Crime and Government at Hong Kong/The Colonial Secretariat
I. THE COLONIAL SECRETARIAT.
As for every other colony, so for Hong Kong, the Imperial Government, moved by a desire of preventing the recurrence of a frequent source of embarrassment and abuse had, in 1856, wisely determined that the duty and power of the officer, administering a Colonial Government, should be deemed to be such, and no other, as are "defined in Her Majesty's Commission, and the Instructions with which he is furnished."[1]
In Colonies, possessing what is called "reponsible Government," the power and responsibility of the executive Government may be, for aught I know, shared with that officer by his Colonial Secretary and other subordinate heads of departments, who are called his "Ministers." But in colonies not so governed, at all events in that of Hong Kong, the terms of his "commission and instructions" confer all the power and impose all the duty of the Supreme Administrator of Government under Her Majesty, upon the Governor or acting Governor; leaving to his subordinates, including the Colonial Secretary, the duty of superintending their several departments, and the power necessary to its performance, and nothing more.
This arrangement, you will perceive, leaves to the Colonial Secretary—for the rest an officer of high rank, and a member of both councils—no proper function but that of organ of the supreme will of the Governor, in his relations with all the other departments of Government, and the community at large.
He has no independent power of action in that regard; nor can the Governor confer such upon him, unless specially empowered by his "Commission," or "Instructions," to delegate any portion of his own, and only so far as he is so authorised.
No such right of delegation existing in the case of the Governor of Hong Kong, any attempt to delegate must there be illegal, and the delegation a nullity; and the duty, not only of the Supreme Court, but of the departments of Government itself, in such a case, have been too clearly expounded by Lord Mansfield and the Court of King's Bench, to need a new exposition at this day.
Yet such an endeavour was made so recently as the 20th January, 1858.
Advantage was taken, for that purpose, of the absence of Mr. Mercer, the Colonial Secretary, upon sick leave in England; a gentleman of honour and ability.
His locum tenens was a Dr. Bridges, D.C.L., who is an Attorney-Barrister, of Hong Kong, whose clients are chiefly Chinamen, and who had been raised by Sir John Bowring, LL.D., to that post; with liberty to carry on his professional business, pari passu, with that of Acting Colonial Secretary.
By his advice, as he swore at the trial, hereafter noticed, a "Circular defining the functions of the Colonial Secretary," was adopted by the Governor on the 20th January, 1858, and "circulated for the information and guidance of all officers of the Colonial Government."
It appeared, however, from the same sworn evidence of that functionary, that it was never sent home to the Secretary of State.
I, therefore, reprint it in extenso;—for it is a very extensive delegation of authority, by Sir John Bowring to his Acting Secretary, and a very illegal one, and one under which gross frauds have been committed on the administration of justice, for the protection of malversation and crime.
His Excellency the Governor is pleased to direct that the following rules, defining the functions of the Colonial Secretary, be circulated for the information and guidance of all officers of the Colonial Government.
1. That no official communication of any description whatsoever is to be addressed by any member of the Government to His Excellency the Governor, except through the Colonial Secretary.
2. That the Colonial Secretary is the organ through whom the official instructions of the Government are to be communicated, and that, except on matters of daily routine, the various departments are subject to his authority as the organ of the Government.
3. That before submitting any official document to His Excellency the Governor, it is the duty of the Colonial Secretary to satisfy himself that the document in question is of a proper nature for the notice of the Supreme power: and should he entertain any doubts on this score, the Secretary is authorised to remit the document in question for correction, and, in extreme cases, to decline altogether to submit it, recording his reason for so doing.
4. That every document submitted to His Excellency the Governor may be observed on by the Secretary, for the information of His Excellency; and that the former is expected to point out anything in such document he deems worthy of observation.
5. That the Secretary is bound to report to His Excellency the Governor every matter of importance which may come to his know ledge; but that, with regard to questions of detail which may be submitted to him, he must take the responsibility of the settling of the same, without troubling His Excellency on trifling matters.
