CO129-057 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [7] — Page 89

Executive Authority. I correctly love that the early nomination and arrival of Barrister a help to Chief Magistrate may terminate a state of things where a continuance would become intolerable evil.

I have the honour to be, with the highest respect, Sir, your most obedient humble Servant,

This is a continuation of the case of which the circumstances are related in the Governor's preceding despatch of the 7 June, No. 99. That despatch reported that the Attorney General, Mr. Anstey, had set on foot an inquiry into a charge against the Acting Chief Magistrate, Mr. Mitchell, of extorting, or trying to extort money from certain prisoners in the gaol. The enquiry failed to establish that Mr. Mitchell had criminally acted, but that he had acted indiscreetly, and, according to Acts of Parliament, illegally, in his capacity of Sheriff.

Due to interference... Fear if the Sheriff illegally acted, it was beyond the province... and if proceedings were dropped, Mitchell would be beyond complaint. Now comes the sequel. Anstey, who, whether from any personal animosity against Mitchell, or from a pure desire that the administration of justice should be beyond reproach, determined to act in his individual capacity of a Grand Juror (which seems strange, but may be according to law), and prosecute Mitchell. Mitchell was therefore tried at Anstey's instance, acquitted, which Anstey attributes to the partial summing up of the Justice. In return, and in defence of his character, Mr. Mitchell intimates his intention of prosecuting Anstey for defamation.

The Governor, who deplores these unseemly goings on, has used every effort in his power to arrest them, and the consequent public Scandal.

My impression is that at present nothing, or ought to be done, until I state: Mitchell's action, which is pending, may terminate unfavourably for Mr. Anstey. In the Crown's Attorney General, I look concretely at defamation as a serious affair, and coupled with his recent reckless charges again, would together mark him as an unfit person for so distinguished an office as that of Attorney General. If, on the other hand, Anstey is not convicted of defamation, and if he apologizes for his conduct towards the Chief Justice, it will raise the question as to the interference which the Secretary of State should exercise over an Officer, so... to quarrel and disturb the harmony of the Community.

But it appears to me that the moment for that interference has not arrived, and may not arrive. Anstey's conviction or acquittal on the pending charge may equally help to settle the business.

I forward them to you with information.

Components of a Dispute between My Solicitor, Local, 6 Feb. 78 Mgr.