8 VINDICATION
ك
"tr
с
OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE UNDERSIGNED
FROM THE ASPERSIONS OF
MR. T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY ,
EX-ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONGKONG.
AS CONTAINED
IN HIS CHARGES, HIS PAMPHLET, AND HIS LETTER TO THE SECRE
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
BY
DANIEL RICHARD CALDWELL, 1
REGISTRAR GENERAL AND PROTECTOR OF CHINESE,
HONGKONG,
C
HONGKONG :
o
NORONHAS OFFICE, OSWALD'S TERRACE, WELLINGTON STREET .
bl
Is
1860.
.
Tx
70
C14
J , 1899
. une
Ree . 24 .
C
1
MR . CHISHOLM ANSTEY, the late Attorney General of Hongkong ,
has thought fit, as well in his published correspondence with the Secre
tary of State for the Colonies, as by means of a pamphlet published by
him in England, entitled " Crime and Government at Hongkong," to
cast upon my name and reputation aspersions of the gravest and most
iniquitous character. His object in doing so was to procure my dismissal
from Her Majesty's Colonial Service, with which I have had the honour
of being connected for a period of fifteen years, and to degrade me from
the position I have hitherto held as a respectable member of society.
The peculiar position I was placed in, as an officer of the Government,
which had directed an official inquiry to be instituted into the truth of
the charges brought against me by Mr. Anstey, and Mr. Anstey's subse
quent reiteration of the same charges in his letter to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies- whose decision thereon has not as yet been made
public-have hitherto prevented my adopting any measures for vindicat
ing myself in the estimation of the public from these false and calumnious
accusations.
I cannot however in justice to myself any longer refrain from using
the same public means for refuting these calumnies as Mr. Anstey him
self has thought fit to adopt in propagating them.
I had indeed almost hoped that the unrelenting manner in which Mr.
Anstey, after the termination of the official inquiry at Hongkong (by
which his wicked purposes were at once frustrated) has continued his
persecution of me-t-the bitter hatred and vindictiveness which breathe
in every line he has written against me--and the animus and malignity
displayed in all the foul calumnies he has published concerning me,
would have carried their own refutation to the minds of every sensible
and impartial person who may have had the patience to read them; but
lest there be any, who, from ignorance of the character and antecedents
of Mr. Anstey, may still be disposed to place faith in his statements, I
deem it right, in plain and intelligible language, to prove to them in the
following pages, that the accusations of this calumniator are false and
malicious, got up with the aid and connivance of Mr. Charles May of
this colony, and intended to gratify feelings of private animosity, which
both these persons have long entertained against me.
4
As Protector of Chinese, my opinion upon several of the measures pro
posed by Mr. Anstey was often desired by the government, and on more
than one occasion I have felt it my duty to express my strong and un
qualified disapproval of them.
To thwart or oppose Mr. Anstey, however conscientiously, in the exe
cution of any plans be may have conceived and made up his mind to
carry out, was an offence he never forgave.
It has been said by some writer, that every man is more or less in
sane—that every person is affected with some particular kind of mono
mania. Whatever doubts there may be as to the truth of this hypothesis ,
no one, I think, who has heard of Mr. Anstey's career in England, after
wards in Australia, and latterly in Hongkong, can doubt the fact, that
the particular species of monomania which seems to possess Mr. Anstey,
is the quixotic notion he entertains, that it is his especial mission, in
whatever part of the world he may happen to be, to detect abuses and
corruptions existing in the public departments of the State and to bring
h to punishment the authors thereof.
Correct and commendable as such a course would be when directed by
* conscientious principles and tempered by discrimination and judgment,
it is in the highest degree reprehensible, to give in no harsher name,
when it is made the pretext and instrument for the gratification of pri
vate malice, personal vindictiveness or individual oppression.
Can any one who has taken the trouble to read Mr. Anstey's corres
pondence and his pamphlet, entertain a doubt as to the motives by which
he was actuated when he made those sweeping denunciations and reck
less accusations against myself as well as against Sir John Bowring,
Dr. Bridges and Colonel Caine ?-Does not the most bitter spirit of ani
mosity and malevolence shew itself in every sentence of them ?
In Mr. Anstey's persecution of myself he found a fit and willing ins
trument in Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police of Hongkong—a man
with whom I had been for years on the most intimate and confidential
terms of friendship.— Misunderstandings arose between us—we fell out,
and, as is but too frequently the case when friends quarrel, he became
my most bitter enemy .
I was at one time Assistant Superintendent of Police under Mr. May,
and my subsequent promotion over him, with a salary higher than the
one he was himself in the receipt of, and to an office which he had him
self long coveted and to which he had entertained great hopes of succeed
ing, not only excited his jealousy and envy, but increased still more his
feelings of animosity against me.
I have felt it necessary to enter into this brief explanation, without
which, those at a distance would be unable to understand the motives which
could induce two men, each holding a responsible official position in the
Colony, to go the lengths they did in bringing charges the most atroci
ous and the most diabolical one public officer ever brought against an
other ; many of which, the Commissioners appointed to investigate
them , declared to be "unnecessary-as it certainly was most distasteful
" to them to inquire into," and of the whole of which I was acquitted,
although I may have great and just cause to be dissatisfied with the
manner in which some of their findings are worded .
I shall now endeavour to reply to the principal accusations against
me as they appear in Mr. Anstey's letter to the Secretary of State for
the Colonies and in his pamphlet above referred to, and I trust I shall
not have much difficulty in proving their entire falsity. F
With that dogged tenacity of purpose which characterises Mr. Anstey's
proceedings in every matter in which his personal feelings are interested,
he has most industriously sought out almost every act of my life, private
as well as public, (not excluding even my wife and family in his greedy
thirst for slander) whereon to found some charge against me. With a
wilful perversion of facts in some instances , deliberate fabrications in
others, and the unscrupulous use of the suppressio veri as well as the
suggestio falsi in nearly all of them, he has drawn up an Indictment
against me, the like of which, I verily believe, was never before present
ed to an impartial public to seek a verdict upon.
In speaking of my origin and early career in the Straits and China,
Mr. Anstey draws the following false and overcharged picture :
Mr. Caldwell himself is a native of St. Helena and apparently of mixed blood.
His father, a common soldier in a local Militia corps, brought him when young to
Pulo Penang where and at Singapore his youth was passed in various inferior occupa
tions ashore and afloat. His character was to say the least of it not high at that time ;
and when Sir George Bonham then administering his Straits Government was pro
moted to that of Hongkong it was with difficulty, it is said, that His Excellency was
induced to tolerate, even in a comparatively inferior post in the Police of Hongkong,
the man who had left behind him at Singapore a very damaging notoriety ; and who
had taken shelter in Canton or Hongkong only to acquire a worse. "
That I was born at St. Helena is true ; but that I have any more "mix
ed blood " in me than possibly runs in the veins of Mr. Chisholm Ans
tey himself is a matter I have yet to learn. My Father was a merchant
settled at that place, and, in common with every gentleman then living
on the Island, was a member of the " St. Helena Volunteers," a corps
formed during the war, and which, I believe, remained in existence dur
ing the whole period of Bonaparte's captivity on the Island. He was
therefore no more " a common soldier of a local Militia corps " than are
any of the barristers of the Temple who have lately enrolled themselves
6
into a Volunteer Rifle Corps in England, of which Mr. Anstey himself
may possibly be a member.
During my short stay at Singapore I was employed as clerk in a mer
cantile house . I left that place to better my prospects in China, and
had done nothing to earn a character of " damaging notoriety " as Mr.
Anstey falsely asserts. I left Singapore in 1834, being then barely seven
teen years of age, with a letter of introduction from Mr. Alexander
Lawrie Johnston, the senior member of the long established house of A.
L. Johnston & Co. of that place, to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co. of
China. Mr. Johnston was not only the oldest, but was the leading
merchant of Singapore. His introduction and recommendation of me
at this time to the house of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co. is the best
answer I can give to the insinuations of Mr. Anstey.
I arrived in China during the Napier troubles in 1834, and remained
for a few weeks at Lintin on board of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co.'s
receiving-ship the Hercules. While there, Mr. William Jardine intro
duced me to Mr. Keating, a merchant established at Canton, in whose
employ I entered and remained until his death at Macao in 1837. I
then became Book-keeper to Mr. Innes also a merchant established at
Canton, whom I left in 1838 in consequence of the violent language he
used towards me for having sold some pieces of Handkerchiefs to a Chi
nese merchant who afterwards absconded without paying for them.
Another of Mr. Anstey's charges against me is that during this time
I was a smuggler of opium in the Canton River ; which, in his usual
exaggerated language, he describes as something equivalent to the
smugglers of the channel in former times. Every one who knows any
thing of our mercantile connection with China at that time, aware
that the importation and open sale of opium in Canton was prohibited
by the Chinese government. Merchants in Canton who dealt in opium
were compelled , in order to effect a sale of the drug, to adopt the best
means they could to avoid its seizure by the Mandarins. Mr. Innes did
no more than every other merchant who traded in that article ; and if
to do this, as Mr. Anstey ridiculously asserts, they employed " none but
" the most daring and atrocious of Chinese outlaws -for none others were
" qualified to enter the service of the Europeans on board the fast boats
" so employed- they were in fact nearly all, without exception river
" pirates of the most desperate character ;"-the imputation must ap
ply to every mercantile house then established in Canton.
Mr. Anstey's next aspersion is that " there was a graver report, accord
"ing to another witness, concerning him, which threw him under a
"cloud entirely with the community in China : that he had not account- .
·
•
7
.
"ed for the proceeds of some opium which had been entrusted to him
"for sale. This was in 1840."
There is not the slightest foundation of any description for this scandal
ous charge. I was not in Canton at all during the year 1840 ; and in
fact the sale of opium never formed part of my duties. Mr. J. B. Comp
ton, of the house of Messrs . Jardine, Matheson & Co. , one of the oldest
and most respected residents in Canton, who had known me since my
first arrival in China, though not on terms of intimacy with me, gave
the following evidence before the Commission of Inquiry :
I have resided in Canton since January 1834. I knew Mr. Caldwell when he first
came to Canton about July or August, 1834. I was not then in the house of Jardine,
Matheson & Co. I was informed at the time of his arrival that Mr. Caldwell came
from Singapore and that he had been in some mercantile establishment there . I
knew nothing particular of Mr. Caldwell beyond meeting him occasionally in the
neighbourhood of Canton. He was in the employ of Mr. Keating and subsequently
in that of Mr. Innes. I was under the impression that he had a letter either to Mr.
Jardine or to Mr. Matheson and that it was one or other of those gentlemen who got
him the situation with Mr. Keating and with Mr. Innes. During the period of which
I speak, no circumstance whatever came to my knowledge reflecting in the slightest
degree upon Mr. Caldwell's character for honesty."
The space within which the European residents at Canton at that
time lived was so extremely circumscribed, (not exceeding a few hundred
feet square) and the members of the community were necessarily so
much thrown together, that every little occurrence which took place in
that small society (not exceeding a hundred in number) was sure to be
known to every member of it almost as soon as it happened. Had I
been guilty ofthe dereliction of duty imputed to me by Mr. Anstey, the
circumstance could not have failed to reach the ears of Mr. Compton .
As to what Mr. Anstey is pleased to assert of Sir George Bonham's
disinclination to " tolerate " my remaining " even in a comparatively in
ferior post in the Hongkong Police," I have only to remark that he has
no better authority for this than the unsupported statement of Mr. May.
The following despatch from Sir George Bonham to Earl Grey, refer
ring to some services I had rendered in the destruction of pirates, will
shew that His Excellency entertained no such feeling against me :
VICTORIA, HONGKONG , 3rd November, 1849.
MY LORD, I have the honorto enclose for your Lordship's information copies offour
despatches, with enclosures, which I have recently had occasion to address to Lord
Palmerston respecting some very successful attacks made against the pirates on the
Coast of China by Her Majesty's Sloop Columbine, Steamers Medea and Fury, and
the Hon'ble East India Company's Steamer Phlegethon, by which your Lordship
will perceive that no less than 99 piratical vessels have been destroyed, as well as a
very large number of pirates ; and that the few that remain are so completely dispers
8
ed, as to ensure their being unable to congregate again in any force for a considerable
time.
I take this opportunity of bringing particularly to your Lorship's notice the great
benefit that the Colony must derive from these energetic measures on the part of Her
Majesty's Navy ; and I trust that the activity and zeal displayed by Commander
John Dalrymple Hay ofthe Columbine, and Commander Robert Willcox of the Fury,
have been sufficiently conspicuous to authorize your Lordship's bringing their merits
to the favorable consideration of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.
I herewith enclose copy of a letter to my address from Commander Hay wherein
he speaks in the highest terms of Mr. Daniel Richard Caldwell, Interpreter in the
Chinese language and Assistant Superintendent of Police of this Colony. Com
mander Hay indeed states that without his services he does not think he could have
succeeded in the late important operations. I believe that as Mr. Caldwell does not
belong to Her Majesty's fleet, he will not be entitled to any ofthe benefits likely to
be derived by those engaged in the destruction of the piratical fleets now reported ;
but as there cannot be a doubt that it was through Mr. Caldwell's energy and local
knowledge that these marauders were discovered and destroyed, I therefore respect
fully and earnestly beg to recommend that this gentleman may be considered to have
the same claim as Lieutenants engaged in these services in the participation of any
head money that may be awarded to the Captors under Act 6. Geo. IV. c. 49 ; and if
this suggestion cannot with reference to the provisions of the act be adopted, I would
submit that I be permitted to present Mr. Caldwell with a donation equal in amount
to that which an officer of the above rank would be entitled to.
Your Lordship will observe that the duties performed by Mr. Caldwell have been
of a most important and responsible nature and totally unconnected with his ordinary
official avocations ; that he has undergone the same personal fatigue and danger as
the officers of the vessels engaged in these expeditions ; and I therefore trust he will
be considered to be entitled to that notice and compensation which I now respectfully
submit to the favorable consideration of your Lordship. -I have, &c. ,
S. G. BONHAM.
If Sir George Bonham could " scarcely tolerate " my remaining in
the service he would not have penned a despatch so highly eulogistic of
myself, nor would he have voluntarily taken the trouble to advocate, in
the above strong terms, my claims to the consideration of Her Majesty's
Government.*
I have to add to this a portion of Colonel Caine's evidence given
before the Commission with reference to the same subject : " I do not
" remember Sir George Bonham saying or shewing that he had any
" reluctance to let Mr. Caldwell remain in Government employ. Sir
(6
George never in my hearing expressed an unfavorable opinion of his
" character, and I am not aware of his having done so when I was not
* The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty decided that I was not entitled under the
Act to participate in the distribution of head money awarded to the Navy for these operations ;
but their Lordships were pleased to mark their sense of my services by presenting me with
the sum of £650 on that occasion.
A testimonial of a handsome Breakfast Service of Silver and a purse of £100 was also pre
sented to me bythe Captain, Officers, and Crew of the Columbine on the same occasion.
9
"6 present." Colonel Caine's official connection with Sir George Bonham
as Colonial Secretary was so close and intimate, that had His Excellency
entertained such an opinion, he certainly would have expressed it at
some time or other during the seven years of his governorship, and to
no one more likely than the Secretary of his government.
Besides this there are private letters of Sir George Bonham still
extant, written during his tenure of office in Hongkong, in which he
bears willing testimony to the efficient manner in which I discharged
the duties of my offices and the satisfaction he felt thereat. Permission
has been requested of Sir George to allow me to make public use of the
contents of these letters, so far as they relate to myself, but his reply
has not yet been received.
Mr. Anstey has, in his pamphlet, given so garbled a statement of
Colonel Caine's evidence before the Commission, that in justice to myself
I feel bound to give it in full. The following is from the printed report
of the Commissioners :
"The Hon'ble Lieut. Colonel William Caine called and examined : I am Lieutnant
Governor ofthis Colony. I first came to China in 1840 and first knew Mr. Caldwell
in the same year. He was in the Commissariat department and came with me in the
same fleet from Singapore to Chusan . I think this must have been in June 1840.
I may say that I have almost known him uninterruptedly since that time. I have
certainly known him uninterruptedly since he joined the Colonial service in 1843. I
myself know nothing against his character for honesty and integrity during that period.
I first held the office of Chief Magistrate in this Colony. I was then Colonial Secretary
and Auditor General and afterwards Lieutnant Governor. I was appointed Chief
Magistrate in May 1841 in the infancy of the Colony and had the complete superin
tendence ofthe Police at that time. I was ever satisfied with Mr. Caldwell's conduct
and considered him one of the most efficient servants we had, always willing and
ready to do anything. No reports on which I can place reliance have ever come to
my knowledge against him."
Cross examined. " I cannot remember Mr. Caldwell bringing before me and Mr.
Johnston some pirates who had attacked the brig of which he had command, but I
would suggest that the Magistrates ' case-book be examined. The Police reports of
the Colony will also shew that Mr. Caldwell has been constantly rendering services to
the Navy and been thanked, and if I remember right, rewarded for these services."
“Re-examined.—I have never received any official complaints against Mr. Cald
well all the complaints I have heard have been merely idle rumour-that is what I
mean when I say that I have not received any complaints on which I could place
reliance. I do not remember any objection to Mr. Caldwell's taking office in the
first instance. Since that, the only circumstance which I have heard against him was
his pecuniary difficulties, which caused him to resign the service. I do not remember
his pecuniary difficulties being urged as grounds against his taking office. I do not
remember Sir George Bonham saying or shewing that he had any reluctance to let
Mr. Caldwell remain in Government employ. Sir George never in my hearing ex
I had gone to Singapore for the benefit of my health and took employment in the expe
ditionary force which called at that place on its way to China.
10
pressed an unfavorable opinion of his character, and I am not aware of his having
done so when I was not present. Mr. Caldwell was made at my recommendation
either clerk or Interpreter to the Chief Magistrate early in 1843 I think . That was
his first post in the Colonial Service. The island had very few residents when I took
him into the employ. I took him from my own knowledge seeing that he was a
smart person and possessed an excellent knowledge of the language. I did not at
that time know anything against him. I saw him at Chusan and here and sailed
with him over to Macao when he was in command of the Thistle. I do not hesitate
in saying that every thing I saw of him induced me to recommend him for Govern
ment employ, as he would be a useful servant. I would rather decline answering
the question as to what I have heard about Mr. Caldwell from my acquaintance with
this part ofthe world to the present time. I have only heard rumours which made no
impression on me. I certainly should not have recommended him to the Government
service if I had heard anything against him, and if I had not thought him peculiarly
fitted for the Government Service. I am not aware of the fact of a connection
between Ma-chow Wong and the Police. I have heard of it and seen in news
papers. Neither am I aware, except in the same way, of a connection between Ma
chow Wong and Mr. Caldwell. Besides seeing this in the newspapers I have heard
it stated in the Council Room here on one occasion—perhaps more than one occasion. "
99.66 com
The questions put to Colonel Caine respecting " rumours
plaints " and " reports " about me were suggested by Mr. Anstey him
self, who, finding that he could make out nothing against me in the 30
shape offact from so respectable a witness, thought to do so by means
Fer
of rumours and reports. Colonel Caine knew too well what value to
Perler
attach to Hongkong rumours and reports to allow them to make any
impression on him. Of all places in the world, perhaps there is not one
JAV
where scandal and detraction are more rife—so readily invented- so
industriously circulated and, I regret to add—so eagerly sought after, as Ther
at Hongkong . Few persons who come to the place, especially if they
e
happen to be public servants, escape the vile detractions of the privat ed
traducer or the public slanderer of Hongkong. If character in Hong
kong depended upon rumour alone, that of Mr. Anstey would not be
worth a groat.
