to be unable to attend for some days .
There seemed also a determination to withhold official records The dis-
closures.
and other evidence on the pretext of official correspondence.
However, after preliminary objections to the information and
amendments, the case proceeded . From a report of the pro-
ceedings, from the short-hand notes taken for the Crown by
Mr. Weatherhead, the acting Deputy Registrar, a state of affairs
is disclosed as hardly credible to have been possible in a British
Colony. Quite apart from Sir John Bowring, the Governor , The relations
who seems to have been the complete tool of Dr. Bridges, the between
records disclose relations between Dr. Bridges and Mr. Cald- and Mr.
well , showing the two to have been on the most intimate terms, Caldwell.
unworthy of a man holding the important position Dr. Bridges
did in the Colony. The latter in his evidence admitted inter
alia that Mr. Caldwell had " occasionally recommended Chinese
* Seehis evidence before the Police Court in the case against Mr. Wilson, on the nominal
prosecution of the Crown, for libelling him -Mr. Anstey-infrà, p. 566, note.
560 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Ch. XXV § I. clients to him," and also that , after seeing Mr. Caldwell, he had
1858. directed Mr. Inglis, the Governor of the Gaol, not to cut off Ma
Chow Wong's tail after his conviction . * No wonder therefore
that Dr. Bridges had stood forth as Mr. Caldwell's most deter-
mined champion and supporter.†
The de-
fendant
The defendant pleaded justification .
pleads
justification.
The case for The Government called three witnesses , the ex-acting Colo-
the Govern
ment. nial Secretary, Dr. Bridges, the Assistant Chinese Secretary,
Mr. Mongan, and the Surveyor- General, Mr. Cleverly, and the
evidence condensed was as follows. First, the question turned
upon the destruction of certain papers, and the loss ofan import-
ant memorandum by Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police ,
which memorandum that functionary alleged he had given to
the acting Colonial Secretary, Dr. Bridges. The Government
therefore had by the means of these three witnesses to prove its
integrity as to these missing papers, inasmuch as the libel
alleged that their production would have implicated Mr. Cald-
well, the Registrar - General , with the notorious pirate Ma Chow
Wong, and that the loss and destruction of these papers was a
premeditated act for the purpose of screening him.
Dr. Bridges proved that Ma Chow Wong was a notorious
pirate and had been a bad character for years ; that Mr. Cald-
well's alleged intimacy with him was equally notorious ; that
Mr. Caldwell had made strong efforts to obtain the pirate's
pardon, but had been foiled by the production before the Exe-
cutive Council of certain papers found on a pirate named
Beaver, as also by the production of Mr. May's memoran-
dum taken from the papers seized in the ' hong ' of Ma Chow
Wong ; that sundry items in this memorandum did implicate
Mr. Caldwell ; that Mr. Caldwell was accordingly directed
to examine the papers themselves and compare them with
Mr. May's memorandum ; that Mr. Mongan, the Assistant
Chinese Secretary, was appointed to assist him ; that Mr. Cald-
well reported that the papers did not implicate him at all ; that
consequently he ( Dr. Bridges ) had ordered them to be burnt.
He denied all knowledge as to what had become of Mr. May's
memorandum, although he admitted it had passed through
his hands. He admitted that, notwithstanding the finding of
the Caldwell Commission, his notorious connexion with the
pirate, and all the reports of the various departments , Mr Cald-
well had not been called to account by Government because "he
had done nothing wrong to be called to account for. "
* See antè Chap. XIX., p. 447.
In reference to this open confession, the words ' from some other cause,' in para-
graph 22 of Sir John Bowring's despatch appear significant ―sec antè Chap. xx111.. p. 520.
THE ACQUITTAL OF MR. TARRANT. 561
Mr. Mongan, the Assistant Chinese Secretary, proved the Ch. XXV § I.
tampering with the papers, the motive being the removal of evi- 1858.
dences of guilt against Ma Chow Wong whose release it was
Mr. Caldwell's object to effect ; that he had applied to the
Governor as to what was to be done with the papers, and that
the Governor referred him to Dr. Bridges " who had told him
to burn them."
Mr. C. St. G. Cleverly, the Surveyor- General, spoke as to the
burnt papers , and said that, during the investigation , evidence
had been rejected which should have been taken ; that Mr. Cald-
well used to interrupt and make gestures to the witnesses depo-
sing against him, which he as chairman had stopped ; and that
Dr. Bridges had openly declared before the Commission " that
he had felt himself bound as a brother-freemason to stand by
---
Mr. Caldwell, a statement suppressed in the minutes " !
This closed the evidence for the Crown.
As Mr. Anstey was about to begin on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Anstey
is stopped
the Jury stopped him, and, after a short consultation, they inti- bythe Jury
mated to the Registrar that they had arrived at the opinion who unani-
mously
that Government had not proved its case, and therefore there return a
was no necessity to expend more time in listening to the defence,verdict of
not guilty.
-in other words , the defendant was not guilty of the misdemean- Costs against
our with which he was charged. The foreman , then addressing the Crown.
the Chief Justice, said : --
" My Lord, we have made up our minds - not guilty is our unanimous
verdict."
The following is also from the official report of the case :-
" Mr. Anstey, addressing the Jury : Gentlemen of the Jury, let me
understand you. The defendant by his plea of not guilty not only traversed
the entire information, but he also pleaded in justification of the libel, cer-
tain facts, viz ., that the Government libelled was not the Queen's lawful
Government, but the accroached and usurped ' Government of one Dr.
Bridges :-That the libellous matter was true, and that the publication there-
of was for the common good. Is the Court to understand then, that you find
for the defendant on both these issues ? - Foreman. Yes.
