Origin of the
black cap. It is popularly supposed that the black cap is assumed by a
Judge only in passing sentence of death . This, however, is a inis-
take. It is a portion of ordinary judicial costume, and is worn on
many occasions . It is an emblem, of course, of the Judge's great
judicial dignity and importance, he being entitled to be covered ,
even under the most solemn circumstances, and in the presence
of the Sovereign herself. It is worn when in presence of the
Sovereign, at her coronation , and in her courts. But the most
solemn occasion when the black cap is assumed is when passing
sentence of death. Immediately after the Clerk of the Crown
has " called upon the prisoner " to know " why judgment of
death should not be passed upon him to die according to law,"
the Judge solemnly places the cap upon his wig, and proceeds
with his sad duty.
Mr. Duddell
appointed
Government On the 14th April Mr. George Duddell was gazetted Govern-
Auctioneer.
ment Auctioneer in succession to Mr. Markwick, and Mr. James
Mr. Jarman, Jarman succeeded the latter as Appraiser of the Supreme
Appraiser
of the Court.
Supreme
Court.
Death of Mr. Mr. James Brown , solicitor and notary public, of the firm of
J. Brown,
solicitor. solicitors known locally as Gaskell and Brown, died on the
28th April , at the age of thirty- five.
Attempt At the Criminal Sessions held on the 2nd May, Chun Achee
to carry off
Colonel and two others were tried for high treason, the charge being
Caine and that he had confederated with others to kill or carry off Colonel
Mr. Caldwell.
Caine, the Lieutenant- Governor, and Mr. Caldwell, the Protector
of Chinese. Chun Achee being found guilty, sentence of death
was recorded against him, the two others being discharged.
Ordinance
No. 6 of 1857. On the 5th May, the Legislature passed Ordinance No. 6 of
1857 " for registration and regulation of the Chinese people...
and for other purposes of Police." It contained no less than
forty-five sections. The late troubles had called the attention
The Governor of Government to the necessity of ridding the Colony of the
proposes its many bad characters which infested it. After the Ordinance
suspension,
*
See the trial of Gibbons and others, for murder, February Criminal Sessions, 1859 ,
Chap. XXVI., infrà.
OPINION OF DR . BRIDGES COMMENTED UPON IN PARLIAMEN ♪. 431
had been actually published , an attempt was made by Sir John Chap. XVIII.
Bowring to suspend its action, so far as the registration itself was 1857.
concerned, on the plea of want of means, but the Governor was which is
objected
opposed by the Chief Justice , the Attorney- General, the Colo- tobythe
nial Treasurer, and the three non -official members of Council , Chief
Justice,
all of whom considered the measure one of absolute necessity Attorney-
for the safety and welfare of the Colony ; insisting that even General,
others. and
if there were no funds for such a purpose, application should be
made to the Home Government for a grant. The Ordinance, Ordinance
however, only survived but a short time, being repealed on the No. 8 of 1858,
10th May, 1858 , by Ordinance No. 8 of that year.
Dr. Bridges' conduct was now strongly commented upon in Dr. Bridges
consequence of his summoning two respectable inhabitants , tworespect-
Messrs. Mody and Dadhabhoy Eduljee, who lived opposite to ableresidents
for a public
him in Hollywood Road, for what he construed into " a public nuisance.
nuisance " under Ordinance No. 17 of 1844 , in that they had Ordinance
disturbed his rest on the night of Saturday, the 2nd May, till No.
1844.17 of
early morning of Sunday, "by a noise of singing, clapping of
hands, and stamping of feet, and where a convivial party was
being held, in consequence of which neither he nor Mrs. Bridges
could sleep." Mr. Davies, in dismissing the case, said the Ordi-
nance did not apply. Nor did it, and naturally occasion was Dr. Bridges
abused.
taken to abuse Dr. Bridges, a propos of whose conduct an
incident in the House of Commons on the 27th February,
1857, was now brought up and quoted , evidently in retaliation .
Sir James Graham, in his speech on Mr. Cobden's motion Sir James
regarding the seizure by the Chinese authorities in Canton Graham in of
the House
of the crew of the lorcha Arrow, sailing under British colours Commons.
but whose nationality was disputed by them and which was The Arrow
incident.
eventually the cause of our hostilities with China, in conse-
quence of their hauling down the British flag on board that
boat, said " that it was pretended that the owner was a British
subject, but that , " added Sir James Graham, " was only contended
for by the acting Attorney- General ; for our friend , Mr. Anstey,
had not arrived when these events happened , and Sir John " The ad-
vantage of
Bowring had only the advantage of the opinion of the acting the opinion
Attorney - General. " So much for Dr. Bridges ' interference with of the acting
Attorney.
his neighbours and for his officiousness . General."
Major-General Sir Robert Garrett, K.C.B. , having assumed General
Major-
the command of the troops in Hongkong, was sworn in as a Garrett.
* How this Ordinance could have been construed by Dr. Bridges as applying to such
an offence ' (sic) seems astonishing. As will be recollected , Ordinance No. 17 of 1844
was passed by Major-General D'Aguilar in connexion with the bamboo-beating nuisance
of the time and applied strictly to noises made by watchmen in private employ (see antè
Chap. II., pp. 56, 57) . It is not clear, however, under what law Major-General D'Aguilar
subsequently prosecuted and brought to conviction a Mr. Welch for an almost similar
' offence' as that which Dr. Bridges complained of (see antè Chap. III. § II., p. 87). A
resident, Mr. Strachan, seemed nearer the point when he construed clause 12 of section
2 of Ordinance No. 14 of 1845 , as applying to his case (antè Chap. XII. § II., pp. 304-306) .
432 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. -
XVIII . member of the Executive Council on the 25th May, but relin-
1857. quished that position on the arrival of Lieutenant- General the
Lieutenant Honourable Thomas Ashburnham , C.B , on the 12th June
General
Ashburnham, following, as Commander-in - Chief of the Land Forces.
