crime-and-government-at-hong-kong-a-lett — Page 1

CRIME AND GOVERNMENT

AT HONG KONG.


A LETTER
TO




THE EDITOR OF THE " TIMES ” NEWSPAPER ;
OFFERING



REASONS FOR AN ENQUIRY, INTO THE DISGRACES,
BROUGHT ON THE BRITISH NAME IN CHINA, BY
THE PRESENT HONG KONG GOVERNMENT.




BY



T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY , Esq. ,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER -AT-LAM
LATE HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HONG KONG.




LONDON :
EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE .
1859 .
12
 TO THE EDITOR OF THE “ TIMES,"
ETC., ETC., ETC.


<p><p><p>&nbsp;<span></span></p><!--more--><p></p>
SIR,
Returning to England from Hong Kong,
upon sick leave, within the last few days, I have had
my attention called to some observations of the
Times newspaper of the 15th ultimo, upon the case
of that Colony, as disclosed in certain Petitions to
Parliament from several towns corporate in the
north, also presented during my absence from these
shores, and praying enquiry into the same.
I thankfully acknowledge the kind and flattering
terms in which my part in the affair is treated. But
I find myself under the obligation to point out some
facts, in which , except as witness, I am personally
unconcerned, and which , not having before him the
papers which relate to them , or even a simple state
ment of their contents, the writer has very much mis,
apprehended.
In doing so, I am actuated by the merest sense of
what is due to public justice. The course of justice
cannot but be much impeded by the prevalence of
an erroneous opinion, as to the nature and gravity
of the accusation ; and public opinion , as it is called,
is but the reflex of the opinion of the public jour,
nalist.. If his eye be dark, how great is the dark.
ness !
I purpose, therefore, in the brief compass of these
pages, to present a clear, concise, and truthful state
ment of the main points in that much bruited case
B2
 4


of the colony of Hong Kong, which call for the
enquiry proposed by the Parliamentary Petitions.
I shall state nothing which will not be established,
if Mr. Edwin James, M.P. for Mary-le-bone succeeds
in obtaining the papers ; of his intention to move for
which, I am glad to see he has given notice.
But, before I do so, let me notice one preliminary
error, suggested, doubtless, by those who fear expo
sure,, and which, unless removed, may render enquiry
impracticable.
It has been urged on the British public, that the
1
quarrels and bickerings of a little community ought
not to occupy the attention of Parliament.
I do not understand the position .
If it be meant that the case is one of quarrels and
bickerings, I do not hesitate to say, that the objection
argues an entire unacquaintance with the facts of the
case, or else the conscious and deliberate purpose, of
averting enquiries, by misleading the public as to their
nature .
It is a case of crime ; not of constructive, but of
direct and positive crime, in its most familiar ac
ceptation. It rests upon evidences sworn and un
sworn , documentary and oral, official and private..
If established, it inculpates of extortion, bribe
taking, corrupt alliances, malversation, resetting of
pirates, felons, and murderers, and other offences
of no speculative or uncertain character, a number
of English people, in the Government employ abroad,
filling offices of rank in a British colony, and even
representing to the eyes of foreign powers the majesty
of British empire .
If disproved, it inculpates the witnesses, of con
spiracy and falsehood .
 5


To treat such a case as one of mere provincial
brawling and discord, is as preposterous as it would
be for the Times' reporter of the Crown cases on the
late Circuit, to describe them in like manner, and to
lament the unhappy prevalence of all kinds of mis
understandings, between the prisoners on the one
side, and the prosecutors, witnesses, juries, and judges
on the other.
But, if it be meant that the relative importance
or unimportance of the community, which suffers the
wrong, and witnesses the disgrace, is to determine
the question, whether the one and the other are or
are not to receive redress and chastisement, at the
hands of the Parliament and the British people, I
am sure that the good sense of every right-thinking
man ,will repel the unworthy suggestion.
If England will plant, she must cherish, her " little
communities ."
If Hong Kong was thought of so much impor
tance, as that its cession by the Court of Pekin , was
made the price of the Peace of Nanking, in 1842–3 ,
and its wellbeing the main pretext of the second
Chinese War, in 1856, surely the demeanour of those,
to whom England has confided the care and manage
ment of that position, is not a " little " matter, nor
one in which England ought to feel no manner of
concern .