Mr. Anstey. My Lord , then I apply for costs on both pleas. By section
8, chapter 96, Act 6 & 7 Victoria-
If judgment shall be given for the defendant, he shall be entitled to
recover from the prosecutor the costs sustained by the said defendant by
reason of such indictment or information, and that upon a special plea of jus-
tification to such indictment or information , if the issue be found for the pro-
secutor, he shall be entitled to recover from the defendant the costs sustained
by the prosecutor by reason of such plea, such costs so to be recovered by
562 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Ch. XXV § I. the defendant or prosecutor respectively to be taxed by the proper officer of
the Court before which the said indictment or information is tried.'
1858.
The Court- And payable by the Crown ?
Mr. Anstey Yes, my Lord . By section 3 of Ordinance 4 of 1857 , which
runs In all proceedings where costs would have been recoverable by or
from private parties, they shall be recoverable by or from the Crown.'
The Court- Then you shall have them .
Registrar (After paying them ten dollars each) , Gentlemen of the Jury,
you are discharged . "
Payment The above report discloses as may also be seen, the imme-
of fees to
jurymen. diate payment to jurymen of their fees by the losing side.
And so ended this unprecedented and disgraceful scene , which
so clearly disclosed the false step of the Government-a step so
Result
of case damaging to itself in reference to the charges against Mr. Cald-
damaging well which had led to Mr. Anstey's suspension , and for denoun-
to Mr.
Caldwell. cing which the defendant was prosecuted, but for which the
Government now stood morally convicted by the unanimous
verdict of a special jury.
Mr. Green's Writing from " Stanley Street," on the 25th November , Mr.
opinion on
the case. Green, the acting Attorney- General, submitted his report to the
Government of the conclusion of the trial of Mr. Tarrant. In
it he distinctly stated that " the imputation against Dr. Bridges
must have been regarded by the Jury as proved," and that " the
prosecution of the case should never have been commenced under
his advice "-thereby falling in with Mr. Anstey's views as ori-
ginally submitted to the Government . Mr. Green further add-
ed, in extenuation of his position that the case " commenced
while Mr. Anstey was discharging his functions as Attorney-
General, continued by Mr. Day, as his provisional locum tenens,
it had been concluded by himself under considerable disadvan-
99
tages .
With these facts before one, could Mr. Caldwell remain any
longer in the service in the honourable position of Protector of
Chinese, Registrar- General, or Justice of the Peace, after the
exposures made in this case alone, and would not the result
Mr. Anstey's now strengthen the hands of Mr. Anstey ?
hands These were ques-
strengthened. tions which the Government was now called upon to face, and
at all events it had now but weakened its hands and increased
its troubles .
The troubles
of the
Government Sir John Bowring, who had been suffering for some time
increased. past from serious illness , aggravated by domestic calamities
THE ASTONISHING ATTITUDE OF SIR JOHN BOWRING . 563
and furious local squabbles partly brought on by his own weak- Ch. XXV
― § I.
ness as an administrator, took advantage of Mr. Mercer's return 1858.
to duty on the 24th November to take short leave of absence. Sir John
Bowring
As will be recollected , Mr. Mercer had proceeded on leave takes
on Mr.leave
so long ago as on the 14th February , 1857 , and had therefore Mercer's
return.
been nearly two years away. How much he also was responsible
for the condition of affairs in the Colony, through his recom-
mendation to the Governor of his ' Oxford ' friend, Dr. Bridges ,
for the acting Colonial Secretaryship, an arrangement strongly
objected to at the time, the reader may judge for himself.
On the 27th appeared Government Notifications that the Colonel
Caine,
Lieutenant-Governor, Colonel Caine, would administer the Gov- Lieutenant-
ernment during the Governor's absence, and that all communica- Governor,
administers
tions with the Superintendency of Trade should be addressed to the Govern
Mr. George Whittingham Caine, officiating Secretary to the ment.
Plenipotentiary, " who would be left in charge of the current Mr. G. W.
Caine
business of the office " -an important step already for Colonel in charge of
Superintend
Caine's son before referred to in this work † and in regard to ency of
whom more particulars will appear hereafter. ‡ Trade.
Before his departure for Manila, however, Sir John Bowring
reported the result of the case against Mr. Tarrant to the Home
Government. Having been a staunch and blind supporter of
Dr. Bridges throughout , and as in the case of the Caldwell
Commission and its conclusions as regards Mr. Caldwell , § or of
the Justices of the Peace who had decided ex proprio motu that
Mr. Caldwell was unfit to remain in the Commission of the
Peace, naturally enough Sir John Bowring could not now
either agree with the conclusions of Mr. Green, the acting
Attorney -General, who had conducted the prosecution or less
so of the Jury, and it goes without saying that opportunity was
again taken of making Mr. Anstey the scape- goat and , there-
fore, the subject of attack. This is what Sir John Bowring
wrote to the Secretary of State :-
Government Offices, Victoria,
Hongkong, 27th November, 1858.
Sir.
The case of Regina v. Tarrant has already been referred to by me in Des-
patch No. 116, of 30th August last.
I have now the honour to enclose the acting Attorney-General's report
of the trial and verdict.
I deeply regret that my exhausted state prevents my giving reasons for
not concurring in some of the conclusions at which the acting Attorney-
* Autè Chap. XVIII., p. 425.
† Autè Chap. XX. § II. , p. 467, and reference there given.
See Vol. 11., Chap . LIX,
See paragraphs 40 and 65 of Sir John Bowring's despatch, antè Chap. XXI . , pp.
523, 529.
Antè Chap. XXIII., p. 502, and paragraph 75 of his despatch, id., p. 531.
564 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Ch . XXV § I. General has arrived . I think the jury's decision a very extraordinary one,
and was much surprised at the enormous mass of irrelevant and vituperative
1858.
matter which Mr. Anstey was permitted unchecked to introduce ; but as I
desired a short-hand writer to be employed to take notes of the proceedings,
those notes will be forwarded to you by the next mail.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) JOHN BOWRING.
