QUESTION. (Hansard, 12 May 1857)

THE EARL OF CARNARVON,
in pursuance of notice, rose to inquire into the truth of certain statements in the China Mail of the 5th of February last respecting the confinement of Chinese prisoners at Hong Kong; and to move for any papers connected with this subject, and with the trial of a baker and others on the charge of poisoning. He begged their Lordships to believe that he had no wish whatever to revive any discussion upon the recent unhappy hostilities in which we had become involved with the Chinese, and that he did not ask the question with any unfriendly feeling towards the Government. It was impossible to identify the Government with the facts to which the question referred. No doubt the Government were ignorant of the circumstances. It would only be necessary for him to read a few extracts from the Hong Kong papers, and when he had stated the circumstances, he was sure the Government would be as ready to give as it was the duty of the House to ask for explanation. About two months after the commencement of hostilities, as their Lordships were aware, an atrocious attempt was made on the lives of the foreign residents in Hong Kong by some Chinese miscreants introducing arsenic into the bread. By a curious coincidence, the very morning the attempt was discovered by a number 201 of persons being seized with sickness, the baker from whose factory the bread had been issued sailed for Macao. Suspicion fell upon him, a vessel was sent in pursuit, and he was arrested; but it was only just to say he was on the point of returning to give himself up, and that he protested that, so far from being the poisoner, he, himself, and every member of his family had suffered from the effects of the bread. However, with some fifty other Chinese, he was arrested, and the following was the account of the China Mail of the 5th of February— We yesterday morning were witnesses to a scene such as our readers will have difficulty in crediting—one we can scarcely believe would be perpetrated under the most savage and tyrannical Government, and such as no one could have ever dreamt of seeing in a British colony. We allude to forty-two Chinese crammed into a cell sixteen feet long by fifteen broad, furnished with only one small aperture for ventilation, and confined there for twenty days, with the bare and damp ground for a bed, and in this space they had to perform all the requirements of nature. Covering they, required none, for, as may easily be supposed, the den was in a perfect stew, the air-hole being only eleven inches high by six feet long, and placed in the extreme upper corner of the room. We assure our readers this is a fact that can be substantiated by several witnesses. And will it be believed, too, that the miserable wretches subjected to this brutal treatment are not condemned felons,—no, for them the best of treatment is reserved—but men under no charge, against whom the most active inquiries of our most active Attorney General, enlisted heart and soul in the cause, have been unable to ferret out even a breath of suspicion. Some of them old men tottering to their graves, some mere boys yet in their teens. … Better far to have deported, or hanged, or shot them at once than to have exposed them to such frightful sufferings as they must have undergone during twenty days' suffocation in this black hole of Hong Kong, the walls of which are newly erected, and the plaster and floor not even dry. When their Lordships remembered the space in which the prisoners were confined and the length of time during which they were exposed to such horrible physical degradation, the account appeared almost incredible. In England they placed a hardened and condemned ruffian in a cell about ten feet long by eight feet broad, with every comfort, so far as cleanliness and ventilation were concerned. But here they read of forty-two wretched beings in China confined in a place not much larger than twice the size of their Lordships table, although they were untried, and, as circumstances turned out, were entirely innocent of the offence charg- 202 ed against them. Scarcely 100 years ago, after a, gallant but unsuccessful defence, 145 brave Englishmen were thrust into a dungeon, very little larger, by an Eastern tyrant, and that place had become a bye-word for extreme misery down to the present time. There were very few Englishmen who had not heard of the Black-hole in Calcutta, but the natural indignation which the recital of that atrocity excited was attended with the satisfaction that Englishmen were the victims and not the oppressors. But if these statements were true, that consolation now was denied, for in an English colony, surrounded by English laws, and in the name of English justice, one of the most barbarous acts ever recorded had been committed. It seemed that the case of those unfortunate men was not the only one of the kind which had taken place at Hong Kong, in proof of which he would read to the House another extract from the China Mail of the 12th of February. It was as follows— We have another case to adduce, if such be wanting, of that callous indifference to the sufferings of others which marks the heads of the police and gaol departments. It may be remembered that a few weeks ago about 150 men were apprehended somewhere in the Taipingshan, but afterwards all liberated, except half-a-dozen. These men were taken up on the Friday, and placed within that portion of the gaol compound where the treadmill stands, there being, no room for them in the prison itself; and there they were left, all night, some of them until Sunday evening, if not longer. We say nothing of the inhumanity of leaving men thus exposed to the sun by day and the dews by night without covering of any sort, and without even a mat to lie down upon; but on the Sunday the neighbours were alarmed by their cries, and it has since been ascertained that nothing was given them in the shape of food from Saturday at 10a.m. till Sunday at 2p.m.