a prosecution by the present Attorney General on behalf of Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, against the Editor of the Friend of China, tried on the 2d of June, 1845. The defendant, under the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act, having pleaded" Not guilty that all he had stated was true, and published for the benefit of the public," the case went to trial, and ended in an acquittal; the present Chief Justice tell- ing the jury that, "it was for them to judge if there was a necessity, first, to publish the facts; secondly, was it necessary to publish the commentary" directions au- thorized only by Lord Campbell's Act.
8. It is presumed that the Plaintiff is aware of this case, and having retained the only efficient Barrister and the best Attorney in the Colony, he must rely on the above quoted 4th Section of the Ordinance of 6th May, 1846. Your Memo- rialist is not a lawyer, and, though on the present occasion constrained to conduct his own case, does not pretend to argue technical points of law; but for years past he has taken some interest in discussions in Parliament and elsewhere, on con- stitutional questions, affecting the rights and liberties of British subjects. He is thus enabled to turn to a debate on the Cape Constitution, (July 15, 1851,) in the course of which Lord Lyndhurst, having been appealed to as a great lawyer, is reported to have thus opened his speech :—
When this House takes an opinion on a question of law, that opinion should be pronounced with as much fairness by the legal members of your Lordship's House as if they were stating it in a court of justice ;" and referring to Lord Mansfield's judgment in the Grenada case, the same high authority said,——
“Now, when the Crown granted a franchise or liberties of any description, whether to the inhabitants of a district or a colony, the grant was irrevocable; it could only be put an end to by surrender, by Act of Parliament, or by forfeiture established by proceedings in a court of justice; and there was neither of these here." (Spectator, July 19, 1851.)
According to another report, His Lordship gave as the essence of Lord Mans- field's "most elaborate judgment, pronounced in the most distinct terms-terms that could not be misunderstood,"-
"That if the element of the franchise were once given-if the power to legislate were once considered- if any popular right were once bestowed, anything that was to be a check upon the Government—then, in that case, the Crown had not the power to revoke what it had once granted." (Morning Herald, July 16, 1851.) Your Grace took part in that debate, and would appear, both by your speech and vote, as well as by your subsequent policy towards the Cape, to concur in these views, which seem also to be in accordance with those laid down by Lord John Russell in his speech on Colonial Policy, published, by his authority, in 1850,
9. Presuming therefore that the doctrine applied to Grenada and the Cape is considered sound, your Memorialist submits that it receives additional force in the case to which your Grace's attention is now more immediately requested; for, it is humbly submitted, that Lord Campbell's Act was not only one of those liberties and privileges which, once conferred, could not be arbitrarily taken away, but it had actually been enforced in the Courts of Hongkong, by virtue of two Ordinances confirmed by Her Majesty in Council, by whose authority the Council that passed them is constituted.
10. Should it nevertheless be held that the 3d Section of the Ordinance 5th May, 1846, took away from the Colony the privileges and protection of the laws of England passed subsequently to 5th April, 1843, then it follows that another, locally still more important, Act of Parliament, which received the Royal assent on August 22, 1843, two days before Lord Campbell's Act, is also abrogated. It is entitled, "An Act for the better Government of Her Majesty's Subjects resorting to China," and is set forth in the preamble to the first Ordinance, (called Consular,) as giving virtue to Her Majesty's Letters Patent, authorizing the Governor of Hongkong as Superintendent of Trade to legislate for Her Majesty's subjects in China;
the said first Ordinance (24th January 1844) rendering them " subject in all matters to the Law of England, (as much as in the Colony of Hongkong, § 1,) and extending the jurisdiction of the Courts of justice at Hongkong over the same.”