If the objects which, as we may still read in the
despatches of the period of that cession, were the
protection of the persons and property of the English
and foreign merchants trading with China, and the
affording, to China herself, an opportunity of learn
ing and appreciating England and her institutions,
from a “ little ” model of both, to be exhibited from
 6


Hong Kong, were then thought of sufficient weight
and value, to necessitate our persisting, in our demands
of the cession, upon the reluctant Chinese Plenipo
tentiaries, it may not be altogether idle now , in 1859,
to ascertain whether it be indeed true, as asserted,
that the design is already, after a sixteen years' trial,
effectually frustrated , and this by the rapacious,
corrupt, and felonious actings, of the very men to
whom the experiment had been entrusted.
And, to put it on the lowest ground, that of per
sonal grievance, -if it be indeed the fact, that men
of honour, after having been tempted by Govern
ment to quit their proper sphere at home, and to
take their part in the administration of justice to
that " little community,” upon the faith of being
supported in their performance of that important
branch of the model experiment, have been insulted,
degraded, and deprived of their bread, through the
influence of pirates, and other criminals, in the coun
cils of the local Government - is it too much to
expect, that their cause will be judged, and avenged,
by the great community which sent them forth , upon
a mission so requited ?
But then, it is said, ( and an honourable member
who borrows the thought, quotes, in its favour, to his
constituents, the supposed precedent of the Ceylon
case ), — why not hold your enquiry at Hong Kong ?
Why trouble the mother country ? Why demand
& judgment upon evidence not laid before the
judges ?
The objection answers itself.
Any one, who knows the routine of Downing
Street, is aware, that, in all cases like the pre
sent, the accused Colonial official has the last word .
 7


And not only the last word, but the further ad
vantage of being able to conceal his defence, - (gene
rally consisting of unfounded recrimination ), -- from
the party demanding justice at the hands of the
Secretary of State.
For no communication, from the party complain
ant, is so niuch as perused by the minister, unless
forwarded open through the Governor ; -- the intention
being, that the latter shall have the opportunity of
perusing, and, if he can , of refuting it.
Every such communication, forwarded otherwise
than according to that rule, is returned to the writer,
without comment.
But, -- this being the close privilege of the local
Government alone, -- no such opportunity is accorded
to its victims or opponents .
They know nothing of the case stated by the ac
cused , unless, perchance, after the final decision of
the controversy, when the knowledge comes much too
late.
Therefore, if it be indeed true, that the inculpated
officials of Hong Kong, after having once a fortnight
from the 10th May, 1858 , until the 10th March , 1859,
despatched to Downing Street, their allegations and
proofs, in disculpation of themselves and those whom
they protect from the vengeance of the criminal law ,
failed so egregiously, in their endeavour, as this last
objection supposes,-- .surely they should, now at least,
and without more enquiry, ( particularly such enquiry
as one conducted by a Hong Kong executive is
shown to be ), be declared unfit to hold their present
offices.
Incapacity at least is fully made out. What graver
charge remains against them, may be matter for the
 8


consideration of my successor,and of the Crown side
of the Supreme Court. But that is a question which
does not belong to the Executive.
Nor is the Ceylon case any precedent for this.
There, the enquiry was commenced in Parliament.
Here, neither Parliament nor Downing Street began
to interfere until after the close of the investigation
at Hong Kong
There, the chief witnesses were in the colony, and
the bulk of the documentary evidences in the archives
of its Secretariat. Here, the whole of the latter, if
the Hong Kong Government are to be believed, after
being by that Government publicly twice produced
and read at Hong Kong, are now in Downing Street ; *
and many of the former, including myself, have left
the Colony and are in England.
There, no decision consequently had been arrived
at. Here, the Secretary of State has arrived at a
decision ; has announced it in Parliament; and has
carried it into effect.
And yet, even there, the recognised fitness of a
partial enquiry at Ceylon before a Comunission, was
not allowed to supersede or even to suspend the in:
quisition ordered by Parliament. Contemporaneously
the two enquiries went on, and the final Report of
the Commons' Committee combined the results of
both .
In the present case, it will be found unnecessary to
adopt either proceeding.
The facts are salient on the pages of the papers,
which embrace, I am glad to see, the judge's notes of
* Letters from Acting Colonial Secretary Bridges to the Attorney
General (Nos. 303 and 478), dated Hong Kong, 25th May and 9th
August, 1858.
 9

the trial hereafter referred to, and for which the
member of Marylebone has asked.
I proceed briefly to classify those facts under their
proper heads .




