Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/80

 The pretext, on which both Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell wished the Executive Council to grant the pardon and release of the miscreant, was, that the evidence, on which the conviction was, to their minds, and to those of Mr. Day (the prisoner's counsel, who was afterwards appointed to be my successor), and of Mr. Stace, the prisoner's and Mr. Caldwell's attorney, not satisfactory.

But, even assuming their pretended doubts to be well founded, there was still another information against him for a fresh piracy, and on much stronger evidence, outstanding against him. Sir John Bowring, in the Legislative Council, on the 10th May, 1858, indeed, hastily declared, that he had ordered a nolle prosequi upon the latter information; an arbitrary and illegal interference with justice, which it would be hard to charge against His Excellency, upon such slender ground as his own unsupported assertion;—opposed, as that assertion is, to the evidence of his Acting Attorney General and his Acting Colonial Secretary, and to the probabilities of the case.

That it was determined, however, to release Mah Chow Wong, even pending that second information, because of the pretended want of evidence against him to support the first, there can be no doubt whatever. For it is now admitted by Dr. Bridges himself, and upon oath.

And I will now narrate the steps by which that result was to be arrived at.

The pirate's books and papers had been considered, by the Supreme Court, the principal evidence against him.

It was now resolved to rest his claim of pardon