Case of Hong Kong | Thomas Chisholm ANSTEY | 1859

CASE OF HONG KONG .

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY, ESQ . ,

LATE ATTORNEY -GENERAL OF HONG KONG,

AND

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE,

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.

3RD TO 29TH JULY,, 1859 .

LONDON :

EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.

1859 .

1

I ST JUS

ED

RI

LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWER AND SONS, STAMFORD STRRET, AND CHARING CROSS .

HONG KONG .

Correspondence with Secretary the Duke of Newcastle, &c.

 

2, Plowden Buildings, Temple,

3rd July, 1859.

MY LORD DUKE,

I have the honour to lay the following statement before your

Grace, upon your resumption of the office of Secretary of State for the

Colonies.

It embraces the leading points in the case of my suspension, from the

duties of Attorney -General of Hong Kong, and of the confirmation of, that

suspension by the Home Government. I have never as yet had the opportunity

of replying to the charges involved in it — be they what they may — and which,

when I know them ( for as yet I know them not), I will demonstrate to be

frivolous and absurd .

But there are also questions, involved in my own case, which are of great

public importance. For, besides the question of the justice due, from her Majesty's

Government, to its Officers, there are those of the dignity of the Crown itself,

the reputation of England abroad , and the safety and advancement of her

commerce . For my vindication of those great interests, I have been suspended,

by Sir John Bowring, from the office conferred by Her Majesty.

Nor have the consequences been otherwise than fatal to those interests ;

and so they are regarded by the British Public. I need but refer your Grace to

the Petitions presented to Parliament, long before my return to these shores, Petitions from

Tyne

( complaining of the scandals brought to light by the proceedings in the Queen Newcastle, Sheffield,

v. Tarrant), in proof of this assertion . Leeds, Birmingham ,

and Marylebone, Fe

On my side, I am still a suppliant for justice. This is the eleventh month bruary, March, and

of my total privation of office and its emoluments . Yet, to this moment, no April, 1859. Printed

by order of the late

House of Commons.

final decision has been intimated upon the matter ofmy complaints.

Your Grace will indeed find, that there has been a recent correspondence , Letters from my

Secretary Sir

between your department and myself - official on my side, but (with the excep- self

E. B.toLytton, Bart.,

tion of a letter of the 13th April) of a merely semi-official character on that of Mopir, of17ththe4th

a

, 18th ,

your department. Your Grace, however, will also find that,-from the illness 10th

and 30th May,and

June, 1859, and

and absence of Secretary Sir E. L. Bulwer Lytton, and the express declarations toUnder-Secretary

of Under -Secretary the Earl of Carnarvon, that he addressed me without the Earl of Carnar

von, of the 14tlı

authority ,” —that correspondence has beenwithout any result, except indeed April,and2nd,3th

June, ,.

that of adding, very much, to my painful uncertainty,as tothe views of Her from

LettersPrivate

tomemyself

-Secre

Majesty's Government in my regard. tary Mr. Drummond

B

( 2 )

Wolff, of the 7th It was my object in commencing that correspondence (interrupted by the

April, 1859, and

from Under -Secre- sudden separation of the then Ministry from office), and it is the object of the

narvon, of the 13th present communication, to obtain information, enquiry, and redress. And I hope

and April,30th, to be able to produce a conviction, in the minds of Her Majesty's Government,

and 16th a

and 17th June, 1859. and of the public, that my original suspension was unjust and illegal, and its

subsequent confirmation one founded on error ; every opportunity to defend

myself having been denied me, and the necessary information being thereby

lost to this Government.

London Gazette, And it will be on all the above grounds, that I shall ask your Grace, to hold

letters to myself of me entitled to adequate and suitable compensation, by re-employment or other

April,13th

the 1859, 16th wise ; my own place having, since my return to England, been filled up, by the

and from

Under-Secretary the late Ministry, during your predecessor's absence from your department.

Earl of Carnarvon .

At the same time that I make this application to your Grace, I think it

right that I should lay all the material information, as to my suspension, which I

possess, before you, without any reservation . In so doing , I shall not state any

thing, that is not proved , by documentary evidence , long since of record in the

Colonial Office, and I therefore respectfully ask, that, if any portion of it shall

appear to be not so supported, your Grace will do me the justice to direct my

attention to the supposed deficiency.

1. In the month of October, 1855, upon the recommendation of the then

Secretary of State, the late Sir William Molesworth, Her Majesty was pleased

to appoint me her Attorney-General for Hong -Kong ; and, on the 21st Novem

ber, 1855 , I left London , by the overland route, for my destination .

2. Arriving at Hong-Kong, on the 30th January, 1856, I at once entered

upon the arduous duties of my office.

3. Amongst those duties, perhaps the most arduous was one, to which I was

See the printed called by the then Governor himself, his Excellency Sir John Bowring, that “ of

taken byoftheCald- bringing to light, and if necessary to punishment,” as in my evidence on cross

well Commission

Enquiry, of examination before the Caldwell Commission (hereafter to be noticed ) I have

, fifteenth

and eighteenth days, expressed it, “ the malpractices of which he complained, in the corrupt state of

28th June and ist

July, 1858, pp. 48 the Hong -Kong Government, and, in particular, those of the police, those of the

( 1st col .) and 67

(1st and 2nd col.)." branch of the judicial department connected with the police, and those of my

own department of Attorney-General.”

4. For that purpose, I was directed, by his Excellency, to put myself into

communication with several persons, whom he named , and, amongst others, with

the late Mr. Shortrede, Queen's Printer, and Mr. Rienaecker, at that time

Colonial Treasurer, but who was soon afterwards superseded as a defaulter.

5. These gentlemen, and particularly the late Colonial Treasurer, advised

me, in like manner, to communicate with a Mr. Caldwell, of the Police Interpre

ter's department, as one who could give me every information, touching the

malpractices of the Police and the Police Court.

6. Mr. Caldwell was, however, at that time, as it afterwards transpired,

Printed Minutes, much occupied in speculations of his own, wherein a certain Chinese pirate of

&c., ,twelfth,

teenth nine- the name of Mah Chow Wong was concerned ; and particularly in the “ convoy

and twenty

third days, 18th business” of the Chinese coasts ;—and for some months I had very few opportu

( 3 )

nities of meeting him . Afterwards, upon his return to the Government service, Juneand

14th July , Sth

1858, and

pp.

40 (1stand 2nd col.),

I had learned too much of his own antecedents, and of the history of his asso- 71-6, and 90-5 .

ciate, Mah Chow Wong, to consult him : at the same time that my confidence

in Mr. Rienaecker's advice was altogether destroyed, by the disclosure ( inci- pré's,

See Messrs.Grand

Bridges', and

dental to his insolvency and consequent removal from the public service) that May's evidence, in,

Mr. Caldwell had been a partner in land and sea speculations with the same sixth,seventh,ninth;

and tenth ,

Colonial Treasurer, and had shared in the same insolvency, his creditors -- as 9th

, 12th, and 16th

he himself afterwards admitt -compounding with him for a dividend of 477 June, 1858, pp. 17

(1st col.), 20 (1st

per cent. upon their debts. These circumstances prevented me from entering 24col.), 21" (2nd col.),

( 2nd col.), 25

into those confidential communications, with Mr. Caldwell, which Messrs. Short- (2nd col.), and 29

rede and Rienaecker had advised . ( 1st col.).

5 [bis]. In all other respects I conformed to his Excellency's suggestions,

and, for several months, continued to receive his approval of my proceedings,

in the line he had pointed out. But, towards the end of my first half year of Seecross-exami

on

my Evidence

na

office, I became aware that, even where I had his approval, I was not to expect tion, ib. ; fifteenth

and eighteenth days,

his open avowal and support. 28th June and 1st

6 [bis ). On the 25th August, 1856, I acquainted the Governor, that I had July, 1858 ;and

(2nd col.) pp. 48

67

er, ht

received notice of trial, in an action of sland broug again st me, by the 2nd col.); and also

three Letters

see

then acting Chief Magistrate, Mr. Mitchell, for words, spoken by me, in the fromSir JohnofBow the

ring to myself

course of my official duty, and with direct reference to the matters, into which 21st and 22ndAug.,

I had been so directed to enquire. I requested the Governor to take the 22nd ; Aug.tomyself

one

necessary measures, to enable me to prove those facts in my defence . His from Colonial Secre

tary, Mr. Mercer ;

Excellency refused my application. He said, the question was a merely private and one of the23rd

August to myself,

one “ between Mr. Mitchell and myself. ” Mr. Mercer, the Colonial Secretary, asfromActing

Mr. D'Almada ,

Colonial

took a different view of the matter. Although then absent on sick leave, he Secretary

hadthe kindness to come up from Macao, expressly, to testify on my behalf to

the bona fides of my communications. The jury ( a special one) returned their

verdict in my favour.

7. I have reason to believe, that my conduct, on that occasion, was not See Sir John Bow .

'

unacceptable to your department . I beg to refer to one of the documents con- of the 2nd Aug.,

nected with the present case, and to my former remarks, upon the mutilated 1858; and my Let

ter to Secretary Sir

condition, in which it was laid before the Executive Council, by the late 16th

E. B.Aug.,

Lytton1858of. the

Governor Bowring - I mean the joint Report, which Secretary Mr. Labouchere

received, from Sir Richard Bethell and Sir H. S. Keating, then, as now, Her

Majesty's Law Officers ; and which Secretary Lord Stanley, in 1858, caused to

be forwarded to Sir John Bowring, for his guidance, in future cases, like that

of Mitchell v. myself. With regard to that case, the Attorney -General and

Solicitor-General, for England, reported their opinion to be, that, " where so

vexatious and unfounded an action was brought, against aà law officer, for acts

done in the discharge of his duty, he had a right to expect every assistance

from the Governor, both in the way of testimony and otherwise ;” and Secre

tary Lord Stanley expressed himself in conformity with that opinion.

