of State communicating the above illegal measures.
00
referring to my long intercepted letter of the 17th May 1850, and appealing against the suspension as illegal and unjust towards myself, and of most alarming consequence upon the minds of the Chinese. The open duplicate of that letter, having been detained in Sir John Bowring's hands for at least one Mail, I again, on the 16th of August, and, upon the duplicate of that letter being likewise so detained, on 21st August 1850, forwarded (also in Originals & through the Governor and post office) my grounds and reasons for such Appeal
131. In an almost dying state, and against the earnest remonstrances of my friends, who were also my Medical Adviser and the Colonial Surgeon Dr Menzies, I remained in those regions until the 30th January 1856, when, as Correspondence with your Grace's Department shows, the increasing "pressure of sickness" was such as to compel me, most reluctantly, to accept leave of absence from my duties and proceed to Europe, without waiting any longer for the delayed decision of the Secretary of State.
132. My letters of the 20th January, 6th February, & 4th April 1859, to Sir E. P. Lytton, M.P., and of the 14th June 1859, to the Earl of Carnarvon, refer to the Proceedings in the case v. Farrant; ubi supra.
132. In the meantime, Sir John Bowring, as though unsatisfied with the decision of the Commission of Inquiry and its consequences, determined to refer to another tribunal of his own choosing the question, whether the character of his Government was to any and what extent compromised by its protection of Mr Caldwell and, more especially, in respect of the alleged acts towards Mah Chow Wong.
An information for libel was accordingly filed against the Proprietor of a Newspaper, which had charged the burning of the papers as a "contemplated and damnable trick of Sir John Bowring's Government" with the deliberate intent to screen criminals. The Defendant pleaded in justification that the statements of the Article were true. The Acting Attorney General informed the Court that he was instructed to say, that Sir John Bowring felt that the Plea of justification was quite satisfactory, but had himself as much at stake as the Defendant. Dr Bridges, Mr Montgomery, and the Surveyor General were examined for the prosecution, and his witnesses were examined for the defence, and all the documents demanded for the latter from the Secretariat were brought into Court. The Jury was a Special Jury of Merchants and Bankers of great credit and little disposed to give a factious verdict. But their verdict was an unanimous one, given immediately on the closing of the Case for the prosecution and without hearing the defence. It was for the Defendant - on both Issues - found him not guilty, and it found that his plea of justification was true.
of State_communicating the above llegul meusins.
00
referring to my
long intercepted letter of the 17.t May 1850, and appealing against the suspension
ad
llegal and unjust tward's myself, and of
in its certain effect
mest alarming consequence),
upon the Winds of the Clunese. The open
is uplicate of that letter,
having been delawned,
in Fir Jom Bawung's hands, for at Crust one
Mail, I again,
the 16th of Augustz_and, upon:
or
the
again
Duplicate
that letter being likewise so detained, 21st Curgust 1880, forwarded (akro in Orginals & through the Governor and post office)
my grounds and recons for such Appeal
131. In
an almost deping state, and against the
shing remonstrands of my
who
was
my
eur
Medical Adviser
also the Colonial Suryon Dr Menzies, I remained in those region's & until the 301. January 1856, when, as Correspondence with your Grace's Lopartment shows, the incraising " pressure of sickness" was ouch
as to compel to comply with that
mo,
most reluct
reluctantly,
aduce, accept leave of absence from
Bering upon
Jer
Medicul Cartpeates,
and proceed to Europe, without wanting, any longer, for the delayed decision of the o
Scintury of State.
132.
My letters of the
20th January, 6= February, & 4th A 13
April 1859, 4 Secret Sir E P. Litten Burn M. P. I, of the l Cepil & 14th June
1859, to the Earl
Undertecide
of
Carnar
Proceedings in thre ucen v. Farrant;
ubi supra
103
though 132. In the meantime For John Bouring as thought
unsatisfied with the decision of the
the decision of the Commission of
A
LOC
quences determinect to refer to another
consequen
Enquiry and its hibunal of his own
choosing the question, whether the character
of his Government was to any and what extent compromised. by its protection of Mr Caldwell and, more especially
acturigs, in respect of the puppet food and despored
to Mah Chow Wong -
documents, belongentating
433
An information for libel was accordingly filed.___ (after much evidence had been taken in the Police
"Court-fagainst
at the Proprietor of a Newspaper, which
had charged the burning of the papers as a contemplate und damnable "hick of Sir John Bouring's Government? with the deliberat intent to screen fremerials - The
Defendant pleaded in justification that the statement of the Article were true. The Acting Allorney General informed the Court that he was instructed to
say, that Fir John Bouring felt that the Plea of w
quite justification, fut had himself as much upon his ad "Antrial as the Defendant, Dr Bridges, Mr Mongon and
the Surveyor General, were examined for the prosecutin
and on
had
and his
examined for the defence, and all the documerotș, demuendect, for the latter from the Secretariat were brought into Court The Jury Special Svery of Merchank
?
was a
and Bankers of great credit and little disposed to give
a
factious verdict But their verdict.
- an uN AIUINous Øne
immediately on
the
the
was
cris
a
verdeel
Givent
closing of Case for the prosecution and without hearing the
defence.
It
jor the Defenciant-
both Issues - Jound him not guilty, ind
it found
that
that his plea of justification
was
feekly.
:
C
D
M
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.