32
some of these statements are untrue, and I denounce them not only as untrue, but as the very opposite of true; slanderous they clearly are. Had I been allowed to speak in favour of my motion, I could have given facts in evidence of their untruth. I shall only here state that I have no doubt that the honourable Mr. Lyall would, if called upon, relate circumstances which manifestly contradict the notion that I was actuated by any hostility to Dr. Bridges. I say I could have given facts in evidence, but I should not have considered it necessary to do so until I had ascertained by the production of the correspondence that the above statements had been made in it.
But the public reports do more than allege that correspondence went hence to Downing Street which should not have gone; they further assert that no communication has ever been made to the Secretary of State, that the report of the committee was unanimously approved by the Council. Until I know whether this statement is true, I refrain from remarking on it, I might be but fighting shadows. But how am I, how is this Council, to be informed of its truth or falsehood except by the production of the correspondence?
The reports do not even stop here; they allege that a dispatch has been received from the Secretary of State highly complimentary to Dr. Bridges and approving of his conduct in reference to the Opium monopoly. Surely if there be a dispatch of this nature virtually condemning a report, unanimously adopted by this Council, it is desirable that the Council be informed thereof, and it can only be properly informed by the production of the correspondence.
These reports of communications sent home, which should not have been sent home, of facts not communicated to the Secretary of State, which ought to have been communicated to him, of a dispatch received from the Secretary of State, virtually reflecting on the conduct of the Council, may be true or may be untrue, but they are certainly very widely known and believed, and one of them relating to the dispatch of the Secretary of State appeared in the "China Mail," a newspaper which, although it is denied that it is the Government organ, does certainly appear to have more ready access to official information than the other newspapers, and which in its account of the proceedings of the Council which adopted the the report of the committee of enquiry, curiously enough omitted all mention of the important fact that the report was so adopted.
It will scarcely be contended therefore, that it is not of importance that the truth or untruth of these reports should be known to