6. That the several departments of the Government are, in all cases, to consider instructions given by the Colonial Secretary as emanating from the Governor himself; and the Secretary will be responsible to His Excellency for any abuse of his authority.I do not know that any Government officer, except the governor of the gaol, obeyed the mandate. I know that at least four heads of departments, including myself, protested against it, and withheld or refused our obedience. Of these, the chief magistrate of police, Mr. Davies, complained in his place in Legislative Council, demanded explanations, which were not granted, and menaced the governor with resignation of his office, if the measure were confirmed in Downing Street. But Downing Street has not yet been consulted.
Our jealousy, well founded in law, was equally founded in policy. We knew the antecedents of the man, into whose hands the governor, whether moved by love of ease, or by a worse motive, had thus surrendered his power.
His professional malpractices were notorious in the Colony. One of them was recorded in the Parliamentary blue books of 1857; and it was one of such gravity, that the levity with which the Chief Justice of Hong Kong treated him, when, to use his own words, "he threw himself on the mercy of the Court,"[2] was still a matter of surprise to every man.
Sir John Bowring himself, in 1856, when Dr. Bridges was absent from the Colony, had made no secret,—either to the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Mercer), whom he nevertheless replaced, or to myself, who protested from the first against his appointment,—of his Excellency's personal dislike to Dr. Bridges. He had even justified that dislike by imputations of a very serious kind, suggested by the notorious fact, that a great part of the Doctor's emoluments, when Acting Attorney General, before my arrival in the Colony, were derived from pawnbroking loans to low Chinese, upon deposits of opium, and at exorbitant interest.
It was equally notorious, that the animosity was reciprocal; and it was admitted by Dr. Bridges, at at the trial already referred to, that, whilst filling the office of Acting Attorney General, in 1855, he had induced the same defendant (Mr. Tarrant, the editor of the Friend of China, a Hong Kong newspaper), to insert a very celebrated libel upon Sir John Bowring; and that he had even sent him the libel with the view to such publication.
In fact, the intensity of their mutual hatred, was even greater than that which, as will presently appear, existed at the same time, between two of Dr. Bridges' friends, the Lieutenant Governor, and Mr. Caldwell, alias Sam Kwei, but which, as will be also seen, was, in Mr. Caldwell's judgment, powerless to obstruct his own preferment, since the reputation of the former was at his mercy.
Added to the above facts, was the startling one, that, in every attempt made to bring to justice the malpractices of the same Mr. Caldwell or Sam Kwei, hereafter to be noticed, in connection with his notorious piratical associates, the "Jonathan Wild" of Hong Kong and the China Seas, the convict Mah Chow Wong, Dr. Bridges had been always active and successful on the side of the accused.
All things considered, therefore, it was not surprising, that so much opposition was manifested, on the part of honest servants of the Crown, even at the risk of loss of office in Hong Kong and permanent disfavour at home, to an encroachment, already objectionable enough because of its intrinsic illegality.
Their opposition was fruitless. The "accroached" and illegal power was unscrupulously brought into play, and became the first step to further usurpation.
Sam Kwei (Mr. Caldwell), now more than ever the right hand of administration, was encouraged, in his turn, to invade the important department—hitherto, by the wise jealousy of the Colonial Legislature, shielded from all foreign interference—of Superintendent of Police.
The remonstrances of the conscientious and zealous officer, Mr. May, at the head of that department, were met with insults, or else threats of suspension.
Nearly the same treatment was experienced by every other independent department.
The doctrine of the corrupt reign of Charles the Second, that, in every supreme government, there endures ever the right of direct initiative and controlling interference with every office in the State, was openly acted on.
Chinese convicts and gaol-birds of Mah Chow Wong's gang were employed as spies, and preferred to the ordinary detective service. Mah Chow Wong himself, from his cell, had the honour of directing one or two false arrests and malicious conspiracies, to pervert the administration of justice.
The functions of the stipendiary police had been carefully defined by the Colonial Legislature. From those proper duties they were now constantly with drawn, and, under "Sam Kwei's" management, employed on whatever service it seemed good to the intruders to set them.
