the island, leaving his creditors, among them Mr. Tarrant, in the lurch. This inspired the editor of the Friend of China to launch out into a violent attack on Dr. Bridges, the Colonial Secretary, who was also Cheong Ahlum's counsel, and the result was an action for libel, the editor refusing to publish an apology. Neither was any attempt made to disprove the libel when the case came before the Court, and the jury (specially selected by Mr. Tarrant) brought in a verdict of guilty, and he was fined £100, and ordered to "be imprisoned until the same be paid." Sympathisers soon raised the necessary amount by public subscription, the editor was released, and later boastingly published the list of subscribers. This proceeding made it hard for the next man tried for libel, as the judge, bearing this incident in mind, remarked, when Mr. Y. J. Murrow was before him in 1858, upon the law having been previously set at defiance, and sentenced Mr. Murrow to imprisonment in addition to fining him. The fining of Mr. Tarrant did not deter him from his attacks on Dr. Bridges, however, and later in 1857, he repeated the libel for which he was originally fined, but, having apologised, the case against him was dropped.
 | ||||
| HONGKONG PRESS GROUP. | ||||
| B. A. Hale. Manager, Hongkong Daily Press. |
G. T. Lloyd. Editor, South China Morning Post. |
J. W. Bains. Sports Editor, China Mail. | ||
| T. Wright. Editor, Hongkong Daily Press. |
G. Murray Bain. Proprietor, China Mail. |
W. H. Donald. Managing Director and Editor, China Mail. |
||
| T. Petrie. Assistant Editor, South China Morning Post. |
A. W. Brebner. Editor, Hongkong Telegraph. |
J. P. Braga. Manager, Hongkong Telegraph. | ||
The public life of the Colony was at this time convulsed by "an internal chronic warfare, the acerbities of which beggared all description," and naturally the tone of the community was vividly reflected in the columns of the papers. The Friend of China, "generally criticised the Government and most public officers with some animus," writes Dr. Eitel, in his history of the Colony, "and repeatedly insinuated that the Lieutenant-Governor (whilst Chief Magistrate) had been in collusion with his compradore's squeezing propensities." The fact that the Lieutenant-Governor allowed five years to pass before he stopped these unfounded calumnies by the appeal to the Court, which, as soon as made, consigned the editor to the ignominious silence of the gaol (September 21, 1859), encouraged in the Colony a vicious taste for journalistic personalities. The more wicked a paper was, the greater now became its popularity. Soon another local editor, Mr. Murrow, of the Daily Press, who, in certain business transactions in connection with emigration, had been crossed by the Registrar-General, outstripped in scurrility his colleague of the Friend of China, and commenced to insinuate that the Registrar-General was "the tool of unscrupulous Chinese compradores, and in league with pirates." The Registrar-General resigned, but he was later on induced to resume office. The Daily Press, however, did not cease its assault on public functionaries, and the editor, in April, 1858, having accused the Governor (Sir J. Bowring) of corruptly favouring the firm of Jardine, Matheson & Co. in the matter of public contracts, was proceeded against in court, and was sent to gaol for six months. The jury were unanimous in their verdict and were in retirement but fifteen minutes. In addition to the sentence, a fine of $100 was imposed, as the judge remarked, "to vindicate the law, and put a stop to the unmeasured abuse of public individuals." Mr. Murrow was placed in the debtors' side of the prison and was allowed every comfort. He conducted his paper from the gaol, writing his editorial effusions within the prison walls, and his attacks on Sir John Bowring (whose administration history shows to have been a disgrace to the British name), continued unabated. As a result the Illustrated London News on July 3, 1858, severely criticised the Government for allowing Mr. Murrow to write from the gaol, and showed no sympathy for the imprisoned editor. On his release Mr. Murrow instituted an action