Scene in A shameful scene took place in Court between the Attorney-
Court
between General and the acting Colonial Secretary, Dr. Bridges , at the
Mr. Anstey Criminal Sessions held on the 25th May . At the conclusion of
and Dr.
Bridges. the trial of The Queen v . Cheong Ah Ng, for larceny , after the
Regina v. Attorney - General had retired , Dr. Bridges, the acting Colonial
Cheong Secretary, informed the Chief Justice that the prisoner had been
Ah Ng.
Dr. Bridges improperly convicted , the witnesses being uns worn, the Ordi-
informs nance which allowed unsworn examinations (No. 15 of 1856 )
the Court
of the having been disallowed . It may be mentioned that The Govern-
disallowance
of Ordinance ment Gazette of Saturday, the 23rd May, contained a Notification
No. 15 of of the disallowance by the Home Government of Ordinance No.
1856 and
15 of 1856 , * — “ An Ordinance for amending the Law of Evidence
prisoner
wrongly and Trial by Jury," --the fourth clause of which was as fol-
convicted. lows :-
4. A heathen witness, in any Court or before any person empowered
to administer an oath, shall not be sworn either before or upon giving his
testimony, unless the said Court or person shall think fit so to direct ; in which
case the said witness shall be sworn according to his conscience . But every
heathen witness shall, before the taking of his said evidence, be by, or by
the order of, the said Court or person, duly warned to speak the truth, and
informed of the penalties to which, in case he shall not speak the truth he
will become liable ; it being hereby declared and enacted, that the penalties of
perjury shall be deemed and taken to apply to false testimony given by any
such witness, whether sworn or unsworn, in any case where, if he had given
the same upon oath, he would by law have thereby become liable to the
same.
An inexcusable oversight, it seems, was committed by the
local Government, in their not having officially notified the
Attorney- General of the disallowance of the Ordinance ; but
that Mr. Anstey was aware of it through the Gazette, he did not
profess to deny. Notwithstanding the disallowance, he allowed
the case to be tried without the witnesses being sworn--a course
in which, as will be shown, he was justified by the terms of a
subsequent Ordinance . But now for a description of what really
did occur in Court.
Immediately before the jury had returned their verdict , the
acting Colonial Secretary called to him the Crown Solicitor, and
pointed out that the Attorney-General had overlooked the dis-
allowance of the Ordinance, and that a verdict under the circum-
stances would be illegal, and might lead to the escape of the
prisoners . Mr. Cooper Turner thereupon crossed over to Mr.
* See antè Chap. XII . § II . p. 315 note.
THE INCONGRUOUS POSITION OF DR. BRIDGES . 433
Anstey, and told him what Dr. Bridges had said . Mr. Anstey, Chap.-XVIII .
however, took no further notice of it, but, on the verdict of 1857.
guilty being returned , instantly, as was his custom , it is
said, left the Court. Dr. Bridges then went up to the Regis-
trar's desk, and said something to the Chief Justice, which
appeared to be of the same tenor as the message delivered to
Mr. Anstey through Mr. Turner, for His Lordship sent for
the Attorney - General, and explained to him what had been said.
Mr. Anstey thereupon " expressed great indignation at the con-
duct of the Executive Government, as represented by Dr. Brid-
ges - said that they had not deigned to show him the despatch
disallowing the Ordinance, or even to communicate its tenor,
except through the Government notice open to all. " Mr. Anstey Mr. Anstey's
contempt
further intimated the utmost contempt for the technical quibble for the
started, ―and denied the right of the acting Colonial Secretary to quibble
started by
appear in Court at all. If he and his friends,' said Mr. Anstey, Bridges,
' think me unfit to fulfil my functions, there is another tribunal
before which they can cite me, and let them there do their worst.'
He then referred to cases reported in The Hongkong Register
for December, 1851 , and January, 1852 , and contended that the
Court had power [ under Ordinance No. 5 of 1856 , s . 4, * ] to admit
unsworn testimony, independently of the disallowed Ordinance.
lle also reminded the Court of cases where Mr. Hulme himself
had so ruled during the present Attorney- Generalship.
The Chief Justice , on examining the cases in question , said that The Chief
Justice's
it was so, and that he was of opinion the present conviction was ruling.
correct ; -but, says a report, " at the same time hinted in his
own quiet but firm way to the Attorney- General, that, since he
had been aware of the circumstance, it was his duty to have
informed the Court of the disallowance of the Ordinance, and
at all events thus have permitted him (the Chief Justice) the
exercise of his privilege. "
This matter again showed what a grave error had been com- The mistake
mitted in the bestowal of the Colonial Secretaryship with pri- committed
in appoint.
vate practice upon Mr. Bridges whose present offence could not ing Dr.
be looked upon as a slight one He was a sworn barrister Bridges
Colonial
practising in the Supreme Court and at the moment was waiting
The following was the section :-" Every Court, Magistrate, Commissioner, or offi-
cer qualified to take affidavits or depositions in any matter. civil or criminal, where any
person competent to give evidence or make affidavit therein shall refuse to be sworn
thereto, may, at his discretion, permit him or her to make an unsworn declaration or statement
of his or her testimony in the said matter, which said declaration or statement shall thence-
forth have the same force and effect in all respects as his or her deposition or affidavit (as
the case may be) to the like purport, if sworn to in the usual way, would have had :
But no such permission shall be granted to any person who shall not have been first, by
the said Court, Magistrate, Commissioner, or Officer, duly warned to speak the truth, and
informed of the penalties which he or she will incur by making a false declaration or
statement under this Ordinance ; and further, who shall not (unless he or she happen to
be a heathen) have first satisfied the said Court, Magistrate, Commissioner, or officer, that
his or her objection to take the oath proceeds from a religious or conscientious belief that
the taking of an oath is unlawful."
434 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XVIII. to make a motion in that Court ; he saw what he considered an
1857. illegal trial taking place, yet he allowed that trial to come to a
Secretary conclusion, and then , when he thought there was no remedy , he
with private interfered in an improper manner. Such startling revelations
practice.
must only have tended to prove that at least Mr. Bridges had no
great knowledge of law. As might be expected this little inci-
dent gave cause to unpleasant correspondence afterwards between
the belligerents , with backstairs trickery and undoubtedly coming
revenge as a prelude.