8. It is, perhaps, necessary for me to explain , that Mr. Mitchell was one

of the official persons, against whom my suspicions of malversation of office had

( 4 )

been, from the date of my arrival, directed by Sir John Bowring himself, and 04

| ‫يا‬

also by the advisers whom he had recommended to my confidence. 1

102

9. Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police and Acting Assistant Magis 1

Da

trate, was another.

w

C

10. But I afterwards discovered that both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. May were NI

altogether undeserving of the suspicions so produced by those informants ; and of

that Mr. May, at least, had actually rendered good service, against the doers of LE

the very malpractices in question.

WLA

See Mr. Dixson's 11. The same evidence, which satisfied me of the injustice, done to those

Evidence in printed 1

Minutes, & c. ; se two gentlemen , turned my suspicions upon Mr. Caldwell himself, the partner of

condday,

1858, pp. 28th

6-9 ;May,

and the late Colonial Treasurer, Mr. Rienaecker. It is singular, that the first im

his Police Court Dec

the portant information, on that head, was contributed by Mr. Dixson, the Queen's

Queen Ⓡ. Tarrant

Hong -Kong, 11th

, printer, the partner and successor of Mr. Shortrede, to whom Sir John Bowring

G

October, 1858. had referred me, and who had referred me to Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Shortrede was

72

at this time in Europe.

12. On the 4th July, and 3rd September, 1857, two remarkable convic

tions for piracy took place in the Supreme Court of Hong -Kong : the first that

of the famous American leader of Chinese pirates, Eli Boggs ; the latter that of

his employer and confederate, the Chinese pirate, Mah 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 character, 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.

See my Letters of 13. The first -named pirate, Eli Boggs, in a speech of great power, which

the 8th July, 1857,

May,1858,

andDr.13thBridges, Act

lasted two hours, and made a great impression upon everybody present, bitterly

ing Colonial Secre- reproached the Hong-Kong Government, and Mr. Caldwell, with his own seduc

tary; and of the17th tion into the crimes for which he was about to suffer. It was a most scandalous

May, 1858, to Secre

tary Lord Stanley, scene, and, especially, because the demeanour of Mr. Caldwell, under the infliction ,

was certainly that of a guilty man . The statements moreover were, in my

own 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

See Minutes, & c., occurred in Court ; and I expostulated strongly against the influence, admitted

seventeenth and

twenty-second days ; to be exercised by Mah Chow Wong in

matters of police. At my request, Mr.

30th June and 13th May and Mr. Inglis, as representing their respective departments, were referred

July, 1858, pp . 58

(1stand 2nd cols.), to on this last point. Their Reports fully justified mine ; and that of Mr. Inglis,

59-60, 87 (1st col.),

and$888 ((1st col.); in particular, going far beyond mine, imputed to Mr. 'Caldwell an affinity with

and see Mr. May's

in the the pirate Mah Chow Wong, through marriage and adoption , according to the

Police Court), in the customs of China. But, so far as the Government were concerned , all these

Queen v. Tarrant,

August, 1858 . representations were fruitless.

14. For Mr. Caldwell himself had been promoted, in the mean time, to the

offices of Justice of the Peace, and Registrar-General and Protector of Chinese,

i

( 5 )

at Hong-Kong, and had greatly increased his credit and influence with Sir John

Bowring, by means of the great ascendancy, with which this extraordinary

combination of powers had invested him , over the 72,000 Chinese inhabitants

of Hong-Kong. Moreover, a Dr. Bridges, a barrister of Hong -Kong, and

practising also as an attorney there, and who, before my arrival, had filled the

office of Acting Attorney-General for the Queen,—had been, in February, 1857,

appointed by Sir John Bowring to act as Colonial Secretary and Executive

Councillor, during the absence in Europe of Mr. Mercer, upon a sick leave of

18 months, with liberty to continue to practise for his clients, notwithstanding

such acting appointment. Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell were on very intimate

and friendly relations. Mr. Caldwell had recommended Dr. Bridges to Chinese See his Evidence

Minutes, &c . ,

clients. Dr. Bridges had adjusted the insolvency already spoken of — not at seventh and fifteenti

the Governor's direction , as Dr. Bridges at first wished to be believed and days, 9th and 28th

June, 1858, pp. 20

afterwards retracted ,—but out of his great private regard and friendship. (2nd col .) and 50

( 1st and 2nd col.).

15. I myself, shortly after the date of my unanswered Report on Eli

Boggs' case , and in the same month of July, was obliged, by severe sickness, to

quit Hong-Kong, for Calcutta, upon a six months' leave. But, before my

departure, I had the satisfaction to know, that the exposure, which had taken

place, was beginning to encourage the Chinese to come forward, and make

complaints, against their powerful oppressor, the pirate Mah Chow Wong ; and See printed Report

of the Caldwell Com

I had taken steps to ensure a full and searching enquiry into such . Within mission,, p. ii.,, and

printed Minutes, &c.,

two weeks from the events, mentioned in my Report, and, as I believe, purely bith, fourteenth ,

in consequence thereof, two distinct charges of piracy were brought against twenty-second,

twenty -third,

, and

twenty-fourth

Mah Chow Wong, before the Chief Magistrate, the Hon . Mr. Davies, and the 3rd days,

and 24th June,

Assistant Magistrate, Mr. May ; and, shortly after my departure for Calcutta, 15th

and 13th, 14th,and

July, 1858 ,

he was held, by those gentlemen, to bail, upon both charges, for trial in the pp. 15 (2nd col.),44

Supreme Court. It should be mentioned, that the bail were introduced, and col.),

(Ist coba)

91, Z

(1st (2nd

.) ,and 96

guaranteed ,” by Mr. Caldwell, and that, amongst them , was a late servant of 2nd ".col.)

his own ,

but recently out of prison for debt.

16. On the 3rd September, 1857—I being still absent at Calcutta — Mah See printed Mi

Chow Wong was tried and convicted. The charge selected was the first, and least butes,& , second,

fifteenth c.

strong, charge; and a nolle prosequi was, immediately thereupon, most un- and eighteenth,

teenth,twenty - second

, 28th May,

accountably, entered on the other. The trial was further remarkable for the days

28th and 30th June,

strenuous efforts of Mr. Caldwell on his behalf ; who retained and instructed and 1st and 13th

, 1858, PP . 7

the legal advisers of the pirate, marshalled his witnesses, and gave evidence July

(1st col.), '49"(1st

in person ; and, in doing so, was compelled to disclose his own partnership with and . ,

cold),8850( (2nd col.)

the prisoner. The convict was sentenced to transportation ; and he is now

undergoing that punishment at Labuan ; having been detained , however , a long

time in Hong -Kong, during the intervening negotiations for his pardon.

17. Nor was the piracy in question a solitary instance of the guilt of the Printed Report of

convict. Mah Chow. Wong was, and had been for years, notoriously the chief mission

the Caldwell Com

, pars . 14 ,

pirate and resetter of pirates in the China Seas ; and the notoriety of his con- 22,

15, pp.17,i .19,

ii .

21, and

nection , with Mr. Caldwell , had produced in the minds of many Europeans, a

conviction of the guilty character of that connection , before even a suspicion

of the truth had occurred to my own mind.

6 С

( 6 )

Par. 15, suprà . 18. There is little doubt that the convict relied firmly upon obtaining a

See “ Mr. May's

Memoranda” (referred verdict ; I being absent from the colony, and Mr. Caldwell being actively

to in the Caldwell En

quiry Commission) , as engaged in his defence. Otherwise there appears to have been nothing to

published " for general

Information” by .Go restrain him from flight, for he was out on bail; and what the substance of

vernment Notification "

3

of 19th April,1859,in that security was, albeit “guaranteed ” by Mr. Caldwell, I have already shown

the Hong -Kong Govern

ment Gazette of the

23rd April, 1859 ; and

- referring your Grace to the evidence of the deceived magistrate who took it,

the evidence

see

Messrs. Dixson, May ,

of 19. It had also transpired, through the examination of the papers and books

and Jarman,in printed of the pirate's: “ Hong " at the Police Court - documents containing the daily

Minutes, &c., second ,

twelfth, and nineteenth evidence of the piratical occupations of the convict -- that they also contained

days, 28th May, 18th

June, and 8th July, evidence of Mah Chow Wong's payments and receipts, to and from Mr. Caldwell,

1858, pp. 8 (2nd col.),

9(1st col.), 35 ( 2nd or on his account : and that, nevertheless, Mr. Caldwell and the convict’s at

col.)), and 70(2nd col.),. torney, Mr. Stace, had been allowed, during the preparations for his trial, to

Evidence on cross-of have free access to those important documents, and even, according to one

examination

JamesMongan, Esq. authority, to carry them away from their temporary place of custody.

( a witness for the

Crown ), in the Queen 20. It was also believed by, at least, the acting Chinese Secretary, as

v. Tarrant,on Tues-

day , 23rd Nov. 1858,

early as the 12th October 1857, (at which period all the documents in question

in theHong-Kong were supposed to be in his official custody, and only five weeks after the

Supreme Court.

pirate's conviction,) that the most important of these papers “ must have been

Ib., ...; and com- taken out, by a contemptible and damnable trick, on the part of the perpe

pare his

fore the Commission, trators, to get off Mah Chow Wong, before they came into his (Mr. Mongan’s)

&c.,thirteenth day, hands.” They had “ come into his hands ” on the 29th or 30th of the previous

23rd June, 1858, P. month .

41 ( 1st col.).

See the proceed- 21. In the mean time Mr. Caldwell and Dr. Bridges, himself an Executive

ings in the Queen 0.

