§ MR. EDWIN JAMEScalled the attention of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to the case of Mr. Tarrant, the editor of the Friend of China, who, after conviction for a libel had been sentenced to be imprisoned in the felons' gaol in Hong Kong for the period of twelve calendar months. Mr. Tarrant was convicted in September last of a libel on Colonel Kane, who held an official position at Hong Kong. Mr. Tarrant was a gentleman and a scholar. He had himself held a position in the colony, and had afterwards become the editor of the newspaper called the Friend of China and he wrote some able articles exposing the system of corruption which beyond all question was practised in Hong Kong, for Sir John Bowring had stated before a Committee that he was bound to confess that there was a system of corruption among the officials there which he had in vain endeavoured to suppress. Mr. Tarrant was tried on the 29th of September, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the criminal side of the gaol. He was tried, in the absence of the Chief Justice, by Mr. Adams, the former Member for Boston; and it was due to Mr. Adams, so far as his humanity was concerned, to state that he had recently arrived at Hong Kong, and was not aware of the severity of the punishment, the character of criminals Mr. Tarrant would have to associate with, or the wretched accommodation of the prison. Mr. Adams went himself and saw the gaol, and joined in a memorial to the Government, with the whole of the jury who had tried the case, for a remission of the sentence and Mr. Tarrant's removal from the criminal side of the gaol to the place allotted to misdemeanants, as would have been the case in England. This was refused: and Mr. Tarrant endured the greatest possible privation and misery. He suffered so much in his health from the association with criminals, from the heat of the wretched place—for the gaol was constructed for 2161 Chinese prisoners—that he was, after a time, removed to an hospital, whence, however, he was subsequently again sent back to the gaol. The punishment was altogether most severe, and not warranted by the circumstances of the case. He had thought it his duty to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State to this matter, and he hoped that Mr. Tarrant would receive some consideration and some alleviation of his sufferings.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that his information on this subject did not quite coincide with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. According to a private letter from the then acting Attorney General, from the first Mr. Tarrant was treated with as much leniency as the gaol regulations permitted; and in November last the visiting justices revised and altered the rules of the goal so as to permit Mr. Tarrant to be placed apart from the other criminals, and accorded as much accommodation as the gaol allowed. At the same time it was to be admitted that a gaol in the climate of China was different from a gaol here, and the gaol at Hong Kong was one which urgently required enlargement and improvement. This operation was in the course of being carried out, and a large sum of money expended for the purpose. But with respect to Mr. Tarrant himself, the case was only a question as to the discretion of the Government in carrying out the sentence of a court of justice; and he must say that the exercise of that discretion was not quite so easy a matter as some gentlemen thought; the fact being that these libels, personal libels in the newspapers of Hong Kong, had gone on for many years past to such an extent as to render it necessary that no excessive lenity should be shown to a person who had so conducted himself. Perhaps, however, he could best answer the hon. Gentleman's question by reading an extract from a despatch addressed in December last by the noble Duke now at the head of the Colonial Office to the Governor of Hong Kong, and which would have reached him by this time. The direction given to the Governor in that despatch was, that if, on its re ceipt, Mr. Tarrant's health had suffered, or was in danger of suffering, be was to be at once removed from the criminal side of the prison to the debtors' side; that whether his health suffered or not, at the end of six months from the date of his imprisonment he was at all events to be removed to the debtors' side of the gaol. And the 2162 despatch ended, "it has been urged"—it was written by the Duke of Newcastle—
It has been urged upon me by some who disavow the slightest sympathy with Mr. Tarrant's writings that the latter half of the sentence should be altogether remitted, and that he should be discharged from prison. I must leave to your judgment how far such an act of leniency should be resorted to.No answer had yet been received to this despatch. When it did arrive he would be happy to give his hon. and learned Friend the information which it contained. But he must say that he had every confidence in the good sense and judgment of Sir Hercules Robinson, who had just gone to the colony, and who was perfectly free from all the local and personal quarrels that agitated society there, and he had little doubt that before this time the punishment of this gentleman was ended.Before he sat down he trusted the House would forgive him if he said one word with regard to the gallant men whose deeds had formed the subject of discussion. It so happened that the Irish Members could claim both the first and second officers in command of the late expedition as their countrymen. He had himself had the additional honour and pleasure of claiming Captain M'Clintock as a member of a distinguished family in his county; and the second in command of the Fox, Commander Hobson was a relation of his own. He had not the honour of Captain M'Clintock's acquaintance, but that gallant officer was related to a gentleman who represented his county in the last Parliament; and if, in the chances of politics that Gentleman had now been in the House, he would have more right to return thanks for Captain M'Clintock than he could possibly pretend to have. He begged, however, to thank the House for the generous manner in which it had recognized the services of those distinguished officers.