Mr. W. H.
Mitchell
Mr. W. H. Mitchell, Assistant Magistrate, Sheriff, and Mar-
goes on
Mr. May,leave . shal of the Vice- Admiralty Court, having obtained six months'
Assistant leave of absence on the 30th May, Mr. May was appointed as
Magistrate. before, to act in the various positions , Mr. Grand- Pré taking
Mr. Grand-
Pré, acting over the acting Superintendentship of Police .
Superin-
tendent of
Police. On the 23rd June the case of Tarrant v . Cheong Ahlum
Mr. W. was heard at Nisi Prius , when the Jury awarded $ 1,010 to the
Tarrant
recovers plaintiff, Mr. William Tarrant, editor and proprietor of the
damages local paper Friend of China,* for damages sustained in conse-
against quence of his having been poisoned by bread delivered by the
Cheong
Ahlum. defendant on the 15th January. It was evident that the action ,
even ifsuccessful , would be, in the result, only throwing water on
a drowned mouse. Cheong Ahlum may have originally gone into
Gaol a rich man, but it was expected that, when he was finally
released when orders as to his disposal were received from Home,
he would not carry very much out with him, except perhaps the
'white- wash. ' Consequently the verdict of $ 1,010 puzzled most
people to know why this case, brought by one of the several
hundreds poisoned, should have taken so much money to effect
a cure.
Mr. Anstey Curiously enough, in this case, Mr. Anstey, the Attorney- Gene-
and Dr.
Bridges ral, was counsel , and Mr. Cooper Turner, Crown Solicitor, solici-
as counsel tor for the plaintiff, while Dr. Bridges, acting Colonial Secretary,
in the case.
was counsel, with Mr. Stace, as solicitor, for the defendant. While
it did not appear that there was any great harm that the plaintiff
should have been represented as he was, considering the cause of
The anoma- the action, it certainly appeared anomalous, if not morally wrong,
lous
of Dr.position considering especially the cause of his then detention, that the
Bridges. defendant should have been represented by a gentleman who
then held the position of Colonial Secretary and in which he had
advised the Government. It will also be remembered that Dr.
Bridges had also defended Cheong Ahlum when on his trial for
the attempt at poisoning. † But such was then the state of affairs
in Hongkong that nothing would appear astonishing to any one
* See ants Chap. XII. § I., p. 280.
Antè Chap. XVII. § II., p. 416.
DR . BRIDGES AS REPRESENTATIVE OF SIR JOHN BOWRING . 435
familiar with the records of that time, and of course ' money ' or Chap. XVIII.
-
otherwise ' private practice ' formed the basis of these immoral- 1857.
ities .
In connexion with Dr. Bridges , a good story is told at this Dr. Bridges'
period having reference to a visit he paid on board H.M S. visit
Earl to
of the
Elgin
Shannon to the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Her Majesty's on board
H.M.S.
Plenipotentiary to China, who had arrived in Hongkong on Shannon.
the 2nd July. Having regard to the legal position he held ,
the narrative will not be considered out of place. As Sir John
Bowring was unwell on the day following Lord Elgin's arrival ,
Dr. Bridges , with Mr. Wade and Mr. Parkes, of the Diplomatic
Department, went off to the Shannon to convey the Governor's
regret at not being able to wait upon His Lordship . Dr.
Bridges, as representing the Governor, thought he had a right
to fly the Governor's flag, which he accordingly displayed on
the staff at the stern of the barge. As soon as this flag was Altercation
between
seen from the Shannon, the drums beat to quarters and a guard captain
of honour was drawn up ready to receive the Governor . One Peel andfor
Dr.
Bridges
of the officers on board, who knew both the Governor and Dr. flying the
Bridges, informed Captain Peel that the Governor was not in Governor's
flag.
the boat ; the crew and guard were thereupon dismissed , and Dr.
Bridges was received by Captain Peel on the quarter deck,
when the following conversation took place between him and
Dr. Bridges : -
Captain Peel.- What do you mean, Sir, by flying that flag ? You have
nearly caused me to give you a Governor's salute.
Dr. Bridges [ stammering and confused, but trying to look bold. ] -- Sir,
Sir, I represent the Governor.
Captain Peel. - You represent the Governor. You have no business to
fly that flag, Sir.
Here, it is reported , the post captain turned round and walked
aft, leaving "the representative of Her Majesty's representative
planted there to the admiring and quizzical gaze of the officers
and crew of H.M.S. Shannon . " In the meantime the two gen-
tlemen representing the diplomatic department were admitted ,
and after their audience, Lord Elgin, who, it is said , laughed
heartily at the discomfiture of Sir John's representative , desired
him to be admitted .
During his stay in Hongkong, Mr. Wade, in his capacity of Lord Elgin's
levée and
Chinese Interpreter, was attached to the suite of Lord Elgin , departure.
who held a public levée on the 8th July, and left for Calcutta
on the 16th of the same month by the Shannon.
436 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XVIII . The Criminal Sessions of June began on Tuesday, the 30th of
-
1857. that month. The list was a very long one and very important,
Constables
convicted as containing the names of six foreigners for trial on very
of extortion . serious charges . On the first day of the Sessions, two Police
Conviction Constables charged with extortion were sentenced to three
of Wong
Ahlin for months' imprisonment with hard labour, and a Chinaman named
burglary. Wong Ahlin convicted of burglary was sentenced to ten years'
transportation . He did not , however, remain long in prison , for
Granted a
free pardon. on the 27th October , 1858 , he received a free pardon , on what
grounds it does not appear, though it was surmised to be for
"good behaviour " only.
Capture and
conviction On Saturday, the 4th July, the trial of Eli Boggs, an Ameri-
of Eli Boggs, can, for piracy and murder, took place. He , like W. Fenton ,
the Ameri-
whose case is reported early in 1852 , * was a well known leader
can pirate.
of pirates, and several cases were clearly traced to him , especially
of shooting down men on board the different vessels attacked.