Tarrant, SupremeCourt, Councillor, were supporting the application of Messrs. Day, the counsel, and

21st, 22nd, 23rd, and

24thNov.,1858 and Stace, the attorney, for the convict, to his Excellency in Executive Council for

see my Letters of the

13th May, 1858,to a free pardon. I again remind your Grace, that some one had, already, caused

Acting Colonial Secre

tary, Dr.Bridges;

of the 17th

; and to be entered a nulle prosequi, in respect of the untried charge against the same

May, 1858,

to the Secretary ofState prisoner for the second offence, albeit a much stronger one than the first, and

Lord Stanley, M.P.; see

also printed Minutes, one entirely unconnected with it ; that the Chief Justice has declared, from the

&c. , for the Evidence of

Messrs.

Davies,

Kingsmill and bench, that he did not order, and could not have, ordered the nolle prosequi ; and

fitteenth, seven that the Governor has been heard to declare that it was ordered by himself.

twenty - second days ;

29th and 30th June, 22. It has been further admitted, by the then Acting Colonial Secretary,

and istand. ( 1st .),: and on oath, that, but for the interposition of the parties, mentioned in the next

, pp. 49IliktCouls

1st .) , 62 (

col.),63 (2nd"co?.), and following paragraph, probably the pardon would have been granted, and the

88 ( 1st col.).

See printed Mi

pirate again let loose on society, by Sir John Bowring's Government.

nutes, &c., second 23. A rumour of the probability of such an event having reached the

day, 28th May, 1858 ,

p. 7 ( 1st col.). Queen's printer, Mr. Dixson, the latter published, in the Government organ of

Dr. Bridges' Evi

the 17th September, 1857, a protest in the name of the community. In

dence

cross-ex- enumerating the crimes of the man, and in alluding to his pecuniary dealings

on cross- ex

, in the

v Tarrant with Mr. Caldwell, the Queen's printer made free use of a sort of index, to the

Queen om?

(22n d Nov., 1858), contents of the pirate's books and papers, originally prepared by Mr. May

Hong -KongSupreme

Court, himself, at the period of their first examination, for use at the trial. This

his

ubi suprà

the

; and see index was headed “ Memoranda,” and is so styled throughout the subsequent

China Mail

newspaper,

17th narrative .

Sept., 1857. 24. Mr. Dixson was thereupon summoned, by the Clerk of the Councils,

See Mr. Dixson's

( 7 )

in the name of the Governor, to attend the Executive Council, and support his Minutes,

Evidence&c.,

in printed

second

statements. The- “line of examination,” he himself says, “ adopted by his day,28th

p. 8 (

May,1358,

.

,

Excellency, as Chairman, was so one-sided, and so unfair, that I told the his list

Depositions and

ola); at

Council, it seemed as if I had been put upon my trial.” This was on the 12th the Police Court,in

October, 1857, the day originally named for the purpose. In the interval, by 1858

ith . and 12th Oct.,

an official letter of the 28th September, an examination of all the documents

in question, avowedly for the purpose of verifying or disproving the charges See the Evidence

of the

the newspaper, to the prejudice of Mah Chow Wong, and also, it may be of Messrs. Dixson

added, of Mr. Caldwell,was directed to take place. It was however to Mr. and ,Mongan,paubi

Depo

Caldwell himself that the examination was confided ; and, practically speaking, well

sitionsandoftheMr.Cald

Chinese

it was he alone who made it. It is true that Mr. Mongan was at the same time witnesses for the

Crown in the Queen

directed to " assist ” Mr. Caldwell. But that was all. And from his and Mr. v. Tarrant, Police

» Court, August and

Mongan's own statements, it plainly appears , that Mr. Mongan's “assistance October, 1858.

consisted in merely handing the papers over to Mr. Caldwell, without even

counting them , or being in all cases consulted by Mr. Caldwell ; and that Mr.

Mongan himself made only a “ cursory ” examination of one bundle - into the

rest not examining at all. Moreover the “ Report,” containing the results of

the examination so made, speaks for itself; for it was prepared and signed by

Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Mongan compared it, he says, with “ Mr. Caldwell's notes,"

but not with “ the documents themselves,” which Mr. Caldwell had examined.

25. This “ Report ” of Mr. Caldwell was to the effect, that the books and

papers of the pirate contained no evidence of his guilt ; and, on the subject of

the entries relating to Mr. Caldwell himself, it was altogether silent.

26. Mr. May's “ Memoranda, ” which were read in the Executive Council

along with the “ Report,” caused an immediate reference to be made back to

Mr. Mongan, who however was unable to explain the wide discrepancy, per in See his Evidence

the Queen v. Tar

ceived to exist, between two professed analyses of the same documents. He rant, ubi suprà.

however “ thought Mr. May's Memoranda ' were too circumstantial to be

forgeries ;" and he concluded, that “some of the papers must have been taken

out before they came to his office. He could not imagine who could have done

it ; nor did he know where the papers were before they came to his hands ;

but he would call it a contemptible and damnable trick, on the part of the

perpetrators ; for he thought their object was to get off Mah Chow Wong .”

The Council broke up suddenly. The papers were referred to Mr. Wade, the See Mr. Wade's

Chinese Secretary, for a new examination . Mr. Wade indeed was suffered to herefter referred to,

suppose that Mr. Mongan, not Mr. Caldwell, had made the last ; and therefore vernment

in Hong-Kong Gio

Gazette.

Mr. Wade never entered upon the new one, believing it hopeless. But the

pardon was finally refused to the convict ; and, that object being accomplished,

the matter was suffered to drop, for that time, by Mr. Dixson and Mr. May.

27. It was not until after it had dropped, that I returned from Calcutta,

on the 11th December, 1857, and resumed my duties. The “ Brothels Ordi

99

nance had just been passed ; and Mr. Caldwell, as Licenser of Brothels under

it, had acquired a new and an immense increase of power over the Chinese ;

but the measure was only beginning to be carried into execution, and its

effects were not yet felt. On the other hand , I remarked a great improvement

( 8 )

in the criminal statistics of the colony. The number of piracies, both real and

1

alleged, had diminished by more than 50 per cent ; and, of the piracies which

did come before the monthly criminal sessions, none were “ put up ” (or fac

titious) cases ; whereas, when I was last in the colony, these had formed almost

a moiety of the whole. I inquired the reason. The Superintendent of Police

the Monthly Crimi- said, that it was owing to the conviction of the great pirate and thief- taker, Mah

nal Sessions of the Chow Wong, and the failure of his intrigues to obtain his pardon. I reported

1857-8 . andJanuary, the matter to the Acting Colonial Secretary, but received no reply.

cember

28. Having learned, from the same and other authority, the leading

features of the part taken by Mr. Caldwell in those intrigues, I lost no oppor

tunity of continuing to express, to the Government, through its proper channels,

my distrust of the man, and my inability to act upon any information I might

receive from himself, directly or indirectly , which was not powerfully supported

by other evidence. The reception of my representations was not uniform .

Evidence on cross They were sometimes heard with silent acquiescence, sometimes with an appa

examination ofDr. rent hesitation, sometimes with assurances that they should receive every con

Bridges and the Hon . i

the Surveyor-Gene- sideration , and at length with an intimation , that the Governor desired me not

ral, at the trial of the !

Queen v. Tarrant,ubi to trouble him with a matter, which, he was pleased to say, did in nowise con

suprà

Police ; Court

and seeDepo-

the cern my own department. 1

sitions and those of

the Hon . the Chief 29. Such was the posture of affairs, down to the 10th May, 1858 , when

Magistrate in the an accident occurred, to force the matter on the attention of the Local

same case (August

and October, 1858 ), Government.

and in Mr. Inglis's

evidence before the 30. On that day, the Bill for Chinese Registration and Regulation, (which

Commission,

in

printed Minutes, &c., afterwards became Ordinance No. 8 of 1858,) stood for discussion in the Legis

seventeenthday,13th

June, 1858, p. 60

lative Council. A letter, from the Superintendent of Police, was put into my 1

( 1st col . ). hands, on my way to the Council , entreating me to cause some provision to

See printed Mi be introduced, to restrain Mr. Caldwell, his Chinese wife, their family, and

nutes, & c.,first and servants, from abusing, to their own profit, the large powers over persons and

sixth days, 27thMay

and 8th June, 1858, property, which would be made permanent in his hands, as the Registrar

and seemylettersof General and protector of Chinese , within Hong -Kong, by that Ordinance. Mr.

Colo May authorised me to state to the Council, and I did state, as a ground for

the 13th May, 1858. .

nial Secretary,and

of the 17th May, proposing such a clause, that the questionable authority, already vested in Mr.

1858, to Secretary Caldwell, under the then late “ Brothels Ordinance," appeared to have been

Lord Stanley, M.P.

so perverted to the private purposes of monopoly,--at least one license having

been granted by him to a Chinese brothel built upon land, which had certainly

always been , until very lately , his own land ; which, according to the tenants,

was still his own land ; and which was, beyond all doubt, still standing in his

name in the Register at the Land Office.