But in order still further to disparage me Mr. Anstey says in his
pamphlet that I was " raised from the lower grades of the Police, " that Sup
A I was " successively Inspector of Police, Assistant Superintendent of tim
e
" Police," &c ., the Office of Inspector of Police in Hongkong being
generally filled by discharged seamen or persons of that class . To prove Ifeel
that Mr. Anstey's statement is false it is only necessary to refer to the
may1
Records of the Police. My first connection with the Police was in the
capacity of Interpreter to the Magistrate's Court, which Office I held
This
conjointly with that of Interpreter to the Supreme Court. I have already
quoted Colonel Caine's evidence in proof of this, who stated that I joined ofth
Mr.
the service in 1843 as Interpreter, and I have now to add that of Sir
11
Henry Pottinger to the same effect. In his report on the public officers
00 ofthe Colony in 1843 , Sir Henry Pottinger says, " Mr. Caldwell is
NO "
Interpreter to the Chief Magistrate's Court. Is a first rate Interpreter
DOK ((
in the colloquial dialect of this part of China, but knows little, com
188 (6
t at paratively speaking, of the written language. * Is also a very good
iled " Spanish, Portuguese, Malay and Hindustani scholar and altogether a
66 very
tate talented and valuable public servant."
M
The palpably inefficient state of the Police in 1846 in the detection of
ing
with crime-not one of its officers, from Mr. May the Superintendent down
13 wards, understanding a word of the Chinese language- induced Mr.
hen Hillier, the Chief Magistrate, to address the Government suggesting my
arly employment therein. I give the following extract from his letter on
tion the subject : *
wi
M& " I have the honor to bring to your notice the enclosed letter from Mr. Holdforth,
eard Officiating Assistant Magistrate, reporting the services rendered by Mr. Caldwell in
n. giving information leading to the discovery of the cargo of a junk recently plundered
in the Lyee Moon passage.t
m " Mr. Caldwell has often expressed his ability to make similar discoveries, but has
m. feared to render himself obnoxious to censure by departing from the proper sphere
the of his duty ; and I would beg respectfully to remark that great benefit might accrue
to the public by the employment as Assistant Superintendent of Police of a person so
ans
well versed as Mr. Caldwell in the dialect of the Canton province, and, from long
experience, so well acquainted with the habits of the class of Chinese which forms
an the bulk of the population of this Colony. I know of no other person than Mr. Cald
On well possessed of these qualifications, and I believe that his appointment as above
proposed would not materially interfere with his duties as Interpreter."
85 There was not at that time, and never had been, any such office as As
hey sistant Superintendent of Police at Hongkong. The Government ap
proved of Mr. Hillier's recommendation, the office was made and I was
appointed to fill it. I continued to hold this office until the year 1855
0.8
and the importance and diversity of the services I have from time to time
rendered, have been the subject of frequent public acknowledgment, to
the great mortification, as I afterwards found, of Mr. May, who, though
hat the Superintendent, was thus as it were thrown into the shade-to say
nothing of the implied censure cast upon him in the letter of the Chief
Magistrate just quoted.
ога I feel reluctant to be compelled to speak so often of my services lest
the I may be exposed to the charge of egotism ; but the terms of deprecia
the tion in which Mr. Anstey indulges towards me leave me no alternative,
* This was as far back as sixteen years ago. Subsequent study has improved my know
鳖 the written language.
ledge of
ed Mr. Holdforth says, " This is the only instance on record in which property stolen from
" trading vessels and landed here has been brought to light."
12
as it is mainly by a recapitulation of the public services performed by me
from time to time, and the opinion entertained of them by my superiors,
that I can refute his unscrupulous mis-statements and unjust insinuations.
In March 1853 Mr. May having been appointed Acting Assistant
Magistrate in consequence of Mr. Mitchell's departure on leave to Eng
land, I was appointed , ad interim, to Mr. May's post of Superintendent
of Police.
I held the uncontrolled Superintendency of the Police for a period of
fifteen months, when, Mr. Mitchell having returned and resumed his
duties, Mr. May relieved me of the Superintendency of the Police and I
returned to my former duties of General Interpreter to the Government
and Assistant Superintendent of Police..
I had the honor of receiving from the government the following ac
knowledgment of the manner in which I had performed the onerous
duties which had devolved upon me during the period of the Russian
war :
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Victoria, Hongkong, 29th June, 1854.
SIR, The resumption of your former duties gives the Lieutenant Governor an op
portunity that he gladly embraces to testify in an official manner to the ability and
vigilance shewn by you when filling the very important post of Superintendent of Po
lice during the preceding fifteen months while Mr. Mitchell the Assistant Magistrate
was absent on leave.
The Lieutenant Governor desires further to remark that the extraordinary exertions
required from you immediately subsequent to the declaration of war, when every en
deavour was being made to place the Colony in as efficient a state of defence as cir
cumstances would permit, were performed in a spirit of much readiness and self- denial
rendering them so honorable to yourself as they were of undoubted service to the
Government.
I have &c. , &c.,
C. B. HILLIER,
Officiating Colonial Secretary.
To
D. R. CALDWELL, Esq.,
General Interpreter and Assistant
Superintendent of Police.
In July 1855 my connection with the Government service of the Co
lony ceased. The salary I was receiving was so much under what I felt
I was justly entitled to from my often acknowledged usefulness to the
Government and public, and my applications for an increase having been
refused, I sent in my resignation on the 3rd of that month. It was ac
cepted by the Government in the following terms :
13
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Hongkong, 5th July, 1855.
SIR,-In reply to your letter of the 3rd inst . I am directed to state that your resig
nation of the offices of General Interpreter and Assistant Superintendent of Police is
accepted from that date.
I am also instructed to convey to you the regret of His Excellency the Governor at
the termination of your connection with this Government, to which for many years
past youhave rendered so much important and valuable service.
I have, & c .,
W. T. MERCER ,
Colonial Secretary.
D. R. CALDWELL, Esq.
After leaving the Colonial service I became part owner of a small
steamer called the Eaglet, which I employed in trade between the
neighbouring ports and Hongkong.
Between the large island of Hoinam, situated on the West Coast of
China, and Hongkong and Canton there has always existed a large and
valuable trade, confined solely to the Chinese and carried on in their
own Junks , of which there are some hundreds in constant employment
between these places. I was the first European who embarked in this
traffic. I chartered eight large lorchas at Hongkong, loaded them with
Cotton, &c., and towed them with the Eaglet to Hoi How a port in Hoinam ,
where I sold my cargo and purchased in return the produce of the island
consisting ofIndigo, Oil, &c. Since that time other Europeans at Hong
kong have embarked in the trade and vessels especially adapted to the
purpose have been purchased for the express object ofpursuing the traffic ;
and by the recent treaty concluded between Lord Elgin and the Chinese
Commissioners , Hoinam is also named as one of the new ports to be
opened to British commerce. At the time I speak of however the
native trade experienced a considerable check from the increase and
boldness of the pirates which infest these seas. The trading Junks
could only venture to sail together in large numbers for mutual protec
tion, and even then they were not safe from the attacks of the large
piratical fleets which lay in wait for them. I conceived the idea of
establishing a convoy by means of my steamer for the protection of
these vessels in their voyages to and from Hoinam, the distance between
that place and Hongkong being about two hundred and fifty miles. I
accordingly equipped the Eaglet with this object and took command of
her myself. I acquainted the Chinese Admiral at Hoinam with my
project, which received his ready approval and co -operation . The steamer
was to be remunerated for the protection she afforded, by the payment
of a specified sum by every junk which chose to avail itself of the steamer's
convoy. The contract for each voyage was made and acknowledged be
fore, and received the sanction of the head Mandarin of the island. I
14
was bound to use my best endeavours to prevent the capture or destruc
tion of any junk belonging to the convoy by piratical vessels during the
voyage.
In this manner I convoyed several large fleets of trading junks be
tween these places, and on every occasion except one, brought every vessel
safely into port ; the mere presence of the steamer often being sufficient
to deter any of the many pirate vessels we frequently met from attack
ing the convoy .
I repeatedly received the thanks of the Admiral of Hoinam for the
successful manner in which I performed my part of the contract, and for
the efficient protection I afforded to the commerce of the island .
I have entered thus at length into this matter because Mr. Anstey
has, while publishing in extenso in his pamphlet Dr. Macgowan's just
denunciations of the depredations committed at Ningpo and its vicinity
by a set of lawless vagabonds who, under the pretext of affording pro
tection to trading vessels, committed robbery and murder at sea as well
as on land,―attempted to connect the Eaglet withthem. According to Dr.
Macgowan " whole villages were reduced to ashes, the men butchered
" and the women violated ; some being carried off to the Lorchas, and
" retained in purchased exemption from such treatment by paying large
66 sums of money. No sum however was sufficient to redeem a mother
"6 or daughter whom the fiends determined to take to their vessels. Chi
66 nese officers who attempted to thwart these buccaneers were killed
66
on the spot or captured and held in ransom. The number of unof
66
fending natives who have been put to death -some of them tortured
" in the most diabolical manner- would not be credicted if told." Hor
rible as are these atrocities, and confined, as both Mr. Anstey and every
one else in China well know they were, to Ningpo and the river Min
more than 600 miles away from that part of the Coast of China to which
alone the voyages of the Eaglet extended , Mr. Anstey wishes his readers
to believe that they were shared in by the Eaglet during the time I owned
and commanded her ! He says, " On the part attributed to the Eaglet
" in these buccaneering forays there will be found in the minutes of the
" commission, so often referred to, traces of some very imperfect exami
" nations of persons then serving on board with their equivocating and
" unsatisfactory answers." I need scarcely say that there is not one tittle of
evidence throughout the whole course of the investigation to found the
shadow of a charge of the Eaglet's participation in any of these disgrace
ful "buccaneering forays," nor need I adduce any thing further to shew
that this barefaced attempt of Mr. Anstey to connect me with these
atrocities, is as false and unfounded as I shall hereafter abundantly prove
all his other accusations to be.
15
I may here add that after I had been sometime thus engaged in afford
ing protection to the trading junks of Hoinam, His Excellency the
British Naval Commander-in - Chief of the Station deemed it proper to
establish a similar protection , free of all charge, to native vessels trading
between the Treaty Ports and Hongkong in consequence of the alarm
ing increase of piracy in these seas.
After the lapse of seventeen months, overtures were made to me by
the government for again entering the Colonial Service. I consented to 1
do so on condition that the salary to be given was such as to offer
sufficient inducement to me to remain, and that my previous period of
twelve years' service should be reckoned in my claims to a superanua
tion allowance. I sold my steamer, gave up trade, and on the 15th of
November 1856 I was appointed Registrar General and Protector of
Chinese, which offices I continue to hold.
I have deemed it necessary to enter into this brief history of my
career to shew how utterly devoid of foundation and destitute of truth
are the disparaging and opprobious observations Mr. Anstey has thought
fit to apply to me in his pumphlet and in his letter to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.
•
I shall now proceed to notice the principal charges and accusations
Mr. Anstey reiterates against me both as a public officer and a private
individual, notwithstanding they have been disposed of by the Com
mission appointed to inquire into them and before which he appeared as
prosecutor against me.
In his letter to the Secretary of State Mr. Anstey makes the follow
ing statement :
" On the 4th July and 3rd September 1857 , two remarkable convictions for piracy "
took place in the Supreme Court of Hongkong : the first that of the famous American
leader of Chinese pirates Eli Boggs ; the latter that of his employer and confederate
the Chinese pirate Ma-chow Wong. Both these men had been nearly connected
with Mr. Caldwell and the facts which transpired at their trials came in aid of other
information received by me about that time from Mr. Dixson, Mr. May, Mr. Inglis
the Marine Magistrate and others so much to the prejudice of Mr. Caldwell's cha
racter, that by the end of 1857 my suspicion had ripened into absolute conviction that
to him and his close alliances with Chinese criminals the corruptions complained of
were chiefly and perhaps solely to be ascribed."
"
For Mr. Anstey's " spicions " and " convictions " I have the utmost
contempt. Those who know him best will bear me out in the observa
tion that where persecution is his bent and the gratification of his re
vengeful feelings his object, he can produce at will suspicions and con
victions to serve his purposes, as well as unhesitatingly give utterance
to the most unscrupulous inventions - the most wilful distortions of fact
and the basest fabrications.
F
16
He then continues :
"The first named pirate Eli Boggs in a speech of great power which lasted two
hours and made a great impression upon every body present, bitterly reproached the
Hongkong Government and Mr. Caldwell with his own seduction into the crimes for
which he was about to suffer. If was a most scandalous scene especially because the
demeanor of Mr. Caldwell under the infliction was clearly that of a guilty man . The
statements moreover were in my opinion (and I was not the only one who so thought)
too circumstantial to be entirely false. I found it my duty to represent the scandal
which had occurred in Court."
I shall notice in the first place the preposterous assertion of an alleged
connection between myself and Eli Boggs the pirate. In a subsequent
part of this paper I will advert more fully to the equally absurd allega
tion of my " alliance with Chinese Criminals." That I never had any
connection whatever at any time with such a man as Eli Boggs I feel
that it is almost superfluous for me to declare ; but of Eli Boggs ' con
nection with the Chinese pirates of the coast I had often received in
timation, and was long on the look out for him . On more than one
occasion upon information furnished by myself to the Government, Her
Majesty's Ships were put in motion in pursuit of the piratical fleet on
board of which my information led me to believe he was. The depreda
tions committed by this particular fleet were so frequently the subject
of complaint that I made every exertion to find out its places of retreat,
and it was also on information given by me that this fleet of piratical
vessels was ultimately destroyed or dispersed by H. M. S. Sampson.
Boggs himself escaped. All this Boggs knew perfectly well, and what
ever he may have said at this trial to my prejudice (which was certainly
not of a nature to justify the highly exaggerated language applied to it
by Mr. Anstey) was doubtless prompted by a feeling of irritation against
one who he knew was the means of putting an end to his piratical
ravages, and at whose expense he was endeavouring to procure his own
exculpation . It must appear absurd to the " conviction" of any man but
Mr. Anstey that I should interest myself to bring about the capture and
punishment of such a man if I had been "nearly connected" with him
in acts of piracy.
But what does this same man say subsequently when produced as a
witness before the Commission appointed to inquire into the charges
brought against me by Mr. Anstey, and when it may be supposed, if he
really had any thing to say to my prejudice, he would have done so ?
He says first. " I went from here to Canton in a Lorcha belonging to
" Ma-chow Wong in October or November 1856. About a week after,
“ I was evidence for a man named Leong Ahee who was charged with
66
piracy. Mr. Anstey allowed me to be examined and afterwards told
17
" the Court my evidence could not be taken." [ Here Boggs also said ,
though it was not taken down on the minutes of the Commissioners,
"You," pointing his finger at Mr. Anstey, "were the cause of my turn
" ing pirate. You drove me to it by representing me to the Court, to
" be a person of bad character whose evidence was not fit to be receiv
66
' ed, " or words to that effect. ] " I was passenger on board this Lorcha
"belonging to Ma- chow Wong. I never sailed or served in any vessel
"which I knew belonged to Mr. Caldwell or Ma-chon Wong, or in
"any vessel in which to my knowledge they had any interest or share.
" Beaver was in command of the Lorcha at the time. The first time I
46 saw Mr. Caldwell was about three years ago in this place. I have
"known Mr. Grand- Pré for about the same time. I have never been
" intimate with either of them ."
" I
In another part of his evidence before the Commission he says: "
“ knew the Eaglet which Mr. Caldwell used to command . I was never
"in any way connected with her. I have only been on board once
66
when I went on board of her in Hongkong to see Mr. Stone the En
" gineer."
In another place he says " I have seen Mr. Caldwell in Gaol,* but he
((
never spoke to me, except when once asking me if I had* any com
66
plaints, and then he did not speak to me any more than to the others
66
who were present at the time. I have had no correspondence or com
" munication with Mr. Caldwell on the subject of this inquiry."
As an instance of Mr. Anstey's sense of fairness and impartiality, I
may remark here that be objected to the reception of the evidence of
this man given on oath in a case in the Supreme Court in which he was
a witness for a Chinese prisoner long before his apprehension , on the
score of his reputed bad character ; —and yet he now makes use of this
same man's bare unsupported statement, made when he was on his trial
for piracy and when he was doing his best to exculpate himself, as proof
against myself of the grave charge of complicity with pirates—so clear
apparently to his " convictions " that " he felt it his duty to represent the
scandal " to the Government.
In the same paragraph of his letter to the Secretary of State Mr.
Anstey adds that my " demeanor under the infliction was that of a
guilty man." In what respect it was so he does not state- in fact it is
only another of his fabrications.
It was necessary to give a colouring to
the picture he had drawn, and this was the readiest way he found of
doing it.
It would appear that at the trial reference was made by Boggs to
some paper which Mr. Anstey and his partisans wished to make appear
* Whither I went in my capacity of visiting Justice for the week.
18
was written by me and contained expressions highly prejudicial to my
self. Mr. Anstey in his statement before the Commission, -says, " I,
" as Attorney General conducted the prosecution of Eli Boggs . I
(6
perfectly remember Eli Boggs with a paper or papers in his hand from
" which he made his speech to the Jury . I was very much shocked at
<<
hearing Mr. Lyons * the other day state in evidence that Boggs had
66
produced in the Supreme Court a paper stated by himself to have been
"written by Mr. Caldwell and recommending Ma-chow Wong, Mr.
" Caldwell's brother, to the ' pirates with whom Eli Boggs served .' He
" also stated, though it does not appear on your minutes, that he was
46
surprised at the paper making no impression in the Court."
I can only say that I never wrote any such paper and that I am en
tirely ignorant of its authorship, whilst Boggs himself has since denied
in his evidence before the Commission that he ever made any such state
ment as Mr. Anstey puts into the mouth of Lyons.
The paper referred to however is now deposited in the office of the
Colonial Secretary, and the following is a copy of it verbatim et literatim :
VICTORIA, HONGKONG, January 4th, 1856.
MY DEAR CAPT. PAIPEA.
I have heard that the Lorcha Cumhopon has now at anchor in Intoofok a few miles
out of Macao which the two men who were going with you desired to sell the Lorcha
to another people : but there is no right for them to do so, because the Lorcha I
owned one half and they two men owned only one half, how could they sell the Lor
cha there at once without my order. The bearer of this latter is my brother, and will
you be so kind as to sail the Lorcha with my brother back to Hongkong this is what
I hope for.
I remain, &c.,
(Signed,) KIEKEE.
(True Copy,) W. T. MERCER,
Colonial Secretary.
What possible reference this paper bears to myself, or how it can be
construed into a recommendation of Ma-chow Wong "to the pirates
with whom Eli Boggs served " can be best explained by Mr. Anstey and
Lyons his false witness.
This man Lyons, under instructions from Mr. May (see his evidence)
had been to the Gaol to see Boggs before the latter gave his evidence
before the Commission, evidently with the view of obtaining some ad
missions from Boggs which might be used in evidence against myself.
This is what Boggs himself says in his evidence before the Commission :
" Lyons was up in the Gaol one day and asked me if I knew where the paper
" which I had read at the Supreme Court was. I told him I saw it put
* A Police officer under Mr. May.
•
19
" back in the box at the Supreme Court. I believe he asked me a few
(6
questions . He might have asked me who had written the paper, but I
" could not have told him that it was written by Mr. Caldwell, for I do
" not know and cannot say that I have any reason for thinking that it was •
" written by Mr. Caldwell. I believe he said something to me to the
" effect that if he was brought up he would like to be able to produce
" this paper to shew that Mr. Caldwell was connected with that sort of
"people."