The United States Consul, now styled ' General ' Keenan,† with
the permission of the Court, addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner . The jury, taking a merciful view of his case, found
him guilty ofpiracy only, and the Chief Justice sentenced him to
transportation for life . It was matter for regret that an example
was not made of this man for the benefit of a large class of
men who were at this period still engaged in the same pursuits.
Trial of Another brutal case, in which Americans also were con-
Captain and
officers of the cerned , was tried on the same date . It was that against the
American master, the first and second officers, the carpenter, and the steward
ship John
Wade for of the American ship John Wade , for the murder of a seaman
murder.
of that ship. The master and first officer were defended by Mr.
Day, and, at the request of the Chief Justice, Mr. Kingsmill
undertook to watch the case on behalf of the others . The
evidence disclosed a most revolting series of cruelties perpetrated
on the deceased and all the crew, principally by the second
mate. Here again the jury took a merciful view of the case,
acquitting the last two and finding the other three guilty of
manslaughter. They were, as in the other case, sentenced to
transportation.
Chinese The authorities were now called on to interfere with the Trades
Trades Unions which had of late given trouble . They were in reality
Unions and
Secret secret associations which had long existed among the Chinese
Associations. in the Colony, and which were not confined to the artizans but
extended to every species of employment . The books of these
* Antè Chap. XII. § III., p . 316.
See antè Chap. XVI. § I., p. 363 .
See his release noticed in Chap. XXXI ., infrà.
On the subject of assigning Counsel to defend prisoners, see antè Chap. XVI. § 11.,
p. 381 , and references there given.
DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING RECRUITS FOR POLICE . 437
societies were in the hands of the Government and showed a Chap. XVIII .
--
system ofprivate intimidation by means of fines, of the existence
1857.
of which those best acquainted with the Chinese had no previous
conception. On the 10th July, a Government Notification Government
warning.
appeared upon the subject which was as follows : -
"Whereas, according to the law of England, every tradesman or mechanic
is at liberty to perform his work at whatever rate of remuneration it seems
good to himself to accept, and all combinations for the control of such liberty
are illegal : this is therefore to give notice that any persons found to be inter-
fering as above with the freedom of trade will be prosecuted by Government."
Important
Upon the publication of this warning, several important conviction
arrests and
arrests were effected and a large number of men fined for illegal forunlawful
assembly, consisting principally of tailors, shoemakers , and assembly of
tailors,
washermen . shoemakers,
and washer-
Strictures about the Police poured in again at this time. men.
Failure of
The Government , at their wit's end, decided upon making an attempt
attempt to enlist Malays in Singapore, but the attempt proved to enlist
a failure. Mr. Grand- Pré, on the other hand, succeeded in Malays at
Singapore,
securing at Macao the services of thirty Portuguese soldiers dis- for the
Police.
charged from the garrison there, their time of service having
expired. These men bore excellent characters and had been Mr. Grand-
strongly recommended by the Governor of Macao. The records Pré enlists
discharged
do not show how these particular men bore themselves after- Portuguese
wards , but from the frequent complaints made from time to time from
soldiers
Macao.
in regard to the constitution of the Force, it is doubtful whether
these helped in improving its morale. One cause assigned for
the unsatisfactory state of affairs was that there was, up to this No Police
period, no barrack accommodation for the men, who lived where accommoda-
barrack
they could, many of them " in low and dirty hovels " and under tion.
no discipline whatever.
In the middle of July instructions were received from the Cheong
Ahlum is
Secretary of State to discharge from custody Cheong Ahlum discharged
who had been under detention since the 5th February last, from custody
under
but he was only discharged at the end of July, on signing
bond that he would not return to the Colony before the expiry from the
Secretary
of five years under the penalty of one thousand pounds. This of State.
6
bond was drawn up by Mr. Inglis , the Governor ofthe Gaol. ' § His creditors
On signing it, Cheong Ahlum was at once discharged, and in the lurch.
immediately left the island , leaving his creditors in the lurch. Mr. Tarrant's
One of them, Mr. Tarrant, the editor of The Friend ofChina, who attack upon
had , it will be remembered, recovered damages against Cheong in Bridges
Dr.conse -
Ahlum. Having such a weapon as his paper at his command, quence.
* See Introduction , p. 24, note.
† Upon the subject of the Malay as a Policeman, see antè Chap. XII., p. 279.
See antè Chap. XVII. § II., p. 418 .
As to this title see antè p. 428.
438 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XVIII. Mr. Tarrant at once launched out in a violent attack on the
--
1857. acting Colonial Secretary, who was Cheong Ahlum's counsel ,
He is culminating in a charge of libel being brought against Mr.
prosecuted
by Dr. Tarrant by Dr. Bridges, which will be found referred to here-
Bridges after. * Baffled in his endeavour to obtain the proceeds of his
for libel.
Mr. Tarrant judgment from Cheong Ahlum consequent upon his release ,
addresses Mr. Tarrant, notwithstanding, on the 8th August, addressed
the Secretary the Secretary of State upon the subject.
of State.
Land recla- In connexion with the reclamation of certain lands along
mation.
The Bowring what was known as the Bowring Prayat and in reference to
Praya. which Mr. Anstey had incurred much ill - will , the question as
Secretary of to the mode in which compensation ( if any) was to be given for
State's
instructions damage, and the rents settled for lands not comprehended in
regarding the original leases, having been referred to the Secretary of
mode of
State, the following instructions of Her Majesty's Government
compensa-
tion for were received upon the subject
damage.
" There is no doubt that land recovered from the sea, whether artificially
or naturally, belongs to the Crown, and that the Crown is at liberty to dis-
pose of it in the same manner as of any other land in the Colony . But it is
also clear that the acquisition of such land by any other person than the
owner of the marine lot behind it, would very much diminish the value of
the marine lot, and in many cases render it useless for the purpose for which
it was acquired . While, therefore, the rights of the Crown and the interests
of the public require that the claim of the Crown to such lands should be
firmly maintained, a sense of justice requires that the equitable clains of the
holders of the original marine lots should be liberally considered .