Arrests were made without warrant or just cause. Nocturnal visits to respectable tradesmen's houses upon groundless pretences—forcible entries—vexatious searches—all kinds of annoyance were brought to bear upon the obnoxious.
Nor were the outrages confined to Hong Kong. Illegal forays for the same purposes were made against the Chinese of the mainland, the subjects of the Pekin Government; and in some of them, innocent men were kidnapped in their beds, brought to Hong Kong, and afterwards discharged.
In every instance, the informer was either Mah Chow Wong himself, a member of his secret society or clan, or some one in some manner connected with him or it. In no instance can the same be said of the outraged victims of the system.
The police were most unwilling instruments. They detested alike Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell, by either or both of whom they were personally commanded on every such occasion. But they were forced to obey. As to Mr. May, their lawful superintendent, he was not even notified of these démarches. It was not until after the doing of the mischief, that it came to his knowledge. He remonstrated in vain, or only to be censured for the remonstrance. He returned to the charge; and he requested that at least the correspondence might be laid before the Secretary of State. He was threatened with dismissal, and the correspondence was not sent to Downing-street.
The truth was, as confessed by Dr. Bridges at the trial so often referred to, that nearly every portion of Dr. Bridges' side of it, consisted of private letters unofficialised, and not recorded in the archives of the secretariat.
It was a significant revolution in the conduct of public business, and one admitted by himself, on the same occasion, to have been introduced by him generally into all the departments of the public service.
From the portions of the correspondence, referred to by Dr. Bridges under the same cross-examination, it appeared that some endeavour had been made by the Superintendent of Police and others, to call Sir John Bowring's attention to the alarming consequences of these systematic irregularities. But it also appeared, from the Governor's own minutes, that the mere act of complaining to himself of these irregularities of his secretary, was considered by his Excellency an "insubordination," deserving the suspension of the offender;—and that every officer of Government was expected to render to the private and unrecorded notes of His Excellency's delegate, the same obedience as to the official mandates of the Governor himself.
It would be difficult to overrate the evil impression which these proceedings produced on the minds of the Chinese of Hong Kong and the empire.
They had always known that Mah Chow Wong, the great Hong Kong pirate, was the partner of Mr. Caldwell, the magistrate; and that the latter had made himself useful to Dr. Bridges, in the way of his profession of lawyer, and his trade of money lender amongst the Hong Kong Chinamen.
But now they saw the latter, wielding all the prerogatives of the Queen, hoisting the viceregal flag, demanding royal salutes, and taking precedence of her generals and admirals.
They saw men, to use the authoritative language of one of themselves respecting him, (I quote from the Report of the Opium Farm Monopoly Committee of the Legislative Council as printed by authority),[3] "doing anything he likes with the Government, making a law one day, and tearing it to pieces the next."
They saw him investing himself with the tremendous powers, which the Queen had conferred on the governor of Hong Kong, for the destruction of Chinese pirates, taking counsel of their confederates for the employment of those powers, and associating them to himself in the conduct of every enterprise undertaken against persons proclaimed as pirates, on no better evidence than the denunciations of Mr. Caldwell and Mah Chow Wong.
It was the "reign of terror" at Hong Kong, spreading wide its mischievous influence over the neighbouring coasts, to the great scandal of Her Majesty's Government.
Already had semi-official remonstrances, in the name of the small Portuguese and Chinese traders at Macao, against the encouragement so afforded to the pirates who infested them even in their own waters, been verbally addressed to Dr. Bridges, by the late governor of Macao, the Chevalier de Guimarâes,[4] but with no effect.
The Chinese of the empire now began, on their side, to beseech the merciful forbearance of their formidable neighbours.
I have myself seen petitions from the Main, praying Dr. Bridges' government not to resent, as offences against the Queen of England, proceedings taken by the petitioners within the Chinese territory, to recover the possession of land there situate, against Chinese wrongdoers holding it by the strong hand, in the face of a decree rendered by the proper Chinese court.
That opportunity was afforded me by the parties themselves. These men having presumed to present such petitions, in a case where the Mah Chow Wong gang were the adverse occupants, and, consequently, the interest of the petitioners was adverse to that of Dr. Bridges' Hong Kong government, were contemptuously ordered to withdraw themselves and their petitions too from the Secretariat.
