33
Mr. Dent, Mr. Anstey and myself, whose honour and honesty, it is said, have been called in question; to the Council whose conduct also has, it is said, been disapproved by the Secretary of State; to the Government here, that these reports, so injurious to its character for sincerity and justice, may, if untrue, be contradicted to the Secretary of State, that he may learn whether he has been deceived or not; to the public, who are present by their representatives at our sittings, in order that they may know whether any secret injustice has taken place. It is only the production of the correspondence before the Council which can satisfy any one on these points.
For the above reason I think that the motion for the production of the papers was a proper one for debate, and for the same reasons, I respectfully protest against the refusal of the Acting Governor to allow any discussion whatever on the subject.
I had ceased, for months before this debate, to be summoned to the Council—my suspension from the Attorney-Generalship having occurred in August. But I am informed, by Mr. Davies and others who were present, that the above narrative is quite correct. Further observation I feel to be superfluous.
It was testified on oath, by the same Dr. Bridges, when supporting the inuendoes laid in the information of seditious libel, at the trial already referred to,[1] that, during his Secretariat, he and Sir John Bowring made up the Government of Hong Kong; but that, if any other person had been Governor, by the word "Government," the Executive Council ought to be understood; since such was the tenor of the Queen's Commission. Sir John Bowring, he said, was incapable of governing, but through some single person to whom he could surrender himself.
- ↑ "The Queen v. Tarrant"; Hong Kong Criminal Sessions of Supreme Court, for November, 1858.
d
