Page:Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and other Treaty Ports of China.djvu/354

346 for assault and false imprisonment against Sir J. Bowring, claiming $5,000 damages, but when the case came on, on December 30th, it was decided in favour of defendant, "and thus terminated one of those scandalous matters which will for all ages mark out the year 1858 as a memorable one in the dark pages of Hongkong."

The Press, perhaps, was the least to offend in these unwholesome days, the Government officials among themselves indulging in the most disgraceful open calumnies and undisguised defamations. In 1857 the Attorney-General (Mr. T. C. Anstey) charged the Registrar-General with "having a scandalous association with a brothel licensed by himself; with basing passed a portion of his life amongst Chinese outlaws and pirates; with an alliance with some of the worst Chinese in the Colony, through his wife — a Chinese girl from a brothel; with being a speculator in brothels," &c. Whilst it may, perhaps, be better to draw the curtain gently over this ghastly page of history, it must be mentioned in justice to the men of the Press who endeavoured to fight down the monster of iniquity, which gradually increased its hold of the Colony, and found themselves in gaol for it. Their battle was a strenuous one and their reward was not one of glory. In the case of the Attorney-General v. the Registrar-General public feeling ran high. A commission was appointed to investigate the charges and brought in a verdict of "not guilty." Prior to this the Attorney-General tendered his resignation but it was not accepted. Mutual recriminations amongst the heads of departments became outrageous and a disgrace to the Colony, and when the Commission's report was published, the Governor, Sir John Bowring, asked the Attorney-General to defend himself under pain of suspension. He was suspended in February, 1858, and later practised as a lawyer, giving the Government a decidedly unpleasant time whenever possible. The Press violently attacked the Commission, the Friend of China, alleging that the charge against Mr. Caldwell had broken down "through a contemptible, damnable trick on the part of the Government." Although the China Mail managed for a long time to keep without the pale of the law in these parlous times, it, as was natural, could not do so all the time, and on December 18, 1858, found itself in court on a charge of libel against Mr. Anstey. Mr. Andrew Wilson was then the editor, and he made such reflections on Mr. Anstey's conduct in the libel case, the Crown v. Tarrant, that the plaintiff secured a verdict and the editor was bound over to keep the peace in the sum of $1,000, and ordered to apologise. The China Mail avoided the court chiefly because it was then the avowed organ of the Government, a distasteful distinction it seems, for ultimately it shook off the connection with the powers of the land and ranged itself with the other papers.