From the printed translations of some of the petitions, which appeared in the Government organ, I made Some extracts at the time, and these still remain in my hands. The originals, themselves I ventured to return, enclosed in a letter from myself (6th July, 1858) to the Secretariat; where, unless burned, they now are. I regret to add, that my own well-meant recommendation of their prayer received the usual answer—that the Government "saw no occasion for its interference."
The case was, nevertheless, a hard one; and the language of the petitions very striking. They were well-known to the Hong Kong authorities, as the representatives of the Tung family,—crown tenants, under the emperor of China, of all the arable and pasture lands of Hong Kong, at the date of the cession of that island to Her Majesty. They had held their lands for about thirty years before the cession, paying rent to the emperor. The Crown lease had been granted in perpetuity ("infinite") to the original lessee and his assigns; and they were assignees for valuable consideration.
The Colonial Government, however, took possession of the lands themselves, on the cession in 1842-3, supposing that by virtue either of the cession itself, or the law of "prize," all private properties became vested in Her Majesty. They had at that time no law advisers in the colony,
No compensation was made to the dispossessed Tung family. A branch of it is living at Hong Kong in great poverty. The elder branch retired to the opposite coast, within the sight of Hong Kong, but in the Empire of China; where they had still an estate, called Tsim Shar Choy.
Some time back, however, it became notorious in Hong Kong that these unhappy men had lost even that estate, and that a number of pirates and re-setters of such were in possession, under title from the redoubted Mah-Chow Wong.
It became thenceforth an eyesore and a nuisance to the local trade; the head quarters of the East Coast pirates; a place of custody and torture for prisoners kidnapped by Mah-Chow Wong from Hong Kong; and the chief depôt of all colonial plunder.
Until the publication, however, of these petitions, it was not generally known in the Colony how these men had obtained possession, and by what influences they had maintained it.
It should not be forgotten, that it was not until long after the conviction and sentence of Mah-Chow Wong, in the Hong Kong Supreme Court, for piracy, that these poor men gathered courage to petition Dr. Bridges' Government at all.
It may also be, that they were partially emboldened so to do by the notoriety of the then pending enquiry into Mr. Caldwell's (Sam Kwei's) proceedings, which I shall hereafter notice, and of which it was was then impossible to foresee the strange and startling conclusion that soon followed.
Be that as it may, the petitioners represent, that by "violence" and "usurpation," Mah-Chow Wong, and his banditti from Hong Kong, had first succeeded in dispossessing them of their estate, and planting it with an armed garrison; that the Court of the Sun-On Mandarin, within whose jurisdiction the property was situate, having been applied to by the petitioners, had heard the cause and adjudged restitution in their favour; that, in the interim, Mah-Chow Wong had himself been tried at Hong Kong for piracy, convicted and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation; that, from his gaol, he had nevertheless, given orders to his "companion," a person named 'Ng Ting Shing, "to keep the land on the opposite shore, by force;" that, by the proclamation of the Mandarin, they, the petitioners, were encouraged and directed to arm their friends, and resume possession by the strong hand in like manner; and that they were making preparation to do so, when it occurred to them that, as their expedition to the point of land, where the property lies, must necessary be effected in boats, the objects of that expedition would be misrepresented at Hong Kong, by Mah-Chow Wong's friends there, and perhaps a naval force despatched against them, as though engaged in some piratical enterprise.
Then they give this remarkable reason, to justify their apprehension. They say, that the wrongs already suffered were done by that pirate, simply because "the above mentioned lawless fellow, Mah-Chow Wong, has so much reliance on the English power in this settlement;" and therefore, that if, availing themselves of the lex rei sitûs, and the judgment of their Court, they were now "to contend with 'Ng Ting Shing in battle on the other side, the troops of his Excellency may do something wrong to them, if they (the troops) would listen to the wrong saying of the people who are ignorant of the state of things;" in other words, that Her Majesty's forces, misled, as frequently has happened, by false informers of the Jonathan Wild class, will deal with them as sea and land pirates.
