Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/11

 And not only the last word, but the further advantage of being able to conceal his defence,—(generally consisting of unfounded recrimination),—from the party demanding justice at the hands of the Secretary of State.

For no communication, from the party complainant, is so much as perused by the minister, unless forwarded open through the Governor;—the intention being, that the latter shall have the opportunity of perusing, and, if he can, of refuting it.

Every such communication, forwarded otherwise than according to that rule, is returned to the writer, without comment.

But, this being the close privilege of the local Government alone,—no such opportunity is accorded to its victims or opponents.

They know nothing of the case stated by the accused, unless, perchance, after the final decision of the controversy, when the knowledge comes much too late.

Therefore, if it be indeed true, that the inculpated officials of Hong Kong, after having once a fortnight from the 10th May, 1858, until the 10th March, 1859, despatched to Downing Street, their allegations and proofs, in disculpation of themselves and those whom they protect from the vengeance of the criminal law, failed so egregiously, in their endeavour, as this last objection supposes,—surely they should, now at least, and without more enquiry, (particularly such enquiry as one conducted by a Hong Kong executive is shown to be), be declared unfit to hold their present offices.

Incapacity at least is fully made out. What graver charge remains against them, may be matter for the