§ SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it be true that the Government have directed the Attorney General of Hong Kong to prosecute a coolie named Kwok-a-Sing on a charge which had already been heard and decided by the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, who in an elaborate judgment had declared that Kwok-a-Sing was entirely innocent of the crime with which he was charged, and that he had committed no offence whatever against the Laws of the British Empire?
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN,in reply, said, that the coolie in question was a Chinese who had been shipped with other coolies at Macao. On the voyage the captain of the vessel and several of the crew had been killed, and the coolie being a Chinese subject, the Chinese Government demanded his surrender in order that he might take his trial for murder. He was therefore 728 arrested; but the Chief Justice of Hong Kong discharged him under a writ of Habeas Corpus, declaring that if he had committed any crime it was that of piracy, jure gentium, and that, in his opinion, no crime had been committed, because the coolies were practically slaves and had a right to try to free themselves. The Attorney General of Hong Kong, believing that, in the interests of justice, the charge of piracy should be investigated, had proceeded against the man on that charge, and he was again discharged under a writ of Habeas Corpus by the Chief Justice, and brought an action against the Attorney General, in which, however, he failed. The Attorney General received no instructions from home, but simply acted in the usual performance of his duties. The Government of Hong Kong was dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Justice, and referred the matter home for consideration. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been taken upon it, and they pronounced it to be a proper subject of appeal to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council. Than appeal was now pending.