Yet his Excellency was of opinion, that there was nothing in such a case, to demand the vigilance or anxiety of Government.
I believe that the friends of the alarmed petitioners had recourse to the British community in this emergency.
The petitions themselves were printed in the China Mail; but the community was already put on its guard by the following "Notice," largely advertised in the different journals, both in English and in Chinese.
NOTICE.
TUNG WING-FOOK-TONG, of Sun-On district, was formerly sole Proprietor of the Island of Hong Kong, and of the hills and coast on the North side of the Harbour under the general name of Tsim Shar-choy. The Island of Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain, and Tsim Shar-choy was alone left to Tung Wing-Fook-Tong. But Mah-Chow Wong, with Oong Tin-Sing, and the late Oong Min-Toong, established themselves under the name of SAN-LOONG-TONG, and took possession of Tsim Shar-choy. Lately, Tung Wing-Fook-Tong petitioned the Magistrate of Sun-On to examine Tung's claim to Tsim Shar-choy, and the Magistrate issued a Proclamation, declaring that Tung Wing-Fook-Tong is the true Owner of the property, and Mah-Chow Wong has no right to it. Though Mah Chow-Wong is now a convict in prison in Hong Kong, yet his wife has sent Oong Tin-Sing to lay claim to Tsim Shar-choy, stating that those Comprador Boats belonging to Mah-Chow-Wong's people, which supply the Foreign Shipping with provisions, need fear no one, but may act as they please at Tsim Shar-choy, independent of its Proprietor and his claims. Tung Wing-Fook-Tong hopes that the Foreigners will not take a biassed view of this matter.
TUNG WING-FOOK TONG,
per Yun Loong.
Hong Kong, 19th July, 1858.
I have not heard whether the petitioners regained their property, or whether their expedition proceeded. But, if it did, thanks to the appeal thus made by them to the good sense of the British, military and naval, as well as civil, the pirates of Hong Kong did not, on that occasion, obtain the countenance of the British flag.
Whilst such was the terror produced abroad, it may well be imagined what was the "public opinion," and what the policy, of the Hong Kong Chinese, in dealing with the acting Colonial Secretary.
His practice, both as attorney and barrister—for such it was, long before that amalgamation became sanctioned by ordinance—became very extensive indeed. I do not remember exactly enough to speak with confidence; but I think it was at this period, that he put up the Chinese signboard, which still adorns his door-post, in the Queen's Road, informing all Chinese litigants that the inmate is "Bridges" [Bi-li-ji-si], the distinguished graduate-in-law, and "lord of legal knowledge," who moves all courts for clients, in small and great things, in unclean and clean. At all events, he was even now in the full enjoyment of that reputation; and, moreover, it was the general impression of the Chinese community, that the retainer, as counsel, secured in him the chief member of the Government.
For that impression, if he had ever taken any step, or shown any inclination to prevent or reverse it, he would not deserve to be blamed. It was the unhappy consequence of the original sin of choosing a practising barrister to fill, albeit provisionally and only for a season, those high executive appointments. But, as the Legislative Council has well and unanimously resolved, Dr. Bridges having, on the contrary, so combined the anomalous practices, and deliberately so demeaned himself in the exercise of each, as necessarily to produce that impression upon the minds of the observers, he is justly blameable for its existence. And of this, the very case which brought down upon him from that body the heavy censure of disqualification for the offices he had so disgraced, affords a lively illustration.
For revenue purposes, the retail of opium at Hong Kong was, by one of his Ordinances of 1858, created into a Government monopoly, and put up for farm to the highest bidder by tender. A certain day was appointed, beyond which no tenders could be received. At the end of that day, the highest bidding was ascertained, and declared in the Secretariat.
Nevertheless, two days afterwards, a new bidder offered himself, in the person of a Chinese convert, Chun-tai-kwong, whose name had been shortly before mentioned by his bishop with much honour in Exeter Hall. The bidding, a still higher one, was received, and the grant of the farm ordered to be made out in his favour, as soon as his sureties and himself should have perfected their recognisances.
