CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12] — Page 395

BRE

391

( 133 )

Dr Bridges.-Yos; if I spoke of the matter, I did it on my own responsibility. The Governor had nothing to do with it.

Attorney General.--Then you assume, as one of your rights as member of the Executive Council, that of publish- ing their proceedings to all the world?

Dr Bridges. If the Governor wished that nothing should be said, then all mouths were shut. As to this matter he made no complaint of any violation of confidence, nor gave any notice of secrecy.

( 132 )

En-

enjoying the confidence of the Governor, if not by the God been last seen or heard of He did so, stating, that Mr ernor, himself?

Vade, about a fortnight before he went North with Lord Elgin Dr Bridges. It might very possibly have been written stated to him (the A. G.) that he had the documents, and by Mr Wilson. The two are not I believe of the samad just finished a report on Ma-chow Wong's case. creed in that matter. I have no reason to think it wairy in Mr Wade's (Chinese Secretary's) Office might written by Sir John Bowring.

roduce them,

This was made, and the result leaked out, (The report of the Caldwell Commission is put in evidence which gave the Attorney General an hypothetical case, Attorney General-This report was published by the hus-suppose the documents were destroyed, the law maxim Government?

Omnia præsumuntur contra spoliatorem" ought in such case to be most strictly construed. At the conclusion f the evidence of the Attomey General, the Chairman of he cominittee pulled out a letter which he proceeded to read; it was from Mr Mongan the Acting Chanese Secretary to the Superintendent of Trade, and was to following effect: “In reference to the the documents in the case of Ma-chow Wong I beg to say that I took His Excellency Sir John Bowring's pleasure as to how I was to dispose of the documents, and he directed me through the Acting Colonial Secretary to DESTROY THEM. I accordingly BURNT THEM."

Dr Bridges. Yes.

Attorney General.—And all this time the Attorney Ge-

Attorney General-Did not the Commission wish neral was complaining that up to this hour he had no ex-print some additional documents with the evidence? planation of the precise grounds on which he was to be suspended. Does that article contain a true statement of those grounds?

Dr Bridges. It is just like other newspaper accounts, a mixture of truth and error. There is a good deal of truth about it.

Attorney General. You have seen the paper of 26th August?

do see.

Dr Bridges.-I think not.

to

Attorney General-Was it not made a subject of bitte comment on the part of the Attorney General that the d cumentary evidence was withheld?

Dr Bridges.-Yes, I remember that perfectly well. Attorney General.-Did not Mr Davies state that was a distinct breach of faith with the members of the Commission, that the printing of these documents was Dr Bridges.-The China Mail is the only paper I ever fused, as the evidence was to a great extent based on them

Dr Bridges.-No, not that I am aware of Attorney General. Did not the Attorney General o the 23rd of July state in a letter that he could not make any statement unless he had the documents before him on which the committee founded their report?

Dr Bridges.-Yes.

Attorney General. You have seen this long and able article, in which he enters upon the Caldwell matter at great lengthy are you aware of the general nature of Mr Dixson's evidence in the Ma-chow Wong business?

Dr Bridges. Yes

Attorney General-Do you think it possible this article could have been written by Mr Dixson himself, or by some one taking a very different view of the question, and

devoted to the recent conduct of the Attorney General, and we know no reason to cast discredit on the prevalent rumour that that officer was called on to show reason why he should not be suspended; that the reasons he gave in were not considered valid; and that, unless he makes out a case more satisf ctory to the Executive, he will be suspended at once.

This matter

Attorney General.-In that letter there is a distinction made between the oral and the documentary evidence Were not the Commission most willing to have these documents printed, but could not obtain the authority

the Governor?

of

There, that is the episode, and we call upon the spirit of intelligence and Truth who defends His Exellency from our Apollyonic darts to say, whether we ever said anything more ammatory of Sir John than is contained in the above short extract written by his own subordinate? Against such a spoliator everything we think may fairly be presumed. — Hong- kong Register June, 22d.

Dr Bridges.--I have not read these articles, but they

would have made no difference to me.

Attorney General.-Why did you not prosecute the writer of these articles?

Dr Bridges. In the first place, you are begging the question that I advised this prosecution; and secondly, I do not consider those articles libellous. They are written in my opinion by a lawyer, who knew exactly how far to go without committing himself. I think that he just kept within the law, and this libel goes over it. I have never Attorney General.-The minutes of evidence are unseen the articles before, and can hardly give a decided

Dr Bridges.—I remember speaking to the Chairman Mr Cleverly about it, and he said it was not the intention of the Commission to print them.

so exclusively concerns the reputation and honour of the Gov-intelligible to a stranger without the documents to which reference is made. The government have in a legal sense published this report?

ernment itself, that the less said upon it by outsiders the better; and we trust only that the Executive will act temperately but boldly on its own judgment. If Mr Anstey be suspended on grounds which may be calculated to check or discourage in- quiry into the conduct of officials, then the public will be enti uled to take up the matter, and will doubtless do so effectually enough; but if the ground of his suspension be clearly relative

to the functions of Government, through the criminal charges which he has made against one high official, his abuse of the confidence and contemptuous treatment of the character of an- other, his long series of quarrels in this colony, and his general

Dr Bridges. Yes, I suppose so. Attorney General.-In fact everything in the matter was done as publicly as possible?