29 [bis]. The letter was read ; and, on Mr. Caldwell denying absolutely that

he held any land at all within the colony-a denial to which the Governor, the

Acting Colonial Secretary, and the Surveyor -General at once gave credit — the

Ib ., ib. Land Office Register was consulted by the latter official, and the Rent Books

of the Treasury by the new Colonial Treasurer, the Hon . Mr. Forth. The

result was to show that, beyond all doubt, besides the Crown lot in question ,

Mr. Caldwell held ten other lots of Crown land in the town, -- that they were

( 9 )

all eleven registered in his own name,—that other licensed brothels stood upon See my letters of

the 13th May, 1858,

some of them , that the Crown rents had been paid by himself in person for to theActing Colo

all the eleven lots, and this long since his appointment as Brothels Licenser ,— Hong-Kong,aand

nial of

and that the Treasury receipts had been made out, not to him, but, at his own Lord

17th May, 1858,to

Stanley, M.P. ,

the ; Secretary

request, to three Chinese people, whose names he furnished to the clerk. The State of

and see the

first of them , Lum A teen, was a quack -doctor, who was attached in that capa- printed Minutes,& c.,

city to his (Mr. Caldwell's) family ; the second, Chew Alai, the same doctor's first

, third, fourth

fifth, sixth , seventh,

Chinese concubine ; and the third, Chum Atsoo, a sister of Mrs. Caldwell, – the tenth

eighth, pinth,

days, and

27th

latter being herself a singing -girl, married from a Chinese brothel. May, and 1st to 16th

June, 1858, pp. 1-5,

30 [bis]. Moved by the facts of the case, his Excellency the Governor and 10-21, 22, 23-7,28,

29, 30.

the Legislative Council, on my motion , adopted the provision recommended by

Mr. May, nemine contradicente. At a later period of the same meeting, his Ex- Ib. , ib. ; and see,

in printed Minutes,

cellency was assured, by a line from Mr. Caldwell, that, although the land had &c., the evidence of

been his, and still stood in his name, he had no longer any “ interest ” in it ; having twenty-second day,

acted, in the way described above, merely as agent for those who were interested. 13th July, 1858,v

88 (1st col .) ; and

His Excellency then declared, in Council, that he saw nothing in Mr. Caldwell's myLetter ofthe17th

May, 1858, to the

Acting inColonial

original denials, the entries against him, or his present admissions of agency cretary Se

reply to

for brothel tenants and licensees, to disqualify him, either for enjoying the his(No. 272) of the

right of granting such licenses in future, or for remaining a justice of the same date.

peace. His Excellency added, that there was no occasion for any further

enquiry into the case .

31. On the 13th May, 1858, I accordingly tendered my resignation of the

justiceship of the peace ; alleging my inability to sit on the same bench with a

man of Mr. Caldwell's present habits and past antecedents ; and deploring the 16. ib.

impunity, continuously accorded , by the Local Government, as well with respect

to the brothels question, as to his mal-practices in the matter of Mah Chow

Wong. I ended by requesting a copy of my letter to be forwarded to the

Secretary of State, by way of appeal from his Excellency's decisions in Mr.

Caldwell's favour.

32. On the 14th May his Excellency in Legislative Council reiterated his Letters to myself

from

declarations in favour of Mr. Caldwell, and refused to accept my resignation, lonial Secretary of

and on the following day sent me an official communication of precisely the the15th

17th (No.(No:

272),269),

and

same effect. But, no notice being taken by him of my wish, that my letter 18th May Sir John

1858, and(No. 280),

should be forwarded to the Secretary of State,* I was compelled to address his paper

Bowring's slip of

enclosed in the

Lordship in person. This I did, by letter of the 17th May, 1858 , in duplicate Pasteretter.

originals, forwarding one duplicate open through his Excellency's office , and Letter from myself

to Secretary Lord

the other sealed through the post-office. Stanley, M.P., of the

17th May, 1858.

33. His Excellency refused to transmit the former, and , against my pro Letters to myself

tests, intercepted it, and referred it to a Commission of Enquiry, appointed by lonial Actingry Co

from theSecreta of

himself subsequently to its date. My protests against the proceeding were the 17th May, 1858

grounded on its being now too late ; the affair having been judged, and the one 276),25th

22nd and andMay,

the

,

(No.303),and

1858 replies

decision appealed from ; and, moreover, on its being a violation of the con- my of the

fidence, due to the personage addressed by me ( the Secretary of State) ; and I 17th ( No. 2) andto

24th May, 1858,

therefore declined to appear, as accuser , any further, except before the Secretary thetwofirst letters.

See par. 130, post.

[ * From the subsequent correspondence it would seem that this letter has been suppressed to this hour : see

pp. 32-5 post.]

D

( 10 )

of State himself, or as his Lordship should appoint me. But, at the same

time, I expressed every readiness, if sent for by any Commission or tribunal

whatsoever,—as a witness to be examined ,—to appear before them , merely as

such , and give my evidence.

Printed Report, 34. No notice was taken of my protests by his Excellency. But they

and par. 3, p. i.,

and printed Minutes, were respected by the Commission when appointed. It was only in the capa

and', eighteenth

first days, city of witness, that they invited , from time to time, my attendance ; and it was

27th May,17thJune, only in pursuance of such invitations,that I ever assisted at their proceedings.

pp . 1, 30 (2nd col.),

and 64 (2nd col.) ;

35. I had no part in the appointment of the Commission. As originally

and see the sum proposed, it was to consist of seven ; including the new Colonial Treasurer, and

monses addressed to

meby the Chairman the Surveyor-General; the former of whom would be, by virtue of rank, its

the Hon.Mr.Clever Chairman ; the latter being the next in precedence. But, in the Legislative

and letter

my the 7th Council, the former had expressed an anxiety for enquiry, and the latter an

16thofAugust,

1858, to Secretary anxiety not to enquire, into the accusations of Mr. May on the Brothels Ques

Sir E. Bulwer Lyt

ton , Bart., M.P. tion ; and the name of the former — who adhered, out of Council, to the views

theSee

Honthe Letter

. Mr. Forthof

, so expressed in it—was struck out of the draft. Mr. Forth protested in

May

to in 1858, referred

my letter of

writing ; but no answer was returned to his protest :—and the Surveyor-General

the 30th July, 1858, became first in rank upon the Commission, its Chairman, and invested with a

to the Acting Colo- double vote .

nial Secretary , Dr.

Bridges.

36. Another proposed member, Mr. Campbell, J. P., whose constant

duties, of Manager of the Oriental Bank Corporation, made it impossible for

See my Letter last him to attend the Commission, but who was nevertheless named upon it,

cited .

declined the nomination. This was probably expected — for he was known to

regard Mr. Caldwell's character in an unfavourable light. To his letter of the

Par. 117, post. 30th July, 1858 , commenting upon the Report of this Commission , I shall have

to refer your Grace hereafter.

See cross-exami 37. By these means, the Commission was reduced to Five, including the

nation of theatHon. Chairman . “ To protect Dr. Bridges' interests ,” — as the Chairman has subse

trialof ;theandQueen

Tarrant v.

see my

quently deposed in Court, according to his information and belief,—Mr. Lyall,

letter last cited . an intimate friend of Dr. Bridges, was proposed, and became another member

of the Five. A gentleman, over whom Mr. Lyall was believed to have in

fluence, was the third. The remaining two members were Mr. Scarth, J. P.,

of the firm of Turner and Company, whose extensive mercantile occupations,

elsewhere, caused him to be absent whole days, and seldom allowed him to be

present, for more than an hour at a time, during any one appointed sitting of

the Commission , and Mr. Davies, the chief magistrate ; to whom also, both

on account of sickness and official occupation, nearly the same remark is

applicable.

See printed Re 38. The Commission was further hampered, by the terms of its warrant

port, par. 3 (p.1.), of appointment, and by the choice made of a “ sole legal adviser and examiner,"

and printed Minutes,

& c., third day, 1st by itself, to control its own judgment.

June, 1858 (p. 10,

1st col.). 39. The former directed the Commission to enquire into “ the there under

written charges, which embraced the accusations made by the Attorney

See printed Re

General.” The latter was a Mr. Day.

port of the Caldwell

Commission (p. i .), and

40. But the “ underwritten charges ” were not compiled by the Attorney

my (unprinted)

protest letter

of the 24th May,of General at all, but by Mr. Caldwell's friends in office ; and they were, on

( 11 )

)

the contrary, beforehand and always, protested against and disavowed by the 1858,referred to by the

Attorney-General, both because they did not “ embrace his accusations” and &Ac.,;”firstprinted Minutes,

day, 27th May,

because they did “ embrace accusations ” not to be found in his own written see1858, p. 1 (Ist col.)

Ib. , eleventh day,

statements of charge, as addressed to the Local Government, and by which alone 3117th(2nd

June,col.)1858,pp.

and 33

he consented to be bound. Yet these last were never made nor treated as the (1st col.),"" and Dr.

Bridges' cross-examina

subjectmatter of the reference. tion at the trial of the

Queen v. Tarrant, ubi

41. Mr. Day, on the other hand, had been Mah Chow Wong's own suprà.

counsel, before, at, and after his applications to the Governor, for the pardon lettermyor( unprinted

profleste of)

of that powerful culprit; all which facts were perfectly well known to the June,

the 8th1858,andaddress

14th

fearful and hesitating Chinese witnesses; whom nevertheless it was the duty edto the Commis

sioners, and the re

of the Commission, by every means in its power, to encourage rather than to ferences thereto in

my letter of the 30th

intimidate. July, 1858, to Dr.

42. Mr. Day is no more . He died suddenly, within a month after lonial Actingy Co

Bridges,Secretar

succeeding to my office. I will neither infer nor state anything , against his

memory , which was not, or would not have been, admitted by himself,when

living, to be true.