In August of the same year (1857), the editor of the Friend of China was brought to court for libelling the Acting Colonial Secretary on a charge of burning the books of the pirate Machow Wong to screen himself and the Registrar-General against a charge of complicity with pirates, but the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty, and the Court awarded costs against the Government. It must be explained that prior to this alleged libel the Attorney-General had laid information against the Acting Colonial Secretary on the charge mentioned. "The conduct of the Governor, who, to avoid a subpoena being served on him in this libel case, had hurriedly departed to Manila, being too ill to attend, provoked much criticism at the time, and, elated by this measure of success, the editor of the Friend of China and the Attorney-General (who had been suspended) commenced an agitation in England which only served to bring upon the Colony greater odium." The libel case in which Brevet-Lieutenant-Colonel Caine, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony, sued William Tarrant, editor of the Friend of China, on September 17, 1859 (referred to above), created great interest. In the article complained of the sentence occurs that "Colonel Caine must either be one of two things, either the cleverest rascal that ever lived — a felon for whom transportation would be too light a punishment — or he is a much-maligned man, and deserving of the sincerest pity," and the charges were that he wanted a dollar per head from each inmate of Chinese brothels, ad lib. In court Tarrant defended himself and pleaded juslification, but, after three days' hard fighting, the jury found defendant guilty, and the judge sentenced him to gaol for twelve months, and fined him £50 in addition. This temporarily ended the Friend of China. It ceased to appear, and whatever property Tarrant had was ruined. In gaol Tarrant became "ill" and was put in hospital, but stern visiting justices would have none of it, and he was sent back to his cell and "the companionship of felons and refractory seamen." But the community once again moved on his behalf and petitioned the Governor to allow Mr. Tarrant to be confined to the debtors' side of the gaol. The Governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, refused, and agitation grew within the Colony and without, and the conduct of the gaol came in for severe criticism. Colonial, English, and Indian papers took the matter up, and ultimately the Duke of Newcastle (Secretary of State) ordered Tarrant to be placed in the debtors' side of the gaol, and suggested that half the sentence should be remitted. Shortly afterwards the case was brought before the House of Commons, and on March 20, 1860, after six months of the sentence had been served, Tarrant was released, his fine of £50 having been paid by subscription. But his troubles were not at an end. He was returned to the debtors' prison for costs {$2,263) due to Dr. Bridges in connection with the trial, and Dr. Bridges, having a grudge against Tarrant, now sought long-awaited revenge. Tarrant was in prison four months. He tried every means to obtain release but failed, and once again representations were made to the Home Government. Dr. Bridges acknowledged that Tarrant was being kept in gaol, not for the money, but for ulterior motives, and eventually the public decided once again to stand by Tarrant, and his debt was paid by public subscription. He was released on August 4, 1860, after four months' confinement on account of this bill, and revived the Friend of China, eventually transferring it, first to Canton, and in 1862, to Shanghai. In 1869 he sold the Friend of China, which shortly afterwards succumbed, and in 1870 went to London much debilitated, and died on January 26, 1872. Upon his death he bequeathed to the City Hall Library a complete file of the Friend of China, and it is there now, somewhat dilapidated, to tell all who care to open the pages, something of the bitter times that Hongkong knew in early days. In a speech in the House of Lords on June 28, 1860, the Duke of Newcastle declared that "in no part of Her Majesty's dominions was libel so rife and flagrant as in Hongkong." It must not be forgotten, as Mr. Norton Kyshe points out in his "History of the Laws and Courts of Hongkong," that "the Hongkong Press, albeit open to some of the anim-adversions cast upon it on the score of violence, had, on the whole, deserved well — if not at the hands of the officials, at least at those of the community. But for it, colonial reformers at home such was the indifference of some of the leading men of the community — would have heard nothing of the many and enormous abuses and crimes which, after having for so many years been openly perpetrated, to the scandal of the name of the British Government in China, by persons holding magisterial and other appointments under it, were still allowed by an alarmed administration to enjoy the immunity on which they had so confidently relied. But for the Hongkong Press there can be no doubt at all that the Parliamentary Blue Book which was laid on the table of the House of Commons in April, 1859, and March, 1800, upon Mr. Edwin James' motion for papers relating expressly to the case of Mr. Caldwell, who had since become notorious throughout Asia, would never have been heard of or seen the light at all."

With the advent as Governor of Sir Hercules Robinson, who was sent from London with definite instructions to avoid "stirring up that mass of mud which appeared to have encumbered society in Hongkong" (1859), an improvement was expected to take place in the social and commercial life of the Colony.

However, upon the commencement of the inquiry into the Civil Service abuses of the previous administration the old animosities were renewed. The editor of the Daily Press again entered the lists, and, in March, i860, charged Mr. Caldwell with extortion and perjury, but withdrew the statement when proceeded against for libel. Shortly after this (November, 1860) Sir H. Robinson determined to take action to prevent the Press libelling so freely, and brought before the Legislative Council a bill to "amend the law relative to newspapers in Hongkong." The only law then applicable to the Press was Ordinance No. 2, of 1844, which released the Press from all restraint, and made no provision for libel or defamation. The bill introduced by Sir Hercules provided for newspaper publishers entering into a personal bond of £25o. It also provided a new procedure in libel cases. Hitherto, parties libelled had to apply to the magistracy for a summons, and if the evidence was strong enough the defendant was submitted to the Supreme Court as if for misdemeanour, when the Attorney-General prosecuted. This had a tendency to create the belief that the Government occasionally promoted actions for libel against certain editors. The amending bill provided that a party libelled must sue for damages, and that costs at all events should be secured for the plaintiff. The Ordinance was passed, and was numbered 16 of 1860. This measure was later repealed by No. 6, of 1886, which made the bond $1,200, but in a sense maintained the procedure.

In August, 1860, a committee of inquiry was appointed to investigate the charges brought against Mr. Caldwell (he was ultimately dismissed), and in connection with this Mr. Murrow, the editor of the Daily Press, produced prisoners as witnesses, "to hunt down the object of his hatred." But "the rancour of the editor of the Daily Press was not satisfied with the scope of the inquiry, and he clamoured for further investigations, and desired the former Acting Colonial to be impeached. When Sir H. Robinson resisted any re-opening of the inquiry, the irate editor appealed to the Secretary of State, hurling various charges against the Governor."