662 THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 12TH NOVEMBER, 1879.
His EXCELLENCY.-Why did not the Honourable gentleman communicate it to me before? Mr. Lowcock received on the 28th April the letter from Mr. MARSH, he leaves the Colony without one whisper against the statement made in that letter, that he, Mr. Lowcock, had had a satisfactory interview on the subject of deportation with the Governor; he remains in England, and to-day for the first time I hear the allegation that he went to the Colonial Office for I did not hear it from the Colonial Office and he there was to tell somebody what he did not venture to tell Mr. MARSH. He might easily if it were true have written to Mr. MARSH saying, "It was not a satisfactory interview; it lasted perhaps a couple of hours, but that was not long enough to let me see all the papers." He did not do so, and from April to July passes and then he writes that letter, and from July to November I am left in ignorance by the Honourable member (Mr. KESWICK ) that such a document exists. Instead of commenting on such a document, I pass to the real merits of the question raised by the Honourable member.
The Honourable gentleman has called attention to the case of CHAN TIN LAM. That case has attracted the attention of Her Majesty's Government. I hold in my hands papers presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, in which there are two despatches relating to the case of CHAN TIN LAM. And now I tell the Honourable gentleman what it is he omitted, and what it is well the Council should know. To begin with, my allegation all along has been this, I deported whenever the Executive Council recommended me to do so, and when the sentences put before me as the justification of the deportation were lawful sentences. But I am not prepasred to commit an ille- gality, and in the case of CHAN TIN LAM it was not merely the fact that he was a juvenile offender, that is, that my Honourable friend Mr. RUSSELL and the late Mr. MAY were of opinion he was a juve- nile offender-he alleged he was over sixteen, but the Magistrates thought he was younger; that was not the mere fact in dispute, but I called the Attorney General's attention three times to the fact that the flogging sentences were illegal as well as the actual sentence of deportation itself. As regards the deportation sentence, the Honourable member (Mr. KESWICK) had all the papers in his hands, and the last few words in my hand-writing he did not tell the Council, "Let copies of all these documents and minutes be made for transmission to the Secretary of State." What was the opinion given upon the deportation sentence? That it was not according to Law. Did Lord CARNARVON disapprove of my conduct in not deporting the inan? He did not. But that is not the only case. How is it that the case of CHAN TIN LAM comes before Parliament? This case brought against me.-
Honourable W. KESWICK.-Not against you.-The Honourable member was understood to ex- plain that he had brought forward the matter, not as a case against His Excellency, but to point out an apparent discrepancy between the facts and statement that the advice of the Executive Council had been acted on.
His EXCELLENCY.--I never for a moment denied that I acted in opposition to the advice of the Council whenever the deportation sentence was illegal, and when some of the flogging sentences were also illegal. Now in the very despatch to the Secretary of State, of the 23rd June, 1877-which, if the Honourable member had come to me instead of bringing the matter forward in this way, I should have been happy to place in his hands and which after the course he has taken to-day I shall lay before the Council, I describe a similar case and mention the Ordinances referring to it. I then proceed to give my view of the matter, and I mention that when I first drew Mr. PHILLIPPO's attention to the illegality of the deportation sentence he called upon me and at that time did not take the view I took, and I deported the man, but subsequently, on further consideration, he admitted I was right, as a matter of law, and on the question being referred to Her Majesty's Government the final decision is that the deportation sentence in all such cases was not in accordance with law and Lord CARNARVON approved of my having called attention to that illegality, although in the first instance Mr. PHILLIPPO had not recognised it. The actual number of such illegal deportation sentences was small. I call- ed the attention of the Police Magistrates to the necessity of adhering strictly to the terms of the Ordinance in deportation cases. They acted on my instructions; and from that time the deportation sentences have been according to law. However, the point that struck me most in the case in the CHAN TIN LAM was not so much the fact that the deportation sentence was illegal, but that the man had been subjected to illegal flogging, and I specially called attention to one flogging inflicted by sentence of the Police Magistrate, which was in these words, "Four months' hard labour and twenty- four strokes with the rattan privately on the breech."
I wrote to Lord CARNARVON on the 23rd of June, 1877, sending him all the papers in CHAN TIN LAM's case.
I am not sorry that it should be brought forward publicly now. It was at one time the subject of much pretty gossip for two reasons. In the first place, after my despatch was sent to Lord CARNARVON Some months elapsed, and then my private Secretary--who is in the room now--asked me "has received if the answer had come in CHAN TIN LAM's case, because, he said, a certain gentleman a letter from a permanent official in the Colonial Office, who was formerly in Hongkong, and that gentleman says an answer is coming out in CHAN TIN LAM's case in which Lord CARNARVON differs with the Governor as to whether the flogging was legal or not." I said no despatch had come; nor did it come until subsequent mail. Well the despatch came, and then I found Lord CARNARVON did
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.