This will give those at a distance some idea of the efforts made by my
enemies here to get up evidence against me. . This man Lyons immedia
tely after the close of the Commission of Inquiry, was rewarded by Mr.
May for his services by promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector of
Police, as was also another Constable (Roberts) for similar services per
formed by him in the same business. Even Mr. May himself seems to
have attempted the same thing, for he says in his evidence before the
Commission : " I spoke to Boggs once or twice with a view ofgetting
information from him, but finding I got nothing but moonshine, desist
" ed. He spoke about Wong Akee, but said nothing upon which I should
" consider myself justified in acting."*
Boggs also stated before the Commission , " I cannot say that Lyons
" made any suggestions to me regarding the evidence I was to give.
" He put a great many questions to me, and in a ridiculous manner
(6
which would lead me to believe that something was meant. He did
" not suggest any particular points on which I should give evidence— he
<<
was only two minutes speaking to me altogether.”
The explanation which Boggs himself gives of this paper before the
Commission is as follows, and though somewhat lengthy it will scarcely
bear curtailment :
" At the period of my apprehension I remember a paper being found on me. The
paper as near as I can recollect was written for Ma-chow Wong and sent out to a
lorcha to a young man named Beaver who had charge of the lorcha. It stated he
was part owner of a lorcha. Some one on board was about to take the lorcha away,
and he wished the lorcha to be brought back. It said nothing further. I had se
veral papers when I was arrested. This paper was in English. I remember something
about a paper which I requested might be taken particular care of, as it would be of
use to me. I saw that paper at the Supreme Court on my trial. It was put into my
hands by Mr. May.t I believe I read the contents of it in Court. I handed it to
Mr. May who replaced it in the tin box in which it was found. It was not handed
to the Jury, but a piece of calico with some Chinese figures on it was. I gave Beaver
* It is a pity Mr. May did not give the particulars of his interviews with Boggs and the
information he received from him which he so elegantly calls " Moonshine." It might have
thrown some light on the proceedings of himself and his sattelites Lyons and Roberts.
+ Mr. May, with wohm I had been officially connected for many years, could surely have
said whether the paper was in my hand writing or not.
20
an order to get it when he was discharged from Gaol. I gave him an order to get all
the papers which I had when arrested , but do not know whether he got possession of
this paper. I believe he did. I was told so by a short sentence prisoner. I got this
paper from Beaver himself. It was not his intention to give it to me. We were in
two separate boats and I sent on board of his boat for some cigars and at the bottom
of the box which he sent me I found this paper. I could not say in whose hand writ
ing it was and that is all I know of it. I might have said in the Supreme Court that
it was as likely to be in Mr. Caldwell's hand writing as in any one else's, but I could
not have said that it was in Mr. Caldwell's hand writing for I do not know Mr.
Caldwell's hand writing. The paper did not mention Mr. Caldwell's name nor do I
recollect the name Sam Kwei. It was addressed to Charles Peapa. "
And further on he adds,
" I don't think that the paper produced in Court recommended Mah-chow Wong to
the notice ofthe pirates for the purchase of provisions and other articles from him.
The paper did not mention Mah-chow Wong as being Mr. Caldwell's brother.”
The rest of Bogg's statement consisted principally of hear-say evidence.
、 Thus much for Mr. Anstey's charge against me of complicity with "the
famous American leader of Chinese pirates Eli Boggs ."
Let us look at another of the statements which appears in Mr. Anstey's
pamphlet. He says, "There had been made through Mr. Caldwell a
" most improper application to Dr. Bridges' government for the remissi
66
on of the sentence of transportation passed by the Supreme Court on
66 one of three partners * who had been convicted of the offence of receiv
❝ing stolen goods under very aggravated circumstances ; and against
"which application the Chief Justice, the Jury and the Attorney Gene
"ral had strongly protested." He prefaces this with a statement that a
woman named Shap Lok (whom he falsely asserts was a " reputed
" sister " or " sworn sister by adoption " of my wife) had received a
large bribe (400 Dollars) from the prisoner's friends to procure a remis
sion of his sentence, and he evidently intends it to be believed, though he
does not expressly say it, that these 400 Dollars came into my hands.
The Commissioners in their report arrive at the conclusion that a Chi
nese female named Shap Lok did receive a sum of 400 Dollars for her
supposed influence in procuring a remission of the prisoner's sentence, but
they dismiss the imputation of a relationship between her and my wife.
The disgraceful suggestion of this alleged relationship emanated from
Mr. May and does him infinite credit .
As Attorney General of the Colony, and as a barrister practising at
the local bar, Mr. Anstey knew perfectly well that all applications by pe
tition to the Government from Chinese must be forwarded through the
Protector of Chinese and that unless they come through that officer, the
In a Pawnbroker's Shop.
21
Government will not receive them ; and knowing this he nevertheless
most disingenuously strives to make it appear, that because in the ordi
nary course of my duty I forwarded to the Government the petition of
the parties in the case he refers to , I had made the " improper applica
tion " for a remission of the prisoner's sentence . He might with equal
justice assert that every one of the many petitions and applications which
it has been my duty to transmit to the Government since I have held my
present office (many of them containing the most absurd requests) were
applications made by me on behalf of the parties who preferred them.
But what are the facts of the case ? A pawnbroker had been convicted
of receiving stolen goods and was sentenced to fourteen years' transpor
tation. I knew nothing whatever either of the circumstances of the case
or the parties. Some of the prisoner's friends thought of petitioning the
Government for a remission of his sentence , and it seems went to the
Acting Colonial Secretary with a petition in Chinese, which that officer
refused to receive because it was neither translated nor transmitted
through the usual channel. He directed the petitioners to take their
petition to the Protector of Chinese and they brought it to me accord
ingly. This was the first I knew of any effort being made to obtain a
remission of the prisoner's sentence . In the usual course of my duty I
translated the petition into English and transmitted it to the Acting Co
lonial Secretary, but without any remark from myself- any opinion of
its merits, or any recommendation in favor of its prayer. This was the
whole part I had in the matter. I simply performed my duty. I was
not referred to by the authorities, nor had I any communication with
them on the subject. In the mean time the prisoner's friends had obtain
ed the assistance of a Solicitor and a petition in English in his favor was
got up and signed by some of the European residents including the jury
by whom he was tried ; but I heard nothing more of the matter until
some time after, when a friend of the prisoner came to me and told me
that the sentence had been commuted, and, to my surprise and indigna
tion, asked me "if the 400 Dollars should be paid to the woman Shap
Lok for getting the prisoner pardoned, as she said the money was intend
ed for me." I desired the man to pay no money whatever, and on my
telling him that I would inquire into the matter and would call upon him
to state what he knew of it, he said that he knew nothing about it him
self, and that he had only mentioned what had been told him by his
partners. I immediately went in search of the woman Shap Lok, and
the police were likewise set in motion by Mr. May to discover her, but
none of us succeeded in finding her then.
Whoever may have been the person named Shap Lok who was said to
have received the money I cannot tell ; but the only person that I knew
22
of that name and whom I , as well as the police, went in search of, re
turned to the Colony a short time after the close of the Commission of
Inquiry. She came voluntarily to my house saying that she had heard
that I had been in search of her. I told her of the charge I had against
her. She stoutly denied ever having asked for or received any money
in my name whatever from the pawnbrokers or their friends, and desired
to be confronted with the parties who had alleged that she had done so.
I took her to the Police Station and laid a charge against her of receiving
money in my name, before the Inspector then on duty there, who happen
ed to be the same man (Lyons) whom Mr. May had employed to elicit
evidence against me from Boggs, the pirate. Lyons immediately sent
for the witnesses from the pawnbroker's shop. The only one who came
was Low Shing Keet, the witness who deposed before the Commissioners
that he had paid the money to the woman he called Shap Lok with his
own hands. On being confronted with Shap Lok he stated positively
that she was not the woman. I pressed him hard upon the subject, but
he adhered to his statement, adding that the woman he had paid the
money to was a much younger woman than the one before him. There
being no other evidence, and the witness persisting in his statement,
there was no alternative but to discharge the woman, which was accord
ingly done.
There was no other woman that I knew of at that time by the name
of Shap Lok, nor has any such person been since brought forward by the
pawnbrokers or their friends, although they were charged to produce the
woman they said they had paid the money to.
These facts I think fully disprove Mr. Anstey's assertions as well as
his insinuations.
It is not an uncommon practice with the Chinese (and Mr. Anstey
well knows it) to endeavour to obtain money from persons in trouble in
the name of some public officer, under the pretence of securing the influ
ence or favor of that officer in their behalf. I have had occasion to pro
secute Chinese in no less than three instances for having obtained or at
tempted to obtain money in this manner in my name. Mr. Anstey him
self admits in his letter to the Secretary of State that bribes had more
sAd ă
than once been offered to himself, and there are some wealthy officers
still in the police who are not strangers to the latter practice.
The next charge Mr. Anstey makes against me (again on the autho
rity of Mr. May) is, with having used " for the purposes of private mo
nopoly " the powers vested in me under the recent Ordinance for the re
gulating, licensing and registering of brothels in the Colony- and with
having granted " at least one license to a brothel built on land belonging
to himself." And he calls in question the truth of a declaration made by
23
me to His Excellency the Governor, that at the time I was appointed to
carry out the provisions of the Ordinance as Licenser of Brothels, I did
.
not own any land whatever in the Colony.
I proved clearly to the satisfaction of the Commission of Inquiry by
the evidence of two of the Clerks of the Treasury Office- by the evidence
of the Solicitor employed to prepare the transfer, and by the evidence of
the purchasers of the land that the eleven lots referred to by Mr. Anstey
as having been registered in my name, had all been sold by me and had
been paid for by the purchasers in the month of June 1857, five months
before I was appointed , to the above office,* and that at the time I was so
appointed I held no lands or houses whatsoever in the Colony. The
account current rendered to me by my Agents, Messrs. Siemssen & Co.
(still in the hands of the Commissioners) also shewed that the purchas
money of these lots had been received by them for me in the month of
June 1857. It is true that some delay (for which I was not responsible)
arose in the preparation of the deeds of transfer ; but possession had been
taken and other rights of ownership exercised by the purchasers imme
diately after payment of the purchase money in June 1857.
The nature of the information given by Mr. May to Mr. Anstey on the
subject may be judged of by the following extract from his evidence
given before the Commission when this charge was under investigation.
He says : " In consequence of the information I received and of the fact
"that in a book of mine I found that Mr. Caldwell appeared to be the
"registered owner of lot 241 B. on which a brothel stood, I communi
"cated to the Attorney General my belief that that house was in fact
" owned by Mr. Caldwell."
The proverb that people who live in glass houses ought not to throw
stones was never more applicable than it is in the present instance to
Messrs. Anstey and May. They charge me with using and perverting
the powers I possessed under the new Ordinance as Crown Licenser of
brothels " for my own profit," and for the " private purposes of mono
poly." They do not say what this monopoly was, but their meaning may
be inferred when they add, that " at least one license had been granted
by me to a Chinese brothel built upon land which belonged to myself."
That they completely failed in making out this charge against me I have
already shewn, as I proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that
I owned neither lands, houses, nor brothels. But it was notorious, and
the fact is not denied by Mr. May, that he was himself, previous to the
passing of the Ordinance, the owner of several houses in the Colony
which, to his knowledge, were used as brothels. And even after the
* The Ordinance was passed and I was appointed in November 1857.
24
passing ofthe Ordinance his own kept mistress, a Chinese woman , lived
within two or three feet of a house kept by a woman named Atai, which
was used for several months as a brothel without having a license, and
without any action on the part of Mr. May to suppress it, as it was his
duty to do under the new Ordinance, as Superintendent of Police. He
could not but have known the character of the house, since it was con
tiguous to that of his mistress , and he was in the daily habit of passing
it. The neighbours had complained about this house, which they de
nounced as a nuisance, and Mr. May was ordered by the Acting Colonial
Secretary to take measures to suppress it. He never did so however.
There may have been a reason for it. That his friend Mr. Anstey was
a frequent visitor at that house I have abundant proof, but it is of too
disgraceful a nature for publication. Other Europeans were in the habit
of frequenting the house also, and the fact of its being a public brothel
was never doubted. The Acting Colonial Secretary finding that Mr.
May had done nothing in the matter, desired me to take measures against
the house. I accordingly went to the house at night. I distinctly heard
the voices of several women upstairs. I demanded admission, but was
kept outside for nearly half an hour before the door was opened. On
searching the house I was surprised at not finding any of the women,
though there were three Europeans (males) in the house. I looked
about to discover the means by which they made their escape. The
only outlet to the street was the door through which I entered and
before which I had stationed a constable. It was not possible for them
to have escaped by that door without being observed by myself and the
constable. The windows had all iron gratings, through which exit was
impossible ; but there was a sky-light, to which a ladder was attached,
leading to the roof of the house. The house itself was a three-storied
one, some 35 or 40 feet high . The houses adjoining it on either side
were both low houses, the roofs of which were fully 15 feet lower than
L
that of the brothel, a leap which Chinese women would not be likely to
attempt ; besides they must in their fall have smashed a large number
of tiles, if they did not go through the roof; not a tile was misplaced .
Immediately at the back of this brothel however stood a house which so
nearly adjoined the brothel that the walls were only separated by a space
of about 24 inches. This house was rather higher than the brothel, and
a window belonging to it was just on a level with the roof of the latter.
It was perfectly easy for any one to step from the roof of the brothel
on to the sill of this window (the window was fully 4 feet high-the
venetian frames opening outwards) and thus enter the house. This was
the house of Mr. May's kept-mistress already mentioned. There was
not a doubt on my mind at the time that the prostitutes had made their
25
escape from the brothel into the house of Mr. May's kept-mistress through
this window, especially as I was aware that this woman had been her
self in the habit of purchasing young girls for the purposes of prostitu
tion . There were no other possible means of escape except by a leap
which must either have broken the limbs of the women or killed them :
I returned into the brothel and took the woman Atai into custody as
being the keeper of it.
When the case came on for hearing before the Magistrate, Mr. Anstey
appeared at the Magistrate's Court, not however to aid the prosecution
as Attorney General, but rather, as it appeared to me, to watch the case
for the Defendant. He certainly volunteered the opinion against me,
that I had no right to apprehend the woman and that I ought to be
prosecuted for damages for so doing.
The case against the woman Atai however was too clear to admit of
a doubt. She was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of 75 Dollars.
I was compelled to state in my evidence at the trial my belief as to the
manner in which the women escaped from the unlicensed brothel. Mr.
May took great offence at this when he heard of it, and complained to
the authorities of my having made an unwarrantable use of his name.
He did not deny that the house was that of his kept-mistress , but he
repudiated the imputation of the escape of the prostitutes from the
brothel into his house.
After the trial, Mr. May sent his head Inspector, Mr. Jarman, to
inspect the premises, and hearing that the latter had sent in a report, in
which he stated it as his opinion that escape through that window was
impossible, I requested Mr. Jarman to accompany me to the brothel and
make another inspection of the two premises in my presence. He did
so. After I had pointed out to his notice the different parts of the pre
mises, and in particular the sky-light-the close proximity of the window
of the house of Mr. May's mistress to the roof of the brothel, and the
great height of the brothel above the two side-houses, I asked Mr.
Jarman for his opinion. He said he should like to think over the matter
and would let me know the next morning ! I did think it strange that
a Police Officer of ten years ' standing, holding the responsible office of
Head Inspector of Police, should be at a loss to form an opinion at once
upon so simple a matter, and I suggested that it would be far easier for
him to do this with his eyes upon the spot than at a distance from it. He
still preferred taking time to " consider the matter." I anticipated what
the result would be. The next morning, as a matter of course, he gave
his opinion that the women could not have escaped through the window
of the house belonging to his Superintendent's mistress ; but he did not
say by what other means they could possibly have made their escape.
26
Mr. May's complaint and my explanation having been laid before His
Excellency the Governor, it resulted in Mr. May receiving a severe re
primand, and myself an entire exculpation .
This case may possibly throw some light on the extraordinary interest
or rather apprehension manifested by Mr. May when the new Registrá
tion Ordinance was about to be discussed in Council , under which the
powers of the Registrar General were to be further enlarged. Mr.
Anstey in his letter to the Secretary of State, says, " On that day the
" Bill for Chinese Registration and Regulation (which afterwards be
" came Ordinance No. 8 of 1858 , ) stood for discussion in the Legislative
" Council. A letter from the Superintendent of Police [ Mr. May] was
"6 put into my hands ENTREATING me to cause some provision to be
" " introduced to restrain Mr. Caldwell, his Chinese wife , their family
" and their servants from abusing to their own profit the large powers .
"(
over persons and property which would be made permanent in his
" hands as the Registrar General and Protector of Chinese within Hong
" kong by that Ordinance." The reasons for Mr. May's alarm are best
known to himself. The only instance of alleged abuse of the powers
entrusted to me, brought forward by Messrs . May and Anstey, being the
already disproved charge that I had granted one license for a Chinese
brothel built on land belonging to myself.
Mr. Anstey goes on to say that the powers of the Registrar General
and Protector of Chinese under the ordinance “ were so largely increased
" in favor of the individual then recently raised to them, as to attract
" the notice of Downing Street and to cause the disallowance of the
" most dangerous of these new provisions ; but not until they had done
" much mischief by the manner in which he had exercised them." Mr.
Anstey does not state what these " dangerous " powers were, nor the na
ture of the mischief which he alleges had arisen from the exercise of
them . The only provision which the Authorities in Downing Street
disallowed, was the personal registration of the Chinese of the Colony, .
a measure which I had myself disapproved of as being likely to cause
vexation and annoyance to the people. These increased powers confer
red no benefit on myself, but on the contrary, added much to the irk
someness of my duties.
Mr. Anstey in continuation adds, " in the interval however his other
" office, that of Crown Licenser of brothels, had been specially created
for him,” leaving it to be inferred that I derived some pecuniary benefit
from the appointment, which was not the case, although it is probable
the Legislative Council thought that the Registrar General was the fit
test officer to carry out the provisions of this new Ordinance from his
being also Protector of Chinese, an Office created in 1846, and against
27
which Mr. Anstey seems to have formed so great an antipathy during
the time of my incumbency. The objects contemplated in forming this
office were, that there should be some special officer to whom the Chi
nese, who compose the principal part of the large and fluctuating popu
lation of the Colony, and who are in general ignorant of our laws and
customs, might in the first instance go to make their complaints, state
their difficulties and prefer their applications. It is the duty of the
Protector of Chinese to point out to them the course they ought to adopt.
It is his duty to attend at the Police Courts and see that they have the
means of bringing their complaints properly before the Magistrates in
cases in which he may conceive that his assistance is necessary, and to
aid them in their defence in cases which may appear to him to have been
got up for the purpose of oppression or extortion . It is his duty also ,
according to the ordinance, " to use his best endeavours to prevent the
"commission of crime and to discover and apprehend the perpetrators
" thereof, and generally to protect the Chinese inhabitants of the Colony."
The Protector of Chinese is also the medium of communication between
the Chinese and the Government. The duties of this office remained
almost a dead letter until I was called to fill it in 1856. Mr. Inglis, the
first Registrar General and Protector of Chinese (though afterwards a
good Chinese linguist) possessed only a partial knowledge of the lang
uage during the time he held the appointment, and Mr. May, who was
for some time afterwards Officiating Registrar General and Protector of
Chinese, not only knew nothing of the language, but could never recog
nize the face of a Chinaman unless he had seen it at least some four or
five times. I was expected , from my thorough knowledge of the lang
uage and my intimate acquaintance with the people, to give the office
that efficacy and utility which the local legislature intended, and thus
the duties of Registrar General were considerably augmented.