To
The Right Honourable Sir EDWARD B. LYTTON, Bart., M.P.
Sir John
Sir John Bowring took his departure for Manila in H.M.S.
Bowring
leaves Magicienne on the 29th November, visiting various places during
for Manila.
his stay there, including Borneo, and returning to Hongkong
He reports
Mr. Anstey on the 17th January, 1859 , when he lost no time in reporting
for taking to the Secretary of State " the payment of the defendant's costs
retainers
against the in the case of the Queen v . Tarrant, " and calling Sir Edward
Crown. Lytton's attention to " the conduct of Mr. Anstey in taking
retainers against the Crown, and at the same time signing him-
self Attorney-General. ""
The unofficial At a meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 4th Decem-
members
of the ber, presided over by the Lieutenant- Governor in the absence of the
Legislative
Council Governor, all the members being present, except the Chief Jus-
protest tice, who was absent on judicial business, the unofficial members
against the protested against the addition by the Governor of the Auditor-
appointment
of Mr. General , Mr. Rennie , who had been gazetted on the 1st Novem-
Rennie,
Auditor- ber as an additional member. The grounds of their objection
General, were stated at length and contained, in short, a history of the
to the
Council. Council from its conception . Mr. Rennie's appointment, how-
ever, was afterwards confirmed, † and the result of the unofficial
members ' protest communicated to the Council at a meeting
held on the 18th May, 1859 .
The pork It was Mr. Caldwell's turn now to come prominently again
butchers
and Mr. under public notice . As prosecutor in the Police Court, on
Caldwell as
the 11th December, he charged forty-one Chinese with having
prosecutor
in an alleged assembled illegally in contravention of section 22 of Ordinance
unlawful
No. 8 of 1858. It seemed that he had been informed by the
assembly
case. tepo of the Lower Bazaar, that the pork butchers were to hold
a large meeting on the 10th December, in order to combine for
some unknown purpose ; and, all such meetings (usually held
to keep up prices ) being illegal, unless leave was granted by the
Governor, he informed the Superintendent of Police of the report
* See his remarks upon the report of the Caldwell Commission : " Of the manner in
which the Commission discharged their duties, I cannot report satisfactorily," and again
"this document , I believe, is considered by all parties (sic) most unsatisfactory...The Com
missioners have strained every point which could possibly be made to tell against Mr.
Caldwell." Antè Chap. XXIII., p. 523, § 40, and id., p. 529, § 65.
† See Chap. XXVIII., infrà.
MR. CALDWELL'S PROSECUTION OF THE PORK BUTCHERS . 565
which had been made to him, and, on consultation with that Ch. XXV § I.
officer, agreed to go with the Police to aid in discovering the rules 1858.
ofthe pork butchers' society, if such existed or was about to be
formed . Upwards of forty men were found assembled, aud
arrested, and the papers found on the premises , Mr. Caldwell
informed the Police , were the rules of the society and invitations
to the meeting .
At the Magistrate's Court the men were charged with breach
of section 22 of Ordinance No. 8 of 1858 , and with unlawful
combination. The case was remanded by Mr. Mitchell , the As-
sistant Magistrate, in order that he might forward the depositions
to the acting Attorney - General, and ascertain whether it might
be committed for trial at the Supreme Court, instead of being
dealt with summarily. A few days afterwards, Mr. Caldwell
was informed that he would require to satisfy the Magistrate
that the meeting was a public one and for purposes of combina-
tion. On the 17th December he received a note requesting his The defend
attendance at the Court, and immediately went up , but only to ants,
defended by
find that the defendants had all been discharged . Dr. Bridges Dr. Bridges
appeared for four of the defendants. Mr. Anstey on behalf of and Mr.
Anstey, are
thirty-seven ; the Magistrate discharged the defendants, and a discharged.
demand ( which was not granted) was made for costs.
Mr. Anstey applied to have Mr. Caldwell fined for laying a Mr. Anstey´s
false information or making a malicious arrest . The Magis- application
that Mr.
trate replied that under present circumstances such a course Caldwell
on his part would be unbecoming, and as the Supreme Court be fined for
malicious
was open to the parties wrongfully arrested , he declined . arrest.
soon as Mr. Anstey left the Court, Mr. Caldwell who, it is on Mr.
Anstey
recorded , " had been lurking about the Court, " entered and took leaving the
his seat on the Bench as a Justice of the Peace. Three days Court,
Mr. Caldwell
afterwards Mr. Caldwell was served with two writs of sum- takes the
monses from Mr. Hazeland as solicitor for two of the Chinamen, Bench
Justiceas a
claiming $ 1,000 damages from each . On an application for a of the Peace.
rule nisi to quash the action , the Chief Justice on the 7th Action for
January, 1859, dismissed the application until the plaintiff's had
damages
against.Mr.
been brought before the Court in the regular way and assured Caldwell.
of protection against Mr. Caldwell and had stated their desire Application
for rule nisi
to discontinue the action . Such an insult, as great as it
was merited , was never before cast upon a highofficer of the the action
dismissed.
Government, but from the records it does not appear that the The result.
matter was ever proceeded with, Mr. Caldwell having doubtless
in the meantime brought his influence to bear.