}

I. THE COLONIAL SECRETARIAT.



As for every other colony, so for Hong Kong, the
Imperial Government, moved by a desire of prevent
ing the recurrence of a frequent source of embarrass
ment and abuse had, in 1856, wisely determined that
the duty and power of the officer, administering a
Colonial Government, should be deemed to be such,
and no other, as are “defined in Her Majesty's Com
mission , and the Instructions with which he is fur
nished ." *
In Colonies, possessing what is called “ reponsible
Government, ” the power and responsibility of the
executive Government may be, for aught I know,
shared with that officer by his Colonial Secretary and
other subordinate heads of departments, who are
called his “ Ministers.” But in colonies not so go
verned, at all events in that of Hong Kong, the
terms of his " commission and instructions " confer

* “ Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service."
London : Queen's Printers. 1856. III. , 8. 4.
 10


all the power and impose all the duty of the Supreme
Administrator of Government under Her Majesty,
upon the Governor or acting Governor ; leaving to
his subordinates , including the Colonial Secretary,
the duty of superintending their several departments,
and the power necessary to its performance, and
nothing more .
This arrangement, you will perceive, leaves to the
Colonial Secretary — for the rest an officer of high
-




rank, and a member of both councils -- no proper
function but that of organ of the supreme will of the
Governor, in his relations with all the other depart
ments of Government, and the community at large.
He has no independent power of action in that
regard ; nor can the Governor confer such upon him ,
unless specially empowered by his “ Commission," or
“ Instructions,” to delegate any portion of his own ,
and only so far as he is so authorised.
No such right of delegation existing in the case of
the Governor of Hong Kong, any attempt to delegate
must there be illegal, and the delegation a nullity;
and the duty, not only of the Supreme Court, but of
the departments of Government itself, in such a case,
have been too clearly expounded by Lord Mansfield
and the Court of King's Bench, to need a new expo
sition at this day.
Yet such an endeavour was made so recently as
the 20th January, 1858.
Advantage was taken, for that purpose, of the ab
sence of Mr. Mercer, the Colonial Secretary, upon
sick leave in England ; a gentleman of honour and
ability.
His locum tenens was a Dr. Bridges, D.C.L. , who is
an Attorney-Barrister, of Hong Kong, whose clients
 11


are chiefly Chinainen, and who had been raised by
Sir John Bowring, LL.D., to that post ; with liberty
to carry on his professional business, pari passu,
with that of Acting Colonial Secretary.
By his advice, as he swore at the trial, hereafter
noticed, a “ Circular defining the functions of the
Colonial Secretary," was adopted by the Governor
on the 20th January, 1858, and “ circulated for the
information and guidance of all officers of the Colonial
Government."
It appeared, however, from the same sworn evidence
of that functionary, that it was never sent home to
the Secretary of State.
I, therefore, reprint it in extenso ; -- for it is a very
extensive delegation of authority, by Sir John Bowring
to his Acting Secretary, and a very illegal one, and
one under which gross frauds have been committed
on the administration of justice, for the protection of
malversation and crime.

Hong Kong, 26th January, 1858 .
His Excellency the Governor is pleased to direct that the follow
ing rules, defining the functions of the Colonial Secretary, be cir
culated for the information and guidance of all officers of the
Colonial Government.
1. That no official communication of ANY DESCRIPTION WHẢTSOEVER
is to be addressed BY ANY MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT to His Excel
lency the Governor, except through the Colonial Secretary.
2. That the Colonial Secretary is the organ through whom the
official instructions of the Government are to be communicated, and
that, except on matters of daily routine, THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
ARE SUBJECT TO HIS AUTHORITY as the organ of the Government.
3. That before submitting ANY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT to His Excel
lency the Governor, it is the duty of the Colonial Secretary to
satisfy HIMSELF that the document in question is of a proper nature
for the notice of the Supreme power : and should he entertain ANY
DOUBTS on this scoré, thé Secretary is authorised To REMIT TÅE
 12

DOCUMENT IN QUESTION FOR CORRECTION , and, IN EXTREME CASES, TO

DECLINE ALTOGETHER TO SUBMIT IT, RECORDING HIS REASON FOR SO
DOING.

4. That every document submitted to His Excellency the Governor
may be observed on by the Secretary, for the information of His
Excellency ; and that the former is expected to point out anything
in such document he deems worthy of observation .
5. That the Secretary is bound to report to His Excellency the
Governor every matter of importance which may come to his know
ledge; but that, with regard to QUESTIONS OF DETAIL which may be
submitted to him , HE MUST TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SETTLING
OF THE SAME , WITHOUT TROUBLING HIS EXCELLENCY ON TRIFLING
MATTERS .

6. That the SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS of the Government are , IN ALL
CASES, to consider INSTRUCTIONS given BY THE COLONIAL SECRETARY as
emanating FROM THE GOVERNOR HIMSELF ; and the Secretary will be
responsible to His Excellency for any abuse of his authority.