In November 1857 the Ordinance for the regulating, licensing and
registering of brothels in the Colony was passed and I was appointed to
carry out its provisions, which involve not only very onerous and very
unpleasant duties, but often necessitate my going out at night. This is
the office which Mr. Anstey says was " specially created for me."
In May 1858 the " Markets Ordinance " was passed in Legislative
Council, and under its provisions the Registrar General was appointed
Collector of all the Market-rents, adding still more to his duties . But
neither to the office ofCrown Licenser of Brothels nor to that ofCollector
of Market-rents was any salary attached , and I have been performing
the duties of these two new appointments, with those of Registrar Gene
ral and Protector of Chinese, without any addition whatever having been
made to my original salary for the increased duties and responsibilities
28
thrown upon me. So far therefore from deriving benefit , as Mr. Anstey
wishes it to be inferred, from an office which he asserts " had been spe
cially created for me " I might with justice complain of the hardship of
imposing upon me duties of a very unpleasant and onerous nature , the
performance of which I never contemplated when the offices of Registrar
General and Protector of Chinese were offered to me in 1856 .
But Mr. Anstey's main charge against me, and upon which indeed
all his other accusations hinge, is contained in his asseverations against
the character of a man, called throughout Mah-chow Wong, but whose
proper name is Wong Akee, whom he stigmatizes as a " notorious pi
66 19
" the " Jonathan Wild of the Chinese seas
rate," a resetter of pirates,"
—with whom, Mr. Anstey asserts, I have been long criminally connected,
and with whom, he alleges, I have participated in the profits of his alleged
piratical adventures ! This is Mr. Anstey's best trump card. All the
resources of his subtle and fertile mind- all the influence which Mr. May
* possessed as Head of the Police all the energies, craft and tactics of
the two combined, were strained to the utmost, and brought to bear
upon this particular accusation ; because they knew that if they could
but succeed in inducing the Commissioners to believe that this charge
was a true one, my dismissal from the service was certain ; Mr. Anstey's
object would be attained- his vindictive feelings against me would be
gratified, and Mr. May would then, in all probability, succeed to the
office of Registrar General and Protector of Chinese which he had
so long coveted . To bring about this result it was necessary for them,
in the first place, to shew that Wong Akee was the reprobate they repre
sented him to be. In this particular matter Mr. May takes the more
prominent part of the two - no doubt rightly conceiving that, as Super
intendent of Police, his allegations would carry weight with them.
With all Mr. May's evident desire, however, to shew that Wong Akee
was a pirate, he does not dare to say that he knew him to be one, because
if he did, he would be called upon to give some instance of his piratical
acts, which he know he could not do ; -but he makes such statements as
the following : " I know that Boggs was with pirates, and I believe that
" those pirates had communication and had confederated with Ma- chow
46
Wong." In another place he says " I believe, from information I re
" ceived, which information is contained in my letter of the 20th July,
"that Mah-chow Wong was in intimate connection with several well
"known pirate chiefs." Again : " As a matter of repute and notoriety,
" I know that Mah- chow Wong has for years been a recipient of bribes
"from gambling house-keepers, a confederate of pirates, and a receiver
" of stolen goods." What was Mr. May about that he did not bring to
justice so notorious an offender ? He says the Chinese were reluctant
29
39
to give evidence against him because of his " well known position"
with regard to myself. During 1855 and 1856 I was for seventeen
months out of the service, unconnected with the government, and fre
quently absent from the colony in my steamer. What was there then
to prevent the Chinese from coming forward to give evidence against
Wong Akee, who was all the time in the Colony ?
Mr. May speaks in another place of his ability to produce evidence to
shew a connection between Po-Pak Shing, -said to be a notorious pira
te-and Wong Akee, the witness being one of his own constables- a
Portuguese named De Silva- whose evidence I will advert to in a sub
sequent part of this paper. In another part of his evidence Mr. May
also states that he " always found that Mah-Chow Wong was always
"interested either for or against pirates " --which piece of evidence cer
tainly makes as much for Wong Akee as against him. Mr. May, however,
relies principally upon some memoranda extracted by himself from the
books and papers of Wong Akee which had been seized by the Police
at the time of his arrest. Mr. May was assisted in his examination of
the books and papers by his Interpreter Tong Akü, whose brother, be it
known, was dismissed from his situation of Interpreter to the Police
Court for corresponding with pirates upon information given by Wong
Akee himself. Mr. Anstey also lays great stress on the contents of these
memoranda as possessing, according to his ideas, " undoubted evidence
of the piratical nature of Wong Akee's dealings." I shall make some
remarks on the contents of these memoranda hereafter.
The only other evidence on this point, is that of Mr. Dixson, at that
time Editor of the " China Mail " newspaper. He says " I had heard
"from many Chinese that he (Wong Akee) was a notorious extortioner,
"owner of pirate vessels and fitter-out of piratical expeditions." These
were sweeping accusations certainly, but when Mr. Dixson was asked by
the Commissioners if he could hand in the names of any of his informants
he could not do so ! He did not even answer their question , but said
he " would quote one instance of extortion ," which he did, but which
was not according to fact, and had nothing whatever to do with piracy.
Excluding, therefore, the case in which Wong Akee was lately con
victed, the above contains all the evidence I have been able to find
given before the Commission to prove that Wong Akee was a "notorious
pirate " a " resetter of pirates," "the Jonathan Wild of the Chinese
Seas."
I do not purpose in this paper to fight Wong Akee's battle ; but as
it has been the endeavour of Messrs. Anstey and May to paint this man
in the blackest colors, in order to cast the deeper stain upon my alleged
connection with him, I deem it right to state what I know of the man
30
myself, and to make a few observations on the charges brought against
him.
I first knew Wong Akee in 1847. He was then a Fish-monger in
West Point Market. He came to me then for the first time to return
thanks as he said for some assistance he imagined I had rendered him
in a case in which he was suspected of being concerned in the conceal
ment ofsome stolen property. The only evidence against him being
the discovery of the property in a room in a public market adjoining the
one occupied by himself and another man. The evidence was so slight
that he was at once acquitted of the charge.
I was at this time Assistant Superintendent of Police and General
Interpreter, and Wong Akee gave me on one or two occasions informa
tion of the commission of crime in the Colony, which enabled me to
trace the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
Wong Akee gradually bettered his position until he became the sub
lessee of all the public fish markets in the Colony, and he was appointed
head of the Municipal Watchman for the protection of the Central
Market. After this he opened a provision shop (still retaining the
markets) and furnished several of the European residents with supplies
for their table. He did the same to myself for a short time, but finding
his charges high, I discontinued taking further supplies from him. He
appeared to be doing a prosperous business.
It was during this time that he on several occasions gave me most
important and valuable information regarding the proceedings of the
piratical fleets in the neighbourhood of Hongkong. He had peculiar
and ready means of obtaining such information from his position as sub
lessee of the fish markets and from his being a native of the maritime
district of Sun-oan, which possesses several ports, and from which the
largest class of fishing junks come, which visit Hongkong. Most of
the people belonging to these junks naturally came to him to sell their
fish, obtain their supplies, and transact their other business . The num
ber of these large fishing junks is said to be between 500 and 600
they go out to sea and scatter themselves over the neighbouring waters
to the distance of more than a hundred miles from the Colony, and as
they are almost constantly at sea pursuing their occupation, they fre
quently come into unpleasant contact with the fleets of piratical junks
which hover about. These fishermen are therefore constantly on the
watch, and they have the means of knowing, better than any other class
of sea-going people, the different piratical fleets, their proceedings, the
names of their chiefs and their places of rendezvous. All this inforına
tion the fishermen readily imparted to Wong Akee, and Wong Akee has,
often voluntarily, and often åt my request, shewn the readiest disposition
81
to impart the like information to myself. Whenever it has been practi
cable, I have acted upon the information thus obtained, and the numerous
instances in which large and powerful fleets of piratical vessels have been
destroyed by Her Majesty's ships-of- war, and peaceable trading junks
rescued from their clutches, upon information furnished to me by Wong
Akee, is the best proof, not only of the truth of his reports and of his use
fulness, but of his having no connection himself with pirates or piracy.
He had, indeed, a direct interest in the suppression of piracy, and this
may have been one of his inducements for furnishing me so often with
information of their proceedings. As renter of the fish markets it was
to his interest to have as much fish brought to the markets as possible,
for the more fish the more profit. The attacks of pirates on the fishing
vessels reduced the supply of fish. The fishermen were often deterred
from pursuing their calling from fear of being captured. Again, Wong
Akee was himself the owner of four lorchas which he employed in trading
between the different ports on the Coast of China. These vessels were as
much liable to capture by pirates as any other Chinese vessels, and for
their safety it was clearly to his interest to see piracy put down.
About five or six years ago Wong Akee extended his mercantile
operations. In partnership with others he chartered ships to California .
by which he told me he realized large profits. He afterwards, in partner
ship with others, purchased from Tam Atsoi-a man well-known in the
Colony-an American ship called the Potomac and sent her on to
California, but on her arrival there she was seized by Tam Atsoi's part
ners, who stated that Tam Atsoi had no authority to sell her. He lost
by this business nearly all that he had formerly gained, and I believe
Wong Akee still has a large claim against Tam Atsoi for selling him a
ship that did not belong to him.
All this time Wong Akee made himself extremely useful to me in my
capacity of Assistant Superintendent of Police, in furnishing me with
information, not only against pirates at sea, but also against other wrong
doers in the Colony, whose mal- practices were, by his means, brought to
light, and the offenders punished . Among these was the Chinese Inter
preter above mentioned, and he incurred a great deal of odium and the
ill-will of many, in consequence of his disclosures .
During the late war in China (1857 ) arising out of the seizure by the
Mandarins of Canton of the crew of the English lorcha Arrow, this •
Colony was thrown into a state of great excitement and alarm in con
sequence of the measures adopted by the Mandarins against us. The
terror they exercised over the minds of the Chinese residing here was
such, that whole families left the place. All servants in the employ of
Europeans were threatened, and their families in China menaced, unless
32
they immediately quitted the service of their European masters and re
turned to their native districts. Nearly every European establishment
was denuded of its domestics and coolies. Our river steamers were
attacked by emissaries of the Mandarins who had taken passage on board
of them, and an attempt was made to poison the whole of the Europeans
of the Colony by arsenic being put into the bread. Large rewards were tim
offered for the head of the Lieutenant Governor of Hongkong and also 1451
for my own, and we were in nightly expectation of seeing the town in
flames. It required the greatest vigilance on the part of the Govern
ment and Police to preserve the safety of the Colony. During this
critical time, Wong Akee, on several occasions, obtained and imparted to
me most valuable and important information , by acting upon which, the
plans of the Mandarins were often frustrated . I need only mention the
fact that through his means a conspiracy was discovered in the Colony
which had for its object the capture of Colonel Caine, the Lieutenant
Governor, and myself-the conspirators having been promised a heavy
reward if they succeeded in bringing to the Mandarins our heads !
Mr. May says in his evidence before the Commission, that Wong Akee
was long known to him by repute as man of notorious bad character,
but he omitted to tell the Commissioners that he had frequently sought to
obtain the assistance of this same man himself—that he frequently asked
him to give him the same kind of information that he was in the habit of
furnishing myself-or that he was in the habit of addressing him in
terms of familiarity Wong Akee always refused to give Mr. May any
such information , saying, that he was not a paid informer, and that he
did not choose to give information to every body. Mr. May naturally
felt mortified at these rebuffs, and he reluctantly admitted before the
Commission, that he had, " from a long knowledge of the prisoner (Wong
Akee) a great dislike to him."
The secret cause of that dislike I have now revealed , and it will ac
count for all Mr. May's hostility to the man, and for the untiring and
unusual energy which he displayed, when Wong Akee was arrested, in
getting up the case—or rather cases-against him, during the whole
three weeks of their investigation at the Police Court. No one ever saw
Mr. May display any thing like the same amount of zeal and indefatiga
bility in any other case that ever came before the Police during the whole
• fourteen years of his superintendency. And why ? Because there were
not the same moving causes : animosity to myself, jealousy and envy of
the success of my public exertions and my consequent promotion over
himself in the service, and dislike and hatred of the man who had been, in
a great measure, instrumental in enabling me to achieve these successes,
and who had refused to accord the same assistance to himself.
33
During the whole period of my service under the Government of this
Colony, I had no commercial or pecuniary transactions whatever with
Wong Akee, save one or two trifling loans of money which I gave him,
and which he repaid .
When I left the service in 1855 and purchased the steamer Eaglet, I
chartered one of his lorchas, and employed him to charter seven other
vessels for me, which I loaded with cargo, and took in tow of my steamer
to Hoinam as already stated . In this speculation Messrs . Siemssen &
Co., merchants of Hongkong, myself, and the Chinese mercantile firm
of " Tychong " were partners. We allowed Wong Akee to have a share
also for the assistance he rendered us. During the time these eight
vessels remained under charter (a little under two months) they carried,
as a matter of convenience to myself, the Eaglet's private signal flag ;
and it is out of this single transaction, mentioned by me to Mr. May in
the confidence of private intercourse, that he invented the following
tale, given in evidence by him before the Commission : " When Mr.
" Caldwell was in command of the Eaglet, on one occasion I asked him
"how his marine affairs were getting on, and he told me that he was
"partner with Mah-chow Wong in a carrying trade carried on in many
"vessels, and that they owned several Chinese vessels. (!) I observed ,
" if you let the Eaglet be engaged in these expeditions against pi
"rates (?) you will have a combination against you and have the Eaglet
"
' snapped up ; and he said no fear of that, such is the fame and terror
"caused by the Eaglet, that many vessels have applied to us and we are
"
' thinking of granting the Eaglet's flag as a pass ofprotection.” (!)
And, as if the absurdity of this wanton mis-statement was not already
great enough, Mr. Anstey, in his pamphlet, endorses it in the following
still more exaggerated terms : " And it was with this man, that accord
66
ing to Mr. Caldwell himself, who reluctantly admits it after it had
" been proved by many witnesses-a partnership in at least eight Chi
(1
nese lorchas subsisted from the beginning of 1855 ifnot earlier, down
(6
to the end of 1856, if not later." (!)
As to the doubts which Mr. Anstey seems inclined to cast on this
particular speculation , I can only say that the trade was as legitimate as
any other that is carried on in Chinese ports- that it has since been fol
lowed by other European merchants in Hongkong--that I received the
permission of the head Mandarin of the Island to sell and purchase goods
-that the Mandarin himself paid me complimentary visits on board my
steamer every time I arrived there ; and the fact of my having been
joined in this speculation by a house of such high standing and well
known respectability as that of Messrs. Siemssen & Co. of Hongkong, is
84
a sufficient guarantee, if any were wanting, that there was nothing ob
jectionable in it.
It was during this time also that I lent Wong Akee 500 Dollars to
enable him to lengthen a lorcha belonging to him, for which he wished
to obtain a Colonial register. To secure myself for the advance, I had
the lorcha registered in my own name. In October 1856, Wong Akee
having repaid the loan, my interest in the vessel ceased, and I notified
the same, at the time, at the Colonial Secretary's office at Hongkong ; but
the vessel being then absent on a trading voyage to Cochin China, the
Register could not be cancelled, and she did not return until the follow
ing April.
It has been attempted to be shewn that this lorcha was engaged in
piratical pursuits . The first master of her was a European of the name
of Johnston, a correct and respectable man, who left her because he could
not agree with the Chinese on board. Wong Akee wished to get another
European master for her, and asked me to assist him in doing so. As I
was about to be absent from the Colony, I asked the Harbour Master, as
a favour, to get a good and trustworthy man to take command of her.
He put on board an Englishman named Bancroft, who had formerly
been master of a ship, and he remained in her until the month of April
1857. Is it at all likely that Wong Akee would have given the com
mand of his lorcha to a European who was a perfect stranger to him—
whom he had never seen before, and who had been sent to him by the
Harbour Master of the Colony, if he used the lorcha for piratical pur
poses ? The thing is absurd on the face of it. The lorcha had been
dispatched on a trading voyage to Cochin China, and on her return , she
was chased by pirates in to a place called Ma-me, about 150 miles from
Hongkong, and there blockaded for the space of two months and up
wards. On his arrival here, Captain Bancroft reported the circumstance
at the Colonial Office, where I happened to be at the moment, and this
was the first time I had ever seen him. The fact of the lorcha being
attacked by Chinese pirates is another proof that she could not have
been a piratical vessel herself, for there is " honor even among (piratical)
thieves "-they never attack each other for purposes of plunder.
During the time I was engaged with the Eaglet and not in Govern
ment employ, I employed Wong Akee to superintend the building of
some small houses for me: I likewise employed him to negociate the
purchase of a piece of ground from a Chinaman whom he brought to me
himself, and I entrusted him on one or two occasions with the collection
of some small sums of money due to me by Chinese for freight, who hap
pened to be better known to him than they were to my Agents. There
were also a few other small matters in which I made use of his services,
35
but of too trivial a nature to be detailed. These comprise the whole of
the transactions I ever had with Wong Akee in the way of business,
commercial or pecuniary, and in all of them I found him punctual and
trustworthy. All this happened, be it remembered , when I had no con
nection whatever with the Government service. I was my own master,
independent of official restraint, and at liberty to trade and transact bu
siness with whom I pleased. I never knew Wong Akee to be a pirate
or a confederate of pirates, nor had I any reason to suspect that he was
ever engaged in any such practices. I think I can safely say that I have
known almost every fleet of piratical vessels that have ever committed
depredations at sea within a radius of 400 miles of Hongkong, as well as ·
the names of all noted pirate chiefs . I have been engaged, in numerous
instances, in tracking them to their haunts on nearly every part of the
coast in Her Majesty's ships of war, and have been instrumental in the
capture or destruction of the most noted and most dreaded of these bold
marauders ; and it is strange indeed that if Wong Akee was the " no
torious pirate " which Messrs. Anstey, May, and Dixson would make
him out to be, I should never once have fallen in with this " Jonathan
Wild of the Chinese seas," or some of his vessels , in all my many cruises ,
or that any of Her Majesty's ships, similarly occupied, should never
have met with some traces of him, or his vessels, or learnt something of
their doings !
It has been said also that the " numerous cases " brought against
Wong Akee at the Police Court, prove him to be a notorious pirate and
a confederate with pirates. Now I challenge Mr. May and Mr. Anstey
to produce from the records of the Police a single case of piracy, or of
confederating with pirates brought against Wong Akee previous to the
one upon which he was lately convicted, and which I will refer to more
particularly presently. Where then is the evidence of his being a " no
torious pirate," a " resetter of pirates," the " Jonathan Wild of the Chi
nese seas "? Where, except in the unfounded statements of Messrs.
Anstey and May ; in vague Hongkong rumours, and in the columns of
the China Mail newspaper under the editorship of Mr. Dixson ? It is
true the other papers of the Colony took up the cry, and the whole pack
were down upon him, but it is only those who are ignorant of the
morale of a Hongkong newspaper, who place any reliance on its strict
ures on personal character-always scurrilous - seldom or never truthful.
According to these sorry representatives of the fourth estate, the thriving
Colony of Hongkong is a perfect Pandemonium-the Governors and
public officers all rogues-the merchants all swindlers -the other Euro
pean inhabitants of the Colony all hungry adventurers, if not something
worse, and the Editors themselves , according to their own estimate of
36
each other, a set of reprobates, of whom nothing which they can say, is
too vile or too disreputable. I instance in particular the Daily Press and
Friend of China.
