A Vindication of the Character of the Undersigned from the Aspersions of Mr. T. Chisholm Anstey | Daniel Richard Caldwell | 1860





























J , 1899

. une

Ree . 24 .



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


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.


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


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- .




"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


ed, as to ensure their being unable to congregate again in any force for a considerable


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. ,


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


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


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.


"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.


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


of rumours and reports. Colonel Caine knew too well what value to


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


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


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


" 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


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


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


the service in 1843 as Interpreter, and I have now to add that of Sir


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."


The palpably inefficient state of the Police in 1846 in the detection of


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 : *


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


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


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."


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 :


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


I have &c. , &c.,


Officiating Colonial Secretary.



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 :



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 .,


Colonial Secretary.


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


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


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


on the spot or captured and held in ransom. The number of unof


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.


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.



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


piracy. Mr. Anstey allowed me to be examined and afterwards told


" 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


' 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


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


plaints, and then he did not speak to me any more than to the others


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


" back in the box at the Supreme Court. I believe he asked me a few


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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



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


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


myself, and to make a few observations on the charges brought against


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


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


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.


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


ing to Mr. Caldwell himself, who reluctantly admits it after it had

" been proved by many witnesses-a partnership in at least eight Chi


nese lorchas subsisted from the beginning of 1855 ifnot earlier, down


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


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,


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


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,


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..


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


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


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,


A he says, the entries in these memoranda shew Wong Akee " to have been


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


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


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 :


" 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."



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."


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


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,


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


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]


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."


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


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,


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


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


" 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."



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


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


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


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


portant documents, and even according to one authority, to carry them


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


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 :


" 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


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


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 ?


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



" 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


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


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


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


Bar an office in Mr. Caldwell's house in Gough Street. I went there early


" 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


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.


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.


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


or authority for any such proceeding that they never had any


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,


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.


• 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. ]


" 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


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


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


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


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


I place first on record two despatches of Rear- Admiral Sir Michael

Seymour, G.C.B. , whose distinguished chracter, great sagacity, and


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


# "


• 21





} th









+ 17


12 8



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


On referring to the records of this station I find that Mr. Caldwell's

intelligence and gallantry have been frequently commented upon by my


I have, &c. ,


Rear Admiral and Commander-in-Chief.

His Excellency


&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


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 . ,


Rear Admiral and Commander-in- Chief.

His Excellency


& c., &c., &c.


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. ,


Colonial Secretary.



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.


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 . ,



To His Excellency


&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."



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. ,



Rear Admiral



&c. , &o., &c .


" 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. ,


Rear Admiral and Commander-in-Chief.

The Secretary of the Admiralty,


Extract of a letter from Captain CHARLES LECKIE, of Her Majesty's

ship Fury, dated 9th December, 1858, reporting the destruction of a pi


ratical blockading squadron in the vicinity of Macao.


" 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.


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


junks were known to be lying-the depredators of several valuable


cargoes. An owner and master ofthe two of the captured junks acting as


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.