Page:Europe in China.djvu/248

without any prima facie evidence, of three Portuguese gentlemen, who, after being sent to Macao as prisoners by a British gunboat (H.M.S. Young Hebe) were, when tried at Macao, found not guilty in the suit (a civil one) which they had sought to postpone by coming to Hongkong. A similar case occurred soon after (October 23, 1846), when some Portuguese slaves, vainly supposing that British Slavery Acts were in force in Hongkong (for others than Chinese), fled to the Colony. Their masters, however, brought against them, in Macao, a charge of theft. Although there was no extradition treaty to rely on, the Macao Governor forthwith requested Sir John Davis to extradite those slaves, and as the Magistrates again complied, without the formality of a trial, with the orders of the Governor, the latter forthwith informed Senhor Amaral, that the slaves were in custody and would be delivered on application. Soon after this, the conflict between the Governor and the Chief Justice became more pointed. A prominent British merchant at Canton, Mr. Ch. Sp. Compton, happened one day (July 4, 1846) to overturn a huckster's stall, obstructing one of the Factory lanes, and two days afterwards he pushed a coolie out of his way, telling Consul Macgregor, who was close by, that he had done so. On July 8, 1846, one of those periodical riots occurred for which Canton mobs were notorious. Three months later, the Consul informed Mr. Compton that Sir John Davis, as Superintendent of Trade, had (without trial) fined him £45 for upsetting a huckster's stall, intimating that this circumstance had caused the riot of 8th July. Further, on November 12, 1840, a local paper published a dispatch by Sir J. Davis to Kiying, in which Mr. Compton was referred to as 'the exciter of the riots.' As the whole European community of Canton supported Mr. Compton in his contention that the Canton riots had no connection with his doings, Mr. Compton appealed to the Supreme Court against Sir John Davis' sentence. Chief Justice Hulme tried the case, and, on giving judgment in favour of appellant, pronounced the sentence of the Consul (i.e. the decision of Sir John Davis) as 'unjust, excessive and illegal'