It was in this spirit of Hongkong journalism, that the China Mail,
under the editorship of Mr. Dixson, pursued the unfair and un-english
course of " writing down " Wong Akee before his trial-doing its
utmost to inflame and prejudice the public mind against him by repre
senting his character in the blackest colours, charging him with all
manner of crimes, and apparently with such success, that although the
*
evidence adduced against him at the trial was of the weakest nature,
the jury, to the astonishment of the Judge, brought in a verdict fo
guilty. One of the jurymen was heard to declare during one of the ad
journments of the case, before the evidence was concluded, and before .
the prisoner had commenced his defence, that he had made up his mind
to convict him ! The Counsel for the prisoner brought this improper con
duct of the juryman to the notice of the judge, who gave him the option
of calling another juryman, or going on with the case. The Counsel
was so confident that no conviction could take place upon such evidence,
D that he preferred proceeding with the case. I may mention also that
this case was in the first instance brought before the Chief Magistrate,
but
so weak was the evidence against Wong Akee, that he discharged
him. He ordered him however to find bail for his appearance when re
quired. It was after this that Mr. May got up another information
against Wong Akee, upon which he granted his own warrant, and Wong
Akee was again arrested, and finally committed for trial on both cases.
It is asserted by Mr. Anstey, that this second case was the strongest of
the two. The Acting Attorney General, however, was of a different
opinion. It was not tried because the prisoner had already been con
victed and sentenced on the first one. It is to be regretted that this
second case was not gone into. It would have revealed the extraordi
nary manner in which the information was got up, and other proceedings
on the part of the Police, showing a determination, at all hazards, to
crush this unfortunate man.
For Mr. Dixson's dislike to Wong Akee there was a cause. It is with
reluctance that I make any allusion to it ; but as Mr. Dixson has taken
so much pains to prejudice the public mind against Wong Akee, and as
I verily believe that his articles in the China Mail had more influence
în bringing about his conviction, than the actual evidence adduced at the
* The Acting Attorney General who prosecuted the case , stated before the Commission,
that the evidence against Wong Akee " was purely circumstantial."
+ The Chief Justice afterwards declared in Council, that he never expected such a verdict,
upon such evidence..
37
trial itself, I feel that I ought not to allow any feelings of delicacy to
wards Mr. Dixson , (against whom I bear no ill-will) to prevent my
making public, what I believe to have been the cause of his enmity to
Wong Akee, and by which he was led to make assertions against him,
which he rather wished to believe were true, than that he actually believed
them to be so.
Some time ago, before any thing was ever said against Wong Akee,
I recollect his coming to me and telling me that he was afraid he had
got himself into trouble with Mr. Dixson . He said he had had a quarrel
with Mr. Dixson's kept mistress —a Chinese Woman -who had threaten
ed to complain to Mr. Dixson against him and get Mr. Dixson to bring
him into some trouble. I told him that as long as he conducted himself
uprightly, our laws would protect him, and that he need not be under
alarm.
About this time Wong Akee was the holder by endorsement of a Pro
missory note from a woman named Akew, who was a friend of Mr.
Dixson's mistress. Twenty Dollars of the amount had been paid to him,
and on his demanding the balance, he was surprised at receiving a note
from Mr. Dixson, written in Chinese, desiring him to come and see him
on the subject, which Wong Akee said he refused to do. He was still
V more surprised, he said, when, a day or two after, he received a summons
to appear at the Police Court to answer a charge of extortion- the sub
ject of the alleged extortion being the Twenty Dollars the woman Akew
had voluntarily paid to account of her debt ! Mr. Dixson himself appear
ed against Wong Akee at the Police Court in behalf of his mistress'
friend Akew. The Chief Magistrate, Mr. Hillier, dismissed the charge
of extortion, but as he was of opinion that the money for which the note
was granted, had been advanced by the original payee for an immoral
purpose, he ordered Wong Akee to refund the Twenty Dollars he had
received ; and as the woman Akew stated that she was afraid Wong
Akee would do her some injury, he was bound over to keep the peace
towards her.
This is the case of " extortion " mentioned by Mr. Dixson in his evi
dence before the Commission, and it will be seen that Mr. Dixson was
not uninfluenced by his private feelings when he commenced his violent
public crusade against Wong Akee in the columns of the China Mail
newspaper.
But it is now time to notice the extracts Mr. May is said to have made
from Wong Akee's books and papers , seized by the Police at the time of
his arrest, and which are relied on by Mr. Anstey and him as " contain
" ing the daily evidence of the piratical occupations of Wong Akee.”
Mr. Anstey indeed goes further ; for in his letter to the Secretary of State,
38
A he says, the entries in these memoranda shew Wong Akee " to have been
66
เ 6 engaged habitually and by way of vocation in piratical operations on
the largest scale. They tell of the equipment and armament of pirate
" ships, despatch of such on piratical expeditions, resetting of pirates at
<<
home, confederacy with pirates and assessins abroad, kidnapping at
""
Hongkong and the Slave trade in the Straits of Malacca."
Mr. Anstey seems to have exhausted not only the whole list of crimes
contained in the maritime calendar, but also his own inventive powers,
fertile as they are, in the above category ; and yet there is absolutely
nothing in the whole contents of Mr. May's memoranda to justify the
propagation of a single item of the above charges.
In the same extravagant language, and with his usual habit of distorting
harmless facts into accusatory matter, Mr. Anstey puts forth the following
philippic against myself. "Those which affect Mr. Caldwell shew him to
“ have been during the whole period of those avocations of Mah-chow
" Wong in intimate and private relations with that convict. There is a
(6
message of thanks to himself through Mah-chow Wong from a Chi
66 nese Mandarin during the late war for assisting to recover and restore
" Government plunder made by the Queen's troops from the writer's sta
❝tion. There are payments of money to Mr. Caldwell and receipts from
* him and on his account. There is a transaction binding a Chinaman
" of Hongkong who has a suit for lands there to make them over (if
" the suit succeeds) to the party conducting the suit (that is to say, Mr.
" Caldwell) for the sum of 1,500 Dollars, out of which Mr. Caldwell,
“ though not a lawyer certainly, may also retain to himself the sum of
" 500 Dollars for costs ."
I have already stated the instances in which I have ever had transac
tions, either of a commercial or pecuniary nature, with Wong Akee. I
have never sought to conceal or deny them. They occurred when I was
engaged in mercantile operations, when I had no connection with the
government, and they were of a character to bear the closest scrutiny.
The " message of thanks " to myself from the Chinese Mandarin was
simply this : On my return to the service in 1856 I was directed by His Ex
cellency the Governor to proceed personally to the Chinese Commandant
at Cowlong, a small Chinese town in the immediate vicinity of Hong
kong, and to restore to him, in the name of His Excellency, certain ar
ticles which had been brought away from that Station by our troops
when they visited it a short time previously. I was to proceed with a
force from the Police, and fearing that the commandant (who had on a
previous occasion been brought away a prisoner to Hongkong) might
suppose that we were coming to seize him again, I desired Wong Akee
-who was on friendly terms with the Mandarin-to inform him of the
39
object ofmy visit. The " message of thanks " was simply the command
ant's reply to Wong Akee's letter of information .
The "payments of money to Mr. Caldwell, and receipts from him and
((
on his account " have reference solely to the transactions I have already
mentioned as having taken place between myself and Wong Akee when
I was engaged in trade. "
The last imputation Mr. Anstey throws out, is that of " a transaction
" binding a Chinaman of Hongkong, who has a suit for lands there, to
"make them over (if the suit succeeds) to the party conducting the suit
" (that is to say Mr. Caldwell) for the sum of 1,500 Dollars out ofwhich
" Mr. Caldwell though not a lawyer certainly, may also retain to
" himself the sum of 500 Dollars for costs."
Now let us look at the entry in the memoranda made by Mr. May
upon which this broad and circumstantial statement is founded. It is
as follows :
" A red paper of $1,500 transactions between Foong Hok Sheng, Wong Akee and
Mr. Caldwell.”
This is the whole of the entry. The paper itself, it seems, was not
translated, but had it been so, it would have been found to contain the
particulars of the transaction I have already referred to, namely, the
negociation for the purchase by me of a piece of ground from a man
brought to me by Wong Akee. This man (Foong Hok Sheng) was the
owner of a piece of ground in the lower bazaar which he wished to
dispose of. I had agreed to purchase it and to pay $1,500 of the
purchase money in advance, and the balance on the completion of the
transfer, and I requested Wong Akee to have an agreement drawn up
to that effect. Finding afterwards that it would be necessary for Foong
Hok Sheng to commence a law suit to eject the tenant, I paid only 500
Dollars, and the " red paper " referred to in Mr. May's memoranda was
probably the draught of the first agreement, as I subsequently obtained
another for the 500 Dollars. The statements as to my " conducting
the law suit," and the retention by me of " 500 Dollars for costs," are
pure inventions either of Mr. Anstey, or his accomplice, Mr. May.
Mr. May's memoranda contain no fewer than seventy three extracts
taken from Wong Akee's books and papers, embracing upwards of a
hundred items ; but, with one exception, I shall refer only to those
entries which have reference to my own transactions with him, and
these are :
1
" Entries in rough memorandum book 11th day 4th month 1855, one picul of rice
to Mr. Caldwell," [worth about 2 Dollars. ]
e " 26th day 4th moon paid on account of Wong-kow-man , of a Tor boat $130 to
Mr. Caldwell."
f
40
The person named Wong kow-man here spoken of, chartered, through
me, the Peninsular and Oriental Company's Steamer Canton, also the
Steamer Sir Charles Forbes, at an expense of 6,000 Dollars and upwards,
to accompany Her Majesty's ships in search of a fleet of pirates which
had captured some of his vessels. When he paid the charter money, he
was $ 130 short, which I advanced for him, and I requested Wong
Akee, to whom the charterer was well known, to get back this sum for
me, which he did, and the above is the entry of the transaction.
" Received from Atchow $10 steamer money. Entry 1 steamer $17.
" 21 day seventh month received from Mr. Caldwell $17.”
These were some small sums due to me for freight, and which, as --
before stated, I employed Wong Akee to collect. The last item should
be paid to and not " received from Mr. Caldwell " which is a mistake
probably of the translator.
"2 received by the hands of Mr. Caldwell $120."
This sum was an advance paid by me to Wong Akee for the charter
of one of his lorchas in 1855 , at which time, I chartered also seven other
vessels to carry goods to Hoi-how. To each of these vessels I paid a
like advance of 120 Dollars.
" Expense book of 1851 , 1852. Mr. Caldwell account money received from or for
11 different amounts, total 616 taels 4 maces 6 candarins only surns of money
written .'""
As I have before stated, I employed Wong Akee to superintend the
building of some houses for me, for which purpose I paid him money
from time to time, and of which the above are doubtless the entries.
The translator, however, has made a mistake in the year, as this occur
red in 1855.
" Due by Low Atuck to Mr. Caldwell $160-18 day 5 month received by Akee
this $160."
This was a sum overdrawn by the owner of one of the lorchas I had
chartered. Low Atuck, the man named in the entry, became surety to
me for its repayment. I authorized Wong Akee to receive the money
and apply it towards the building of the houses, he having about that
time applied to me for further advances :
" A letter from Cheong the present Commandant at Cowloong to Mr. Loong
(Akee's Clerk) relative to the seals and other things taken away by the military when
they visited Cowloong, thanking Mr. Caldwell and Messrs . Loong and Wong Akee
for the trouble they took in obtaining the things."
41
I have already explained the circumstances which produced this letter
of thanks from the Commandant of Cowloong.
" A red paper of $1,500 transactions between Foong Hok Sheng, Wong Kee and
Mr. Caldwell."
This has reference to the negociation for the purchase of a piece of
ground, the circumstances of which I have also already explanied.
These comprise the whole of the extracts made by Mr. May and his
interpreter from the books and papers of Wong Akee in any way relat
ing to myself. Is there in any one of them a single objectionable cir
cumstance, or aught else to justify the character given them by Mr.
Anstey ? These transactions occurred also when I was engaged solely
in mercantile and maritime speculations, and when I had nothing what
ever to do with the Government service .
In constructing the following paragraph Mr. Anstey seems to have ex
hausted the whole of his ingenuity as well as his venom . It was scar
cely possible for him to have added to the calumnious charges it contains.
I confess that on first reading it I did not know whether to believe that
these accusations were intended to apply to myself, or to Wong Akee :
“ The books and papers of the pirate had been seized in his hong. They contain
ed numerous entries of Mr. Caldwell's participation in the secret business and profits
ofthe pirate. There were entries of moneys received from him—of moneys paid or
payable to him- of arms, stinkpots and munitions of piracy supplied by or through
him—of his connection as agent or manager of the ' Sun-on Wo, ' or house of the
Sun-on people at Hongkong (the gang of Mah-chow Wong) of communications with
the Chinese enemy on the opposite shore at a time when rewards for Barbarian heads
was the subject of every proclamation-of dealings with gambling houses at Hongkong
—of administration of Mah-chow Wong's estate of Tsim-char-chow already mention
ed, on the other shore, the rightful inheritance of the Tung family, -and of the
transactions ofthe now confessed partnership in the lorchas."
To say that these atrocious charges are all grossly false, is not enough.
They are the deliberate inventions and fabrications of a man who seems
to have lost all regard for the sacred principles of truth, and who is so blind
ed by the violence of his vindictive feelings, that he ceases to observe
any distinction between the correctness of an established fact, and the
baselessness of a calumnious fabrication.
The whole of the items contained in Mr May's memoranda referring
to myself I have already given, and they therefore speak for themselves.
Whether they bear Mr. Anstey out in the above tirade of most iniquitous
accusations against me, I leave the reader to decide. Mr. May's exa
mination of these books and papers was a minute and searching one,
and had they contained any evidence in support of such charges as Mr.
Anstey sets forth in the above paragraph, neither Mr. May nor his par
42
tisan interpreter, would have overlooked it ; nor was there anything in
the subsequent examination of the same books and papers by the acting
Chinese Secretary, to justify these reckless assertions of Mr. Anstey.
Mr. Anstey says in continuation, "at a preliminary examination,
66
some of these items were read out openly in a crowded Police Court.
" Mr. Caldwell knew-he could not but have known, the existence of
" these dishonoring entries. But he made no sign of knowledge . He
" continued after as before and even to the last openly to be friend the
" Pirate whose hand had recorded those entries to his discredit."
Where are the " dishonoring entires" Mr. Anstey refers to ? They
certainly do not appear in Mr. May's extracts . Had any such entries
been read out in the Police Court, it must have been so done by the
Chinese Interpreter. Would he or Mr. May have forgotten these cri
I minating entries when they prepared their list of extracts from Wong
Akee's books and papers ? Had there been, as Mr. Anstey asserts,
" numerous entries of Mr. Caldwell's participation in the secret business
and profits of the pirate," would Mr. May have silently passed them
over and selected only those which bear no such construction ? Could
Mr. Anstey have forgotten the statement of his chief witness, Mr. May,
before the Commission in reference to these very memoranda, that “ there
66 was no entry in his memoranda to the effect that certain moneys had
" been or were to be paid out of the proceeds of plunder to or for or on
“ account ofMr. Caldwell " ? Verily Mr. Anstey possesses the art of im
proving upon his text in a remarkable degree, and his conduct in this
respect forcibly reminds one of the lying valet in Sheridan's play :
FAG. I beg pardon , Sir : but, with submission, a lie is nothing unless one sup
ports it. Sir, whenever I draw on my invention for a good current lie, I
always forge the endorsements as well as the bill.
I cannot dismiss the subject of these reckless charges without expos
ing the absurdity of one of them ; that of my having " communications
" with the Chinese enemy on the opposite shore, at a time when rewards
"for Barbarian heads were the subject of every proclamation." I have
never held communications with officers of the Chinese government ex
cept upon subjects connected with the Colonial government and by order
of the Governor. Mr. Anstey knew perfectly well, as indeed did every
one else who was in the Colony at the time he refers to, that the very
highest of these rewards (20,000 Dollars) was offered by the Mandarins
for my own head and that of the Lieutenant Governor of the Colony!
Mr. Anstey also knew, as will be seen presently, that, aided by informa
tion I had received, (for which I was indebted to Wong Akee) I disco
vered and apprehended in a house situated at the back of this island one
43
of the emissaries of the Mandarins, (he being a man belonging to the
Colony and acquainted with the persons of the Lieutenant Governor and
myself) who had been employed, with others, for the very purpose of se
curing the heads of Colonel Caine and myself ; and that I also found
concealed in this house, the letter addressed to this man by Chun-qui
Chik, the Mandarin of Sha Cheang, containing the offer of this very re
ward if he succeeded in bringing over to him either Colonel Caine's head
or my own. This man was tried at the Supreme Court for Treason, con
victed, and sentenced to transportation for life, Mr. Anstey himself con
ducting the prosecution as Attorney General of the Colony !! In the
face of this he makes the above charge against me. It is an insult to
common sense to suppose that I could be holding friendly communica
tions with the Mandarins of the Chinese government at a time when they
were seeking my life !
There is again his still more absurd statement of my (6 connection as
"agent ormanager of the ' Sun on wo ' ofthe Sun on people at Hongkong ;"
as if it were possible for a Christian to act in the management of a
heathen Congsu house ? To do this it would be necessary for him to go
through the idolatrous ceremony of what is popularly known here as
Chin Chin Joss, which consists in bowing down with the head to the
ground to idols, offering up of propitiatory sacrifices of pigs, goats,
cakes, &c. to their deities, the burning of sacrificial paper, and other
heathenish observances.
Were it not for the great length and uninteresting nature of the
extracts which Mr. May has embodied in his memoranda from the books
and papers of Wong Akee, I would publish them in extenso in order to
shew how little Mr. Anstey's statements in regard to them are entitled
to credit. With the exception of a few unimportant items, they consist
of entries which may be found in the books of every Chinese shopkeeper
in the Colony in the same line of business as Wong Akee ; and, with
the exception of one solitary item, there is nothing in any of them which
can properly be construed as referring to pirates or piracy.
e The exception I refer to is the following :
" A letter of money lent $22 and 8 taels to a celebrated pirate named Chu Ahquai ,
now an officer of Chun Queh Tsik. This man was the man (sic. ) charged with ex
tortion who Mah Tsow Wong aided to escape for which Mah Chow Wong , was [let]
off."
This is Mr. May's version of the entry, but divest it of the dressing up
Mr. May has given it, what does it amount to ? " A letter of money
lent $22 and 8 taels to a man named Chu Ahquai."
This Chu Ahquai was formerly a resident in Hongkong. He left the
place about three years ago and joined the rebels who were in open war
W against the Chinese government. How long he was thus engaged, I do
not know, but he was next heard of as commandant of a fleet of piratical
vessels cruising in the neighbourhood of Lintin and Cap-sing-moon.
Shortly after this he was taken into the service of the Chinese govern
ment, where he still remains, under the celebrated Chun Quai Tsik, the
Mandarin who shewed more active hostility against this Colony during
the Arrow-war, than any other officer of the Chinese government. It
is not by any means probable that this Chu Ahquai would have dared.
to shew himself in Hongkong-where his person was well-known-after
he had left it to turn pirate, rebel and mandarin ; and therefore it is not
too much to infer that this small sum of 22 Dollars was lent to him
while he was a resident in the Colony. Indeed the very fact of the note
remaining in Wong Akee's possession, is prima facie evidence that he
has not had the opportunity of enforcing its payment.