At the Criminal Sessions on the 18th December, Mr. Andrew Prosecution
Wilson, the editor of The China Mail, stood his trial for libelling Mr. and trial of
Mr. Wilso n,
Anstey , the Crown being nominally the prosecutor. The China alitor of
566 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Ch. XXV § 1. Mail besides being the avowed organ of the Government had
1858. always supported Dr. Bridges and his administration , * while
The China
Mail, for showing an antagonistic spirit towards Mr. Anstey. The fol-
libelling lowing are the particulars of the action which came on and ter-
Mr. Anstey. minated in a manner no less startling. The case of the Crown
The facts.
v . Tarrant was called on, as the reader will remember, on Thurs-
day, the 18th November. It could not be proceeded with in
consequence of the absence upon the alleged plea of sickness of
several Government officers ( one of whom was the Governor )
whose testimony was essential to the defence . Mr. Anstey, the
counsel for the defendant, scoffed jocosely at these alleged pleas
of sickness, and, after some little fencing, the Chief Justice
appointed the following Monday for the trial. These prelimi-
nary proceedings happened upon the publishing day of The
China Mail, and either that evening or the following morning
a leading article appeared on the subject, of which the following
is an extract :
"One of the wretched falsehoods employed to cheat public opinion in this
case was used by Mr. Anstey in Court to-day, and was, as stated in defendant's
newspaper, that Sir John was able to go to Aberdeen " on Saturday "-the
fact being that he did go on a Saturday, two or three weeks ago before he was
taken ill, but not on Saturday last."
In addition to this the same article contained such expressions
as the following :-
" For purposes of revenge it is easy to rake up official or other quarrels,
but care should be taken not to allow such to obscure other questions."
Again---
" Who has brought to bear all the low cunning of a steward's pantry, †
and the ingenuity of an ex- Irish Member of Parliament."
* The following was Mr. Anstey's reply to an irrelevant question put to him at the
Magistrate's Court by the defendant, Mr. Wilson , as to his authority for having stated that
The China Mail was a tool of Dr. Bridges and his administration :-
"Because I always noticed when I have been the object of attack, it has been for the
purpose of giving Dr. Bridges personally, politically, and socially the benefit of it. I
verily believe that whenever it suited the views of these parties that characters should be
libelled , the defendant was the person employed , except in cases where the officers of the
Government themselves, from the highest downwards, had their part in the scandalous
work. I found this belief, not only on the fact that the defendant, uncontradicted from
the moment of his arrival, boasted in his paper that he was their organ, and enjoyed
exclusive information, thanks to his connexion with them ;-not only in the intrinsic
evidence contained in the articles themselves of disgraceful violation of official confidence,
and even the secrets of the Executive Council, either by members or by persons in their
employ, not only because The China Mail has enjoyed exclusive information withheld
from or denied to other papers ; not only because Dr. Bridges on oath in the Supreme
Court declined to deny his belief that Sir John Bowring was himself the author ofsome
ofthe articles in the late case of the Queen against Tarrant, but chiefly because it was a
wicked and corrupt administration, whose destruction I had sworn to work. That is my
answer. Sir."
The word " steward " was an epithet of opprobrium which the editor of The China
Mail was in the habit of attaching to the editor of The Friend of China, Mr. Tarrant,
who was the defendant in the case referred to. Mr. Tarrant was at sea when a boy*-the
steward dying and he, being the handiest lad on board, had to do steward's duty-hence
the epithet. The ex- Irish Member of Parliament, of course, referred to Mr. Anstey as
ex-member for Youghal.
See ante Chap. 1. § 11., p. 74.
MR. WILSON CHARGED WITH LIBELLING MR . ANSTEY. 567
These remarks emanated from The China Mail, the Govern- ch. XXV § I.
ment organ, and were made upon the preliminary proceedings 1858.
in a case in which the Crown was the prosecutor, and which
ultimately failed without the defence being entered upon, and
the sentences quoted above formed the gist of the libel which
came to trial on the 18th December . Mr. Anstey applied to
the Judge in the first instance for a writ of attachment, in order
that the editor of The China Mail might be publicly reprimanded .
The Chief Justice, however, refused , on the grounds of the
matter being too serious for any punishment which he had the
power to inflict under such circumstances. The matter conse-
quently fell into the hands of the Crown Solicitor , who issued a
summons from the Magistrate's Court, where the editor was
committed to take his trial, as above stated, at the Criminal
Sessions. There he did not attempt to plead justification , but
put in the plea of not guilty. A special jury was summoned
at the instance of the defendant . The acting Attorney - General,
Mr. F. W. Green , prosecuted , and Mr. Kingsmill , defended .
According to the records of the time, in opening the case, Mr.
Green stated that ---
" The libel was both false and malicious towards Mr. Anstey false , inas-
much as a lie had been put into that gentleman's mouth, which he had never
either uttered or made use of- malicious , in having stated that Mr. Anstey's
object was to breed strife and feed revenge and not to serve his client ; be-
sides which the animus shown was most palpable both in the paper which
contained the libel and in subsequent publications. That the libellous article
pressed with peculiar force upon Mr. Anstey, inasmuch as the editor of The
China Mail boasted that his journal was read by Her Majesty's Ministers, the
remarks in which could not in such case but prejudice Mr. Anstey in their
eyes, in his present peculiar and painful position. The libel charged Mr.
Austey with falsehood, and low cunning to defeat the ends of justice - further
with having for his sole object the gratification of spite and revenge . The
learned gentleman maintained that no barrister could pursue his vocations if
he were not protected from such aspersions as these. But there was still
another consideration which compelled him to press for punishment—that was
the libel was peculiarly adapted to defeat or divert the ends of justice -it
prejudged a case in its preliminary stage upon false grounds, and malicious
reasoning, and it tended to prejudice the public and the jury in a marked
manner and for a specific end and purpose."
After evidence had been taken contradictory of the allegations
contained in the sentences quoted above, the matter of this libel ,
showing that Mr. Anstey had been subjected to much annoy-
ance and injury by the attacks of the paper in question, which
on one occasion had referred to Mr. Anstey as a civilized savage, --
" Mr. Kingsmill, the defendant's counsel, pointed out that the libel did not
imply the coining of a falsehood on the part of Mr. Anstey, but the making
use of a falsehood which had been printed in The Friend of China. He did
not, however, lay much stress upon this defence, but he submitted that the
words bore that interpretation and he threw his client on the mercy of the
Court."