—twenty-eight hours. Yet, on inquiry, we are told no one is responsible for such cruel neglect. Some one surely must be. These men, be it noted, were afterwards discharged on finding security; they were accused of no crime. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought no one would deny that grave responsibility attached to the authorities at Hong Kong for proceedings such as those; and he would say that, if that was the spirit which animated our Administration in that part of our Eastern dominions, he could not wonder if among Eastern nations the English name was hated wherever it was known, or if we heard of risings against our rule from Singapore to Borneo. He begged, also, to move for all 203 the papers relating to the trial of the baker and others at Hong Kong on the charge of poisoning; and in adverting to that subject he felt it his duty to bring under their Lordships' notice the line of conduct which the Attorney General for the colony took upon that occasion, and which appeared, if truly reported, to him most extraordinary and unparalleled. On the trial of the men in question, the Attorney General was reported in the Hong Kong journals to have said, "If technicalities of the British law procured their release the Chinese authorities would be encouraged to repeat their diabolical attempt." Again, "In a case of poisoning the mercy of the law should be restrained, not relaxed, in order to bring them to punishment." In England, on the trial of the most hardened ruffian, the prisoner was invariably told that he was not bound to say anything to criminate himself; but at Hong Kong, a British colony, the Attorney General, on the trial in question, apparently deported himself in such a manner that Mr. Bowra, one of the jurymen, thought it his duty to complain of the learned gentleman's conduct as being harsh and unjust towards the prisoners. The Attorney General appealed on the occasion, not to the justice of the case, but to the political contingencies likely to result from the proceedings. It was, if true, one of the most monstrous cases of which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had ever heard. He trusted the Government would think it their duty to produce all the papers bearing on this subject; and if the statements he had read to the House, so lowering and debasing as they were to the English name, should be substantiated by official documents, he hoped the Government would not shrink from visiting the parties who were to blame with the censure which from their high office they were empowered and bound to inflict. The noble Earl concluded by moving— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies of or Extracts from any Papers connected with the Confinement of Chinese Prisoners at Hong Kong, and with the Trial of a Baker and others on the Charge of poisoning.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said, that in reply to his noble Friend, he certainly did not feel himself called upon to enter into the Speech of the Attorney General at Hong Kong; but he would remind his noble Friend and the House that the result 204 of the legal proceedings at Hong Kong, in dealing with the prisoners in question, went to show, on the whole, that a full and fair trial had been given to men to whom it would be admitted on all hands strong suspicion attached of the commission of a heinous crime. So far from thinking that the administration of the law in the English Colonies was such as to warrant the strong language which his noble Friend had used, he believed, on the contrary, that it was administered there, as in the mother country, with a calmness and consideration towards the prisoners which had elicited the admiration and astonishment of foreigners of every nation. [Adverting to the statements which had been read to the House by the Earl of Carnarvon as to the treatment of the prisoners in what was called "the Black Hole at Hong Kong," Lord Harrowby proceeded to read, but in so low a tone that the purport of it was not audible in the gallery, a counter-statement, made by the superintendent of Police at Hong Kong, from which it appeared that the room in which the prisoners had been placed by him was situate on the ground floor of the building, and seemed to him a suitable place. It was, however, the only one at his disposal. This room was dry and lofty, fifteen feet square, and was ventilated by a chimney and an opening at the top, as well as by a door which was frequently opened. The air in the room was certainly close, but not of that oppressive character which had been described in the public prints. None of the prisoners were ill, and none of them died; while, with respect to their food, the usual prison rations were supplied to them during their confinement.] The noble Earl added that that was the sum of the