have , etc. ,
(Signed) JOHN DAY.
The Honourable FREDERICK FORTH , Esq.,
Provisional Colonial Secretary.
As stated, the case against Mr. Tarrant came on for hearing
in the Supreme Court on the 18th November, when Mr. F. W.
Green, the acting Attorney- General, prosecuted on behalf of
At the trial the Crown, being instructed by Mr. Cooper Turner, the Crown
Mr. Anstey
appears Solicitor, while Mr. Anstey, still holding himself to be the
against Attorney- General of the Colony, although under suspension .
the Crown. appeared against the Crown without permission being granted
him for that purpose. Being the undeniably able man he was,
MR . TARRANT PROSECUTED FOR LIBELLING GOVERNMENT. 559
he now saw his chance to further expose that " wicked and ch . XXV § I.
corrupt administration, " the destruction of which he had " sworn 1858.
to work." He was instructed by Mr. H. J. Tarrant, attorney,
and a brother of the defendant.
The Government, in its anxiety, had been fidgety about the The anxiety
of the Gov-
Jury. A special Jury had been applied for and granted, and it was ernment.
not until a series of irregularities had been committed and three
lists had been drawn , that the authorities seemed satisfied . The
special Jury was composed of some of the most influential re-
sidents in the Colony, and it does not appear that the right of
challenge was exercised by either side, the following jurymen
being accordingly sworn in : --
Patrick Campbell, Esq., Manager of the Oriental Bank Corporation
(British ) ; John Costerton, Esq. , Manager of the Incorporated Mercantile
Bank of India, London, and China (British) ; N. M. Beckwith, Esq., of the
firm of Russell & Co. ( American) ; Francis Chomley, Esq., of the firm of
Dent & Co. (British) ; Francis Parker, Esq ., of the firm of Augustine Heard
& Co. (American) ; Philip Cohen, Esq., of the firm of Phillips, Moore, & Co.
(British) ; Albert Vaucher, Esq ., of the firm of Vaucher & Co. (Swiss) .
A murrain then seized nearly all the Government officials
whose evidence was required . The certificate of illness of one
of them was actually handed in by the Colonial Surgeon, Dr.
Chaldecott, the sick man ' being in Court at the time, and
hearing it read ! The Colonial Surgeon, under the circum-
stances, did not escape Mr. Anstey's critical eye and especially
in regard to the alleged illness of Sir John Bowring , who had
been subpoenaed as a witness for the defence, and who was said