case-of-hong-kong-correspondence-between — Page 3

But, late in the night of Friday last, the 22nd inst., I received, from Under Secretary
Letter of Under
Mr. For
Secretary Mr. Fortescue, a short letter, informing , me, that your Grace “ con- tescue, Ň.P., of the
22nd July, 1859.
curred in the confirmation of my suspension ” (not giving, however, any reasons
for that conclusion) ; that “ I was at liberty to read ” (at your office ) “ the
despatch of your predecessor, Sir E. B. Lytton, to the Governor of Hong -Kong,
conveying that confirmation ; ” and that this liberty was accorded me, " with
reference to previous correspondence ” ( unspecified ), and because “ Sir John
Bowring had now arrived in this country.”
I
 ( 30 )
Letter to myself Anxious to avail myself of any means of information, however partial,
,
Acting Colonial Ses and of whatever date , -1, after appointing the hour, called at your office on
fretary July, 1858of. Saturday afternoon, the 23rd inst., at four o'clock ( just one year—to a minute
23rd(No.4333;
—from the first announcement of the suspension then being resolved upon ),,
and was shown the despatoh, by Mr. Arthur Blackwood, the clerk in charge.
I was informed, by that gentleman, that I was not at liberty to make a
single extraet from the despatch itself. But I was permitted to extract the
marginal references to the papers, on which alone it was supposed to be
grounded. I presume that it will be printed immediately, in conformity with
Under-Secretary Mr. Fortescue's announcement in Parliament of last Tuesday
week, the 12th inst. I presume also that my present observations will be
allowed to accompany it.
Despatch of Se The date of that despatch is remarkable :
cretary Sir E. B.
Lytton to the Go Only six days before its date, the very same fact — of his confirmation of
vernor
Kong, of oftheHong:
17th my suspension - had been made known to Parliament, by Secretary E. B.
March , 1859. Lytton himself, on the 11th March last, in the terms (so complimentary to
. 153, pp. 13-14.: myself) which I have
volHansard,3rdSess
>
noted in my unanswered letter to your Grace.
London Newspapers It is notorious, my Lord, that, in the interval, his deplorable illness had
of the 12th March ,
1859 . greatly incapacitated him for the discharge of any public business;; and it ap
pears, from his Under-Secretary, the Earl of Carnarvon's, speech, in your Grace's
house, on the 3rd of the same month, that, even down to that recent date, the
papers had notbeen all considered, or even read ; that their volume was found
a considerable difficulty in the way of enquiry -- amounting, as his Lordship,
in his own justification, “ had ascertained , to eleven pounds in weight :" and
Hansard, vol. 152, that the Earl had not had time to acquire more than that which, I am sure,
P: 1168, and London he will now confess to be — the very imperfect and erroneous view of the facts,
4th March , 1859 . which his reported speech presents, and on which his Lordship, even then, felt
Despatch of the
17th March, 1859 . himself unable to found a satisfactory judgment.
I saw nothing, in the despatch , which made necessary the present denial
of a copy, or extracts, or the past delay, during several valuable months, to
acquaint me with its tenor.
It was strictly confined to the recriminatory charges, brought by the
>