I do not know that any Government officer, except
the governor of the gaol, obeyed the mandate. I
know that at least four heads of departments, in
cluding myself, protested against it, and withheld or
.




refused our obedience. Of these, the chief magistrate
of police, Mr. Davies, complained in his place in
Legislative Council, demanded explanations, which
were not granted, and menaced the governor with
resignation of his office, if the measure were con
firmed in Downing Street. But Downing Street has
not yet been consulted .
Our jealousy, well founded in law, was equally
founded in policy. We knew the antecedents of the
man , into whose hands the governor, whether moved
by love of ease, or by a worse motive, had thus
surrendered his power .
His professional malpractices were notorious in
the Colony. One of them was recorded in the
Parliamentary blue books of 1857; and it was one
 13


of such gravity, that the levity with which the
Chief Justice of Hong Kong treated him , when, to
use his own words, “ he threw himself on the mercy
of the Court," * was still a matter of surprise to
every man .
Sir John Bowring himself, in 1856, when Dr.
Bridges was absent from the Colony, had made no
secret, -- either to the Colonial Secretary ( Mr. Mercer ),
whom he nevertheless replaced, or to myself, who
protested from the first against his appointinent,--- of
his Excellency's personal dislike to Dr. Bridges .
He had even justified that dislike by imputations
of a very serious kind, suggested by the notorious
fact, that a great part of the Doctor's emoluments,
when Acting Attorney General, before my arrival
in the Colony, were derived from pawnbroking loans
to low Chinese, upon deposits of opium , and at ex
orbitant interest.
It was equally notorious, that the animosity was
reciprocal; and it was admitted by Dr. Bridges, at
at the trial already referred to, that, whilst filling
the office of Acting Attorney General, in 1855 , he
had induced the same defendant ( Mr. Tarrant,
the editor of the Friend of China, a Hong Kong 3




newspaper ), to insert a very celebrated libel upon Sir
John Bowring ; and that he had even sent him the
libel with the view to such publication.
In fact, the intensity of their mutual hatred, was
even greater than that which , as will presently
appear, existed at the same time, between two of
Dr. Bridges' friends, the Lieutenant Governor, and

* Parliamentary Papers (155) , 1857. (Sess. 2.) "“ Poisoners of
Hong Kong ;" pp. 25-6 .
 14

Mr. Caldwell, alias Sam Kwei, but which, as will
be also seen, was, in Mr. Caldwell's judgment,
powerless to obstruct his own preferment, since the
reputation of the former was at his mercy.
Added to the above facts, was the startling one,
that, in every attempt made to bring to justice the
malpractices of the same Mr. Caldwell or Sam
Kwei, hereafter to be noticed, in connection with
his notorious piratical associates, the “ Jonathan
Wild ” of Hong Kong and the China Seas, the
convict Mah Chow Wong, Dr. Bridges had been
always active and successful on the side of the ac:
cused.
All things considered, therefore, it was not sur
prising, that so much opposition was manifested, on
the part of honest servants of the Crown, even at the
risk of loss of office in Hong Kong and permanent
disfavour at home, to an encroachment, already ob
jectionable enough because of its intrinsic illegality. 2
Their opposition was fruitless. The " accroached ”
and illegal power was unscrupulously brought into
play, and became the first step to further usurpation.
Sam Kwei ( Mr. Caldwell ), now more than ever the
right hand of administration , was encouraged, in his
turn, to invade the important department -- hitherto,
by the wise jealousy of the Colonial Legislature,
shielded from all foreign interference -- of Superin
tendent of Police.
The remonstrances of the conscientious and zealous
officer, Mr. May, at the head of that department, were
met with insults, or else threats of suspension.
Nearly the same treatment was experienced by
every other independent department.
The doctrine of the corrupt reign of Charles the
 15


Second, that, in every supreme government, there en
dures ever the right of direct initiative and controlling
interference with every office in the State, was openly
acted on .
Chinese convicts and gaol-birds of Mah Chow
Wong's gang were employed as spies, and preferred
to the ordinary detective service. Mah Chow Wong
himself, from his cell, had the honour of directing
one or two false arrests and malicious conspiracies, to
pervert the administration of justice.
The functions of the stipendiary police had been
curefully defined by the Colonial Legislature. From
those proper duties they were now constantly with
drawn, and, under “ Sam Kwei's ” znanagement, em.
ployed on whatever service it seemed good to the
intruders to set them.
Arrests were made without warrant or just cause.
Nocturnal visits to respectable tradesmen's houses
upon groundless pretences — forcible entries vexa
tious searches ---- all kinds of annoyance were brought
to bear upon the obnoxious.
Nor were the outrages confined to Hong Kong.
Illegal forays for the same purposes were made
against the Chinese of the mainland, the subjects of
the Pekin Government ; and in some of them, innocent
men were kidnapped in their beds, brought to Hong
Kong, and afterwards discharged.
In every instance, the informer was either Mah
Chow Wong himself, a member of his secret society
or clan, or some one in some manner connected with
him or it. In no instance can the same be said of the
outraged victims of the system .
The police were most unwilling instruments. They
detested alike Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell, by either
 16


