directed him not to hear evidence for the accused.
I will now state what Mr. Wodehouse has done. He committed the accused to prison, that is, it must have appeared to him that there was probable cause that the accused had committed the offence with which he was charged.
A.V. Wodehouse in his letter to the Colonial Secretary states "that a prima facie case was made out, to the extent of the fact that witnesses swore they had seen each of the prisoners taking part in the burglary."
If the Magistrate had good reasons for disbelieving the evidence, he should have discharged the accused, notwithstanding the direct statement made by these witnesses, for it could not be supposed, to use the words of Justice Russell, that he had stultified himself by committing the accused to prison if there was not a prima facie case against him.
Mr. Wodehouse has no reason or justification for comparing the action of the Government in this case with the decision of the Governor in the case of Chang Chi, and I submit Mr. Wodehouse is going entirely beyond his sphere and his duties in doing so.
I am perfectly able to uphold the advice I gave the Government and to show that the Governor in Council was quite justified in deciding to hand over the accused, but, as I consider that it is a matter which does not in any way concern Mr. Wodehouse, I will not deal with it here except to state that the reasons given in the case of Chang Chi commended themselves to the Council, while Mr. Wodehouse's are quite inadmissible.
I submit that the tone of the last paragraph but one is not respectful.