The most practicable way of reconciling these interests would be to appoint
assessors on the part of the Crown and the proprietor of the marine lot, or,
if it be preferred, a jury, to assess the damage done to the original marine
lot by the creation of a new marine lot in front of it. To put up the new
marine lot to auction, and to allow the proprietor of the original lot to
acquire it at the highest price which may be bid for it, less the sum
assessed as the damage done to the original lot. If, however, he should
refuse to become the purchaser, then to pay to him out of the price of the
new lot the sum assessed as damage.
Some such arrangement would meet the justice of the case. It would, of
course, require modification to meet the peculiar circumstances of individual
cases, e.g., when the whole new land is not put up in a single lot . It would
also be necessary to provide that in no case should more be claimable as
assessed damages than the amount realized by the sale of the new lot. But
points of detail like these can best be settled by the local authorities on the
spot. It is sufficient to indicate the general principle on which such cases
may be dealt with."
These instructions were afterwards published in the form of
a Government Notification under the signature of Dr. Bridges,
as acting Colonial Secretary.
* See Chap. XIX., ubi suprà.
† Portuguese- Lit. ' Sea-shore.'
See his affidavit, antè Chap. XVI. § II., p. 392.
439
CHAPTER XIX.
1857 .
Mr. Anstey goes to India on sick leave.- Mr. Kingsmill acts as Attorney- General.-- Mr.
Anstey's career in Hongkong reviewed. -His fatal quarrel with the Chief Justice. - Local
editors memorialize ChiefJustice about accommodation for themselves and reporters. - Sixty
Chinese convicts transported to Labuan. - European convicts bribe native guards and
escape.—Trial and conviction of the guards. - Prosecution of Mr. Tarrant for libelling
Dr. Bridges.-The facts. -The verdict. - Fined £ 100.-- Mr. Tarrant's memorial to the
Secretary of State.- Mr. Tarrant's sympathizers pay his fine and costs.- Mr. Tarrant
boastingly publishes the list of subscribers. -Trial of Ma Chow Wong for confedera
ting with pirates. -A notorious pirate informer and suspected Imperial spy. - After
committal for trial Chief Justice grants bail. - The Chief Justice's discretion com-
mented upon. - Ma Chow Wong's threats after being bailed. - Ma Chow Wong and a
confederate found guilty. - The sentence. - Evidence of Eli Boggs, the American convict,
in the case.-A previous trial of Ma Chow Wong for felony. --After Ma Chow Wong's
conviction, Mr. Caldwell interests himself in the convict. - He impugns the verdict
of the jury.-Dr. Bridges, acting Colonial Secretary , induced to bring about an inquiry.
-The undue support held forth to Mr. Caldwell by Dr. Bridges. - Report of Messrs. May
and Inglis after the finding of the pirate's books . - Relationship by Chinese usage
between Mr. Caldwell and the pirate. -The baseness of Dr. Bridges' conduct. -A
Government inquiry is acquiesced in.- The law to take its course.' Ma Chow Wong
turned upon the roads. - Mr. Anstey's subsequent charges against Mr. Caldwell.-
The reason for Mr. Caldwell's exertions on behalf of Ma Chow Wong. - Ma Chow
Wong's career.-An anonymons letter in The Straits Guardian addressed to the Earl
of Harrowby on Hongkong affairs.-Letter attributed to Mr. Y. J. Murrow. - Mr. Mur-
row addresses the Earl of Harrowby setting out his grievances. - Mr. Cleverly, Surveyor-
General, gazetted to a seat in Council.-- Return of Mr. Mitchell, Assistant Magistrate,
from leave.- Ordinance No. 12 of 1857. - Complaints of Admirals on the station.--A
definite form when Admiral Sterling held command. - Mr. Tarrant repeats libel against
Dr. Bridges. He apologizes. - Death of Mr. Edger, member of the Legislative Council.-
Mr. Dent gazetted to the vacancy. -Major- General Van Straubenzee in command of the
Forces. The representatives of the late Chief Justice Hulme " advertized for in The
Times.--Advertizement a mystery.
MR. ANSTEY having been in poor health for some time, suffering Chap. XIX.
severely from chronic diarrhoea , a short trip to Macao having Mr. Anstey
been of no benefit to him, was granted six months' leave of Indiastoon
absence on the 27th July.He took his departure for Calcutta sick leave.
on that day by the Steamer Lancefield, being replaced in the
interim by Mr. Henry Kingsmill , the youngest member of the smill
Mr. King-
acts as
Bar. It was agreed that on the departure of Mr. Anstey, Attorney-
who had become a favourite with many people at one time General.
much opposed to him , the Colony would feel his absence,
for though stubborn, self- opinionated, and full of prejudices, he
was an honest and faithful servant of the Government, and a
fearless and determined reformer of abuses , where such existed . Mr.
careeAnstey's
r in
His uncompromising severity in the discharge of what he Hongkong
considered his duty made him many enemies , certainly among reviewed.
His fatal
those who ought to have had more sense ; but a better spirit ap- quarrel
parently had been manifested towards him before he left , though with
Chiefthe
it was admitted that his fatal quarrel with the Chief Justice* had Justice.
† Antè Chap. XVI. § II., p. 386.
440 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XIX . made his position as regards the latter always a peculiar one. As
1857. will be seen later on Mr. Anstey returned in December, a few
weeks before his leave was up.
Local editors
memorialize The editors of the newspapers , having memorialized the Chief
Chief Justice on the subject of accommodation for themselves and their
Justice
about reporters , were informed that in future they could take their
accommoda- seats with the professionals of the Court if there was room at their
tion for
themselves table and also that they might enter with the practitioners by
and the reserved door as was already notified in a board at the
reporters. entrance door nearest the Bench. *
Sixty On the 14th August was published a proclamation by the
Chinese
convicts Governor authorizing the transportation of sixty Chinese convicts
transported to the Colony of Labuan, and, shortly afterwards , that number
to Labuan.
left by the Annie. News reached Hongkong not very long after
that ten had died in Labuan, having been mostly " in a sickly
condition when landed ."