1b. , ib .; and see

43. It was by his direction , then, that the Commissioners resolved to the cross - examina

tionoftheat Hon.

restrain their enquiry, by the tightest and strictest technicalities, prevailing in Cleverly Mr.

the trial

the Central Criminal Court. Having so resolved, they proceeded, with even ofthe Queen v.Tar

, ;

greater illiberality than those narrow rules would tolerate, to exclude all evi- Mr. Caldwell's' ad

dence of “ reputation,” as against Mr. Caldwell, either as to the property, the Missions in Printed.,

Minutes, &c.,fourth

tenth

relationship, or the character, of himself, or his Chinese connexions by marriage. dayth, 2nd,12th,enna

>

,

And yet, as to property at least, his own admissions were before them ; and, 14

16th(1stJune,1858,pp.

col.), 26 ( 1st

col.), and 28 (2nd

as to all three,-property, pedigree , and character — the nature of the first, the col.).

fact and circumstances of the second , and the quality of the third, were all

matters which had been referred to themselves, by Government, (against my

protest,) for a public investigation and a printed report. I had never contem

plated such a method of enquiry, nor indeed any method, but the usual one of

calling on Mr. Caldwell himself to answer, in writing or otherwise, but always

under the decent protection of official correspondence, the equally official state

ments of Messrs. May and Inglis, on which alone those charges themselves

were based . See “ No. 69, Go

vernment Notifica

tion ” of the 7th

44. I afterwards discovered, that Mr. Day had put in his claim to be August,1858, in the

Hong-Kong

appointed my acting successor, conditionally on my suspension from the ment Govern

Gazette of the

Attorney -Generalship, before the Executive Council had even met to authorise 14th August, 1858,

and the Correspond

that measure ; and the first and only Gazette notice of my own suspension was inenceappendi

relatingx tothereto

my

simply appended to that of his acting appointment , and merely by way of letter of the 16th

explaining the latter. August, 1858, to Se

cretary Sir E. Bulwer

45. Moreover, it was a condition of that appointment, and one which Lytton, Bart., M.P.

See my letter of

Dr. Bridges and Mr. Day carefully concealed until the death of the latter the 11th and 12th

, 1858, to

(which event, and Mr. Green's acting appointment, made further conceal- cretary"the Earlof

ment impossible), that Dr. Bridges, the then acting Colonial Secretary, should the

Malmesbury,thoseof

same dates to the

receive, out of the Attorney -General's emoluments, the fee of office, amounting the

Acting Secretary

Superin tendenctoy

to 250l., payable to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as of Trade atHong

Kong, and the letter

counsel to the Plenipotentiary, a misappropriation which was no sooner dis- of Under-Secretary

( 12 )

Mr. Hammond inre- covered by me than reported, and no sooner reported by me than peremptorily

ply to me, dated 8th

December, 1858. annulled by the Foreign Office. ta

See the second,

third , and sixteenth

46. Great numbers of witnesses were, by the means noticed (in para

paragraphs of ,their graphs 38 to 43), deterred from appearing before the Commission, or refused

i . and ii . a hearing when they appeared there; and the Commission itself appears to

have been sensible of the injury, thereby resulting to the avowed main object и Ге

of enquiry, namely the question whether Mr. Caldwell, for any reason what

ever, was unfitted to hold the office of a Justice of the Peace.

DC

See pars. 19 and 47. A further fact must here be stated . The books and papers of the HI,

20, suprà : and see

the printedMinutes, convict Mah Chow Wong, which remained, after the abstraction denounced by

& c ., eleventh and

twelfth days,, 17th

and 1858,

Mr. Mongan, as also the Index or “ Memoranda ” of Mr. May, had been repeat

p.32 (2nd"col.).and edly assumed by the Governor and Dr. Bridges, in the discussions of the

35-7 the Policeof Legislative Council of the 10th and 14th May, 1858, and their subsequent

Court,Depositions

theHon.

Cleverly and Messrs

Davies

. correspondence and communications, to be still in existence, and ready to be DO

( Aug. and Oct, produced, according to the tenor of my own applications to Government and

;

1858), and alsotheof of Mr. May’s application to the Commission . Yet not one of these documents

-examination BA

the former at the

trial in the Supreme was ever laid before the Commission.

Court, Queen 2. Tar- 48. At length, however, about six weeks after those documents were so hi

rant, ubi suprà ; see

also my Lettersof for the first time referred to, and nine days after the last time of such li

and24th May, 1858, reference, Sir John Bowring first informed the Commission of Enquiry, that the

nial Secretary, Dr. originals of the whole of Mah Chow Wong's books and papers had been (97

Bridges, and his

plies thereto re

bif the burned, by order of the Local Government. He further informed them that

15th, 17th (Nos and he knew nothing of the “ Memoranda .”” If these had ever had any existence,

and 276 ), 18th,. 272

25th May, 1858 . they were now no longer to be found .

Ib. , ib. ; and see

printed Minutes, fif 49. Some attempt was made to show , that the date of the spoliation and

teenthand

days, 28th eighteenth

June and burning, of the first body of evidence, was long anterior to the ventilation, by

1stJuly , 1858, pp: myself, of any matters of suspicion against Mr. Caldwell, and that the

50 (2nd col.), and

65 ( 1st col.). documents were so destroyed, merely because they encumbered the office of the

Ib . ib.,

printed and see

Report, p:gentleman in whose hands they were, and who was directed to destroy them.

. ; and printed The Commission appears to have given entire credit to both of these

iii

Minutes, & c., thir

teenth day, 23rd statements.

June, *1858, p . 41

(2nd col.). 50. But no attempt was, then or ever, made to explain that disappearance

Ib., ib.; and

'

see of the “ Memoranda ” too,—that long concealment of the authorised destruction

examination at the of the originals ( supposing it to have taken place at the period suggested ), —— and

trial of the Queen those subsequent promises ,express and implied , to produce them , both originals

and “ Memoranda ,” before the Commission. But, five months later (when the

Commission had ceased to be), it was reluctantly admitted by Dr. Bridges

himself, and on oath, that the true date on which he, with or without the

Governor's own sanction , ordered their destruction , was “ about six weeks

before the day, on which the fact, of its having taken place, was communicated

to the Commission . That day was the 17th June, 1858. And, consequently, the

destruction must have been ordered, not only long after I had commenced to

warn his Excellency, of Mr. Caldwell's connection with Mah Chow Wong, but

even at or about the very time, when I first referred, in Legislative Council, to

those papers as containing evidence of the fact ; that is to say, the 10th May,

( 13 )

1858. Moreover, Dr. Bridges deposed, that he was not aware, whether the

orders, then given by him, were even obeyed at the time they were given, or

long afterwards, or what was the period, when the destruction actually took

place.

51. Another of Sir John Bowring’s witnesses, on the same occasion, was Cross -examination

of Mr. Mongan, Act

the young gentleman by whose hand the destruction took place. He deposed, ing Chinese Secro

tary, at the trial of

that the whole volume of “ the suspicious papers,”—SO destroyed, for the Queen v.Tar

“ encumbering the office, ” where they happened to be, but “ ought not to have rant, ubisuprà.

been,” and of which he was at that time the acting head,-was “ not more than

à cubic foot ;" that “ he must say, that there was room in the office for them;"

that “ the office itself belonged to the general department of the Superin

tendency of Trade, a department possessing archive and other rooms, besides

his office ; " and that, as these documents were only there, on loan, from the

judicial and police departments, the proper course, even if they were any real

incumbrance, would have been to restore them to those departments, whose

“ Records ” he considered them to be. Mr. Mongan further declared , on taxing

his memory , that he had some remembrance of the missing " Memoranda ”

being sent into his office, subsequently to their production , before the Executive

Council, in opposition to the “ Report ” made by Mr. Caldwell upon the books Ib .; and see the

and papers of Mah Chow Wong. Thus, so far as regards this latter point, my printed Minutes,

&c., eleventh and

own evidence (as given before the Commission, but contradicted by Dr. Bridges) fifteenth days, 17th

to the effect that, in a conversation I had had with Mr. Wade, the head of that and 28th

32 June, 1858,

office, some months afterwards, Mr. Wade informed me of the nature of the and 51 (1st col.).

9

“ Memoranda ” in question, and that they were then still remaining in his

hands, was entirely confirmed by Mr. Mongan.

52. Since my departure from the island, it has been publicly confessed, by See No. 40 ' Go

the Hong-Kong Government, that the “ Memoranda ” were, as so stated by me, tion of the19th April,

in existence, and in Mr. Wade's hands, at that time, and so continued during 1859, in the Hong

all the sittings of the Commission, and the whole of my subsequent corres- April,

Gazette 1859

of the23rd

; and

pondence with that Government, and from thence down to the 12th March, myLetter to'Secre

ton of the10thJune,

1859, when they were first restored by Mr. Wade, under official cover of that 1859.

date, to the Hong-Kong Secretariat. The “ Notification ” in question contains

an entire copy of the “ Memoranda ; ” and I understand, from Mr. May, that the

Secretary of State has also received a manuscript copy thereof, with additional

Reports, from Mr. May himself, and also from Mr. Caldwell, on the subjects to

which the entries therein contained relate. I have myself offered to give every

information in my power, to your Grace's predecessor, with respect to them .

But my letter, for the reason already mentioned , remains unanswered .

53. Those entries belong to two classes :

1. Such as affect Mah Chow Wong himself.

2. Such as affect Mr. Caldwell.

54. ( 1. ) Those which affect Mah Chow Wong show him to have been en

gaged, 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

E

( 14 )

pirates and assassins abroad, kidnapping at Hong-Kong, and the slave-trade in

the Straits of Malacca.

55. ( 2.) Those which affect Mr. Caldwell show 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 Chinese mandarin during the late war, for

assisting to recover and restore Government plunder, made by the Queen's

Ib. ib.,and

9

see

May's Evidence in

Mr. troops, from the writer's station. There are payments of money to Mr. Caldwell,

Printed Minutes,, and receipts from him, and on his account. There is a transaction, binding a

&18th twelftheday,

c ; June, 1858, p. Chinaman of Hong-Kong, who has a suit for lands there, to make them over (if

37 ( col. 1). the suit succeeds) to the party conducting the suit (that is to say, Mr. Caldwell ),

for the sum of 1500 dollars, out of which Mr. Caldwell , though not a lawyer

certainly, may also retain to himself the sum of 500 dollars for costs.