568 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Ch. XXV § I. The Chief Justice said that he had no hesitation in giving his
1858. opinion that the libel charged Mr. Anstey with a wretched false-
Verdict hood, but he would take the opinion of the Jury, who instantly
for the
Crown. and unanimously coincided with the Court.
Mr. Kingsmill then addressed the Court, and said his client
would place himself in its mercy. He was desirous of express-
ing his regret at having published, unknowingly and unwit-
tingly, the libel in question . His client had been willing to
retract and apologize, but had been prevented by the conduct of
the prosecution.
The sentence The Court- " Very well, then , let a verdict be taken for the
and apology. Crown , and let the defendant enter his own recognizance in
£ 1,000 to appear and receive the judgment of this Court when
called upon. In the meantime let the defendant make and
print an apology, which ought to be an ample one ; " " and, "
said His Lordship, " I would suggest to the Gentlemen of the
Press, that, if they make mistakes , they should lose no oppor-
tunity of correcting them ; and when they are wrong, set them-
selves right again at once.
Colonel On the 24th December. Colonel Haythorne, Commandant of
Haythorne,
member the Garrison, was gazetted a member of the Executive Council
of the 66
on all occasions when Major- General Sir Charles Van Stran-
Executive
Council. benzee was absent from the island."
Murrow The action for assault and false imprisonment instituted by
r. Sir John
Bowring. Mr. Murrow against the Governor, Sir John Bowring, claiming
Action for $5,000 damages as before mentioned ,† came on for hearing on
assault
and false the 30th December. Mr. Anstey was counsel for the plaintiff,
imprison. and the acting Attorney-General, Mr. Green , represented the
ment.
* The apology tendered was as follows : -
"With reference to the proceedings in the Supreme Court on the 18th December,
when we were arraigned for a libel on Mr. Anstey, we have to state, that on reconsider-
ing the articles in The China Mail of the 18th and 25th November and the 2nd December,
we see that we have committed ourselves to a libel ; but we take this opportunity of say-
ing, that we had no intention of charging Mr. Anstey with either stating a falsehood or
deliberately making use of one.
Our meaning was, that a false statement had been in circulation , to the effect that
Sir John Bowring had been able to go to Aberdeen ; and that Mr. Anstey had turned this
statement to account in urging on the Court his opinion that the Governor was well
enough to attend and give evidence.
We see that we also committed ourselves in charging Mr. Anstey with this use of a
false report in supporting his client's cause ; and that not merely the first article above
mentioned is open to the charge of libel, but also that the explanation we advanced is
injurious in itself.
For the expressions contained in these articles we tender our apologies, and withdraw
whatever has given offence, as also some expressions which have appeared in our later issues
calculated to annoy. In short, on reviewing all the circumstances, we see we were in the
wrong, and gave way to a momentary indignation which there was nothing to justify.”—
(See The China Mail, January 13.)
† Antè Chap. XX. § 11., p. 471 .
MR. MURROW'S ACTION AGAINST SIR JOHN BOWRING . 569
Governor. The plaintiff, it will be remembered , had been com- Ch . XXV
- § I.
mitted to Gaol for six months and fined £ 100 , on the 19th 1858.
April last. He claimed that being neither a prisoner under Mr. Anstey,
counsel
for plaintiff.
civil or criminal process, he had by orders of the defendant been
imprisoned in the criminal gaol in the company of felons, andThe plain-
that subsequently Mr. Inglis, the Governor of the Gaol, took tiff's case.
him to his ( Mr. Inglis ' ) own room and there told him he was
getting a room ready for him in the Debtors ' Gaol, and that if
he ( plaintiff ) would put the censorship of The Daily Press under
his charge, he would keep him there entirely upon his own
responsibility upon his giving his word he would not escape ,
and that when making the promise he was not aware that the
Governor had done wrong in imprisoning him in the criminal
gaol. Plaintiff also complained of the condition of the ' cell '
in which he was imprisoned . The defence was a complete
denial of the charge. After what was termed one of Mr. Ans-
tey's best speeches ' on behalf of the plaintiff and in which he Acting
again broke out in poetry as he was sometimes wont to do,f the Attorney-
General
acting Attorney - General submitted there was no case to go to the submits
no case to
Jury. The following conversation then took place : - go to Jury.
Hulme, Chief Justice -I cannot certainly see any counexion of this case
with Sir John Bowring. It is quite clear that Mr. Inglis acted upon his
own responsibility in this matter ; I shall therefore direct the plaintiff to be
non-suited.
Mr. Anstey begged the Court would first allow him to quote authorities as
to the responsibility of the defendant, before it proceeded to such a measure.
He then quoted several cases to show the liability of the defendant for Mr.
Inglis' acts.
Mr. Green [ Acting Attorney- General] —My Lord, I have plenty of cases
to show the contrary .
Hulme, Chief Justice - Oh ! I know you have.
Mr. Anstey Then, my Lord, I cannot consent on behalf of my client to
a non-suit.
Hulme, Chief Justice- Very well, then ; I shall direct a verdict for the
defeudaut. You can then move for a new trial on the ground of misdirection ,
which I shall refuse, and then put the case in train for an appeal, if you
wish.
Verdict
The Court then directed a verdict for the defendant. for the
defendant.
Mr. Anstey applied for a new trial which was refused . New trial
refused.
Mr. Anstey may have " sworn to work the destruction of Mr. Anstey's
Sir John Bowring's corrupt and wicked administration , " but determina-
tion to work
" In every branch of the Executive over which Sir John exercised authority." said the destruc
Mr. Anstey, " had the glorious constitution of England been scandalized and disregarded. tion of
Sir John Bowring might use the words which Shakespeare put into the mouth of one of Sir John
his characters :- Bowring's
Faith I have been a truant in the law ; corrupt and
And never yet could frame my will to it ; wicked
And, therefore, frame the law unto my will." administra-
To obtain redress from that will so framed, all avenues were closed save one- that tion.'
was the verdict of a jury...."