European On Saturday, the 29th, Mr. Inglis , the Governor of the Gaol ,
convicts
bribe native became aware of the fact that three of the European convicts
guards under his charge, named Luscomb, Wallace, and Rogers , had,
and escape. with the assistance of two of the native guard, Indian Police
Constables , who had been bribed for the purpose, made their
Trial and escape from the Gaol. Tried at the Criminal Sessions held on
conviction
of the the 2nd November, these two men were sentenced to two years'
guards. hard labour. Of the three who escaped , Wallace was the only
one re-captured, being found eventually on board the Homer at
Amoy.
Prosecution The Criminal Sessions for August commenced its sittings on
of Mr.
Tarrant for Monday, the 31st August. There were two cases ofvery consider-
libelling able local interest on the list set down for trial , -- one of them a
Dr. Bridges. charge of libel against Mr. William Tarrant, the other a charge
of confederating with pirates against a well known character
named Ma Chow Wong. With regard to the former , the fol-
lowing is a brief account.
The facts. After the trial of Cheong Ahlum in February last, for a whole-
sale attempt to poison the foreign community by means of
6
arsenic mixed in the bread issued from the Esing ' bakery,
and which resulted in an acquittal, Cheong Ahlum was re-
apprehended† under No. 2 of 1857 -the Deportation Ordinance
-as a suspected person, and committed to prison on an order
signed by Mr. May, the Acting Assistant Magistrate and She-
riff ; but was subsequently detained by warrant under the sig
nature and seal of His Excellency the Governor until the
pleasure of the Home Government could be ascertained regard
See antè Chap. XII. § III., p. 319, and references there given.
† See ante Chap. XVII. § II., p . 418,
MR . TARRANT PROSECUTED FOR LIBELLING DR . BRIDGES. 441
ing him. When this occurrence took place, Dr. Bridges was Chap.--XIX
simply a barrister practising in the Court here, and as such had 1857.
been applied to to defend Ahlum, under agreement that he was
to receive the sum of $ 1,000 for so doing. He likewise acted
as counsel for Cheong Ahlum in several civil actions , for
which, he received additional fees, amounting to $ 150.
Shortly after Cheong Ahlum's re-incarceration, Mr. Mercer left
the Colony on leave, * and Dr. Bridges was appointed acting.
Colonial Secretary, with the right of private practice.
In his capacity of barrister, therefore, he was employed
to defend Cheong Ahlum in an action for damages brought
by Mr. Tarrant, in which the latter was awarded the sum
of $ 1,010. Meanwhile Cheong Ahlum was detained a pri-
soner ; but in the middle of July, instructions came from
Home that, unless some further circumstances had transpired
implicating him in the poisoning affair , he was to be set at
liberty. Accordingly the Governor ordered his release, but
Dr. Bridges, aware of the claims against him, and on which he
naturally supposed writs of detainer had been issued and lodged
in the hands of the Sheriff, told His Excellency that the Home
Government could not interfere in such matters , and , with Sir
John Bowring's sanction , consulted the Chief Justice as to how
he should manage. Mr. Hulme gave it as his advice that
Cheong Ahlum should be transferred from the criminal to the
civil list of prisoners, but , for security, detained in the criminal
side of the Gaol. This was accordingly done, the Colonial Secre-
tary still labouring under the impression of writs having been
issued . For twenty-two days was Cheong Ahlum thus illegally
kept in prison , until at length his solicitor thought fit to do what
he should have done long before, namely, applied to the Colo-
nial Secretary to know on what grounds his client was detained
.
in Gaol, seeing that instructions for his release had been receiv-
ed from Home. The Colonial Secretary replied that he was held
under arrest by civil process ; and was much astonished to learn
then for the first time that he was in error, and that no writs
had been issued . Now made aware of the mistake he had com-
mitted, Dr. Bridges wrote up to the Governor for further
instructions, and was told to set Cheong Ahlum free ; but in
the dread that imputations might be cast upon him, inas-
much as he had acted as counsel for the prisoner both in the
Criminal and Civil Courts, he, by order of Sir John Bowring,
directed the Governor of the Gaol to warn the Sheriff, that un-
less detainers were served upon Cheong Ahlum within twenty-
four hours, the latter would at the end of that time be released
from prison. The order was shown to Mr. May, the Sheriff,
* Antè Chap. XVII., p. 425,
+ Id., p. 434.
442 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XIX. and he, it seems , objected to serving the writ upon a prisoner
1857 . within the precincts of the criminal prison , but told Mr. Inglis,
the Governor of the Gaol, that he would see about it in the
morning. Morning came, then afternoon , without anything
being done in the matter by the Sheriff, and in accordance with
the instructions, Cheong Ahlum, having found securities for
the amount required , was discharged at the appointed hour, three
o'clock, and quitted the Colony, leaving his creditors to recover
the money due to them in the best way they might. *
Among others thus left in the lurch, but who had, of course,
only themselves or their attorneys to blame for it, was Mr.
William Tarrant, with his unliquidated claim for damages of
$ 1,010 . He , instead of blaming himself for negligence, chose
to look upon the discharge of Cheong Ahlum as a piece of chi-
canery on the part of the acting Colonial Secretary, and
accordingly, without apparently troubling himself to institute
inquiry as to the truth of his suppositions , grossly libelled Dr.