The probability of this sum being lent to Chu Alquai before he be
came pirate receives additional support also from the fact that Mr. May has
not thought fit to give the date of the note. All Chinese are very par
ticular about dates, and it would be absurd to suppose that in a note for
the payment of money a man of business like Wong Akee would omit
to insert the date. That the note had a date, I think there can be no
reasonable doubt. Why has Mr. May suppressed it ? Had the date
been one which would have made out the fact which it was so much Mr.
May's interest to establish, namely, that this money was lent to Chu
Ahquai during the time he was known to be engaged in piratical prac
tices, there is not a doubt that Mr. May would have set it forth . In
deed , to a man like Mr. May, who is said to possess some ability in
analyzing and sifting evidence, the date of the note would have been
the first point to which he would have directed his, attention ; and yet
this date, which would either have proved the truth of Mr. May's re
marks on this entry, or cleared Wong Akee's character, is not given !
It was clearly Mr. May's duty to furnish the date of a document (in it
self harmless) to which he has appended those damaging remarks . His
reason for suppressing it is best known to himself. If, on the other hand,
the note bore no date at all, it was equally his duty to have stated it, as
he has done to other entries in his memoranda, insignificant in their
character, and having no bearing whatever on the question of Wong
Akee's alleged connection with pirates.
The latter portion of Mr. May's remarks on this item deserve also to
be noticed :
"This man was the man charged with extortion, who Mah Tsow Wong aided to es
cape for which Mah Chow Wong was [let ? ] off."
45
The case to which this remark refers was as follows : -During the
time that Chu Ahquai was a resident in the Colony, and before he took
to his piratical courses, a charge of extortion was brought against him at
the Police Court. It was said or supposed that Chu Ahquai was con
cealed in Wong Akee's house, and a constable was sent to apprehend
him . The constable was an Indian, and having no warrant, and being
unable to make himself understood as to what he wanted, was forcing
himself upstairs into the family part of Wong Akee's house. Wong
Akee naturally objected to this proceeding, and would not allow the
Indian to enter. Upon this, Wong Akee was charged with having
obstructed the constable in the execution of his duty ! He was sum
moned before the Magistrate, but there was no proof whatever of Chụ
Ahquai being in Wong Akee's house, and altogether the circumstances
attending the supposed obstruction were such, that he was immediately
discharged.
But Wong Akee did not rest satisfied with this. In order to clear
himself of even a suspicion that he was harbouring Chu Ahquai, and
shielding him from justice, he immediately set about getting him appre
hended. He succeeded in doing so, and Chu Ahquai was committed
for trial. He was acquitted of the charge, and he immediately left the
Colony, in no friendly mood, it may be supposed , towards Wong Akee
for having been the cause of his apprehension . Chu Ahquai has never
since returned to Hongkong.
The above facts were perfectly well-known to Mr. May when he
penned his remarks on this particular item, for he applied to me at the
time (although I was not then in the service) to assist him in securing
the attendance of the witnesses at the trial against Chu Ahquai ; and
they bear the fullest confirmation of the fact of the 22 Dollars having
been lent to Chu Ahquai before his apprehension by Wong Akee's
means-before he left the Colony, and, a fortiori, before he became
rebel, pirate, and Mandarin as above stated . The imputation, there
fore, of Wong Akee's complicity with a " celebrated pirate, " so disinge
nuously introduced by Mr. May in his remarks on this particular trans
action, completely falls to the ground.
I have selected this one item for remark because, as I have said be
fore, it is the only one in the whole of these much vaunted memoranda
that has any reference whatever to pirates or piracy, and then only by
reason of the remarks Mr. May has attached to it ; the aggregate of the
items of ammunition and arms being barely sufficient for the ordinary
equipment of two large size trading lorchas, of which vessels Wong
Akee, for some time, owned four,
46
While upon the subject of these books and papers, I shall notice an
other of Mr. Anstey's charges against myself. He says in his pamphlet,
in reference to the report made by me on an examination by the acting
Chinese Secretary and myself, of the books and papers of Wong Akee
after his trial, by order of the Governor, that, "it is now admitted that
" this report had been prepared and presented by Mr. Caldwell himself,
" the party under suspicion of practising deceit upon the Government ;
" that the books and papers had actually been referred to him for that
"6
purpose, and that although the acting Chinese Secretary Mr. Mongan
" had been directed to help him, the chief part of the examination had
"( fallen on the accused, and that the labour of his assistant had been
66
" very cursory.' " He says further that the report was a false com
" pilation of the entries relating to the convict and Mr. Caldwell."
Now what are the facts ? After Wong Akee's trial his books and
papers were sent by the Government to the office of the Chinese Secre
tary. I was directed to report, with Mr. Mongan, the acting Chinese
Secretary, on whatever might be found in them " favourable or unfavour
able to Wong Akee." The acting Chinese Secretary had the books and
papers in his possession. They were contained in sealed parcels. Mr.
Mongan told me he had instructions not to let any of the books or papers
go out of his sight, and he was very particular about them. The exami
nation was conducted in the following manner :-Mr. Mongan, assisted
by his Chinese Teacher, sitting at one desk, opened each parcel and
examined their contents ; and as either document or entry struck his
attention it was handed over to me for translation , which, with the aid
of my Chinese clerk, sitting by me at another desk immediately in front
of Mr. Mongan, I performed . As I finished each translation, I returned
the original to Mr. Mongan, who then gave me another, and in this
manner we proceeded to the end of the examination .
The selection of each paper for translation was made by Mr. Mongan
himself. I had no means of seeing or making myself acquainted with
the contents of any of the books or papers save those which Mr. Mongan
selected and handed to me. The responsibility of the selection of the
entries and papers for translation, therefore, rested entirely with the acting
Chinese Secretary. I merely translated into English such as he thought
were necessary to be submitted to the Government. When I had com
pleted the report of the examination, I submitted it to Mr. Mongan for
correction ; he expressed himself satisfied with it, and the report was
then sent in to Government. It will be seen from this how little truth
there is in Mr. Anstey's statement that " the chief part of the examina
tion had fallen on me."
47
19
As to the charge of the report being " a false compilation of entries
let the acting Chinese Secretary speak for himself. He says in his evi
dence before the Commission, " I was requested to afford Mr. Caldwell
66
every assistance in my power in the translations required, favourable
" or unfavourable to Ma-chow Wong." " I was assisted by my Chi
66 nese teacher and Mr. Caldwell had his Chinese clerk. I and my
“ teacher first sorted the papers, and in doing so, ran over their contents
66 and any that were of a suspicious nature we put on one side." " The
"
' papers put on one side were then examined by Mr. Caldwell and the
" contents noted down . In doing this Mr. Caldwell consulted me, and
" also upon what he noted down . I think, but am not quite sure, that
"this examination occupied about three half-days. As far as I was con
" cerned, I should call it a cursory examination ; I should not call it a
66
searching one unless I went over every item myself and compared it
"with the books. Of this I am certain, that I saw nothing of a suspi
66
cious nature in the books which I did not put on one side, and I be
" lieve all those so put aside were afterwards examined. I think it
"hardly possibly that anything of a suspicious nature escaped me, but
" I cannot pledge myselfto the exact accuracy of every item noted down.
" I have read through the report made on the examination of the books
by Mr. Caldwell, and do not recollect seeing any entries of a suspicious
"L nature not therein enumerated ."
If therefore the report prepared by me from the books and papers
selected by the acting Chinese Secretary and handed to me for transla
tion, be, as Mr. Anstey asserts it is, a " false compilation of entries," and
does not contain the same entries which Mr. May has made in his me
moranda , the fault does not lie with me. But Mr. Anstey attempts to
account for the discrepancy between this report and Mr. May's memo
randa, by alleging that some of Wong Akee's papers must have been
abstracted between the time that Mr. May made his translations at the
Police Station, (which was before Wong Akee's trial ) and that of Mr.
Mongan's examination of them at the office of the Chinese Secretary ;
and although, strange enough, Mr. Anstey does not expressly charge me
with having made this abstraction, his insinuations point pretty broadly
thereto, for in his letter to the Secretary of State, he says, that " Mr.
" Caldwell and the convict's Attorney, Mr. Stace, had been allowed
" during the preparations for his trial to have free access to these im
"C
portant documents, and even according to one authority, to carry them
66
away from their temporary place of custody."
It is not true that I had free access to the books and papers of Wong
Akee previous to his trial, nor did I ask for or require it. Nor is it
true that they were carried away by me, or by any one else that I am
48
aware of, from their temporary place of custody. Mr. Stace, Wong
Akee's Solicitor, was permitted to see the papers at the Central Police
Station, and he had with him to assist him in his examination ofthem , a
Chinese preacher attached to the London Missionary Society's establish
ment ; a correct and upright man, in no way interested either for or
against Wong Akee . I was only there on two occasions on my way to
and from my office, once for about the space of half an hour, and once a
little longer. I took no part in the examination, and never even looked
into a book or document, save one unimportant paper which Mr. Jarman,
the head Inspector of Police, casually handed to me. Whether any
documents or books could possibly have been abstracted, will be best
seen from the following extracts from the evidence given before the Com
mission by Mr. Jarman himself, in whose care and custody the books
and papers remained from the time of their seizure, to that of their
transmission to the office of the Chinese Secretary :
$6
" While the books and papers were being examined I was sitting at the table on
which they were placed . I considered it a part of my duty to see that no papers
were taken away, and that all that were examined were returned to my custody, and C
I did so." of
" From the time I seized them until I sent them up to the Magistracy for trans
mission to the Government Offices, they remained in safe custody in my hands, and Ste
I do not think it possible that any ofthem could have been abstracted ." SC
A great deal has also been said to my prejudice by M. Anstey because,
when application had been made to the Government by some of the Chi
nese inhabitants for a pardon to Wong Akee, I interested myself in
support of the application . I admit that I did so, and I can only regret
that my endeavours did not prove successful . I did not at the time, nor do
I yet believe that Wong Akee was guilty of the offence of which he was
convicted. I do not believe that he ever confederated with pirates, or
had any connection with them. On the contrary, I knew that he was always
opposed to them both from inclination and personal interest, and that
he voluntarily gave information obtained by him from the fishing Junks,
in numerous instances against them, which often led to their destruction. se
The Acting Attorney General who prosecuted the case admitted that
20
the evidence against him was of a purely circumstantial nature , and the
verdict was such as the Judge himself did not expect from the evidence. I S
believed at the time, and do still believe that Wong Akee was the
victim of a certain person's envious feelings against myself, and spite
against the man who had made himself so useful to me when I was
Assistant Superintendent of Police ; of Mr. Dixson's private feelings of
animosity, which induced him by means of his paper the China Mail,
to prejudice the public mind against him ; and of the hostility of the
49
Chinese Interpreters of the Police Court (always, from their position,
men of influence among their countrymen) and other subordinates in
the Police, to whom Wong Akee had rendered himself obnoxious by
bringing to light their mal-practices, and who saw the efforts which
were being made by their chief to crush him. I may not succeed in
removing the prejudice which exists against Wong Akee ; but that shall
not deter me from expressing my own convictions regarding him.
Besides being actuated by a conviction of Wong Akee's innocence, I
interested myself in his behalf in consideration of his many acts of public
usefulness, of the many instances of valuable and truthful information
he readily and willingly gave me against delinquents in the Colony, but
more especially against the pirates of the China Seas ; and it was to his
activity and fidelity that I probably owed my own life, when it was
placed in jeopardy by the offer of the Mandarin's reward of 20,000
Dollars for my head. He it was who gave me information of the pre
sence in the Colony of the Mandarins ' emissaries . If, in aiding the
application for a pardon to Wong Akee under such circumstances, be a
crime, I at once freely confess it, and I give Mr. Anstey the full benefit
of the admission. From first to last I believed the case to be one of
bardship and oppression, and in assisting the prisoner, I neither over
stepped the line of my duty as Protector of Chinese, nor committed an
act which could, by any possibility, render me liable to censure .
Much has also been said by Mr. Anstey about the burning of Wong
Akee's books after the decision on the application for his pardon had
been given . This application was refused, and Wong Akee was left to
undergo his sentence. What further use was there for a parcel of Chi
nese books which, according to the Acting Chinese Secretary, were only
lumbering his office ? This officer complained of the incumbrance, and
they were ordered to be burnt ; and Mr. Anstey seizes that circum
stance to indulge in further detraction of myself. He does not allege
that I had anything to do with the burning ofthe books, but he professes
to be under the " conviction " that they contained evidence against my
self of complicity with pirates, &c. , and he charges the authorities with
having destroyed these books for the purpose of screening me ! Were
not these books examined by Mr. Anstey's own accomplice Mr. May ?
and was not the discovery of accusatory matter against myself one of
Mr. May's objects in doing so ? Mr. May has embodied the results of
his search in his memoranda so often referred to by Mr. Anstey, and so
much relied on by him in his charges against myself. If these books
contained proofs of my complicity with pirates or of any other offence,
how is it that Mr. May has not set them forth in his memoranda ?
Could he, or would he have overlooked them had they been there ?
50
These books and papers were, during several weeks in his custody, or
under his control ; and if his memoranda do not contain the damnatory
evidence Mr. Anstey refers to, we may rest assured it was not from
want of inclination or industry on the part of Mr. May, and his Chinese.
Interpreter.
The Commissioners in their report when referring to the burning of
these books, state, that " it has been clearly proved that their destruction
"was ordered solely because they incumbered the Chinese Secretary's
(6
office, while it appeared that they were then of no value, and could not
"be further required ."
There are some other accusations of a minor character which Mr.
Anstey sets forth against me, such as what he calls " deceiving Mr. May
into the delivery of certain gold dust to a false claimant "—imputing a
want of honesty to me, on the opinion of Mr. Hudson , in the failure of
an attempt to discover the perpetrators in a case of robbery of tin, &c.,
which I can afford to treat with contempt, since I have shewn how little
his other statements are entitled to credit, even in his more serious charges
against me. I will merely say that these accusations exhibit the same
perversions of fact, the same flagrant disregard to truth, which character
face of them the
1 ise all his other charges, and that they bear upon the
same malignant impress.
I feel satisfied that no one possessing any delicacy of feeling, will ex
pect me to enter into the particulars of the infamous and unmanly attempt
"
Mr. Anstey has made to defame the character of my wife ; as if his ac
cusations against myself were not sufficient, in themselves, to satisfy his
insatiable malignity. It will, I trust, suffice, if I declare in the most so
lemn and earnest manner, that the aspersion against my wife is as false
as it is dastardly, and that it has foundation neither in fact nor probabi
lity. That Mr. Inglis was mistaken in the conclusion he arrived at
when giving his evidence before the Commission, is a question which,
those who knew my wife never for a moment doubted ; and that he made
this statement under a misapprehension of a circumstance occurring as
far back as thirteen years ago, rather than from a deliberate intention to
traduce an innocent woman, I am willing to believe . I can only hope
that Mr. Inglis may yet see his error, and when he does so, that his sense
of honor, and his feelings as a gentleman , will induce him to come forward
and frankly avow it. Of Mr. Anstey I have no such hope.
I deem it necessary also, in justice to myself, to make a few observa
tions on some of the proceedings and findings of the Commissioners .
Although the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the charges
brought against me by Mr. Anstey have acquitted me of the whole of
them, I cannot help taking exception to the vague and ambiguous man
51'
ner in which some of their findings are worded. That two of the mem
*
bers of that Commission exhibited from the commencement a strong bias
against me, was too palpable to be doubted. Mr. Cleverly, the Chairman,
Mr. Lyall, and Mr. Fletcher I believe to have been actuated by an up
right and impartial feeling to arrive at the truth of the matters they had
been appointed to investigate, however distasteful and repugnant to their
sense of delicacy, many of the questions brought forward by Mr. Anstey,
may have been. I cannot however pay the same tribute to either of the
two other members, Mr. Davies and Mr. Scarth. The former was no
toriously a partisan of Mr. Anstey, and did his best to support him in his
iniquitous proceedings against me. Mr. Davies' conduct, even after the
close of the Commission, in taking the extra-judicial statement of a man
named Kirtly- another instrument in the hands of Messrs . Anstey and
May- involving grave charges against myself (the falsity ofwhich I had
no difficulty in establishing to the entire satisfaction of His Excellency
the Governor) and forwarding the same to the Government, in the hope
of further injuring my character, was of so gross a nature, that I felt it
my duty to bring his conduct publicly to the notice of the Government,
with a request that some official cognizance might be taken of so flagrant
an abuse of his powers as a Magistrate.
Of the other member, Mr. Scarth, and his ability to form an opinion
on the various matters investigated by the Commission, I leave the reader
to judge, when I quote his friend Mr. Anstey's own words respecting
him. In para : 37 of his letter to the Secretary of State, in speaking of
Mr. Scarth, Mr. Anstey says, that " his extensive mercantile occupations
" elsewhere, caused him to be absent [from the sittings of the Commis
66 sion] whole days, and seldom allowed him to be present for more than
" an hour at a time during any one sitting of the commission." How
could such a man undertake to give an opinion at all ? It is true he
may have read the minutes of the evidence ; (which I very much doubt,
considering his " extensive mercantile occupations") but it is not so
much from the evidence of a witness, as from his demeanor at the time
of giving it, that its value should be judged. Mr. Scarth had few or
no opportunities of witnessing what was so palpable at this investiga
tion, namely, the undisguised animosity of the prosecutor-the strong
animus of his chief witness, Mr. May, and the gross prevarications of
others. Knowing his dificiency in this respect, Mr. Scarth seems to
have entirely surrendered his judgment to the keeping of Mr. Davies,
for in his own letter to Mr. Anstey, as quoted by the latter, there occurs
this extraordinary passage : " Excuse haste as I am off to Macao. But
""
as Mr. Davies and I agree in nearly all matters relative to the Cald
" well inquiry, he will actfor me ifthere is any thing to be done infurther
52
66 giving an opinion on the subject " ! I need say no more of the unfitness
of such a person to form a correct judgment on the various matters
brought before the Commission , which involved the examination of Six
ty-nine witnesses , which occupied in their investigation no less than
Twenty-five sittings , extending over a period of Seven weeks, and from
which he was " whole days" absent, and never present " more than an
hour at a time during any one sitting " !
One of Mr. Anstey's charges against me was the following :
" Charge 13.-With inducing the Attorney General at the beginning of 1857 to
order the release of a great number of men, who Mr. May knows to have been pirates ,
and who Mr. Caldwell ought to have known at the time were pirates."
The charge itself, to say the least of it, is an extraordinary one-the
finding thereon, however, is still more so :
" Finding. That of the fact stated in charge 13 of the release ofthe men upon
Mr. Caldwell's representation as to their character there is no doubt whatever ; and that
it appears incomprehensible how any person, 1 with Mr. Caldwell's knowledge ofthe
Chinese language and holding the appointment he did, could have been ignorant of
the boats in which the men were seized, and that one at least ofthese men was a
notorious pirate, particularly, as it is in evidence that Mah - chow Wong was connected
with the boats."
This finding contains the strongest reflection on my conduct in the
whole report of the Commissioners, and yet the evidence given in sup
port of the charge was not only weak and contradictory, but of the most
worthless character. All that I had to do with the question was this :
Mr. Grand-Pré, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, was directed to
examine the suspected boats and to report upon their character, and I
was desired by the Colonial Secretary to accompany Mr. Grand-Pré and
assist him with my opinion on the subject. This I did. I examined
the boats, their papers, armament, &c., and I found nothing in any of
them to induce me to suppose that they were pirate boats. They had
Registers under the official seal of the Kwun Mun Foo of Canton, their
cargo-books shewed that they had been trading between Shan-tung and
Hoi How, and their books with the list and wages of the crew shewed
that they did not carry more men than other trading boats of their size.