or both of whom they were personally commanded
on every such occasion. But they were forced to
obey. As to Mr. May, their lawful superintendent,
he was not even notified of these démarches. It was
not until after the doing of the mischief, that it came
to his knowledge. He remonstrated in vain, or only
to be censured for the remonstrance. He returned
to the charge ; and he requested that at least the corre
spondence might be laid before the Secretary of
State. He was threatened with dismissal, and the
correspondence was not sent to Downing-street.
The truth was, as confessed by Dr. Bridges at the
trial so often referred to, that nearly every portion of
Dr. Bridges' side of it, consisted of private letters
unofficialised, and not recorded in the archives of the
secretariat.
It was a significant revolution in the conduct of
public business, and one admitted by himself, on the
same occasion, to have been introduced by him
generally into all the departments of the public
service.
From the portions of the correspondence, referred
to by Dr. Bridges under the same cross-examination,
it appeared that some endeavour had been made by the
Superintendent of Police and others, to call Sir John
Bowring's attention to the alarming consequences of
these systematic irregularities. But it also appeared,
from the Governor's own minutes, that the mere act of
complaining to himself of these irregularities of his
6
secretary, was considered by his Excellency an " in
subordination ,” deserving the suspension of the of
fender ; --- and that every officer of Government was
expected to render to the private and unrecorded notes
 17

of His Excellency's delegate, the same obedience as
to the official mandates of the Governor himself.
It would be difficult to overrate the evil impression
which these proceedings produced on the minds of
the Chinese of Hong Kong and the empire.
They had always known that Mah Chow Wong,
the great Hong Kong pirate, was the partner of
Mr. Caldwell, the magistrate ; and that the latter had
inade himself useful to Dr. Bridges, in the way of his
profession of lawyer, and his trade of money lender
amongst the Hong Kong Chinamen.
But now they saw the latter, wielding all the pre
rogatives of the Queen, hoisting the viceregal flag,
demanding royal salutes, and taking precedence of her
generals and admirals.
They saw men, to use the authoritative language of
one of themselves respecting him, ( I quote from the
Report of the Opium Farm Monopoly Committee of
the Legislative Council as printed by authority ),*
doing anything he likes with the Government,
making a law one day, and tearing it to pieces the
.




next.”
They saw him investing himself with the tre
mendous powers,, which the Queen had conferred on
the governor of Hong Kong, for the destruction of
Chinese pirates,-taking counsel of their confederates
for the employment of those powers,_and associating
them to himself in the conduct of every enterprise
undertaken against persons proclaimed as pirates,
on no better evidence than the denunciations of
Mr. Caldwell and Mah Chow Wong.
It was the " reign of terror" at Hong Kong, spread
* Votes and Proccedings, &c., in the Hong Kong Government Gazette,
of the 6th July, 1858.
с
 18


ing wide its mischievous influence over the neigh
bouring coasts, to the great scandal of Her Majesty's
Government.
Already had semi-official remonstrances, in the
name of the small Portuguese and Chinese traders at
Macao, against the encouragement so afforded to the
pirates who infested them even in their own waters,
been verbally addressed to Dr. Bridges, by the late
governor of Macao, the Chevalier de Guimaraes,
but with no effect.
The Chinese of the empire now began, on their
side, to beseech the merciful forbearance of their
formidable neighbours.
I have myself seen petitions from the Main, praying
Dr. Bridges' government not to resent, as offences
against the Queen of England, proceedings taken by
the petitioners within the Chinese territory, to recover
the possession of land there situate, against Chinese
wrongdoers holding it by the strong hand, in the face
of аa decree rendered by the proper Chinese court.
That opportunity was afforded me by the parties
themselves. These men having presumed to present
such petitions, in a case where the Mah Chow Wong
gang were the adverse occupants, and, consequently,
the interest of the petitioners was adverse to that of
Dr. Bridges' Hong Kong government, were contempt
uously ordered to withdraw themselves and their pe
titions too from the Secretariat.
From the printed translations of someof the petitions,
which appeared in the Government organ , I made
some extracts at the time, and these still remain in
my hands. The originals, themselves I ventured to
return, enclosed in a letter from myself ( 6th July,
* He has very lately returned to Lisbon .
 19