Bridges in his newspaper, as follows :--
" We are placed , by the verdict of one of the most respectable juries
ever empanelled in this Colony, in a position to challenge the Insolvent's
Balance Sheet ; and should it be, as we shall not be surprised to find , that
Ahlum's bankruptcy is due not so much to his very proper stoppage at busi-
ness here as to some astounding extortion in the shape of lawyer's fees, or
payment of hireling scribes the facts will duly be made patent to the public,
and , it will be hoped, produce a public benefit, -so that the jury's award
will not, in any case, be altogether lost." †
And again ‡
"Dr. Bridges's action in the matter of releasing Ahlum the poisoner from
durance, forms a climax to the many extraordinary things of his perform-
ing since he has acted as Colonial Secretary. The Sheriff was informed
that bonds would be given conditioned for the non-return of Ahlum to
this Colony for five years - and on receiving such bonds Ahlum was to
be released. The Sheriff, in consequence of this notification, told the
Gaol Governor to be prepared to let him go ; and, a few hours after
telling the Gaol Governor this, Ahlum was out and off ! -Mr. Inglis, in the
exercise of his judicial capacity, did what was needful with the recognizances
tendered said documents being drawn, it is believed , by Dr. Bridges him-
self-neither the acting Attorney-General nor the Crown Solicitor knowing
anything about them.
There are many who will say, " Well, Ahlum is off, a good riddance of
bad rubbish." But what say his creditors ?. Of course, the reason why Dr.
Bridges has managed to get Ahlum away quickly and quietly is apparent
to all. The sums drawn by him, Dr. Bridges , for managing the case would
not have been allowed had he, Ahlum, gone through the Insolvent Court.-
Dr. B. — in short, dreaded the exposé threatened in our issue of Saturday,
the 25th ultimo. But what can the public think of a Government that, to
all intents and purposes, licenses swindling-that literally holds out a pre-
mium to villainy of the deepest dye ? "
Dr. Bridges, indignant at such an unfounded charge being
brought against him, intimated to Mr. Tarrant that unless he
Sce antè Chap. XVIII., p. 437 .
Friend of China, 25th July, 1867 .
Id., 5th August, 1857.
MR . TARRANT CONVICTED OF LIBELLING DR. BRIDGES . 443
publicly contradicted and apologized for his misstatements, he Chap.- XIX.
would prosecute him for defamation . This the latter refused 1837.
to do , sending instead a most unsatisfactory message ; and
nothing therefore was left for the complainant but to proceed
against his libeller either civilly or criminally . The case was
accordingly placed in the hands of the acting Attorney - General ,
Mr. Kingsmill ; and the criminal proceedings reported below were
the result, ending in a verdict of guilty and a fine of £100 .
No attempt was made either to disprove the libel or to prove
justification- the questions put to the witnesses for the defence
being totally irrelevant to the matter at issue. The jury was
an excellent one, and Mr. Tarrant had had a special jury by his
own request, and some of its members, it was said, were his
personal friends. The case was so clear, that there could be
no two opinions as to the verdict, and the Chief Justice in his The verdict.
charge pointedly said so. Previous to passing sentence, he
administered to Mr. Tarrant, the following rebuke : -
" You have been guilty (said His Lordship) of a gross, malicious, and
libellous attack upon Dr. Bridges, aspersing his character as a private indi-
vidual, as a professional gentleman, and as a public officer. Any one (con-
tinued the Chief Justice) is liable to err, but when a mistake is discovered or
pointed out, there is nothing unmanly in acknowledging our error, and
nothing ungentlemanly in apologizing for what we may have said or done
while labouring under misapprehension ; and I feel assured that, had you
tendered an apology, Dr. Bridges would have accepted it, and would not
have placed you in the position in which you now stand."
The Chief Justice particularly drew Mr. Tarrant's attention to
the report in The Friend of China of the 26th August, purporting
to be a fair account of the proceedings before the Chief Magis-
trate, and which he, Mr. Tarrant, when he inserted it, must
have known to be untrue. * It was far from His Lordship's
intention to interfere with the liberty of the Press , but it was
" In
his duty to see that its high privileges were not abused .
the present instance, " said Mr. Hulme, " you, William Tarrant,
have been fairly convicted by a jury of having wilfully maligned
William Thomas Bridges , Doctor of Civil Law ; and the sen-
tence of the Court is, that you be fined one hundred pounds , Fined £ 100 .
and be imprisoned till the same be paid . "
The following was the report in question :-
“Why did not the Register give the gentlemanly depositions according to his notes ! -
What can we anticipate in the shape of injury to our case by their publication ? As he
has not done so, we will here do it for him-
Magistrate. You had no money for defending Ahlum, you say, so you could fear
nothing ifhe went through the Insolvent Court.
Dr. Bridges.- No. - I did not say that-I said I had no money from Ahlum. Tam - chocy
and Asow brought me $1,000.
Mr. Tarrant. - So, Sir, you first swore you had none of Ahlum's money, and then, when
examined by the Magistrate, could not conceal that you had had $1,000 from others for
account. Before swearing this, you. of course, satisfied yourself that that was not Ahlum's
money or money to be repaid by Ahlum. And now, Sir, let me remind you that you
444 HISTORY OF THE LAWS, ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. ΧΙΧ. It will be remembered that it was in reference to this case that
1857. Mr. Tarrant had addressed the Secretary of State relating the
Mr. Tarrant's
memorial circumstances leading to the present action and which referred
to the to Dr. Bridges ' relations with Cheong Ahlum, displaying at the
Secretary same time anxiety on his part in connexion with the suit, to
of State.
the end probably that any complaint of his to such high
quarters might influence Dr. Bridges to withdraw the charge
Mr. Tar-
rant's against him. As it is, except for the mental anxiety the
sympathizers action must have caused him, Mr. Tarrant was not much out
pay
and his fine of pocket , for meeting with sympathizers outside, as in the case,
costs.
Mr. Tarrant under similar circumstances some years back, of a previous
boastingly editor of the very paper which he now conducted ,† a subscrip-
publishes
the list of tion ( for which Hongkong, as in the case of addresses to depart-
subscribers. ing officials , is noted, as will be noticed as this work proceeds )
was got up in his behalf. fully covering the fine and costs which
he had been subjected to in defending the prosecution . Mr.