This was done at the Secretariat some days later; and, in the meantime, an undertaking had been come to between the intended grantee and a Chinese servant of the Acting Colonial Secretary, by virtue of which Chuntai Kwong prepared himself to retain the latter, as counsel for his monopoly, when granted.
This retainer took place in the office of Dr. Bridges at the Secretariat, and the time chosen was that of the perfecting of the recognizances, and immediately before the grant of the farm. The offer of a fee of four hundred dollars—a large fee for a retainer on behalf of a monopoly which could not exceed a year, and might be earlier determined—is admitted by Dr. Bridges himself to have been accepted on that occasion; and the money was paid over that night to the before-mentioned Chinese servant.
What else passed at that interview has been variously stated, and will never be fully made known. The sureties had been ordered out of the room before it had commenced, and the chief clerk of the Secretariat, the only other person who might have witnessed it, was called in only to hear Dr. Bridges declare that the retainer was not to bind him to act as counsel against the Government, so long as he was a member of it.
But on rejoining his surety (Mr. Hoey, a publican), Chun-tai Kwong informed him, that he had given the Acting Colonial Secretary only a portion of what he intended—a mere "cumshaw" (gift)—and that the retainer would be a thousand dollars;—giving, as his reason for this intended profusion, the statement elsewhere quoted, from the pages of the subsequent Report on the case, to the effect, that the imposing position of the man, considered as a member of the Government and Legislature of Hong Kong, made such profusion necessary.
Mr. Hoey, having reported these words to me a few days afterwards, I thought it my duty to refuse to be a depository of so scandalous an accusation, and, in my turn, reported it officially to Dr. Bridges himself; recommending him, at the same time, to summon Chun Tai Kwong before the proper tribunal, that of the magistracy, in order to his commitment for trial, as a public defamer of the Government.
Instead of so doing, Dr. Bridges invited first Mr. Caldwell, to examine Chun Tai Kwong, and then, one by one, two other Government officers, to join them in a private and unsworn examination of Mr. Hoey at the Secretariat.
No material discrepancy in their statements was clicited; and Dr. Bridges was forced to content himself with the declaration of Chun Tai Kwong, that he never meant to say that he (Dr. Bridges), expected more than the four hundred dollars; and the joint declaration of Chun Tai Kwong, and Mr. Hoey, that they intended no reflection on his honour.
This proceeding having been severely commented on in the Hong Kong Register, one of the local newspapers, by a gentleman, since deceased, who denounced it as something much worse than the corruption imputed to Mr. Butt, by Mr. Roebuck,—Dr. Bridges came down to the Legislative Council, laid the article before them, and obtained a committee of his own nomination, and consisting of his own personal friends of that day, to enquire whether his character for "integrity" was in any way impaired by the circumstances of the case.
Notwithstanding this somewhat narrow limitation of the matters referred to, the Committee, after taking all the evidence, laid on the table their unanimous report, afterwards agreed to by the Council itself, with equal unanimity; from which I extract the following paragraphs.
After expressing their opinion, that, so far as the question of the tenders was concerned, there was nothing in the evidence before them to impeach the honour or honesty of the acting Colonial Secretary; the Committee proceed to recapitulate the circumstances connected with the retainer, and to say:—[5]
"These proceedings, in the opinion of your Committee, show the want of a due appreciation, by Dr. Bridges, of the demands of his high and important offices as acting Colonial Secretary, member of the Legislative Council, and member of the Executive Council; and denote an absence of that proper sensitiveness—which should have made him, above all other persons, foresee and avoid all positions of possible conflict between his Public and Private Duties, which in the case of the opium monopoly were sufficiently obvious.
"That Dr. Bridges should hold the offices mentioned, and, at the same time, retain the privilege of practising as a barrister, however undesirable a state of things, is one for which he cannot be blamed. But the limits, within which he would avail himself of his privilege, were under his control. He fixed the limit, that he would not act against the Government: and the place, in which he informed his client of this fact, was most unhappily chosen.