1858 ) to the Secretariat ; where, unless burned, they
now are . I regret to add, that my own well-meant
recommendation of their prayer received the usual
answer — that the Government "saw no occasion for
its interference."
The case was, nevertheless, a hard one; and the
language of the petitions very striking.
They were well-known to the Hong Kong authori
ties, as the representatives of the Tung family, -- crown
tenants, under the emperor of China, of all the arable
and pasture lands of Hong Kong, at the date of the
cession of that island to Her Majesty. They had held
their lands for about thirty years before the cession ,
paying rent to the emperor. The Crown lease had
been granted in perpetuity ( “ infinite " ) to the original
។



lessee and his assigns ; and they were assignees for
valuable consideration.
The Colonial Government, however, took possession
of the lands themselves, on the cession in 1842-3,
supposing that by virtue either of the cession itself,
or the law of " prize," all private properties became
vested in Her Majesty. They had at that time no
law advisers in the colony ,
No compensation was made to the dispossessed Tung
family. A branch of it is living at Hong Kong in
great poverty . The elder branch retired to the
opposite coast, within the sight of Hong Kong, but
in the Empire of China ; where they had still an estate,
called Tsim Shar Choy.
Some time back, however, it became notorious in
Hong Kong that these unhappy men had lost even
that estate, and that a number of pirates and re-setters
of such were in possession , under title from the
redoubted Mah-Chow Wong.
C2
 20

It became thenceforth an eyesore and a nuisance to
the local trade; the head quarters of the East Coast
pirates; a place of custody and torture for prisoners
kidnapped by Mah -Chow Wong from Hong Kong ;
and the chief depôt of all colonial plunder.
Until the publication, however, of these petitions,
it was not generally known in the Colony how these
men had obtained possession , and by what influences
they had maintained it.
It should not be forgotten , that it was not until
long after the conviction and sentence of Mah-Chow
Wong, in the Hong Kong Supreme Court, for piracy,
that these poor men gathered courage to petition
Dr. Bridges' Government at all.
It may also be, that they were partially emboldened
so to do by the notoriety of the then pending
enquiry into Mr. Caldwell's ( Sam Kwei's ) proceedings ,
which I shall hereafter notice, and of which it was
was then impossible to foresee the strange and start
ling conclusion that soon followed .
Be that as it may, the petitioners represent, that by
“ violence" and “ usurpation ," Mah-Chow Wong, and
his banditti from Hong Kong, had first succeeded in
dispossessing them of their estate, and planting it
with an armed garrison ; that the Court of the Sun-On
Mandarin , within whose jurisdiction the property
was situate, having been applied to by the petitioners,
had heard the cause and adjudged restitution in their
favour; that, in the interim , Mah -Chow Wong had
himself been tried at Hong Kong for piracy, convicted
and sentenced to fourteen years'transportation ; that,
from his gaol, he had nevertheless, given orders to
his " companion," a person named 'Ng Ting Shing,
to keep the land on the opposite shore, by force ;"
 21

that, by the proclamation of the Mandarin, they, the
petitioners, were encouraged and directed to arm
their friends, and resume possession by the strong hand
in like manner ; and that they were making prepara
tion to do so, when it occurred to them that, as their
expedition to the point of land, where the property
lies, must necessary be effected in boats, the objects
of that expedition would be misrepresented at Hong
Kong, by Mah -Chow Wong's friends there, and
perhaps a naval force despatched against them, as
though engaged in some piratical enterprise.
Then they give this remarkable reason , to justify
their apprehension. They say, that the wrongs
already suffered were done by that pirate, simply
because “ the above mentioned lawless fellow , Mah
Chow Wong, has so much reliance on THE ENGLISH
POWER IN THIS SETTLEMENT ; ” and therefore, that if,
availing themselves of the lex rei sitûs, and the
judgment of their Court, they were now “ to contend
with 'Ng Ting Shing in battle on the other side, the
troops of his Excellency may do something wrong to
them, if they ( the troops) would listen to the wrong
saying of the people who are ignorant of the state of
things ; ” in other words, that Her Majesty's forces,
misled, as frequently has happened, by false informers
of the Jonathan Wild class, will deal with them as
sea and land pirates.
Yet his Excellency was of opinion, that there was
nothing in such a case, to demand the vigilance or
anxiety of Government.
I believe that the friends of the alarmed peti
tioners had recourse to the British community in this
emergency.
The petitions themselves were printed in the
 22

China Mail; but the community was already put on
(6
its guard by the following “ Notice,” largely adver
tised in the different journals, both in English and in
Chinese.

NOTICE .