See the ' Letter of 56. Mr. Wade, as I have said, had been deceived, by Sir John Bowring's

Thomas Secretary

Chinese to Government, into the belief, that the original papers, to which these " Memo

Wade,Esq.,

the Plenipotentiary,' randa” were an index, had been already examined by Mr. Mongan, who was a

of the 12th March ,

1859, printedby student interpreter, and a rising scholar, and on whose accuracy he relied .

Kong ' in the Hong The Government had further concealed the fact, that it was to Mr. Caldwell

Order,

Gazette of the 23rd himself that they had been entrusted for that purpose, and that the examination

myletterofthe

June, 10th

1859, to Secre (if any) was made by himself, and not by Mr. Mongan. Mr. Wade, not yet un

tary SirE. B. Lytton. deceived, now advances the same erroneous belief, to explain a fact — not known

when I left the island, -namely that he ( Mr. Wade) “ never went through

and never looked into the papers ” so referred to him, during the whole period

of their being in his hands ; for, if Mr. Mongan had searched them, his search ,

he thought, would be only labour in vain . Before he returned to his office, the

burning had taken place, and it was then too late . He therefore gives “ no

opinion” upon the accuracy of the references, contained in the “ Memoranda ;"

having no longer the means of judgment. But he acknowledges that they are

" documents of an important character ,” and that “ they note, as being amongst

the destroyed documents, other important papers, gravely reflecting on the cha

racter of Mr. Caldwell.”

Cross- examination 57. Mr. Mongan, who had the originals in his custody, before and after

of Mr. Mongan at

the trialof the Queen Mr. Wade, has deposed, in open court, that “the · Memoranda ' were too cir

v.Tarrant, ubi suprà. cumstantial to be forgeries."

Printed Minutes, 58. The Queen's Printer, Mr. Dixson, and the Acting Attorney -General,

& c., second, seven-

teenth , and eigh

Mr. Kingsmill, each of whom had at the time a peculiar reason of his own for

teenth days,June,

May, 30th 28th testing their accuracy , confirm ( the former upon oath) Mr. May’s narrative, as

and '1st July,1858, to the nature of the entries in the destroyed documents, so “noted” in his

pp. 8, 9, 62, and 64, “ Memoranda ."

( ist col.).

1

Printed Minutes, 59. The Chief Magistrate, Mr. Davies, himself the committing magistrate

& c., twenty-second

day, 13th July,

in Mah Chow Wong's case, and afterwards aa Commissioner of Enquiry into that

1858, pp. 87 (2nd of Mr. Caldwell, saw the “ Memoranda ” soon after they were made, had them

col:).. and 88 (Ist in his possession “ two or three days,” while the originals were in the hands

of the Local Government, and says that, if Mr. May did not then volunteer

their production to the Government, it was because he (Mr. Davies) dissuaded

( 15 )

him from parting with a document, which he thought would be Mr. May's

safeguard against imputations, already hinted at by Dr. Bridges, of malicious

meaning towards Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Davies “ really does not think, that he

( Mr. May) was guilty of even the smallest act, from which , even now , when he

(Mr. Davies) looks back on his (Mr. May’s) conduct, with the further know

ledge of his relations with Mr. Caldwell, he (Mr. Davies) could, even if he had

the greatest wish to do so, conclude that he (Mr. May ) acted unfairly, or with

hostile feelings, towards Mr. Caldwell.” He too confirms the secondary evi

dence, given by Mr. May, as to “ the general nature of the contents of the

)

Memoranda ." "

60. It follows then, that, on the face of these papers, Mr. Caldwell is, now

at least, convicted, of having had pecuniary accounts and dealings with aa China

man whose only way of life, at that very time, was notoriously the way of

piracy and murder ; and, further, of having deliberately deceived the Executive

Council, as to the nature of those papers and their contents, by preparing and

presenting to that body a Report ” of a so -called “ Examination ” of the

documents ; whích “ Report ” was false, as well in respect of the entries which

related to the convict, as of those which related to himself.

61. But the Commission of Enquiry, hampered already by packing of its

members, the terms of its warrant of appointment, and its own ill-advised

submission of all its actions to the arbitrary opinion of Mah Chow . Wong's

counsel (and perhaps my expectant successor in the Attorney -Generalship ),

was, by the entire destruction of the original documents, by an untrue state

ment of the cause and manner of that destruction , and by the suppression of

the “ Memoranda” ( containing that secondary evidence of their contents which

is now before your Grace), further 'misled into making a Report of a most

unsatisfactory nature.

62. The Chairman , whose casting vote alone carried the Report, so far as Cross - examination

of the Hon . the Sur

it favoured Mr. Caldwell, has at a subsequent period, and upon oath, explained veyor-Generalatthe

that vote away. He has explained, in open court, that “there had been im- vtrial of theubi suprà

. Tarrant, Queen.

portant evidence, subsequently given in the Supreme Court, which the Com

missioners had not heard ; " that “the (sworn) evidence of Dr. Bridges and

* Mr. Mongan was so different from what had been given by them (unsworn)

before the Commission, as to amount to new evidence ; ” and that, “ since the

Report of the Commission had been handed in, further evidence had come to

his knowledge ."

63. The Commissioners are certainly entitled to all the benefit of that Printed Report,

pp. i.-iii.

explanation. But it cannot excuse them for having added, to these difficulties,

those of their own creation already noticed ; nor the haste, with which they

proceeded to draw up, pass, and return their Report, without taking a day's

time to consider the evidence which they (in “ 25 sittings extending over seven Ib. par. 2, p. i.

weeks ” ) had contrived to take ; and from which Report, consequently, all notice

of very important matters, that had been established ,—some days, or even some

weeks, before, to their entire satisfaction ,-is altogether excluded! ; whilst others,

which are noticed, are very imperfectly noticed, and very unsatisfactorily, and

( 16 ) Mr. (

plata

sometimes very erroneously, found. I invite your Grace's attention to a few

instances. and be

See their printed

Report ; pars. 5, 6, 64, Mr. Caldwell's unsupported statements, in his own exculpation, no

8, 10, and 22 ; and denial

see theprinted Mi- matter how much soever contradicted, were invariably admitted , as " satis

proce

third,winth;, factory " evidence, by the Commissioners, in his favour ; and their “ legal

nutes,,, and 2 >

third days; 1st,12th, adviser” and “ examiner,” Mr. Day, certainly did not point out the impropriety

and 16th June, and

3

them,

14th July, 1858, pp. or even the largeness of the concession.

10, 11, 25-7, 28-9, 80000

88-96 . 65. In this favourable position, the only witnesses, whom Mr. Caldwell 7

Ib. .

haib, Minutes

printed and see judged it prudent to call, were his Chinese wife, Ayow ,—his Chinese servant, Sze I am

& c., third, fifth, se- Kai,—his solicitor, Mr. Stace,—his Chinese quack -doctor and vendee of brothel

venth, eighth , tenth ,

-

Mr. I

fifteenth, sixteenth, property , Lum Ateen , —the Acting Colonial Secretary, Dr. Bridges,—and his -

and days ; naerk

1st, third, ninth, (Mr. Caldwell's) own assistant, in the office of Registrar - General, a Mr. dialar

eleventh; sixteenth, Grandpré (a Macao-Portuguese ) ; who also was at the time, and probably now

28th, and 29th June, Flere

and 1st July, 1858 ; is, a tenant of other licensed brothel property, under lease, from Mr. Caldwell's

pp. 11, 12, 15, 16 , anc list

and 16 (1st and 2nd partner and co- insolvent, Mr. Rienaecker, the defaulting Colonial Treasurer

cols. ), 20-1, 23 (1st

and2nd cols.), 29. mentioned above. let the

30, 50-4 , 64-5, and

69-70 . 66. Ayow was called to speak to her own character, and to lay claim , in

25 ()

Pars.4, 5, 6,supra . her own right, to the property , standing in Mr. Caldwell's name, at the Land

Office or elsewhere. The indelicacy of her being present, for such a purpose,

TEST

occasioned great pain to nearly every one who heard her evidence.

67. Sze Kai, Lum Ateen, Mr. Stace, Dr. Bridges, and Mr. Grandpré,

only confirmed the main facts of the real or reputed ownership of Mr. Cald

30000

well over the brothel property ( claimed nevertheless to have been purchased

from him by Lum Ateen himself), and of Mr. Caldwell's acts of interference,

on behalf of Mah Chow Wong, as already stated . They gave no material TAY

evidence in his favour, and they failed to impeach the motives of those who

allein

had testified, or were going to testify, against him .

68. But the last two witnesses made further admissions ; apparently with But

Call

out feeling their force, as to their own part in these matters.

Colleg

Printed Minutes, 69. Dr. Bridges stated, that he had himself afforded his voluntary profes

&teenth

c.,seventh andfif-

days, 9th and

sional services, for Mr. Caldwell, in adjusting his insolvency, and inducing

28th June,1858, pp: the creditors to accede to the arrangement, as above mentioned ; and that, in

20 ( 2nd col.) and 50

(1st col.). giving Mr. Caldwell his support and countenance against all accusations, he

-

of the Hon. the Sur. had acted out of a sense of his duty, “ as a Freemason ;" which last observa

veyor-General

trial v. tion was thereupon unanimously expunged from the Minutes, “ as highly

at the

of the Queen

Tarrant, ubi suprà ; improper ;" for so, the Chairman of the Commission - himself a Freemason

and see Mr. Cald

well's three Appeals has since deposed upon oath. beau

to the Freemasons in

printed Minutes, &c., 70. The narrative, which Mr. Grandpré gave, of his own conduct, is still

-

twenty-Fourth days, more instructive; and the rather, since, in their haste to get done ( the English th

14thand16th

1858, pp . ( 2nd, Mail being about to

July be despatched ), the Commissioners overlooked it altogether,

dow

col.), 93-4, and97 during the few hours engaged in preparing and signing their Report. It must

(1st col.).

be supposed that, if they had not so overlooked it, they would have cen

sured it.