"Further, he should have seen that any one, more particularly a Chinaman, must think that he would greatly gain, by employing, as his counsel, a high officer of Government; through whose means, changes, so beneficial to himself, had been made, at the last moment, in a public ordinance;[6] and that the monopolist, and the Chinese community gene rally, would conclude, however erroneously, that the official so retained, and the Government of which he was a member, were open to private influence.
"That such must be the effect of Dr. Bridges' conduct on the minds of the Chinese, there cannot be any doubt."
On the 6th July following, this Report being again read, on the motion of the chairman of Committee, it was unanimously agreed. that, "the Council do agree with the Committee in their said Report."[7]
On both occasions, Dr. Bridges was present, but silent.
The silence was the more remarkable, since the acting Colonial Secretary had expected a very different result from the Committee, from the moment when he proposed its nomination, down even to the presentation of the Report.
So confident, indeed, was he, and so little delicate in expressing his confidence, that only the evening before the presentation of the Report, he accosted the chairman (the Honourable Mr. Davies, chief magistrate of Hong Kong) on the subject, and greatly to that gentleman's disgust, congratulated himself on the excellent way in which, as he said, he had managed to get out of the scrape, by obtaining such an inquiry, as was sure to end in clearing himself and silencing all future accusers. He then went on to compare his conduct, in that respect, with the conduct of his friend, the Lieutenant-Governor (Colonel Caine), in the years 1846—9; when publicly charged, not only in the newspapers of Hong Kong, but before Earl Grey, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, with being principal, or accessary, in certain very gross cases of extorting money and taking bribes from Chinese grantees of crown hereditaments.[8] He said: "The Colonel was wrong in not doing as I have done. If I, like him, had held my tongue or hushed it up, I should never have hoped to hear the last of it. As it is, I shall be cleared you know; and nothing more will be said."
The chairman heard him in silence. Next day, those boastings received their proper reproof, in the appearance of the Report.
Still, there was the chance of concealing from the Imperial Government the extent of the disaster. But this demanded the suppression of the Evidence on which the Report was grounded.
The Report, therefore, appeared in due course, amongst the votes and proceedings published in the official journal,[9] but without a particle of the Evidence. In this shape, it was sent home to the Secretary of State, with the accompanying explanations of the censured officials.
After the departure of the mail, and not till then, the Evidence was suffered to appear; and, inasmuch, as by the order of the Legislative Council, and, in deed, by the routine of the procedure, the Evidence ought to have originally accompanied the Report, the latter was, on this occasion, republished, to accompany the Evidence.[10]
In the mean time, Dr. Bridges, and his few adherents in the colony, had openly boasted expressly their confidence, that by keeping back the Evidence and forwarding the Report alone, in the first instance, he (Dr. Bridges) would be able to obtain, through the influence of his friend at the Colonial office Arthur Blackwood,[11] a speedy decision of his case, before the Evidence, which would be delayed till a subsequent mail, could arrive. And, when it did arrive, Sir E. B. Lytton, they thought, would be enjoying his parliamentary recess in the country; nor was it likely that the decision, once made, would ever be reconsidered.
The result, I regret to say, so far answered their expectations, that the retirement of Dr. Bridges from office, which these proceedings necessitated, but which was delayed until the 30th August (nearly two months), was stated, so recently as the 20th January last, by Sir John Bowring himself, at a meeting of the Legislative Council,[12] to have been acknowledged by a despatch "thanking him for his valuable services," but "containing no opinion favourable or unfavourable to the finding of the Committee upon Dr. Bridges' conduct in relation to the Opium Farm." But all further explanation was peremptorily refused.
The Chief Magistrate, Mr. Davies (from whose uncontradicted speeches on that and a former occasion I gather the most important of the above facts), having read his Minute of Protest against these suspicious proceedings, the same was entered upon the Minutes; and it is now, I presume, in the hands of the Secretary of State.
It is as follows:—[13]
At a Council held on the 4th Inst., I submitted the following motion for debate.