accused against myself, viz.-- those of “ bitter hostility ” towards inculpated
officials ; of refusing to sit on the bench of justice,if the chief criminal sat there ;
of disrespect to my superiors, —that is to say, in applying to the late Governor,
the late Lieutenant-Governor, and the late Acting Colonial Secretary (when I
accused them) , the words of accusation ; of presuming to address to the Secre
tary of State any appeal against the Governor, unless the Governor thought fit
to admit such appeal; and of having failed to prove the main charge, against
the principal criminal, Mr. Caldwell , to the satisfaction of a Commission of
Enquiry, nominated by the inculpated officials themselves, after my appeal to
the Secretary of State had been presented, and, above all, after those officials
had destroyed, with fire, the only proofs still extant, whereby the main charge
in question ( that of having, in connivance with his pirate partner, the convict
 ( 31 )
Mah Chow Wong, endeavoured to deceive the Executive Council into the
pardon of that convict) would have been proved .
Yet the despatch expressly guarded your predecessor, from being under
stood to have formed any opinion, on any one of the charges, to the prejudice
of the guilty, or even to intend to make them the subject of any enquiry, in
Letter of the 3rd
England , or, for the present indeed, any where else . It even suggested that July, 1859,
" those charges which were proved,” (including, inter alia, as my unanswered
letter of the 3rd instant, will show , that of “ a long and intimate connection ,
and partnership in lorchas with a notorious Chinese Pirate,” ) “ were com
paratively unimportant ; ”—as bearing on the question, of the English partner's
fitness, for an English Justiceship of the Peace, in the locality which was the
scene of that alliance.
In fact, the despatch was evidently written with the single object, of being
communicated to me, and, sooner or later, to the British public ; with a view to
the offer made, by Secretary Sir E. B. Lytton himself, in the House of Hansard ; and
Newspapers ; ubi sa
Commons, six days previously, “to produce all the documents, if Mr. Ridley prà.
moved for them ; ” there being, as the Minister then declared , " no personal or
official objection to the production."
I need ::ot say that, at that time, neither had Sir John Bowring returned
to this country, nor was my return expected. But I have further to say, that
the only reasons, by which the non -production of the documents in question had
been justified, down to Friday last, were the supposed good of “ the public
service, " and " the absence of the ( late) Secretary of State through illness ;” so
that I learn now, for the first time, that the absence of Sir John Bowring,
(whose return had been expected ever since January last,) was ever considered
an objection.
But it is with satisfaction that I perceive, that I am not invited, by Under
>



Secretary Mr. Fortescue, to make any observations on the contents of the now
produced despatch. I must presume that, since the 12th instant, when he
announced in the House of Commons, that there was an intention so to invite
me, Your Grace has had an opportunity of perusing, in extenso, my un
answered letter of the 3rd instant. For, in that letter, as it were by anticipation ,
every false assumption of material fact, contained in the despatch, appears to
me to have been corrected, and every erroneous conclusion displaced.
It must strike your Grace that, before your predecessor could arrive at a
legitimate position, whence to judge of the charges of “ intemperate ” and
“ disrespectful” opposition, to the accused Hong-Kong officials, (brought by
themselves, against me, before themselves, and in reprisal for my own accusa
tions of positive crime), he was bound to have decided upon the truth of the
latter. Not only would this be the natural order, in any case of charge and
countercharge, but, here, the countercharge was not appreciable at all, until
after an investigation into the prior charges.
“ Moderation of language ” (says a great jurist) “ is aa relative term , which Sir James Maciu
tosh .
varies with the subject to which it is applied. Atrocious crimes are not to be
 ( 32 )
related as calmly and coolly as indifferent or trifling events. If there be a
decorum, due to exalted rank and authority, there is also a much more
sacred decorum , due to virtue and to human nature ;; which would be outraged,
and trampled under foot, by speaking of guilt in a lukewarm language, falsely
called moderate .”
Not for my own sake, but for that of the cause in which I have suffered, I
entreat your Grace, as you value the well-being and honour of the Queen's
Colonial Empire, to compare your predecessor's despatch with my unanswered
letter ; and, if necessary, with the documents on which it is based ; and then to
decide, for yourself, whether, in rescuing the drowned honour of my country, I
have plucked her too rudely by the locks. For that is the utmost laid to my
charge.
Letter to the Act I am the better entitled to ask this tardy act of justice, because I now find
ing Colonial Secre-
tary of the 13th that, in the list of documents contained in the margin of his despatch,, and
May, 1858 .
on which he professes to ground his opinions,—there is no reference, either to
my original statement of reasons for resigning the justiceship of the peace , and
Letter of the 30th
, 1358 , reply
of my charges against Mr. Caldwell,—nor to that of my “ Defence and Expla
to his of the 23ră nation ,” in which I offered cause against the late Governor's then announced
July, 1858.
intention to suspend me for having made and supported those charges ,-nor to
Memorandum of my “ Memorandum ” demanding a trial before the Executive Council, and
6th August, 1858 .
protesting against an ex parte condemnation, by that body or by the Governor,
Printed Warrant, without trial,--nor to the Official Report of Oral Evidence, taken by the
Report, and Minutesof Caldwell Commission, a mutilated yet still an important document ;-to every
Caldwell Enquiry.
one of which four papers I had, in my two enumerated letters of appeal to the
letters to Secre- Secretaries of State, referred for the facts of my case ; as not wishing to trouble
of the 17th May, your department, with an idle repetition of facts in evidence, and those already
1858,SirandtoSecre-
tary E.B. Lytton , too
voluminously set forth .
of the 7th August, Neither do I perceive any reference whatever, to the subsequent pro
1858 .
Hong Kong Su- ceedings in the case of “ The Queen v. Tarrant,” where the verdict of a special
preme Court, No- jury, in fact, found the late Governor and late Acting Colonial Secretary
1858 .
guilty of having procured , by a “trick” and a spoliation of evidence, that very
failure of the main charge against Mr. Caldwell, already referred to , which, by
the despatch, is made a principal reason, for confirming their own act in sus
pending me who had brought it.
It must be obvious to your Grace . that, whether these singular omissions
were owing to some further suppression of papers at Hong -Kong, or whether
they only belong to that systematic forbearance from enquiry, to which, in the
concluding paragraph of his despatch, your predecessor expressed his intention
to adhere, I cannot be expected, until these deficiencies are supplied, to protect
myself against having applied, to me and my past conduct, the only portion of
that despatch which I have not yet noticed. I refer, of course, to the startling
doctrine it lays down, as to the combined duties, of Queen's Attorney-General,
sole Grand Juror, and Justice of the Peace,
I have most respectfully to ask your Grace, for your acknowledgment
 ( 33 )
of my letter of the 3rd instant, and for your decision upon the points thereby
submitted .
I have, &c.,
T. C. ANSTEY .