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGEThoped that before answering the Question of the right hon. Baronet, he might be permitted, on the part of his brother officers, to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth for the handsome way in which he had mentioned the services of Captain M'Clintock and others connected with Arctic exploration and discovery. All belonging to the navy felt that a great debt was due to those gallant Polar officers, and, without desiring in the slightest degree to deprive Captain M'Clintock and his brave band of any portion of the credit to which they were 2163 justly entitled, he was bound to say that there were other officers who, although they had not been so successful, had equally deserved success. It would be in the recollection of the House that Captain Inglefield penetrated into the Arctic regions in the Isabel —a vessel very similar to the Fox, and succeeded in discovering some relics of the Franklin expedition. There were various other officers, whose names unfortunately he could not recall at that moment, but he was sure the House would permit him to call attention to their services on the present interesting occasion. In reply to the question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he would admit that undoubtedly there had been two collisions in the Channel, one of which had been of a very serious nature, inasmuch as it had resulted in the loss of the bowsprit of the Diadem. He was disposed to think, however, that the right hon. Baronet was rather inclined to listen to what he must call midshipmen's yarns. The statement which had appeared in The Times of that morning had evidently been prepared by the youngest midshipman in the fleet. He had looked over it very carefully, and he confessed that neither he nor any of his brother officers at the Admiralty had been able to make head or tail of it. The fleet started from Portland on Thursday, and proceeded with a moderate breeze down the Channel, until it arrived off the Lizard. There, during the night, the squadron being in two lines, a signal was made to tack in succession. The Diadem was the stern ship of the weather line, and the Queen fell foul of her in stays and carried away her bowsprit. A very detailed report had been received from the captain of the Diadem, but the Admiralty had not yet obtained a very distinct report from the captain of the Queen. They had, however, ordered an inquiry into the circumstances. The other collision took place between the Algiers and the Mersey. The only information which the Admiralty had received was contained in a letter from the Mersey, which had put into port for some slight repairs; and in this case also a minute investigation would be instituted. The right hon. Baronet had expressed opinions with respect to the conduct of the Channel squadron, which, if they had not come from a person intimately acquainted with the navy, he should have regarded as undeserving of notice.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI expressed 2164 no opinions, but merely asked for information.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETappealed to the House whether the right hon. Baronet had not talked of extreme mismanagement in the conduct of the fleet —or words to that effect. There could be no doubt that when two vessels came into collision a certain amount of blame attached to one party or the other,—generally, indeed, to both; but he could not at that moment state whether any, and, if any, what degree of censure had been incurred in the late collisions in the Channel. He could perfectly understand, considering the terrific gale experienced by the squadron during their cruize, that there should be a loss of spars, a pitching away of jib-booms, and various accidents of that nature; but the Admiralty had at present no reason to suppose that there had been any mismanagement whatever. Accidents might always be expected, especially in the night time, when a squadron, with young inexperienced officers of watches, and manned by raw crews, put to sea for the first time. But that only showed the importance of keeping our squadrons at sea. He believed the right hon. Baronet would find that our Channel fleet, notwithstanding the recent collisions, was well commanded and officered, and that the accidents which had occurred at starting would be followed by complete success.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had brought this subject before the House. He thought if there was blame at all, it was in sending a young squadron to sea, totally inexperienced, to face the equinoctial gales. When that was the case, they must expect to meet with accidents. But he could not agree with the Secretary to the Admiralty that these collisions had been caused by weather. It was said that the sails were taken aback, and that orders were given to tack. Now, there was a stringent order which all Bailors knew, that when a squadron tacked, the vessels in the port line were to give way to the vessels on the starboard line. He thought, therefore, blame must attach to the captain of the ship on the port tack. But then, if the Admiralty would not send the fleet to sea in fine weather, when circumstances compelled them to go to sea in bad weather, accidents were sure to occur, because it could not be expected that young officers would be familiar with all the rules and regulations connected with the conduct of 2165 a squadron at sea. He believed there was not an officer in the Channel fleet who had ever sailed in a fleet before. How could they expect but that accidents would happen when officers who had had no previous experience of sailing their ships with the stern of one at the stem of another were sent to sea in dark nights to face the equinoctial gales? He thought great blame attached to somebody in not having years ago maintained a squadron at sea; and the Admiralty were to blame in not having sent them to sea sooner. If they had gone last year from June to September, they would have been got into proper order before the equinoctial gales came on.