Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/92



The evidence of the first-named witness (Dr. Bridges, the ex-Colonial Secretary), was to the effect, that he had been Acting Attorney-General in 1854 and 1855, and Acting Colonial Secretary in 1853 and 1858—that by Government he understood the Governor and himself, and no other person or Council—that by a Circular Memorandum of the 26th January, 1858 (which was produced), the Governor had required all departments to attend to every instruction of his (Dr. B.'s), whether it had emanated from the Government or not; and the Governor had also empowered him to intercept and reject official letters on their way to His Excellency, if he thought fit—that the Attorney-General (Mr. Anstey), the Colonial Treasurer (Mr. Forth), the Chlef Magistrate (Mr. Davies), and the Super intendent of Police (Mr. May), had refused to obey this Circular as illegal—that Mr. Anstey had written to the Secretary of State about it—that Mr. Davies had demanded in Legislative Council that the Secretary of State should be consulted—that Mr. May had officially requested in his own case that such a reference might be made—that Dr. Bridges did not know that, from first to last, the Secretary of State had ever been consulted or informed by the Government on the subject—that Mr. May's letter had not been referred home, but the writer had been threatened with suspension or censure for "insubordination"—that the other public departments had submitted to the arrangements made by the Circular—that he (Dr. Bridges) had, whilst Acting Attorney-General, libelled Sir John Bowring, the Governor, in the same newspaper (the Friend of China), by inserting therein an extract from Legare's book, with intent to ridicule him [which libel was read in open court], but that he did not consider it a "seditious" libel—that it did not follow from Sir John and himself being the "Government," that a personal libel against either or both of them would be necessarily "seditious"—that his own libel against Sir John was "personal," not "seditious"—that he could not say what was a seditious libel without seeing it—that he could not say whether the libellous History of the Greek Loan, if published here from the Annual Register for 1826, would be a "seditious" libel or not—that Mah-Chow Wong was a notorious pirate and confederate of pirates, to use