71. He began by declaring, “ that he had nothing to do with the registration He

Printed Minutes,

&c., sixth day,8th of brothels ; that he was not Assistant Registrar-General ; that the branch of

June, 1858, p. 17

(1st col.).

( 17 )

Mr. Caldwell s duties was entirely distinct from his own ; that he had nothing

whatever to do with Mr. Caldwell, beyond having an office in the same building,

and being on the pay list of his department.”

72. The Commission, giving credit to these repeated and unequivocal

denials, decided not to affect Mr. Caldwell, with notice of Mr. Grandpré's

proceedings. To that extent they were, for the time, in the right; but only

for the time ; and, even at that time, some notice ought to have been taken of

them , as affecting Mr. Grandpre, himself a public officer. This is his own

account of them :

73. “ I am collector of Police Rates, and have been so since January, 1858. Ib., ib.

I am the occupant of (Crown ) Lot 218. This lot still stands in the name of

Mr. Rienaecker, as owner , in the Land Office books. From the time Mr. Rie

naecker left this colony , to the present , I have rented it from him, at one hundred

dollars a month . It is now sublet to two persons ; one house to Victoriano

Flores , and the other four to a ( Chinese) woman named Assoo . Three of these

are licensed brothels. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Caldwell has no direct

or indirect interest in this property ; nor has Mr. Caldwell , since Mr. Rienaecker

left the colony, interfered with me in the management of it. I have never paid

any of the rent to him, but always to Siemssen and Co., as agents for Mr.

Rienaecker. I let the houses to Assoo , long before the · Brothels Ordinance '

was passed . I believe her to be a notorious brothel keeper. She has been , I think,

twice prosecuted by the police, for keeping a disorderly house . I get, for the houses,

AN ADVANCED RENT , beyond the one hundred dollars, which I pay in, on

account to Mr. Rienaecker , to Siemssen and Co. I have not received any

permission , from Mr. Caldwell , to have any connection with this property .

WHY SHOULD I ?"

74. The question was not answered at the time ; and the Commissioners Printed Minutes,

allowed their commission to expire, and the question still to remain unanswered . & c.,eighth day,11th

p. 24

But they might have replied, that this “ Mr. Rienaecker ” had been Mr. (2nd col.).

Caldwell's partner, and was his co- insolvent; that Mr. Caldwell had himself

alleged, that, to this very firm of “ Siemssen and Co.” he had executed the

assignment of all his property, in trust for his own creditors, and had but

carried out their wishes, when he made sale of “ Licensed Brothel, No. 48 ”

to his own quack -doctor, Lum Ateen ; and, above all, that Mr. Grandpre’s

disclaimer of all connection with the licensing of brothels, was, within a few

hours afterwards, proved by documentary and other evidence, and even ad

mitted by himself, to be utterly false ; and his memory as to dates shown to

be equally erroneous.

75. For, on the next day after Mr. Grandpré had made that disclaimer,

the Commission took the following uncontradicted evidence of Mr. May himself,

whose official subordinate the former had been, in the Police Department,

down to his then recent appointment to the office, which he actually held,

under Mr. Caldwell.

76. “ I heard Mr. Grandpré's evidence. I saw his letter of appointment. 9thIb., seventh

June, 1858,day,

p.

He was therein appointed as second in rank in the Registration Office, to have 21 (2nd col.).

F

( 18 )

special charge of the collection of the Police Rate, and to assist (when not so

employed ) in the business of the Registration Office. I know, of my own know 世

ledge, that the houses let by Mr. Grandpré to Assoo were not occupied by her until

ABOUT OR AFTER the passing of the Brothels Ordinance."

Ib., ib., p. 20 (2nd 77. And, on the same day, the Acting Colonial Secretary himself confessed

col.).

that, in practice, as well as by the very letter of the “ Brothels Ordinance,” it

was the sole duty of the Registrar -General “ to license the brothels, to register 1

them , to receive the license fees, and to send their women to hospital.” Dr.

Bridges also produced, being required, the “ Letter of Appointment, from

himself, of Mr. Grandpré to the post of Assistant Registrar-General.” LE

1b., ninth day, 78. Resummoned, to explain or retract his former statement, Mr. Grandpré

12th June, 1858, p.

25 (2nd col.). was consequently obliged to confess that, “ on having his attention drawn to

the letter of the 2nd December last from the Acting Colonial Secretary, he T

perceives, that he is attached to the Registrar-General's department, second in rank

and subordinate to the Registrar -General, and expected to co-operate generally in

the service of the department, when not employed in the discharge of peculiar

duties." !

Ib., fourteenth day, 79. There is also some further uncontradicted evidence of Mr. May, to the

24th(1stJune,1858,

46 col.). p. effect, that Mr. Grandpre’s leaning towards Mr. Caldwell's interests, at the time

of Mah Chow Wong's arrest, led him into a serious disobedience of orders, im 1

posed upon him as then Acting Assistant Superintendent of Police, and such as

to have nearly occasioned the criminal's escape from arrest and from justice ;

and that, but for Mr. May's compassion, Mr. Grandpré's own punishment, at the

hands of the local authorities, must have ensued. .

80. On all these points, however, the Report of the Commission is perfectly

silent — that body contenting itself with the admission of Mr. Grandpré, as if he

had been an unexceptionable witness.

81. The chief witnesses, against Mr. Caldwell, upon the Commission, were

myself, Mr. May, J.P., Mr. Inglis, J.P., the Chief Magistrate (the Hon. Mr.

Davies, J.P.) , the Assistant Magistrate (Mr. Mitchell, J.P.), Mr. Turner, the

Crown Solicitor, Mr. Kingsmill, now Acting Attorney -General, Mr. Dixson ,

>

the Queen's printer, Inspectors Lyons and Roberts, Mr. Tarrant, and ( for the

purpose merely of verifying the entries in the Land Register and the Treasury

receipts of Crown rents for the brothel property) the Clerks of the Land Office

and Treasury .

82. By one or more of these witnesses, every statement that I had ever

made was fully proved against Mr. Caldwell. I am not answerable for the

wording and arrangement of the pretended “ nineteen charges,” which I had

protested against and repudiated. And yet, even those were, substantially,

proved, as the minutes of evidence — for I shall not attempt to analyse them

will shew ; even in the instances, where the hastily-drawn Report ignores, or is

silent with regard to, such evidence.

83. I have already said much to explain the discrepancies of that docu

ment. But there is yet one incongruity remaining, to account for which, special

circumstances have been also alleged, by some of the Commissioners themselves ;

( 19 )

I mean the fact that, instead of sending in a separate Report of their own , the

hostile minority of two affixed their own signatures to a Report, carried against

them by their three colleaguesma circumstance twice recorded on the face of

the Report itself.

Cross-examination

84. It was promised, they say, that all the evidence, oral and documentary, of the Hon . the Sur

as taken by the Commission , was to be printed and circulated with the Report. trial

veyor-General at the

of the Queen v .

Tarrant, ubi suprà ;

But the promise was not kept. The local Government, on obtaining the Report and

see my letter of

itself, “ suppressed the whole of the documentary evidence,” and “thereby the30th yeah ye heste,

rendered the printed minutes of the oral evidence quite unintelligible .” The to Acting Colonial

same bad faith is complained of, with respect to another “understanding" come My letter of the

August, 1858 ,

to between the majority of three and “ the minority of two,” namely, that on to Sectetarg Sire

the Report being signed by all, the three Members of the Commission, who B. Lytton .

were also Legislative Councillors, should support, in Council, my motion ( which

stood for the very day following their Report) for the suppression of Mr.

Caldwell's office. It was said that, by carrying that motion, they would get rid

of the man himself, as a Justice of the Peace and Registrar-General, without a

direct vote against his capacity for meaner employment. Mr. Scarth, J.P., a My letter to the

member of that minority, is now in England, as I have informed the Colonial same Minister ofthe

Department, and will prove the fact —- if your Grace desires it. It is certain

that, at the Executive Council, which was sitting to receive the Report so

agreed to, the Resolution was at once taken , to postpone, sine die, the next day's

meeting of the Legislative Council. And it was not until nearly three months of Cross - examination

the Hon . the Sur

afterwards, that it was again called together. In the mean time, my suspension veyor -General,ubi

suprà.

from the Attorney -Generalship had taken place, on which event I necessarily

ceased also to be summoned to the Council ; and, thereby, the anticipated motion ,

for the suppression of the office, dropped ; there being no one to undertake it.

85. Having now stated every circumstance, within my knowledge, which

may serve as an apology for the Report, I will , before proceeding to state its

main findings, merely add, that it was drawn, considered, and approved in draft Cross - examination

of the same.

on Saturday morning, copied for signature on Sunday, and signed in the

morning of Monday - no time having been taken to consider the two months'

evidence, on which it was supposed to rest.

86. By that ill-considered instrument, the Commission reported to the

following effect :

87. That the “ Brothels' charges ” were “ Not Proven” (but no grounds Printed Report,

.

for that finding were assigned ); and it was added that “ there were grounds for & c., pp. i. üi.

bringing those charges.”

88. That the character of Mr. Caldwell's connections, by marriage or

otherwise, amongst the Chinese was also “ Not Proven ” (and, again, without

assigning grounds for this latter finding).

89. And that, with respect to some matters of mere inference, or matters

stated merely in corroboration of charges, Mr. Caldwell was “ Not Guilty.”

90. They found him Guilty under the following heads :

91. (1.) “ A long and intimate connection between himself and Mah Chow

Wong ."

( 20 )

92. (2.) “ Being in the habit, on Mah Chow Wong's unsupported informa

tion, of arresting persons.”

93. (3.) “ Aiding in the acceptance of Szekai, his former servant, as bail

for Mah Chow Wong ; Szekai having been imprisoned for debt for a few days

a short time previously .”