TUNG WING - FOOK - TONG , of Sun-On district, was formerly sole
Proprietor of the Island of Hong Kong, and of the hills and coast on
the North side of the Harbour under the general name of Tsim
Shar- choy . The Island of Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain ,
and Tsim Shar-choy was alone left to TUNG WING - Fook - Tong . But
MAH-Chow Wong, with OONG Tin - Sing, and the late Oong Min
TOONG, established themselves under the name of SAN -LOONG
TONG, and took possession of Tsim Shar -choy. Lately, TUNG WING
Fook - Tong petitioned the Magistrate of Sun -On to examine Tung's
claim to Tsim Shar -choy, and the Magistrate issued aa Proclamation,
declaring that Tung WING - Fook - Tong is the true Owner of the pro
perty, and Mah-Chow Wong has no right to it. Though MAH
Chow -Wong is now a convict in prison in Hong Kong, yet his wife
has sent OONG TIN - Sing to lay claim to Tsim Shar-choy, stating that
those Comprador Boats belonging to Mar -Chow -Wong's people,
which supply the Foreign Shipping with provisions, need fear no
one, but may act as they please at Tsim Shar- choy, independent of
its Proprietor and his claims. TUNG WING -Fook - Tong hopes that
the Foreigners will not take aa biassed view of this matter.
TUNG WING -FOOK TONG,
Hong Kong, 19th July , 1858. per Yun Loong .

I have not heard whether the petitioners re .
gained their property, or whether their expedition
proceeded. But, if it did, thanks to the appeal thus
made by them to the good sense of the British,
military and naval, as well as civil, the pirates of
Hong Kong did not, on that occasion, obtain the
countenance of the British flag.
Whilst such was the terror produced abroad, it may
well be imagined what was the “ public opinion ,” and
what the policy, of the Hong Kong Chinese, in
dealing with the acting Colonial Secretary.
 23


His practice, both as attorney and barrister - for
such it was, long before that amalgamation became
sanctioned by ordinance — became very extensive
indeed. I do not remember exactly enough to speak
with confidence ; but I think it was at this period,
that he put up the Chinese signboard, which still
adorns his door-post, in the Queen's Road, informing
>

all Chinese litigants that the inmate is “ Bridges
[ Bi-li-ji -si ], the distinguished graduate-in -law , and
“ lord of legal knowledge,” who moves all courts for
clients, in small and great things, in unclean and
clean . At all events, he was even now in the full
enjoyment of that reputation ; and, moreover, it was
the general impression of the Chinese community,
that the retainer, as counsel, secured in him the chief
member of the Government.
For that impression, if he had ever taken any step,
or shown any inclination to prevent or reverse it, he
would not deserve to be blained . It was the unhappy
consequence of the original sin of choosing a
practising barrister to fill, albeit provisionally and
only for a season, those high executive appoint
ments. But, as the Legislative Council has well and
unanimously resolved, Dr. Bridges having, on the
contrary, so combined the anomalous practices, and
deliberately so demeaned himself in the exercise of
each, as necessarily to produce that impression upon
the minds of the observers, he is justly blameable for
its existence. And of this, the very case which
brought down upon him from that body the heavy
censure of disqualification for the offices he had so
disgraced, affords a lively illustration.
For revenue purposes, the retail of opium at Hong
Kong was, by one of his Ordinances of 1858, created
 24


into a Government monopoly, and put up for farm
to the highest bidder by tender. A certain day
was appointed, beyond which no tenders could be re
ceived. At the end of that day, the highest bidding
was ascertained, and declared in the Secretariat.
Nevertheless, two days afterwards, a new bidder
offered himself, in the person of a Chinese convert,
Chun -tai-kwong, whose name had been shortly before
mentioned by his bishop with much honour in Exeter
Hall . The bidding, a still higher one, was received,
and the grant of the farm ordered to be made out in
his favour, as soon as his sureties and himself should
have perfected their recognisances.
This was done at the Secretariat some days later ;
and, in the meantime, an undertaking had been come
to between the intended grantee and a Chinese ser
vant of the Acting Colonial Secretary, by virtue of
which Chuntai Kwong prepared himself to retain the
latter, as counsel for his monopoly, when granted .
This retainer took place in the office of Dr. Bridges
at the Secretariat, and the time chosen was that of
the perfecting of the recognizances, and immediately
before the grant of the farm . The offer of a fee of
four hundred dollars - a large fee for a retainer on
behalf of a monopoly which could not exceed a year,
and might be earlier determined — is admitted by
Dr. Bridges himself to have been accepted on that
occasion ; and the money was paid over that night to
the before -mentioned Chinese servant.
What else passed at that interview has been va
riously stated, and will never be fully made known.
The sureties had been ordered out of the room before
it had commenced , and the chief clerk of the Secre
tariat, the only other person who might have wit
 25