The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,
Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of
State for the Colonies.




2 , Plowden Buildings, Temple,
26th July, 1859 .
MY LORD DUKE,
Letter to Secre
I request your Grace to consider my present communication as supple tary the Duke of
mental to my letter of yesterday. Newcastle of the
Denied any copy of, or extracts from , your predecessors despatch, I had 25thDespatch
July, 1859.
of Se
to trust to my memory alone, in enumerating its multifarious contents ; and one Lytton
cretary toSirtheE. Go
B.
of them, I find, I have inadvertently omitted. vernor of Hong -Kong
of the 17th March,
Your predecessor states, that “ some” of my letters to your department, 1859.
enumerated in the margin of his despatch, were received by him only through
an irregular channel (I presume the Post-Office), and not through the late
Governor.
Letters to Secre
In that case, the late Governor must have intercepted and suppressed the taries Lord Stanley
originals ; and I have several times forewarned your predecessors, that his ofandtheSir17th
E. B.Lytton
and 21st
Excellency had shown himself strongly inclined to such a system . May, 7th, 10th ,
With the proofs in my hands, I solemnly declare that, so long as I was in gust,
26th, and 21st An
Oe
the island, I never addressed, to your depar tment, a single letter of compl aint, tober, 1858,and 21st
and 28th January ,
accusation , or appeal, except through the Governor, and unsealed ; the only 1859.
documents which I ever forwarded, through any other channel except the
Governor , from Hong -Kong, to your department, being copies or duplicates of
letters and papers of immediate importance to my case, which had been pre- Id ., id .
viously lodged, unsealed , in Sir John Bowring's own hands , and which he had
declined to forward for the present .
Your Grace is aware that, in doing so, I only observed a very familiar pre
caution, and one which has been, in certain cases, found most useful to your Printed “ Rules
department and the public service — the general rule, which excludes from the Colonial Service,"
and particularly Reg.
consideration , by the Secretary of State, papers not sent through the Governor, 82 and 83.
always admitting the exception of cases, where the Governor has suppressed or
detained the originals without cause .
The same general rule obtains in the Foreign Office. But, notwithstanding Letter to Secre
this, Secretary the Earl of Malmesbury (on the occasion mentioned in my first tary the Duke
Newcastle of the of
3rd
unanswered letter to your Grace) did, without losing a mail , investigate and July, 1859, par. 45.
K
 ( 34 )