See antè Chap. XXIV., p. 550,
570 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Ch . XXV § 1. he cannot be said to have been successful in his determination
1858. to prosecute this action to the bitter end ; and thus terminated
The year another of those scandalous matters which will for all ages
1858 a
memorable mark out the year 1858 as a memorable one in the dark pages
one in the
dark pages of Hongkong's history, with the astonishing coincidence of a
of Hong- suspended Attorney-General seeking the punishment of the
kong's
history. Governor of the Colony upon a matter wherein his own judg
A suspended ment must have told him he was quite wrong both as to law
Attorney- and facts .
General
seeking the
punishment The whole of the year was marked by the prosecution
of the
Governor. of deadly feuds between officials and others to the detri-
Prosecution ment of the public service and of society generally in Hongkong,
of deadly
feuds which for some considerable time had been seething like a cal-
between
officials dron from the heat of the contest between the parties headed ,
and others. respectively, by Mr. Anstey, Sir John Bowring, and his now
degraded friend , Dr. Bridges .
Ch . XXV § II.
1859. On the 4th January, 1859 , Mr. Davies, the Chief Magistrate,
Mr. Davies. moved in the Legislative Council for the production of the corres-
Chief
Magistrate, pondence relative to the opium farm privilege and Dr. Bridges.
moves in The Lieutenant- Governor, Colonel Caine, regretted he could not
Legislative
Council for accede to the request, and at a subsequent meeting , held on the
production of 20th January, Mr. Davies put in his protest against such refusal
correspon
dence of the Lieutenant - Governor and his reasons for thinking the
relative to
motion a proper one to be discussed . Sir John Bowring who
Opium Farm
privilege presided at this latter meeting, having returned to the Colony , as
and Dr.
Bridges. before stated , on the 17th January, remarked that the despatch
Protest of received from the Secretary of State was a privileged com-
Mr. Davies munication and could not be called for ; * that it contained no
against the
refusal of opinion favourable or unfavourable to the finding of the Com-
Government. mittee upon Dr. Bridges ' conduct in relation to the opiam
farm and that it could not be produced ; but that he had no
objection to Mr. Davies' protest being entered upon the minutes.
Secretary
of State's Two Ordinances were then passed through their second read-
refusal to ing nem. con. They were simply to amend Ordinances passed
confirm two last year which the Secretary of State for the Colonies would
Ordinances
without not confirm without the alterations which these Ordinances
alteration.
involved.
Ordinance
No. 8 of One referred to deportation . The Secretary of State disap-
1858. proved of the power, which Ordinance No. 8 of 1858 gave the
Governor, of deporting Chinese to any part of the Emperor's
Dominions, and suggested that the limits of such deportation
should be restricted to the native place of the individual de-
* This was the despatch in acknowledgment of Dr. Bridges' services, referred to antè
Chap. XXIII , p. 509 .
THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON LOCAL LEGISLATION. 571
y
* Accordingl , at an adjourned meeting on the 20th ch. XXVII.
ported . *
January, the amending Ordinance ( No. 1 of 1859 ) was passed , 1859.
and its only section read as follows : - Ordinance
No. 1 of 1859.
1. That no person who shall be deported by His Excellency the Governor-
in-Council, under the twenty -eighth section of Ordinance No. 8 of 1858 ,
shall be deported to any place other than the native country of such person ,
without such person's free will and consent."
The other had reference to the Penal Servitude Ordinance, Or finance
No. 10 of
No. 10 of 1858 , which provided by section 4 that any prisoner 8.
in Gaol who, being cognisant of an escape, did not prevent it,
should be punished as an aider and abettor. This was entirely Ordinance
repealed by one of the Ordinances now brought forward , and No. 2 of 1859.
which was also passed on the 20th January, 1859 , and num- Statement of
bered 2 of 1859 . the Governor
on the
instructions
At the meeting of Council on the 4th January, the Governor to tothe
further stated that at the end of every session of the Imperial Attorney-
General
Parliament, it had been arranged that the Attorney- General of to keep
the Colony should peruse the legislative enactments of that pacepro with
gress
the
period, and selecting such as it might be desirable to adopt to of
keep pace with the progress of the times, and such as might be relative to the
introduction
adapted to the requirements of the Colony, embody the same in of Acts of
an Ordinance and submit it to the Council, and that it was in Parliament.
Ordinance
pursuance of such an arrangement that Mr. Anstey had submit- No. 5of 1858 .
ted Ordinance No. 5 of 1858.† Sir John
Bowring
asks the
Sir John Bowring now asked the Council to repeal that Ordi- Council
to repeal
nance, regarding which, as he had stated at a previous meeting the
of the Council on the 4th October, 1858 , ‡ a despatch had been nance, in
accordance
received from the Secretary of State, and which despatch, he now with instruc-
tions from
proceeded to read.§ Secretary
of State.
With regard to Ordinance No. 13 of 1858 , the remarks of Ordinance
the Secretary of State in reference to Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 No. 1858.13 of
were as appropriate and disclosed carelessness on the part of the Imperial
enactments
Hongkong Legislature in adopting Imperial enactments, per- inapplicable
fectly inapplicable to the circumstances of the Colony. to the circum-
stances of the
Colony.
After having read the despatch before alluded to, the Gov- The Gov-
ernor as to
ernor said that, upon the strength of such a very important steps he
* The clause objected to was the following : - had taken.
28 § 9. " For every offence against section 23, a sum not exceeding five dollars ; or
the offender shall, at the discretion of the Court, receive not more than thirty-six blows,
nor less than five blows, with a rattan ; and he shall also, if His Excellency in Council
shall so decide, be deported to any place in the Chinese Empire or elsewhere.”
† See antè Chap. XXIV., p . 543.
+ Id., P. 542.
§ Id., p. 545.
