100
on a Saturday,—I was notified by Dr. Bridges, that the Commission was then issued;[1] and a "list" of "charges," said to have been extracted from my correspondence and speeches, was enclosed.
I lost no time in protesting, once and for all, against that most absurd and dishonest compilation. My protest was afterwards renewed, again and again, in writing and verbally, in Council, in Court, before the Commission itself, and in my correspondence with the local authorities and with Downing Street. The Legislative Council and the Commission received and adopted my protest. But, from the first occasion down to this instant, no notice whatever has ever been taken of it, in any communication to myself, direct or indirect, on the part of the Government, or in any of their notifications. Neither did it move them in any way to revoke their "list" of charges, or qualify its language or arrangement, or to abstain from publishing it in the Hong Kong Government Gazette, with the mendacious statement, that such were the charges I had brought.
I subjoin a copy of my first protest from my manuscript. It was admitted in evidence by the Commission, and is the suppressed document (A).[2]
Attorney General's Office,
Monday, 24th May, 1858.
Sir,
After office hours on Saturday, the 22nd instant, I had the honour of receiving yours of that date, covering "a copy of the charges to be forwarded to the Committee appointed for investigating the accusations brought by me against the Registrar General."
Had it reached me at an earlier period, you should have had my reply to it the same day.