Pirate vessels always carry a larger number of men than trading vessels ;.
but the armament of a trading junk and that of a pirate junk is, general
ly, pretty nearly equal, for the former find it necessary, for their own
protection, to go about quite as heavily armed as their enemies.
There was not a syllable in the evidence brought before the Commis
sion to shew that my opinion of the character of the two boats was not a
correct one. An attempt was made by Mr. May to shew that a man
named Po Pak Shing found on board of one of the boats was a " pirate
53
chief” and a “ notorious pirate ;" but he knew nothing of the man him
self, and merely judged from hearsay—his informant being Ah -sow or
Munsow, a Police Interpreter, a man of worthless character and since
: discharged from the service for corruption . This man says in his evi
1 dence " I know Po Pak Shing from what I have heard to be a notorious
66
pirate." This is all he says about him, and this is Mr. May's reason
for believing Po Pak Shing to be a pirate, as far back, as he says, as
July 1857. I certainly had never heard of the man until he was arrest
10 ed with his crew on board of his boat on this particular occasion , which
was at the instance of a Portuguese who, Mr. May says, " positively
" identified Po Pak Shing as a Pirate Chief, and the others as pirates "
R in an attack at Ningpo. But because a Portuguese chooses to swear to
the identity of Po Pak Shing as being a Pirate Chief at a place 700
miles distant from Hongkong, and Mr. May's delinquent Interpreter
གྲུ
makes the unsupported assertion that "he knew, from what he had heard,
" that Po Pak Shing was a notorious pirate," the Commissioners declare
it to be " incomprehensible to them how any person with my knowledge
" of the Chinese language and holding the appointment I did, could
" have been ignorant of the boats " in which he was seized !
I still adhere to the opinion I originally expressed, that there was
nothing in the appearance of the boats themselves— their equipment, or
armament- the character of their papers, or the number of their crews, to
indicate that they were pirate vessels, and there was no attempt to shew
the contrary. It is rather too much for the Commissioners to assume
that because I speak the Chinese language and because I hold the ap
pointment of Registrar General, I must know every pirate (even though
I may never have seen or heard of him) among the thousands that infest
the China seas, and that I ought also to know every pirate boat, that
though engaged in piracy at sea, may, nevertheless, when she comes
into harbour, conceal the marks of her calling and have all the attributes
and appearances of a peaceful trader !
Po Pak Shing's own account of himself as given at the Police office
had all the appearance of truth in it. It was as follows : That he was at
Ningpo for the purposes of trade at the time of the disgraceful fights
between the Cantonese and Portuguese at that port. That his own
vessel, in common with other trading junks then lying there, was press
ed into the service of the Chinese government, by the Mandarins, for the
purpose of resisting the attacks of the Portuguese lorchas, and that he
thus took part with the Mandarins in that affair. After peace had been
restored, his junk was released, and he resumed his trading operations.
It is not at all unlikely that the Portuguese who made the charge of
piracy was one of those " sanguinary harpies," described by Dr. McGowan
54
as being engaged in these Ningpo fights- nine tenths of whom he says
were Portuguese-on which occasion he may have recognized the junk
and possibly the person of Po Pak Shing, and hence his reason for calling
him a "6 Pirate chief."
Whether there was any connection between Mah-chow Wong and
these boats I had no means of knowing, nor was it likely that I would
have known it. The only evidence of any such connection is the state
ment made by one of Mr. May's constables (De Silva, another Por
tuguese) who says that he saw Mah-chow Wong on board of one of the
boats as he was passing it, which piece of evidence certainly looks as if
it had been got up for the sole purpose of connecting Mah-chow Wong
with the boats.
It was in reference to this charge that Mr. Anstey made the follow
ing statement to the Commissioners : " I think there were about five
" and twenty people whom I discharged on the occasion in question.
" I was sitting in my rota as Justice of the Peace according to the then
" recently gazetted arrangement. The Police brought them up and
66
charged them with being notorious pirates. The deportation Ordi
" nance was then in full vigour, and my thought was, to send them
" before His Excellency in executive council for deportation. But Mr.
" Caldwell came before me and upon oath declared them to be peaceful
" traders and not pirates nor reputed pirates." Now here is a delibe
rate statement made by Mr. Anstey in support of his own charge against
me of inducing him to order the discharge of a great number of men
whom, he says, I ought to have known at the time were pirates. I never
induced Mr. Anstey to discharge these men, and they were not in fact
discharged, but held to bail by him. I never made oath before him in
the case at all, nor did I declare before him that these men were peace
able traders and not pirates. It was Mr. Grand-Pré, the Assistant
Superintendent of Police, who appeared before Mr. Anstey and made the
statement on oath with reference to these men. It is true, that when
Mr. Anstey found that this false statement of his against myself would
not hold good, he, after the lapse of a whole week, and after " refreshing
his memory," as he calls it, wished to correct himself. But how does he
do it ? He has not the candour and honesty to state in a frank and
straight-forward manner that he was mistaken (if it really was a mistake
and not a deliberate mis -statement) that I really had nothing to do with
his decision, and that it was on Mr. Grand- Pré's evidence that he released
the men and not mine ; but he says, " Instead of saying that I dischar
" ged the prisoners, I ought to have said that I dismissed the charge and
" liberated them on bail-not heavy bail. I also find that the oath on
which Mr. Caldwell made the application was not his own path but
ĐỀĐ
55
" that of his subordinate Mr. Grand- Pré." He is unwilling to state
the plain and simple fact that it was Mr. Grand- Pré and not myself who
appeared before him and made oath to the facts, for he would then con
vict himself of a falsehood. He is equally unwilling to exonerate me
altogether from blame ; so he still drags my name in, and in his own
tortuous language , says, " the oath on which Mr. Caldwell made his ap
"plication was not his own oath but that of Mr. Grand- Pré " ! How
could Mr. Grand- Pré's oath be my oath-or how could my oath be Mr.
Grand-Pré's ? Mr. Grand-Pré moreover, as Assistant Superintendent of
Police, was, at that time, the subordinate of Mr. May, the Superintendent
of Police, and not of myself as Registrar General and Protector of Chi
nese.
Another finding of the Commissioners, at which I have cause to feel
aggrieved, is the following : " That with regard to charge 6-a long and
" intimate connection between Mr. Caldwell and Mah-chow Wong has
"been proved, but that there is no proof of affinity according to Chi
66
nese law and custom," and in another place-" notwithstanding these
" facts, coupled with the circumstance of Mr. Caldwell's connection with
66 so notorious a character as Mah- chow Wong, &c."
Now what I have to complain of in the above finding is its ambiguity
and want of precision with respect to the nature of the connection, which
P₂ the Commissioners say, existed between myself and Wong Akee . I
have already detailed the instances in which I have ever had transactions
with Wong Akee, and there was no connection proved which I had not
already admitted. I have made free use of him in obtaining information
1
leading to the destruction of pirates at sea, and the punishment of de
linquents in the Colony ; and I have had pecuniary and mercantile tran
13 sactions with him at a time when I was in no manner connected with
the Government service, and when nothing was shewn against the man's
character for honesty and probity. This was the whole extent of my
connection with Wong Akee, and who can say that there was anything
improper or blameable in it ? An attempt was made to shew that there
was, what Mr. Anstey calls, " a bond, of affinity by adoption according
to Chinese law " between Wong Akee and myself, the meaning ofwhich
I do not quite comprehend, but of which, the Commissioners say, there
ake was no proof. It was in fact only another of Mr. Anstey's wild asser
tions. Even Mr. May, with all his animosity against myself, and his
petty spite against the man, does not go the length of saying that I even
Ar admitted Wong Akee to terms of intimacy ; for he states in his evidence :
200 " I have seen Mah-chow Wong seven or eight times in Mr. Caldwell's
" house. I may instance on one occasion I saw him in a room used as
66
Bar an office in Mr. Caldwell's house in Gough Street. I went there early
56
" in 1857 about a case then under inquiry in connection with the
" conspiracy to carry off Colonel Caine and Mr. Caldwell. Mah
" chow Wong was then seated in Mr. Caldwell's office.* I have
66
never seen him there in the position of a friend. In the one case
. " already mentioned he was there I believe on business connected with
"the prosecution, and on the other occasion he did not appear to be there
" as a friend." This is the evidence of Mr. May. If there was anything
blameable or improper in the connection alluded to by the Commissioners
in their finding, it was their duty to have stated it. If there was not, it
was equally their duty to have said so, and not leave the question in the
ambiguous and doubtful state in which it now stands on their finding ;
unjust to the Government if, in their opinion , the connection was a cul
pable one-still more unjust to myself, if they believed it to be an inno
cent one .
I have also another instance of unfairness to myself on the part of the
Commissioners to complain of.
In the revised printed copy of the evidence published by the Commis
sioners, they have omitted the following passage from the evidence of Dr.
Bridges, the Acting Colonial Secretary :
" Upon reference to a memo. I am enabled to state that my charge to the Governor
against Mr. May was, that the Superintendent of Police, being a married man, had
been keeping a mistress within one door of a Brothel kept open in violation ofthe
Ordinance restricting such houses to a certain locality. The fact of the existence of
the Brothel being notorious to the neighbourhood, and no attempt having been made
on the part of the Superintendent of Police to put it down.
" Secondly. That the Superintendent of Police had given tacit opposition to the
Brothel Ordinance from the commencement, and in this specific instance, positive en
couragement to offenders. That the whole Police force would necessarily follow the
lead of their chief, and it would be impossible to carry out the Ordinance, with the
Police force in opposition to it. The matter was taken out of my hands, and there is
nothing in these documents to inform me whether the whole of these charges were
referred to the Chief Magistrate to inquire into, or whether they were sent to Mr. May.
The reprimand in His Excellency's words, conveyed by me to Mr. May, was made on
the special matter reported to him, as well as on the general charge of not rendering
assistance in carrying out the Ordinance.
The Commissioners have also omitted from the evidence of Mr. May's
own servant, Yoong Ayoong, the following passage :
" I went with my mistress and two children dressed in English clothes to East
street in Tai-ping-shan . I do not know my mistress' name, nor whether she is a
Chinese. She has been dressed in English clothes ever since I have been in the
service. My mistress does not live in the same house as my master. She lives in
a house behind the chapel in Hollywood Road. By my mistress I mean my
master's wife."
*
Wong Akee was there upon the same errand which brought Mr. May.
57
At the time that the evidence was given, Mr. May made application to
the Commissioners to have these two portions of it expunged. The Com
missioners replied that they would do so provided that I had no objections.
I stated that I most decidedly objected to any portion of them being left
out of the minutes ; it was decided that they should remain, and they
were accordingly printed with the day's proceedings ; but in their cor
rected printed copy of the evidence published by the Commissioners these
portions are omitted .
As much care was taken to publish every thing which occurred on the
inquiry tending to injure the character of my wife and myself, most of
which was brought forward by Mr. May-whose moral character would
thus appear to be establishd— I can only look upon the omission of the
passage affecting him, to be an unjustifiable attempt to screen him from
the odium his real character so richly deserves.
From the time that Mr. Anstey first commenced his system of vilify
ing me, to that of his leaving the Colony, he systematically opposed every
public act of mine-every measure which he believed to emanate from
myself. His attempts to injure me were many and various. Some
idea may be formed of his vexatious proceedings from the circumstances
detailed in the following case.
By Ordinance No. 8 of 1858 no public meeting is permitted to be held
by Chinese in the Colony except by permission of the Governor. On
the 10th of December of that year I received information from the Teepo*
of the Lower Bazaar that all the Pork-butchers of the Colony were about
to form themselves into a society for some purpose which he had not
been able to assertain, and that they intended to hold a meeting that
afternoon at a large public eating-house in the Bazaar, when the rules
of the association were to be read and discussed. A large feast had been
prepared for the occasion, and all who partook of it would be considered
as thereby consenting to become members of the society. Knowing
that no permission had been granted by the Governor for holding this
meeting, and suspecting that it was for some unlawful purpose, I in
formed Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police, of the matter, and in the
first instance, left him to deal with it. Upon further consultation with
him, however, I consented to go to the place of meeting myself and give
my assistance in endeavouring to discover the object of the proposed
society. The Police received their instructions from their Superintendent
and acted upon them. I also went to the house but not in company
with the Police. We found about 40 men assembled, and we found also
a paper containing the rules of the association, the object of which was,
* A head Chinese district officer, elected by the people and appointed by the Governor.
58
by concert and combination , to form a league for the purpose of raising
and keeping up the price of pork in the Colony. Those who appeared
to be the principal persons were taken to the Station, where a charge for
breach of the 22nd section of the Ordinance was preferred against them,
as well as a charge for unlawful combination . The next morning the
Defendants were brought before the Assistant Magistrate, Mr. Mitchell,
and my evidence • was
taken. The Magistrate considered the case to be
one of so grave a nature that he declared he would not deal with it
summarily, but would refer it to the Supreme Court. He expressed his
satisfaction that I had been the means of bringing to light one of those
mischievous combinations so common among the Chinese, and tending,
as in this case, to cause hardship to the people by enhancing the price
of provisions.
The case was accordingly deferred, and a day or two afterwards I was
informed that I must be prepared to satisfy the Magistrate that the
meeting was a public one, and that it was held for the purposes of com
bination ; both of which I was quite prepared to do. I heard nothing
" more about the case, however, until the 17th, when I received a note
from the usher of the Chief Magistrate's (Mr. Davies) Court requesting
my attendance. On reaching the Court I was informed by Mr. Davies,
to my surprise, that Mr. Anstey had been there on behalf of the pork
butchers, and that he, Mr. Davies, had discharged them ! That Mr.
Anstey had applied for his costs against me, which he had refused to
grant ; that Mr. Anstey had also applied to have me fined for a malicious
arrest, which also he had refused, and that Mr. Anstey had then threat
ened to take the matter into the Supreme Court.
Comment here is unnecessary. The magic of Mr. Anstey's presence
and the fact of the case being one in which I had taken a prominent
part, were sufficient to overrule the stong opinion formed of the case
Mr. Mitchell, the Assistant Magistrate, and to dispense with the neces
sity of any further proof.
The case however did not end here. Mr. Anstey had not succeeded
in his attempts to get me mulct although he had got the offending pork
butchers discharged. Three days afterwards I was served with two
writs of Summons at the suits of two of the butchers, each for the sum
of a thousand dollars damages for arrest and false imprisonment. This
would have been legitimate enough had it been done in the regular way;
but no person could have been more astonished than were the two but
chers themselves when they afterwards heard that summonses had been
issued against me in their names to recover damages for the alleged
malicious arrest. They declared that they never gave any instructions
intention
or authority for any such proceeding that they never had any
59
of doing so, and that they knew nothing whatever about it. They could
only account for these proceedings by the following circumstance. They
stated that on the day after they had been discharged by the Chief Ma
gistrate, Mr. Tarrant (the Editor of the Friend of China newspaper)
came to their house with his servant and asked them if they were two of
the pork-butchers that had been apprehended by Mr. Caldwell. On their
replying in the affirmative Mr, Tarrant told them they must go with him.
They did so. Mr. Tarrant took them to the house of Mr. Anstey, and
after some conversation between these two gentlemen, they were taken
by Mr. Tarrant to the office of a Solicitor, who asked them their names
and also if they had been apprehended by Mr. Caldwell, and they were
then told to go away. They further stated that nothing was mentioned
to them, either by Mr. Anstey or any one else, about issuing summonses
against me, that they paid no money to the Solicitor, nor were they asked
to do so, nor did they sign any paper. This is what these men volunta
rily told me, which they said they were ready to verify, and there were
others who heard their statement. It also receives singular confirmation
from the following letter which had been picked up by a friend - found
open, and handed to me. It was in the handwriting of Mr. Tarrant
and addressed to Mr. Anstey. I put it into the hands of two gentlemen
thoroughly conversant with Mr. Tarrant's handwriting-a certified copy
of it was made, and I sent the original to Mr. Tarrant with my compli
ments :
2 STAUNTON STREET, 29/12/58.
DEAR SIR,-In the Pork Butchers case hearing from * last night that
Caldwell was going to prove that the Chinese Plaintiffs had never instructed an action
for pecuniary damages, and, as it would follow, had never requested any further action
than their release, I sent for the man, Chuu Assoo, who acted as spokesman between
myself and the Plaintiffs, and he has told me that Caldwell has called on them, and
they have assured him, Chinese-like, they did not want to trouble him—what is being
done is not their doing, & c.
I send this letter by Chun Assoo himself that you may hear this from his own lips.
I think under the circumstances, it will be best to let Mr. Caldwell fall between the
stools, i.e. let the action drop on the presumption which the public cannot but arrive
at, that the terror we are trying to subdue has been too much in the present case.
The public on learning the fact of his having called on the man, which I will duly
report to-night, will form their own opinions and be disposed to aid in stopping his
fun just as warmly as if the case went to trial. Prior to seeing Mr. I went
to see Mr. " but he was out.
I had written the article in the Overland edition of my paper for to-morrow, of
which I enclose proof.-I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
W. TARRANT.
P.S.-I have been thinking of a memorial to the Executive Council to be signed
by the oppressed Pork Butchers, or some of them of whom I could make sure. Pro
perly pleaded it should effect what is necessary.
*
I omit the name of the gentleman here referred to. The italics are my own.
60
• This letter admits us into the penetralia of the connection which
appears to have existed between Messrs. Anstey and Tarrant. Proofs
of articles intended to appear in that low and scurrilous paper are first
submitted for Mr. Anstey's approval, and we now know where to trace
the origin of those libellous attacks which of late so frequently appeared
in that paper against myself and others.
I need scarcely add that there was an end of this particular attempt
to injure me, though the astonished and deceived butchers were called
upon to pay the costs of the two cases, which they had not the means of
doing, and, to avoid incarceration, were compelled to leave the Colony.
I impute no blame to the solicitor engaged, who, I verily believe, took
his instructions from Mr. Tarrant in the full belief that he represented
the wishes of the two butchers ; but it was a case of cruel hardship to
these poor men, who were compelled to leave their homes and give up
their sources of livelihood to avoid the consequences of the law suits into
which they had been inveigled by Mr. Tarrant and Mr. Anstey, to say
nothing ofthe gross conspiracy which the letter of Mr. Tarrant so clearly
reveals had been entered into by these two persons to injure myself.
Both Mr. Anstey and Mr. May have stated that I was detested by the
Chinese of the Colony on account of the " terror," which they allege, I
exercised over them, and that it was in consequence of this terror that
the Chinese shewed a reluctance to appear and give evidence against me
at the inquiry. As to this last allegation I find, on looking over the
minutes of the evidence taken by the Commissioners, that out of 69 wit
nesses examined, no less than 32 were Chinese ; the whole of whom,
with the exception of 4, were brought forward by Messrs. May and
Anstey or called by the Commissioners ; and although it is true that
(save the immediate retainers of Mr. May) they said little or nothing to
my prejudice, it at least shews that there was no disinclination on the
part of the Chinese to come forward if they really had anything to say
against me. But the following circumstance will shew what little
truth there was in the above statement ; and with it I shall close my
replies to Mr. Anstey's accusations."