"That his Excellency the Governor be requested to lay before the Council, all correspondence between the local Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies with respect to the proceed ings of this Council on this subject of the Opium farm privilege, and other matters referring to it by Dr. Bridges then member of the Council, and particularly with respect to the selection of the committee of enquiry, thereupon appointed by this Council; the conduct of its proceedings, the drawing up of its report, and the confirmation by this Council of the said report."
The honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor, Colonel Caine, then acting Governor and Chairman of the Council, refused to allow any discussion whatever on the matter. I now respectfully enter this my protest, against such refusal of the Lieutenant-Governor, with my reasons for thinking the motion a proper one to be discussed. My reasons are these:—
It is obviously desirable, unless special reasons be shown to the contrary, that this Council, which appointed the committee of enquiry, and unanimously adopted its report, should be officially and certainly informed, whether any, and if any, what communications on the subject have been sent by the local Government to the Secretary of State, and whether any, and if any, what communications in reply have been received by the local Government from the Secretary of State; and it is neither advisable nor respectful to this Council, that it should thus be left as a body in complete ignorance on the subject. It is still less advisable when many members, if not every individual member of the Council, must have heard and read in the local newspapers reports, as to the nature of the correspondence referred to. If the correspondence is such as it is reported to be, it contains a great amount of error, falsehood and slander, and it is only by the production of the correspondence that the Council can ascertain, the truth or falsehood of these reports.
I have been informed that some members of this Council have stated, and I have read on more than one occasion in the local news papers, that Dr. Bridges, then acting Colonial Secretary, and him self the party whose conduct had been under enquiry by the committee referred to; forwarded to Downing street the report of the committee immediately after it was presented to the Council before the evidence was printed, and with his answer to it, in which answer he charged Mr. Dent and myself, the only members of the committee, with injustice and falsehood and hostility to himself. He stated, it is reported, that through some management of Mr. Anstey we were appointed, because we were hostile to him, that we conducted the proceedings of the committee under Mr. Anstey's influence, and that the report, which purported to be ours, was not so, but was really drawn up by Mr. Anstey. The Council knows that 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 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,[14] 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.
It was a terrible thought which that confession suggested to those who heard it.
On those who have perused the foregoing pages, and who will follow me to the end, the impression will be not less painful.
For there is yet to be told the worst portion of the case as it affects Dr. Bridges; and it will best be told in its connection with that of Mr. Caldwell and Mah Chow Wong.
But first a few words to explain in what manner, during this disgraceful period of the Colonial history, the control of the Executive Council over the actors—a Council still kept alive in nominal compliance with the letter of Her Majesty's instructions—was rendered so powerless, as the startling admission just cited from one of them, proves it to have been.
- ↑ "Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service." London: Queen's Printers. 1856. III., s. 4.
- ↑ Parliamentary Papers (155), 1857. (Sess. 2.) “Poisoners of Hong Kong;” pp. 25—6.
- ↑ Votes and Proceedings, &c., in the Hong Kong Government Gazette, of the 6th July, 1858.
- ↑ He has very lately returned to Lisbon.
- ↑ Report and Proceedings of the Committee, printed in the Hong Kong Government Gazette of 19th June, 1858.
- ↑ This refers to the fact, that, in committee upon the Opium Farm Ordinance, after Chun Tai Kwong was assured of obtaining the grant, Dr. Bridges introduced, and carried through, amendments, whereby larger powers and emoluments became vested in the grantee. They are set out in the evidence.
- ↑ Hong Kong Government Gazette, of 17th July, 1858.
- ↑ See Article VI. in Mr. E. James's Notice of Motion for Papers; where, by mistake, the year 1849 is omitted.
- ↑ Hong Kong Government Gazette, 5th June, 1858.
- ↑ Ib., 19th June, 1858.
- ↑ The pressure of colonial business compels a distribution of it among the clerks of the Colonial Office; and, to this gentleman, the business of the Hong Kong Government is said to be confided by the Secretaries of State. I disclaim all belief in Dr. Bridges's statement with regard to him. I only record it.
- ↑ Daily Press of 22nd January, 1859.
- ↑ Ib.
- ↑ "The Queen v. Tarrant"; Hong Kong Criminal Sessions of Supreme Court, for November, 1858.