B.Secre-
tary Sir E.to Lyt decide my matter of complaint against Sir John Bowring, as Superintendent of
ton of the 12th Oc- Trade; although his Lordship had then before him only the duplicate, (trans
tober, 1858, annex
ing " Copy ofCor- mitted by me through the Post-Office) of my unsealed letter to him, transmitted
1
Earl of Malmesbury through and detained by Sir John Bowring ; thereby in fact also deciding, that
of the 11th and12th his Excellency was not justified in so detaining it.
October, 1858."
Parliamentary De- I perceive, from Under -Secretary Mr. Fortescue's reported speech , of last
bates, in Times and
Morning Star of the night, in the House of Commons, that to -morrow he is “ to place, in the hands
26th July, 1859 .
of members,” a selection made, by your department, from the papers relating
to the charges against Hong-Kong officials ; but omitting such as affect their
character, or contain the early history of the whole case against them ; and
that he will, at the same time, deliver to members all papers affecting
myself.
I trust that your Grace will see the justice, of including my present com
munication amongst the latter, so that your predecessor's statement, that I have
been guilty of ex parte or underhand communication , may not go forth, unre
futed, to the British public.
And, again referring your Grace to my letter of yesterday, and reiterating
the applications therein specified,
I have , &c.
T. C. ANSTEY.
The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,
Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of
State for the Colonies.




Downing Street, 26th July, 1859 .
SIR ,
I am directed by the Duke of Newcastle to acknowledge your letters of
the 3rd and 25th inst., and also one received this day.
His Grace had not thought himself called upon , to enter into any discussion
upon the statement addressed by you to him on the 3rd instant, nor does he
intend to make any reply to your observations, upon the despatch of his pre
decessor, confirming your suspension . That decision was taken by Sir E. B.
Lytton upon a full and careful consideration, which his illness did not prevent
him from giving to the case ; and in that decision the Duke of Newcastle, after
a like consideration, feels it his duty to concur.
He directs me, however, to inform you, that he has no objection to your
two letters, now under acknowledgment, being added to the papers which will
be laid before Parliament. I must add, with respect to those papers, that my
answer to Mr. Edwin James, in the House of Commons, appears to have been
incorrectly given in some of the reports. So far from promising to lay them
 ( 35 )
on the table on the 27th, I said that, from their bulk, I could not positively
promise that they would be presented during the present Session .*
I am , Sir, your obedient Servant,
C. FORTESCUE .
T. Chisholm Anstey , Esq.




2, Plowden Buildings, Temple, 29th July, 1859 .
MY LORD DUKE ,
I have received Under-Secretary Mr. Fortescue's letter of the 26th inst.,
acknowledging my three unanswered letters to your Grace, and conveying your
Letters to Secre
final “ directions,” as to the grave matters, which I thought it my duty to tary the Duke of
report officially, on the 17th May, 1858, from Hong-Kong, to your predecessor, 25th,
Newcastle of theJuly,
and 26th 3rd,
Lord Stanley, and my suspension from office by the parties named in such 1859.
Report.
The course, which your department has thought fit to pursue, towards the
unfortunate colony and myself, leaves me no alternative but to exercise all
legitimate means within my reach, both to obtain justice for the former, and
publicly to vindicate the assailed independence and honour of that English Bar,
whose cause is so deeply involved in my own claims for reparation.
I have, &c.,
T. C. ANSTEY.

The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,
Her Majesty's Secretary of State for
the Colonies, Downing Street.

(* This announced probability of so long a delay in the publication of the selection in question, makes the
present publication necessary ; which comprises only those documents, to the publication of which Mr. Fortescue’s
letter intimates that there is no objection ;-viz., the Correspondence with the present Secretary of State .]




LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHARING CROSS
 1




28 JY 60




ያ
1
1991