572 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Ch . XXV § II . document, it became imperative to do something ; that he had
1859. placed the matter in the hands of the late Mr. Day, with in-
structions to frame an Ordinance to meet the exigencies of the
case ; that Mr. Day's sickness and demise had delayed the matter ;
and that now it had been placed in the present acting Attorney-
General's hands with similar instructions.
The acting The acting Attorney- General, Mr. Green , said that his tenure
Attorney-
General's of office was so uncertain, and the subject involved such an ex-
suggestion tensive amount of legislation , that he did not feel justified in
that the
matter stand meddling with it ; that Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 , as it stood,
over until
the Attorney- was quite inoperative ; and that therefore he suggested it should
Generalship remain as it was until the Attorney- Generalship should fall into
be perma
nently filled. Permanent hands.
The Chief
Justice's The ChiefJustice was of the same opinion, adding that, when
coursof
approval Mr. Anstey submitted the Ordinance to the Council , he had con-
the e
suggested sidered it a superfluous piece of legislation.
and the
'superfluous
piece of The Governor said that such subjects were always left to the
legislation. law officers, for it could not be expected that the other mem-
The Governor bers could wade through the enactments of an entire session of
as to such
subjects Parliament. He thought that an Ordinance, the defects of which
being left were of such a nature as those pointed out in the despatch,
to the law
officers. should be repealed , but as no one seconded him, the acting
Attorney - General's suggestion was adopted nem. con.
Mr. Davies,
Chief The despatch was ordered to lie on the table, and the Coun-
Magistrate, cil then adjourned to the 4th February when the minutes of the
and the
merited previous meeting held as above were read , but, previously to
slur ' cast
upon Mr. their being confirmed , the Chief Magistrate, Mr. Davies, begged
Anstey. to remark that a slur had been cast upon Mr. Anstey which be
thought was unmerited . The absent gentleman had been ac-
cused of hasty legislation , and it appeared that an Ordinance
which he had framed had been sent back for reconsideration by
the Secretary of State, which Ordinance the Council at the last
meeting had decided should lie over until the post of Attorney-
General was permanently filled . The Chief Magistrate begged
to remark that this same Ordinance had actually been confirmed
by Her Majesty's Ministers, who were therefore equally to
blame with Mr. Anstey . He thought the circumstances of the
confirmation should be expressed on the minutes.
The Gov.
The Governor replied that the Secretary of State had laid a
ernor's reply complaint against the Council of hasty legislation - it was a
grave charge and had been laid before the Council without loss
See Sir Edward Lytton's despatch, antè Chap. XXIV. , p. 545.
MR. DAVIES DEFENDS MR. ANSTEY IN COUNCIL. 573
of time . He believed that the minutes merely contained a ver- Ch. XXV § II,
batim extract of the acting Attorney - General's motion . 1859.
The Chief Magistrate replied in that case he had no more to Mr. Davies'
defence on
say, but he felt sure the Governor would excuse him for appear- behalf of an
'absent
ing in the defence of an absent member. member.'
In the face of the facts hereinbefore related in reference to Comments
Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 , it seems difficult to understand the upon Mr.
Davies'
attitude of Mr. Davies in the above discussion , except his action.
evident anxiety to endeavour as far as possible to relieve his toHisdefend
anxiety
friend, Mr. Anstey, of the entire responsibility attached to the his friend,
blame conveyed by the Secretary of State in his despatch under Mr. Anstey.
consideration . Mr. Davies, it may be added , was on terms of
great friendship with Mr. Anstey, and had on more than one
occasion extended his sympathy to him in the treatment he had
received from the local authorities, whose corruption and in-
competency had been but too palpable to himself also since his
tenure of office in the Colony.
By whatever light taken, however, this was but a generous
action on the part of Mr. Davies on behalf of his energetic and
conscientious absent friend Mr. Anstey, who, imbued with good
intentions no doubt and when suspended and practically super-
seded , had never had an opportunity afforded him of explaining
matters in reference to the rejected Ordinances .
Mr. Anstey left Hongkong for England on the 30th January, Departure of
Mr. Anstey
1859 , by the P. & O. Mail Steamer Cadiz, on twelve months' for England.
leave of absence on medical certificate, which fact Sir John
Bowring duly reported to the Home authorities. His departure,
however, but transferred the question of his suspension and
the facts in reference thereto, to a different place. *
With reference to the debate in Council as to framing Ordinance
a fresh Ordinance " to meet the exigencies of the case," and No. of
18585, when
the suggestion of Mr. Green that the matter should stand over repealed.
until the Attorney- Generalship be permanently filled , it may be
mentioned that it was not until the 30th April, 1860 , that
any steps were taken, when Ordinance No. 5 of 1860 was Ordinance
passed, repealing Ordinance No. 5 of 1858, in toto. Con- No. 5 of
1860.
sidering the discussion that ensued upon the latter Ordinance, it
may not be inappropriate to reproduce here Ordinance No. 5 of
1860 , which in its preamble shows how it was intended here-
after to deal with the provisions of the enactment repealed : -
An Ordinance for repealing Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 .
Whereas it is expedient and necessary to provide by distinct legislative
measures for the various objects embraced by Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 ; and , in
* See Chap. XXVI. , and subsequent references.
574 HISTORY OF THE LAWS, ETC., OF HONGKONG.
Ch. XXV § II . order to establish such legislation on a proper basis, it is necessary to repeal
the said Ordinance : Be it therefore enacted and ordained by His Excellency
1859.
the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council
thereof :-
1. That Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 be, and the same is henceforth and
hereby repealed .
The distinct With but few exceptions have the Imperial Acts, which it
legislative
measures. was intended to introduce , been since incorporated with the laws
Ordinance of Hongkong, but , as will be seen later on, on the same day that
No. 5 of
1860. Ordinance No. 5 of 1860, before alluded to, was passed , the
Ordinance Legislature also passed Ordinance No. 7 of 1860 , which ex-
No. 7 of tended to the Colony the whole of the second schedule of the
1860.