Tarrant afterwards boastingly published the list of subscribers. ‡
Trial of Ma The other case, tried at the same Sessions, was that , as before
Chow
Wong for stated, of the famous, or rather infamous, Ma Chow Wong. This
confederat- man, a notorious pirate informer and suspected Imperial spy, in
ing with
pirates. whose shop a cargo of sugar, piratically taken from a trading
A notorious junk was found, was committed for trial on the 20th July for
pirate
informer and aiding and abetting pirates. Ma Chow Wong, it may be added,
suspected was, in 1854 , connected with Ye Fong, the rebel chief who
Imperial
spy. then held Shanghai, and at that time was engaged in Hong-
kong in enlisting recruits for him. The night he was appre-
hended he offered the constable who effected his arrest a
After com- After his committal
mittal for bribe of $ 1,000 to allow him to escape.
have spoken only of the criminal case. It is on record that you have had $ 1,000 for that.
Well-what about that civil action of mine ?---Did you get nought for that ?
Dr. Bridges. None of Ahlum's money.
Mr. Tarrant.--None of Ahlum's --whose then ? Love and affection case, eh ?
Dr. Bridges.- Mr. Stace paid me my fees.
Mr. Tarrant.- Oh !-Your Worship will be good enough to take a note of that reply-
First, Dr. Bridges led the Court to believe he had nothing-then that he had $1,000 ,—
and now it comes out he has had more. To Dr. Bridges.--And now, Sir, the amount, if
you please ?
Dr. Bridges.- I have not got my Fees Book with me. It was, let me see, seventy-five
-one hundred- two hundred and twenty-five--say, two hundred and twenty or fifty
dollars.
Mr. Tarrant.- Is that all ?-Take time ; don't be in a hurry, you are on your oath,
mind. No contract for more if Ahlum should get rich in his own country ?
Dr. Bridges.- (with rapt smile) -Contract ! -No !
Mr. Tarrant. And this, from Mr. Stace, you swear was not Ahlum's money ? Thank
you, that will do. Had we had two independent justices on the Bench at this moment,
as I requested at the commencement of the case, it would stop here." -Friend of China,
August 26.
* Ante Chap. XVIII., pp. 437, 438.
† See antè Chap. III. § II., p. 83.
See the case against Mr. Y. J. Murrow for libelling the Governor Sir John Bowring,
tried at the Criminal Sessions in April. 1858, (infrà Chap. XX. ) wherein the Chief Justice,
alluding to the above case as " setting the law at defiance " by the fine imposed upon the
defendant Tarrant having been raised by subscription, sentenced Mr. Murrow to im
prisonment besides the infliction of a fine !
CONVICTION OF MA CHOW WONG FOR ABETTING PIRATES. 445
for trial, he applied for bail which the Magistrate refused ; but Chap. XIX.
on application to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice ordered 1857.
bail to be taken . His Lordship was believed to have acted trial Chief
Justice
rather incautiously in this matter, and was taken to task ac- grants bail.
cordingly. The Magistrate's better knowlege of the character The Chief
of the man ought, it was considered, to have carried weight with Justice's
discretion
the Chief Justice who, it was said, "leading the quiet and commented
secluded life he did , " possibly knew little of what was occurring upon.
in the Colony among the native portion of the community,
except through the newspapers, and therefore had but limited
means of estimating the man's true character. The very first Ma Chow
use the ruffian made of his freedom was to threaten the witnesses Wong's
threat after
who had given evidence against him and this at the very door being
of the Magistracy, and for which he was recalled before he bailed.
left the Gaol and bound over to keep the peace . But notwith-
standing these strong comments upon the discretion exercised
by the Chief Justice, Ma Chow Wong did not abscond . He
was brought to trial on Wednesday, the 2nd September, on a
charge of confederating with pirates , when he was found guilty
by a majority of five to one. He was defended by Mr. Day.
A man named Wong Achoi, defended by Mr. Green , was Ma Chow
Wong and
tried along with him for participation in the same acts , and a confeder
was found guilty unanimously. Both were sentenced to found guilty.
fifteen years' transportation. Evidence of attempting to bribe The sentence.
the Police was adduced , and Eli Boggs, the American Evidence
Eli Boggs,of
*
pirate convict, sentenced last July, swore that he had seen the American
Ma Chow Wong on board the pirate fleet in which he was , convict , in
and it may be noted also that Ma Chow Wong had once before,
in 1847 , stood his trial at the Supreme Court for felony in being
concerned in a robbery committed in a European shop , when he
escaped the clutches of the law. Having for so many years A previous
trial of Ma
been enabled to place the Police authorities at defiance, it is not Chow Wong
to be wondered at that his countrymen were afraid to expose him, for felony.
or that any one assisting in his prosecution should afterwards have
been subjected to the wrath of his patrons. But their ven-
geance was baffled , and two cases of receiving bribes against Tong
Aku , the Police Court Interpreter, by whose zeal and integrity the
conviction of Ma Chow Wong was brought about, and against
Sun Ah See, Chinese clerk at the Police Court, both of whom
had suffered very harsh treatment in consequence, from the
time of their arrest until discharged , broke down upon investi-
gation before the Magistrate.
After Ma Chow Wong's conviction , it will hardly be credited After Ma
that the Protector of Chinese, Mr. Caldwell, interested himself conviction,
ChowWong's
* Ante Chap. XVIII., p. 436.
446 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap.-XIX. in the convict to the extent of impugning the verdict of the
1857. jury upon the plea that the criminal's notorious character had
Mr. Caldwell blinded the jurors ! Mr. Caldwell, at whose investigation the
interests
himself in charges were preferred against Tong Aku and Sun Ah See,
the convict. could hardly bring himself to believe that his principal, if not
He impugns
the verdict most " trustworthy " informant, and whom he had through
of the jury. ill or good report always supported (tringing to one's recol-
Dr. Bridges, lection that other pirate, Too Apo, of 1847 fame* ) , was guilty
acting
Colonial of the offence of which he had been convicted, and he now
Secretary, exerted himself by himself petitioning the Government, and in
induced to
bring about inducing the acting Colonial Secretary , Dr. Bridges , who seems
an inquiry.
to have had implicit confidence in Mr. Caldwell, to bring about
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.