Dr Bridges.-Yes.

Attorney General.--After the 18th of May was it not the intention of the Government that the fullest publicity should be given to both sides of the subject?

Dr Bridges.-Yes, certainly, to both sides. violent recklessness in connection with the Caldwell Commis- the report, the libel being published on the 28th of July

Attorney General. Who communicated the copy of

sion, then, we apprehend, the more sensible portion of the public will be averse to interference. with the matter, and will regard the decision of the Executive as final.

Mr May's case is understood to differ considerably from that of the Attorney General, and relates chiefly to his disregard of the requests, and the obstacles he has thrown in the way of the action, of the Colonial Secretary-China Mail, August 5, 1858.

• See Appendix.

had been furnished.

Dr Bridges. I have no idea, I did not even know it i

you

Attorney General.--Do think Sir John Bowring did? Dr Bridges. I have no reason to suppose so. Attorney General.--Because it is clear Sir John Bowring must have read and analysed the report before it was sent to the printer.

+

Dr Bridges.-The report was sent direct from the Com- mission, to the press, after which the Government saw

opinion.

Attorney General-As Executive Councillor, you are not at liberty to give information to any one outside?

Dr Bridges. No.

Attorney General. Who furnished the Editor of the China Mail with information on the 5th August,* of the grounds for suspension of the Attorney General, which was decided on at the Council Meeting of 7th August?

Dr Bridges. I have no idea. Attorney General. No belief?

Dr. Bridges None whatever; the only document I ever forwarded to the China Mail was an account of the trip to Sunon.

Attorney General.--Who furnished this statement? The report of the Commission on Mr Caldwell finds that eight of the charges brought against him had no grounds for being brought or that no proof of them was brought forward. that seven of the charges are unproved, but there were grounds for bringing them; and that four are proved It concludes with stating that though some facts have been proved, “it appears to a majority of the Commission, that, although Mr Caldwell's original appointment as a Justice of the Peace may have been injudicious, they [the facts proved in the Commission's opinion]

do not necessitate so strong a measure as his removal from that office"

A more unsatisfactory, loose, and irrelevant mass of evidence than that contained in the Commission's minutes never came under our notice; and, in our opinion, some of the con-

clusions of the report are no way borne out by anything which

appears in it. One of the results of this affair has been, the suspension, from the office of Attorney General, of Mr Chisholm Anstey, who has acted towards the Governor and other officials in a manner which necessitated the step. Mr Anstey's char- acter and failings are so well in England, that his suspension with not cause any surprise, however the necessity of it

may be regretted there, as it certainly is here by all who have observed his honesty of purpose and his skill in dealing with Chinese witnesses. Mr Day, the senior counsel in the Colony after Dr Bridges, who still acts as Coloniol Secretary, will take his place in the interim as Attorney General China Muil,

I may have Dr Bridges.-I know nothing about it. mentioned what passed to one or two persons; there is no oath of secrecy; of course there is the usual understand- ing of official secrecy? I only tell you what I did.

Attorney General.-As a matter of fact, the writer of August 12, 1858. those articles has never been prosecuted?

Dr Bridges.--No.

Attorney General. Did you never write any of the ar- ticles in the China Mail?

Dr Bridges.--Never.

Attorney General. Do you know or have you any belief as to whether Sir John Bowring ever wrote any ar-

ticles for the China Mail?

Dr Bridges.--I will not express any belief; I have no

the subject. grounds to form an opinion one way or another upon

Attorney General.--Is not the Editor of the China Mail pretty frequently with Sir John Bowring, for the purpose of obtaining suggestions or corrections for his paper?

Dr Bridges. I hardly ever saw him at the Govern- ment Offices. I have seen Mr Wilson once, and I think Mr Dixson once or twice with the Governor.

• We are since informed it was from Mr G. W. Caine, Acting English Secretary to the Superintendent of Trade &c.

Attorney General-Had you the Governor's sanction for so doing?

Dr Bridges.-I never had any communication with him on the subject. I never had any doubt that when the matter was over I might speak about it.

Attorney General.--How could the matter be at an and before any decision was come to about it?

Dr Bridges. It was over so far as this place is cou- cerned.

Attorney General.-Was it not one of the grounds of the protest and appeal that the Executive Council had not communicated to the Attorney General the grounds on which they were going to act?

This was the article referred to-

The Executive Council has held some meetings of late,