Ordinance repealed Ordinance No. 5 of 1858 , * relating to certain ‘ Rules,
No. 5 of Orders , and Regulations of the Superior Courts of Law and
1858.
Equity at Westminster ' which Mr. Anstey had introduced, and
which, it will be remembered, the Chief Justice had qualified,
while the question of hasty legislation was before the Council,
as being a superfluous piece of legislation ."
Ordinance As regards Ordinance No. 13 of 1858 , it was afterwards mo-
No. 13 of
1858. dified, and on the 26th December passed the Legislature, being
Ordinance numbered Ordinance No. 6 of 1859 , and entitled " An Ordi-
No. 6 of nance for providing Hospital Accommodation on board Chinese
1859.
Passenger Ships, and for the Medical Inspection of the Pas-
sengers and Crews about to proceed to sea in such Ships."
Ante Chap. XXIV. p. 544.
575
CHAPTER XXVI .
1859 .
Mr. Anstey's brief and troubled career in Hongkong reviewed.-His incorruptible
sense of public duty. - His consciousness of rectitude and the success of his efforts . -The
Crown . Tarrant.-Caldwell r. The Pork Butchers.-Mr. Anstey's charges against Dr.
Bridges. No other man in the Colony qualified for the task which Mr. Anstey had un-
dertaken.-Thwarted by the Governor and Dr. Bridges, as partisans of Mr. Caldwell.-
Government of Sir John Bowring contrived to whitewash Mr. Caldwell. - Colonel Caine
desirous that his protégé, Mr. Caldwell, should not appear as an undesirable subject.— Mr.
Anstey leaves Hongkong in bad health.- Mr. Anstey not resting on his oars on arrival
in England. - Sir John Bowring directly responsible for condition of affairs in the Colony.
-The animosity displayed towards Mr. May. -A Chinaman again upon the Jury List.-
Anxiety of Chinese to serve upon the Jury. - Ordinance No. 18 of 1887, s. 8. -The position
of a juryman. - Ordinance No. 8 of 1895, s. 5. - Murder of a Chinese boy on board the
American ship Mastiff. Trial of the English sailors, Gibbons, Jones, and Williams. --The
facts. Sentenced to death.-The Chief Justice and the black cap.'-Sentence against
Williams commuted. -Execution of Gibbons and Jones.- The Chinese gratified . - The
enthusiasm of the Chinese mandarin at Kowloon . - The_lamentable bungling at the exe
cution. Not satisfied with the public exccution of the Englishmen, the Government seek
further advertizement to please the Chinese.'-Government Notification that under author-
ity of British law equal justice is dealt to all.-The absurdity of the notification --Order
of Her Majesty-in-Council of 3rd March. 1859, repealing prohibitions on the trade of
British subjects.- Mr. Anstey and the Caldwell-Ma Chow Wong connexion in the House
of Lords and House of Commons. - Public meetings at Sheffield and Newcastle. -Petitions
to the House of Lords signed by the Mayors and inhabitants of Sheffield and Newcastle.-
Discussion in the House of Lords upon the petitions.- In the House of Commons.--
In the House of Commons Mr. Ridley asks for particulars about the Caldwell- Ma Chow
Wong connexion ; the case against Mr. Tarrant and destruction of papers by order of Dr.
Bridges. Sir Edward Lytton's reply and interesting speech. -Proposal to refer papers to
legal adviser. Mr. Anstey's suspension confirmed. The Times upon the position in
Hongkong. - The allusion to Sir John Bowring and Dr. Bridges.- A man of tact and
firmness to settle the matter ' suggested. - Sir Edward Lytton's despatch dismissing Mr.
Anstey. - The Secretary of State takes no notice of accusations against a public officer in
a Colony unless they come before him through the Governor .'-' The Attorney-General
is an officer whose especial function is to render counsel and assistance to the local Gov-
ernment. -The unfortunate condition of the public service in Hongkong to be inquired
into by the new Governor. - The despatch. -A plain recall of Sir John Bowring. - Depar-
ture of Admiral Sir M. Seymour. -The community present him with an address and a
piece of plate of the value of 2,000 guineas. -Admiral Seymour records his sense of Mr.
Caldwell's services.--Admiral Hope succeeds Admiral Seymour. - Return of Mr. Pollard
as a barrister. - Temporary removal of the Magistracy to Pedder's Hill.-Hongkong affairs
again before Parliament. - Motion of Mr. Edwin James for production of papers. - Letter
from the Earl of Carnarvon to Mr. Anstey expressing sincere regret ' at the confirmation
of his suspension. - The Morning Herald on Sir John Bowring and the discreditable state
of affairs. ' An empty-headed, malevolent, lying, political quack like old Bowring.'-Mr.
Anstey's successor as Attorney-General, Mr. Adams, connected with The Morning Herald.
-Arrival of Mr. H. C. ('aldwell, a brother of Mr. D. R. Caldwell, from London. - Previ-
ously Registrar of the Recorder's Court at Singapore and a fugitive defaulter. -A backed
criminal warrant in the hands of the Superintendent of Police.- He is allowed to depart
for Macao. - Mr. Anstey's report to the Secretary of State. - Mr. H. C. Caldwell after-
wards as an attorney of the Supreme Court of Hongkong.--Mr. Anstey's pamphlet · Civil
Government at Hongkong.'- He proceeds to India and joins the local bar.-Mr. Anstey's
return to England on Mr. Caldwell's dismissal in 1861.
Chap. XXVI.
THE departure of Mr. Anstey closed his brief and troubled Mr. Anstey's
career in the Colony where he contrived to keep up the charac- brief and
troubled
ter he had won at Home, and now that his back was turned , there career in
Hongkong
was no disposition to abuse him. On the contrary, with few reviewed.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.