information which had reached the Government on the subject which his noble Friend had brought under the notice of the House, and he submitted that it was not of a character to warrant the assumption that the English name had been degraded by the authorities at Hong Kong by unnecessary severities. The officers of the Government in distant colonies were in a position which involved serious responsibility; indeed their responsibility could scarcely be appreciated by residents in this country: and when it is remembered that the British representatives in China had been surrounded by men who were prepared to resort to every refinement of treachery for the destruction of the European residents, it was not sur- 205 prising that the authorities should have deemed it necessary to resort to somewhat stringent measures. Under the special circumstances, an ordinance had been passed, authorizing the adoption of strong measures, and in consequence seven persons were deported, and others were imprisoned. The accused persons were tried; the trial was conducted with the most perfect fairness, and those who were acquitted were set at liberty, with the exception of one individual, who, under a special order, was kept in confinement until instructions should be received from the Home Government. Those instructions had been sent out, and they directed that if any new circumstances should have come to light since the first trial, the person believed to be the chief offender should again be brought to trial. He (the Earl of Harrowby) must say he thought that accusations similar to those made by the noble Earl ought not to be brought against officers of the British Government unless there was a reasonable presumption that the charges were well founded. There would be no objection to produce all the papers bearing upon this subject which were in the possession of the Government.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
thought that if his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) had had as much experience as the oldest Member of their Lordships' House he could not have guarded himself more carefully than he had done against making attacks upon any persons. Indeed, the noble Earl had not said a word which could convey an impression that he himself believed in the correctness of any of the charges to which he had referred; on the contrary, he commenced by stating that he did not blame, and that nobody could blame, Her Majesty's Government for what had occurred in China, and that his object was merely to put a question to them on the subject of those occurrences. The Government were the only persons likely to be correctly informed as to the facts, and the noble Earl had only adopted the course which it was his right and duty—as it was the right and duty of any Member of that House—to pursue, in applying to the Government with the object of ascertaining the truth. Instead of rebuking his noble Friend for bringing the subject forward, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought the noble Earl opposite ought to have been thankful to him for doing so, because it was the interest of 206 the Government that the truth should he known, in order that the public might not be misled by misstatements contained in newspapers published at a distance of thousands of miles from this country. The object of his noble Friend was to ascertain whether the Government had received any authentic information, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) could not have said more than he had done in reply. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was very glad to hear from that noble Earl that the Government had written for further information, and he hoped that when such information was obtained it would be laid before Parliament. He wished to call the attention of the noble Earl opposite to one point. A-lum and the persons who were tried with him were acquitted, and that acquittal, after the course which was said to have been taken by the Attorney General, was most honourable to the jury; but it appeared that after the trial A-lum, and nine of the persons accused along with him, were sent back to prison. He thought it a startling circumstance that men who had been publicly acquitted after a fair trial should be recommitted to prison, merely because, according to the newspapers, they were considered dangerous characters. Such a proceeding could only be justified in the most turbulent times, and he supposed that was the excuse which would be urged, supposing the statement to be true. He was very glad that his noble Friend had called attention to this subject, and he hoped the Government would institute a real bonâ fide inquiry, and that the results of that inquiry would be laid before Parliament, for it was essential that our officials in the Colonies should feel that no distance could secure their acts from the most minute and searching investigation.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
was understood to say, in explanation, that ten individuals had been detained in custody at Hong Kong, under special orders, as dangerous persons.

§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH
observed that after the statements which had been made with reference to the conduct of the Attorney General of Hong Kong, the Government would probably think it right to institute an inquiry into the proceedings of that officer.