11. Surely it could never have been intended, by means of a single clause in an otherwise unimportant Ordinance, to sweep away from the Colony three years of the Laws of England. Your Memorialist has within these few days read a re- port of an appeal to the House of Lords (May 6, 1853,) as to the right of way through Campbell of Blythswood's policies. It was pleaded, in bar of an imine- morial right of the inhabitants of Renfrew,-
"That in 1787 and 1835 Acts of Parliament had been passed for improving the navigation of the river Cart, and under these Acts a towing path had been formed along the banks of the Cart, and the river trustees were directed to erect and had erected a ruble wall and iron railing along the towing path, enclosing the appellant's lands, and these Acts declared that no one was to be allowed to go into the said lands except with the consent of the heir in possession of Blythewood for the time being.”
In delivering judgment against the appellant, Lord Chancellor Cranworth said,-—
"The main point, therefore, to be first considered is, whether the statute puts an end to the right. Now, it would be much to be regretted if the House were to be bound to construe that statute so strictly as was contended for by the appellant. Indeed, it would be a monstrous thing to hold that a public right which had existed up to that time from time immemorial could by a side-wind-by such a clause as that statute contained, be thus swept away and extinguished. His Lordship then quoted the statute, and concluded with saying, that it was not to be construed strictly, but was merely intended to make an arrangement between the trustees of the river navigation and the appellant; but as to the rights of the public to the ways in question, it just left these rights where it found them-it neither gave nor took away." (Scotsman, May 11, 1853.j Upon the same principle your Memorialist would respectfully submit to your Grace, that "it would be a monstrous thing to hold that a public right which had existed up to that time (from the first day of the Colony,) could by a side-wind-by such a clause as that Statute (Ordinance) contained, be thus swept away and extinguish- ed;" and that too under show of amending the laws and government of British subjects,--for "amend" and not "repeal" is the term used in the title and preamble,
-the 29th Section of Ordinance of 5th May, 1846, "constituting a local Court of Error and Appeal," being the only one expressly repealed.
12. Under the circumstances now set forth, your Memorialist approaches your Grace, beseeching that, it should appear to the legal advisers of the Crown that Hongkong has thus been deprived of important rights and privileges, steps may be adopted for restoring them; and whether or not the present operation of Lord Campbell's Act within the Colony be considered doubtful, your Memorialist humbly suggests, that, in order to put it beyond the power of any one to vex the lieges, under an old law, which the Lord Chief Justice of England said recently, (Sir Charles Napier v. Murray,) was often vexatiously and tyrannically enforced, a de- claratory Order or Ordinance should be passed, authoritatively setting the question
at rest.
13. Your Memorialist, desirous to have a decision regarding Lord Camp- bell's Act by the Hongkong Court, made a proposal to that effect; but the Plaintiff, under the advice of his lawyers, being confident that it is not in operation here, objects to have the question mooted to the Judge before the day of trial, which, from the absence of material witnesses on the way to England and elsewhere, will probably be postponed for several months.
14. Your Memorialist begs to state, that in June 1850, the Orion Steamer was wrecked off the coast of Scotland, under circumstances very similar to those at- tending the wreck of the Larriston, the number of lives lost in the latter being Thirty-one and in the former Forty-seven, through the neglect of the officers on duty and the insufficiency of the boats. The Captain of the Orion and the second Mate, who was officer of the watch, were indicted criminally, and brought to trial before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, on the 29th and 30th of August follow- ing, and being convicted, the Captain was sentenced to Two Years' Imprisonment and the second Mate to Seven Years' Transportation. In summing up, the presiding Judge, the Lord Justice Clerk, remarked, that "he did not doubt that the greatest public benefit would accrue from the disclosure of the facts," and in pronouncing sentence on the Mate, his Lordship further remarked, that "the sen- tence is no doubt one that must produce a great impression." Entirely concurring in these sentiments, your Memorialist conceives that he was only consulting the public benefit in alluding to them; and [submits] that no one should have the power, by a doubtful or defective state of the law, to bring actions against an editor for so dis- charging his duty.
Entreating your Grace to give such effect to the premises as may seem meet,
Your Memorialist will ever pray,
HONGKONG, July 21, 1853.
265
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.