In the month of February 1859 I was temporarily absent from the
Colony on special duty, and it was rumoured amongst the Chinese that
I was to be removed from the Colonial service. When I returned I
found that a Petition had been presented by the Chinese to His Excel
lency the Governor of which I give a translation :
" The Petition of the [ Chinese] Merchants and Teepos ofthe whole of Hongkong,
to His Excellency the Governor, praying His Excellency's clear consideration and
skilful disposal of the matter [ mentioned therein. ]
61
" During the years which we have peacefully passed under Your Excellency's rule,
we have not failed to be deeply sensible of the benefits derived from those who have
governed us well- and whilst fearing their dignity we have felt grateful to them. For
instance, the late Chief Magistrate Mr. Hillier, and since him, Mr. Caldwell the Pro
tector of Chinese, both were thoroughly versed in Chinese affairs, and though firm
were yet merciful and kind , and the consequence is that traders and people from all
quarters have congregated in this place.
" Mr. Caldwell still holds the office of Protector of Chinese and his doing so is the
consumation of our wishes and a great blessing. But we have lately seen it rumour
ed in the newspapers that he is about to resign with the intention of returning home.
We cannot but feel deeply concerned at this, and hasten to write in beseeching Your
Excellency to be pleased to detain him in office in order that our security may be
continued [the attainment of which desire] will cause the people to say in their glad
ness that they have two heavens over them, and the whole place to be grateful for
Your Excellency's favor.
Signed by 918 Merchants, Shopkeepers, and Teepos.
February , 1859.
The 918 merchants and shop-keepers who signed this Petition were
the most respectable and influential men in the Colony ; and I believe
that a Petition more numerously and more respectably signed was never
before presented to the Government on any occasion whatosever. It was
a spontaneous act on the part of this large and influential body of men ,
done during my absence, and beyond all doubt dictated by a feeling of
disquietude and regret at the apprehended removal of a public officer
whose duties brought him into such intimate relations with themselves,
and in whose public conduct they felt confidence and security. I print
it here not only as a refutation of the statement that I was held in de
testation and dread by the Chinese, but as a proof of the utility and
appreciation of the office of Protector of Chinese, as it is at present
exercised, by the class of persons for whose benefit it was especially
created, notwithstanding Mr. Anstey's attempts to decry it.
In judging of the credibility of evidence it is usual to take into con
sideration the character of the witness. That is indeed the surest test of
its value. The damaging notoriety which Mr. Anstey has established
for himself fortunately relieves me of the necessity of saying any thing
further in proof of his utter untrustworthiness than I have already done
in the preceding pages ; but Mr. May's claims to public discredit may
not be so well known . Not wishing to expose myself to the charge of
recrimination , I shall say nothing of his antecedents, but confine myself
to the relation of a single instance of his perfidy to myself, which I think
will suffice to shew the character of the man.
Until a short time previous to the commencement of Mr. Anstey's
crusade against me, I had always regarded Mr. May as one of my truest
and most-to - be -trusted friends. My house was open to him at all hours
62
a seat at my table was always at his disposal, and he freely availed
himself of my hospitality. Our relations indeed were upon the most
friendly and confidential footing, and they were further strengthened by
the circumstance of our being in the same department of the service. I
never dreamt of placing check or restraint on my almost daily intercourse
and conversation with one whose professions led me to believe to be sin
cerely interested in my welfare. I little thought that under the mask of
friendship this man was insinuating himself into my confidence-worm
ing out my thoughts- making himself master of my actions- noting
every remark which fell unthinkingly from my lips and treasuring all this
up for the purpose of some day using them in order to crush and ruin the
man who had been blind enough to trust in his professions of friendship.
" That this picture, repulsive as it is, is not overdrawn, let any one who
doubts it read Mr. May's evidence against me given before the Commis
sion of Inquiry. Does he conceal any thing -no matter how the informa
tion may have been acquired, or how vague the nature of it- which he
• thinks may tend to my prejudice ? He does not altogether deny that he
was on friendly relations with me, but he qualifies it in such terms as
" he may have been some half a dozen times at my house-he may have
" done this or he may have done that." It would not have done for him
to have admitted the full extent of this intimacy, for he would then have
stood convicted, on his own admission, of his subsequent treachery ; but
there are many of my friends still in the Colony who have had ample
opportunities of witnessing at my house the frequency of Mr. May's pre
sence there and the unrestrained nature of my intercourse with him, who
were not a little amazed, and shocked too , when they read the extraor
dinary evidence he gave before the commission in reference to it.
One of the charges brought against me by Mr. Anstey was : " WithK
(6
having informed Mr. May that although he, Mr. Caldwell, would not
" himself take bribes he would not object to his wife doing so."
Mr. May himself came forward to support this charge and he related
the following incident in proof of it :
" Upon another occasion, I should fancy three or four years ago, Mr. Caldwell
mentioned to me that if he did not receive presents with his own hands he should not
object to his wife receiving them."
Let us examine what foundation Mr. May had for making such an
assertion.
In 1854 an American gentleman of the name of Perkins was most
barbarously murdered and robbed by Chinese on his way from Hongkong
to Macao in a boat in which he had taken his passage. The event caused
great excitement and indignation in the Colony, and I used very great
63
exertions to discover the murderers. After much labour and anxiety, I
succeeded in tracing them, and had two of them apprehended. They
were tried, convicted , and one of them was executed. The United States B
Vice Consul of Canton on behalf of the relatives and friends of the mur
dered gentleman, in gratitude for the exertions I had made in discover
ing the murderers, wished to present me with a testimonial, (value £ 100)
but the local government refused permission to my receiving it without
a previous representation home. I naturally thought this a hardship,
and while chatting in a friendly way with Mr. May in my own house,
my wife and some others being present, I said, " It is a great shame :
" the next time I shall ask them to give it to my wife." This was all
that took place, and these trifling words, treasured up for years by the
" conscientious and zealous Mr. May," as Mr. Anstey calls him, are re
produced as indicating a willingness on my part to consent to my wife
taking bribes, and formed into a charge against me ! The finding ofthe
Commissioners was : " That there were no grounds whatever for bring
" ing the charge."
I have now replied to the principal accusations Mr. Anstey has made
against me. I have shewn, I trust, their utter falsity as well as their
malignity. I have shewn his wilful perversions of fact, and his
base and unscrupulous inventions. I have also shewn something
(but only a little in comparison with what I might have done) of
the morals of the man, whose pretensions to virtue were such , that
he declared he could not possibly allow his name to remain in the
Commission of the Peace, whilst I retained a seat on the Magisterial
Bench ! I have shewn also the untrustworthiness and perfidy of his
accomplice and chief witness Mr. May-his envy and jealousy-his
coveting of the offices I hold, and his direct interest in getting me re
moved from the service. A more detestable conspiracy on the part of
two public officers to disgrace and ruin a brother officer I do believe was
never before perpetrated ; and I leave their conduct to the just repre
hension of all right thinking persons. One of my accusers has since
been removed from the public service, and it would be no more than just
if a similar retribution were visited upon the other.
In conclusion I venture to append to this paper, in further refutation
of the scandalous accusation of my having been connected with pirates
and participated in the profits derived from piratical expeditions , the
testimony borne to the exertions I have for many years made in the sup
pression of piracy in the China Seas, by the officers of Her Majesty's
Navy.
I place first on record two despatches of Rear- Admiral Sir Michael
Seymour, G.C.B. , whose distinguished chracter, great sagacity, and
64
unusual acquaintance with the subject of piracy and every thing con
nected with the maritime affairs of the Chinese, entitle his opinions to
the very highest respect ; and whose unsolicited testimony in favor of
myself and on the wide spread existence of Chinese piracy, I look upon
as sufficient to cast into utter insignificance and contempt the ravings
of a displaced Attorney Generala discomfited prosecutor and a dis
contented monomaniac. 'da 1
9 45
11 D. R. CALDWELL .
# "
31
•
• 21
rf
}
tangle
10.
} th
};
Is
DOS
an
37
IB
ort
oa
+ 17
91
12 8
65
6:
Culcutta," at HONGKONG, 28th March, 1857.
SIR, I have the honor to bring to Your Excellency's notice the
valuable services rendered to this Colony by Mr. Caldwell, Registrar
General, on several occasions when lent to Her Majesty's ships to act
as Interpreter in pursuit of piratical craft near Hongkong.
On these expeditions Mr. Caldwell from his intimate knowledge of
the Chinese language and customs, has enabled the Commanders of Her
Majesty's ships to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, a
question of great difficulty without such assistance, and his presence has
mainly contributed to success .
The service of capturing Pirates is not without danger, and as Mr.
Caldwell invariably shares the risk without the hopes of promotion or
honors which actuate Her Majesty's officers, I am induced to bring the
subject to Your Excellency's notice in the hope of this gentleman obtain
ing some reward for his services, as well as a promise of provision for
his family should any casualty unfortunately occur on any subsequent
occasion.
On referring to the records of this station I find that Mr. Caldwell's
intelligence and gallantry have been frequently commented upon by my
predecessors.
I have, &c. ,
M. SEYMOUR,
Rear Admiral and Commander-in-Chief.
His Excellency
SIR JOHN BOWRING, LL.D. ,
&c.. & c ., &c.
"Calcutta," HONGKONG, 17th March, 1859.
SIR,-Having received information that a number of pirate vessels
had assembled near their old haunt at Coolan, I dispatched Her Majesty's
ship Niger and gun-boats Janus and Clown on the 11th instant in search
of them accompanied by M. Caldwell, Registrar General, who, as usual,
kindly volunteered his services.
The squadron returned last night and I do myself the honor of forward 膨
ing to Your Excellency acting Captain Coville's report of his proceedings,
which will shew the essential service rendered to the community at large,
and the gallant manner in which Captain Coville and the Officers and
Men engaged have succeeded in destroying a formidable force of pirates .
I beg to draw Your Excellency's notice to the good service rendered
by Mr. Caldwell -an additional claim to the many already possessed by
that zealous officer. As this is the last opportunity I shall have of
addressing Your Excellency on the subject of Piracy, I beg Your Ex
66
cellency will express to Mr. Caldwell my high sense of the important
services rendered by him on the numerous occasions he has volunteered
to accompany Her Majesty's ships on expeditions against pirates, in which
he has volunteered to share all the danger without the inducements
which animate Naval officers to distinguish themselves.
I have, &c . ,
M. SEYMOUR,
Rear Admiral and Commander-in- Chief.
His Excellency
SIR JOHN BOWRING, LL.D. ,
& c., &c., &c.
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Victoria, Hongkong, 17th January, 1859.
SIR , I have, the honor to inform you that a despatch has been re
ceived from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State acknowledging
report of the destruction of certain piratical vessels to the westward of
this place by Captain Vansittart in the end of August and beginning of
September last.
In referring to this expedition Sir Edward Lytton expresses himself
glad to observe that in reporting this gallant achievement all parties
agree in taking favorable notice of the assistance rendered by yourself
who were present on the occasion .
Sir Edward Lytton also directs that you be informed that he has per
ceived with much satisfaction the testimony borne by the Admiral and
by the Naval officers in immediate charge of the expedition to your zeal
and efficiency and to the value of your services.
I have, &c. ,
W. T. MERCER,
Colonial Secretary.
To
D. R. CALDWELL, Esq.,
Registrar General.
Her Majesty's Ship " Columbine,"
HONGKONG, 1st November, 1849.
SIR,-On returning from the destruction of Shap ' Ng Tzai's squadron,
it becomes my duty to express publicly to Your Excellency the high
sense I entertain of the services rendered by Mr. Daniel Richard Cald
well Sub-Superintendent of Police, who was sent by Your Excellency to
accompany me on this service.
10
DI 67
On this occasion as well as on a former one when Chui-a-poo's
squadron was destroyed, I have found him most truthful and correct in
his intelligence, and with a judgment hardly capable of being deceived.
His intimate knowledge of the local dialect has also much assisted me,
and I do not think without his services I could have succeeded .
I have, & c . ,
JOHN C. DALRYMPLE HAY,.
Commander.
To His Excellency
SAMUEL GEORGE BONHAM, Esq., C. B.
&c., & c. , &c.
Extract of a letter from Captain LoCKYER of Her Majesty's ship Medea
reporting the destruction of a piratical squadron of thirteen Junks (one
of 300 tons mounting 18 guns, and 3 of 250 tons, each mounting 10
guns) manned by about 900 men, at Mir's Bay, dated 5th March, 1850 :
“ I think it my duty to express my entire satisfaction with the con
"duct of the Officers, Seamen, and Marines employed upon this occasion ;
" the precision of their fire, great steadiness and prompt obedience, tend
" ing greatly to the expeditious termination of this successful operation.
" Commander Wainwright, a supernumerary on board, volunteered his
" services and rendered me great assistance.
" I cannot conclude without also expressing my great obligations to
" Mr. Caldwell for the valuable assistance which he rendered . To his
" perfect knowledge of the Chinese language and his acquaintance with
"the habits of the pirates the success of this enterprise is in a great
(6 measure due."
Extract ofa letter from Commodore the Hon. KEITH STEWART of Her
Majesty's ship Nankin to His Excellency Sir John Bowring, LL.D.,
reporting the successful results of three expeditions against pirates, dated
17th August, 1856 :
" In conclusion I beg to draw Your Excellency's attention to the in
" valuable services of Mr. Caldwell on these expeditions. He accom
"panied me, and had he not been with me when the Chinese attempted
" to stop my proceeding up the river after the Lorcha, serious results"
36 might have ensued."
68
H. M. SHIP " Magicienne, " OFF LINGTING ISLAND,
TEL 4th September, 1858.
SIR,----- I have the honor to inform you, that in obedience to your orders
for me to take under my directions H. M. ships Inflexible, Plover and
Algerine and proceed with them to destroy and capture the many dirates
represented as being in this neighbourhood, that I left the anchorage of
Hongkong with the said vessels and H. M. ship under my command on
the morning ofthe 26th ultimo, as soon as Mr. Caldwell, the Registrar
General, and three Chinese informers had come on board.
From Hongkong we proceeded to and examined carefully the whole
coast as far westward as Mamee, having up to the present date taken
and destroyed 1 fortified stockade mounting 14 guns, 26 piratical fight
ing Junks, 74 fast row-boats, 236 guns, about 372 Pirates killed, 36
pirates taken alive, 6 cargo vessels recaptured from pirates, 54 men and
6 women retaken from pirates ; with only a few wounded on our side.
I enclose herewith a detailed account of each day's proceedings, with
a list of the captures, people rescued, casualties, officers employed in
boats, &c . I cannot say too much for the valuable assistance I have
received from Mr. Caldwell, the Registrar General, who was most inde
fatigable in his exertions, gaining much valuable information from the
prisoners rescued, and by other means ; thereby being in a great measure
the cause of our success, and shewed much judgment in discriminating
the innocent from the guilty of those captured on board the Junks, be
sides being a valuable acquisition from his intimate knowledge of the
Chinese language .
I have despatched the Algerine into Hongkong with Mr. Caldwell,
the three Chinese informers, and the remainder of the persons rescued
from the Pirates not yet disposed of. Upon the Algerine's return with
Mr. Caldwell, I propose searching well the bays in the vicinity of Hong
kong to the eastward, as we have every reason to believe that there is
still one fleet of Junks undiscovered.
The energy of Mr. Caldwell in finding out and gaining information
as to where the Pirates are, does him the very greatest credit.
Trusting you will approve of my proceedings since leaving Hongkong
on the 26th ultimo,
I have, &c. ,
NICHOLAS VANSITTART,
Captain.
Rear Admiral
SIR M. SEYMOUR, K.C.B. , *
Commander-in-Chief.
&c. , &o., &c .
69
" Calcutta " at HONGKONG , 10th September, 1858 .
SIR,-Information having reached me on the evening of the 22nd
ultimo, that a fleet of 20 pirate vessels had captured a Junk bound to
Hongkong in the neighbourhood of this island, I despatched Her Ma
jesty's steam gun vessel Surprise on the following morning in search
of them . She returned the same evening having succeeded in destroy.
ing or capturing 26 heavily armed Junks at the island of Lingting
mounting over 300 guns. I enclose Commander Cresswell's report of
his proceedings, dated 24th of August and beg to draw their Lordships'
favorable notice to the gallant manner in which the Commander, Officers ,
and Crew of the Surprise engaged and overcame so superior a force.
2. It being reported that the pirates destroyed by the Surprise formed
a division of a large fleet to the southward, which has harassed the
coasting trade for some time, I ordered the Magicienne, Inflexible,
Plover, and Algerine, under the orders of Captain Nicholas Vansittart ,
C.B. , to scour the coast in that direction . By that officer's report, here
with enclosed, dated the 4th instant, their Lordships will perceive that the
expedition was attended with the most complete success, no less than
100 piratical vessels having been destroyed and 236 guns sunk in deep
water with heavy loss to those desperate miscreants. The town of Coolan,
the head-quarters of the pirates, was also destroyed, as well as a stockad
ed fort of 14 guns. The conduct of the Officers and Men of the squadron
is deserving of the highest praise.
3. On Captain Vansittart's return I ordered him to cruise to the
northward of Hongkong ; but though he visited all the usual haunts of
the pirates the people stated that they had not been troubled for some
time past .
4. These important successes have afforded much satisfaction to the
Chinese traders. Captain Vansittart justly gives credit to Mr. Caldwell ,
Registrar General, who accompanied the expedition, for obtaining infor
mation. This gentleman's name must be familiar to their Lordships
from his numerous services against pirates.
I have, & c. ,
M. SEYMOUR ,
Rear Admiral and Commander-in-Chief.
The Secretary of the Admiralty,
London.
Extract of a letter from Captain CHARLES LECKIE, of Her Majesty's
ship Fury, dated 9th December, 1858, reporting the destruction of a pi
1
ratical blockading squadron in the vicinity of Macao.
70
" Thus the whole of the pirate fleet that blockaded the Passage boats
" in Macao are destroyed, viz ., Twelve vessels ; and I am happy to re
"(
port that this service has been performed without a casualty on our
side, although it is wonderful that no one was hit by the discharge of
"" grape we were received with.
" Mr. Caldwell accompanied me throughout all these proceedings and
" I am much indebted to him for his advice ; his knowledge of the Chi
" nese language being also of the greatest assistance.
" I have six Chinese men and one woman, released from the pirates,
on board and will arrange about their landing.
" At the lowest estimation these junks contained about 550 men, and
" carried from 8 to 12 guns each, in all 128 guns many of them of
" heavy calibre. Several of the pirates were killed, but their number is
" not known."
Extracts of a letter from Commander GEORGE COLVILLE of Her Ma
jesty's ship Niger, dated 16th March, 1859, reporting the destruction of
a large fleet of pirate junks, the burning of a noted piratical haunt at
Tsoo-choong and the rescue of several captured trading vessels.
66
Acting on information received at Macao, the whole of the 12th
" instant was spent in searching for a fleet of piratical vessels cruising in
" the vicinity of the Tang rocks, but failing to discover them , I weighed
" towards evening and anchored late off Kulan with the intention of
" visiting Tsoo -choong, under whose batteries a formidable fleet of piratical
68
junks were known to be lying-the depredators of several valuable
66
cargoes. An owner and master ofthe two of the captured junks acting as
66
pilots under the able and effective assistance of Mr. Caldwell, Registrar
*
" General." * * *
" In bringing before you the important results achieved by the zeal
" and gallantry of the officers of the boats and their crews, I beg to
" record the great assistance derived from the gun-boats ; to Lieutenants
“ Lee and Knevitt and the Second-Masters Messrs. Gilpin and Worsfold,
" so unceasing in their attention, every praise is due. Yet to Mr. Cald
"well the success attending this expedition is mainly owing ; without
" his experience and adept method of gaining information, I fear our
" endeavours would have been futile.*
* If it were necessary to multiply the instances in which my services have been noticed, it
could be easily done from the public despatches of other officers of Her Maiesty's Navy with
whom I have been associated in expeditions against pirates.
>
TAN
$
1