nessed it, was called in only to hear Dr. Bridges declare
that the retainer was not to bind him to act as
counsel against the Government, so long as he was a
member of it .
But on rejoining his surety ( Mr. Hoey, a publican ),
Chun -tai Kwong informed him, that he had given the
Acting Colonial Secretary only a portion of what he
intended -- a mere “ cumshaw ” (gift)—and that the
retainer would be aa thousand dollars ;-giving, as his
reason for this intended profusion, the statement
elsewhere quoted, from the pages of the subsequent
Report on the case, to the effect, that the imposing
position of the man , considered as a member of the
Government and Legislature of Hong Kong, made such
profusion necessary .
Mr. Hoey, having reported these words to me a
few days afterwards, I thought it my duty to refuse
to be a depository of so scandalous an accusation,
and,, in my turn, reported it officially to Dr. Bridges
himself ; recommending him , at the same time , to
summon Chun Tai Kwong before the proper tribunal ,
that of the magistracy , in order to his commitment
for trial , as a public defamer of the Government .
Instead of so doing, Dr. Bridges invited first
Mr. Caldwell, to examine Chun Tai Kwong, and
then, one by one, two other Government officers,
to join them in a private and unsworn examination of
Mr. Hoey at the Secretariat.
No material discrepancy in their statements was
elicited ; and Dr. Bridges was forced to content
himself with the declaration of Chun Tai Kwong,
that he never meant to say that he ( Dr. Bridges ),
expected more than the four hundred dollars ; and the
joint declaration of Chun Tai Kwong, and Mr.
 26

Hoey, that they intended no reflection on his
honour.
This proceeding having been severely commented
on in the Hong Kong Register, one of the local
newspapers, by a gentleman, since deceased, who
denounced it as something much worse than the
corruption imputed to Mr. Butt, by Mr. Roebuck, -




Dr. Bridges came down to the Legislative Council,
laid the article before them, and obtained a com
mittee of his own nomination, and consisting of
his own personal friends of that day, to enquire
whether his character for " integrity ” was in any
way impaired by the circumstances of the case.
Notwithstanding this somewhat narrow limitation
of the matters referred to, the Committee, after
taking all the evidence, laid on the table their
unanimous report, afterwards agreed to by the
Council itself, with equal unanimity ; from which I
extract the following paragraphs.
After expressing their opinion , that, so far as the
question of the tenders was concerned, there was
nothing in the evidence before them to impeach the
honour or honesty of the acting Colonial Secretary ;
the Committee proceed to recapitulate the circum
stances connected with the retainer, and to say : *

“ These proceedings, in the opinion of your Com
“ mittee, show the want of a due appreciation, by
“ Dr. Bridges, of the demands of his high and im
portant offices as acting Colonial Secretary, member
"66 of the Legislative Council, and member of the
" Executive Council ; and denote an absence of that
proper sensitiveness — which should have made him,
* Report and Proceedings of the Committee, printed in the Hong
Kong Government Gazette of 19th June, 1858.
 27

“ above all other persons, foresee and avoid all posi
“tions of possible conflict between his Public and
“ Private Duties, which in the case of the opium
“ inonopoly were sufficiently obvious.
" That Dr. Bridges should hold the offices men
“ tioned, and, at the same time, retain the privilege
“ of practising as a barrister, however undesirable a
“ state of things, is one for which he cannot be
" blamed. But the limits, within which he would
" avail himself of his privilege, were under his con .
6 trol. He fixed the limit, that he would not act
“ against the Government: and the place, in which he
“ informed his client of this fact, was most unhappily
66 chosen .
“ Further, he should have seen that any one, more
“ particularly a Chinaman, must think that he would
greatly gain, by employing, as his counsel, a high
" officer of Government; through whose means,
“ changes, so beneficial to himself, had been made, at
" the last moment , in a public ordinance ;* and that
“ the monopolist, and the Chinese community gene
“ rally, would conclude, however erroneously, that
" the official so retained, and the Government of
66 which he was a member, were open to private in
16 fluence .
“ That such must be the effect of Dr. Bridges'
“ conduct on the minds of the Chinese, there cannot
“ be any doubt.”"
On the 6th July following, this Report being again
* This refers to the fact, that, in committee upon the Opium Farm
Ordinance, after Chun Tai Kwong was assured of obtaining the
grant, Dr. Bridges introduced, and carried through, amendments,
whereby larger powers and empluments became vested in the grantee.
They are set out in the evidence,