Printed Minutes, 94. ( 4.) “ A partnership with Mah Chow Wong in a lorcha (Mr. Caldwell

&c ., -

day, 14th July, himself having admitted aa connection with eight").

1858, p . 90 (2nd

col . ). 95. (5.) “ Inducing the Attorney -General, at the beginning of 1857, to

order the release of a great number of men, whom Mr. May knows to have

been pirates, and who Mr. Caldwell ought to have known were pirates.” 5

.

96. (6.) Making, for that purpose, “ a representation of their (good )

character ; it appearing incomprehensible (to the Commission ) how any person , 11

with Mr. Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language, and holding the

appointment he did, could have been ignorant of the character of the boats, in

which the men were seized, and that one at least of these men was a notorious

pirate,-PARTICULARLY, as it is in evidence, that Mau Chow Wong was concerned

with the boats .”

97. (7.) And of having, “ since the commencement of this enquiry, solely

upon the information contained in an anonymous (Chinese) letter (that certain

property had been stolen ), personally, and without the assistance of the police,

searched a room in the occupation of a Chinese interpreter, whom Mr. Caldwell

knew to be about to give evidence before the Commission , acting therein

injudiciously, to say the least of it" (the Commissioners having, twice previously

in the same Report, recorded “the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence,"

and that “ it is manifest, that the Chinese are very averse to give evidence

against him, Mr. Caldwell").

98. They further find, unanimously, but specially (a majority of Three to

Two having declined to make it a direct finding of Guilty ; unanimously

admitting, however, that “the said finding is in support of the inference of his

unfitness to be a justice of the peace ") ;

99. (8.) “ That a sum of money was offered, by a Chinaman , as a mark of

gratitude to Mr. Caldwell, for being instrumental in the release of a lorcha

seized by pirates, in which the man's father was ; but that this money was

refused by Mr. Caldwell, and, on such refusal, offered to Mrs. Caldwell, as a

present for the children ; a majority, however (of Three to Two ), do not feel

satisfied that Mrs. Caldwell accepted this money."

100. (9.) “ That a Chinese female, named Shap Lok, who had been in

frequent communication with Mr. Caldwell, and is reported (reputed ? ) but not

proved ( ? ) to be a sister, by Chinese usage, of Mrs. Caldwell, received from

the Foo T'ai pawn -shop the sum of four hundred dollars, because the sentence

on a pawnbroker, belonging to the said shop, had been mitigated, as was sup

posed, through her influence; and that she received a further sum of fifty dollars,

for her trouble in the matter." 1

101. (10.) “ Mr. Caldwell's connection with so notorious a character as

Mah Chow Wong ."

1

( 21 )

102. (11 ). “ That Mr. Caldwell's original appointment may have been

injudicious.”

103. ( 12.) But, lastly, “ That, notwithstanding these facts, it appears to a

majority (Three to Two) of this Commission, that they do not necessitate so

>

strong a measure, as his removal from that office.”

104. Even if this Report had acquitted Mr. Caldwell ,-- still it had only

been , in the first instance, my duty to have represented, to the authorities, the

charges made, by persons of credit, upon matters so gravely concerning the

administration ofjustice. But there can be no doubt that, for all the purposes,

which alone can even justify any government enquiry whatever, into the con

duct of an official, the above Report must be taken to be fatal to the character of

Mr. Caldwell, and his fitness to retain his employment.

105. The Governor, however, appears to have thought otherwise . Letter from the

106. No sooner was the Report handed in, than I was officially informed Acting ,Dr.

Colonja! Se

Bridges,

by the Acting Colonial Secretary, that his Excellency considered that “none of to23rdmyself (No.433),

July , 1858.

the charges had been substantially proved;" that, “ many of them were reported

to have been brought on insufficient grounds ; ” and that “ his Excellency could

consider the decision of the Commissioners, in no other light than as an excul

pation of Mr. Caldwell.” This supposed failure of the charges, against the latter,

I was further informed, seemed to his Excellency good ground for proceeding

to my own suspension ; as having thereby “ proved myself to be entirely defi

cient in the qualities, necessary to the discharge ofmy functions, by my inability,

in that matter, to distinguish between real guilt, and the mere effusions of private

malice or common report.” I was further charged, with having given my own

evidence, beforethe Commission ,“ with precipitancy, intemperance, an appear

ance of malignity and partiality ;" and with baving introduced into it“ vitupe

rative and defamatory matter, without, in any way, furthering the objects of the

Commission, or the promotion of the public good.” His Excellency concluded ,

by calling upon me to furnish “ a satisfactory defence or explanation" of my

conduct; and he intimated that, in the event of its not being “ satisfactory ,”

he should proceed, in Executive Council, to my suspension .

107. I lost no time in sending the demanded “ defence and explanation .”

108. Apprehending, from the tenor and tone of the demand, and, as the Letter from my

self of the 30th July,

sequel soon proved, with too much reason , that the proceedings in Executive 1858, totheActing

Council were designed to be taken ex parte, II prefaced my“ defence and expla- Colonial Secretary,

nation ,” with a protest of the illegality of the measure ; claiming, as of right, Printed Rules and

the benefit of the “ Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service,” M. ColonialService,,

promulgated by the Secretary of State for general information ; which peremp- Rules, Edition

79:81 (Rerof

torily forbade any Governor, even in Executive Council, to suspend any officer, and

1856),

see PP:

the 25-6

cases;

appointed by the Queen, without first observing the formalities thereby pre- Re

(in Willis

Privy Council)

and Re

scribed ; and which were intended to secure deliberation on the part of the tri- Montague ; and see

bunal, and to the accused notice of the charges, time to answer them , open Parl . Pa. on the case

of Chief Justice Ped

trial, and the opportunity of being personally present thereat. It is however der, 1949-50,

Land . Van

one of the peculiarities of my case, that, neither then nor afterwards, was any

notice whatever taken by any person of this claim of right and justice.

G

( 22 )

Letter (No. 454) 109. My “defence and explanation " contained as close an analysis of the

to

myself, 28th July, Report and Minutes of Evidence as was possible under great difficulties ; that is

1858. to say, the shortness of the time allotted me (only two days from the date of the

Cross-examination Minutes being placed in my hands), pressure of official occupation, sickness, and

of the-General

Hon.theSurë

and above all, the Governor's deliberate and final refusal, in defiance of the protests

Dr. Bridges

trial of at thev. of the expired Commission , to allow any portion of the documentary evidence

the Queen

Tarrant, ubisuprà. to be printed ; a refusal, which was a breach at once of his own engagement to

And see letter to

myself (No. 447) the public — to print “ the whole of the evidence ” —and his “ order” in favour

from Dr. Bridges,

24th July, 1858. of myself — that I was to be furnished with “ a printed copy of such evidence.”

Memorandum ofthe I was not even allowed any copy of, or access to, those documents, although so

gistrate,29thJuly, interwoven with the vivâ voce portion of the same as to be absolutely essential,

1858 .

in the opinion of the Commissioners themselves, to the due understanding of

the latter.*

>

110. If that “ Defence and Explanation " is, as it should be, in the Colonial

Department, t it will speak for itself. To recapitulate its contents here would

be to reiterate much of what I have already stated. The same ground is taken

—the same refutation given to the suggestion, that the Report of the Commission

deserved to be considered, by his Excellency, in the light in which, according to

the letter of his acting Colonial Secretary, Sir John Bowring considered it.

111. The Commissioners had themselves repudiated one portion of that

suggestion. On the day of the date of my “ Defence and Explanation,” and

whilst I was putting the last hand to it, I received, through their Chairman,

the following communication, signed by himself and three other members of

the Commission ; including every one of the majority which had carried the

My letter twE. Se-

creta B.

Report. There was but one name—that of Mr. Scarth, J.P. -not appended to

Lytton, Bart.,M.P., the communication. He, however, was then absent at Macao ; and, before his

1859e. 18th May, departure, he had already addressed me on the same subject. I have already

notified your Grace's department, that he is now in England, and may be ques

tioned on the subject. In the mean time, I subjoin , to the letter of his colleagues,

the contents of his own, which will show your Grace , that he not only con

curred in the opinion , expressed by his colleagues , so far as Mr. May and myself

were concerned , but that he and the Chief Magistrate , the Hon . Mr. Davies ,

also concurred in the opinion , entertained by Mr. May and myself, of the

“ charges ” themselves, so far “ as they affected Mr. Caldwell.”

112. The former is as follows :

Letter to myself 113. “ The members of the late Commission, appointed to investigate cer

How the tain charges against Mr. Caldwell, have been led to believe, that their Report

from the-General

30th July, 1858 .

has been construed, by the Government, as imputing grave misconduct to Mr.

Anstey and Mr. May, in connection with that enquiry. I therefore, as Chair

man of this Commission, in concurrence with my fellow Commissioners, deem

it my duty to declare that, when we signed that Report, we did not conceive

that it would be so construed ; nor did we intend, in our Report, to imply that,

there was any want of good faith and justice, in the proceedings of these gentle

[* It would now appear that the latter too has been since suppressed . See post, pp. 32-5.

† And this also . — 16 .]

( 23 )

men . The Report was simply intended to refer to the charges, as they affect

Mr. Caldwell.”

114. Mr. Scarth's letter is as follows :

115. “ I think it only just to you and Mr. May, after what I have heard Letter from John

Scarth, Esq ., J.P.,

this morning, to state that I, as a member of the Caldwell Commission , wasfirmly of the 24th July,

of impression, and am so still, that there were not only good grounds for bringing 1858, to myself.

nearly all the charges, but that some of them were proved against Mr. Caldwell, as >

the Report will show. And I think that those charges, which were proved, were of

such a serious nature, and affecting so much the general interests of the Colony, that

you are entitled to thanks, for having been the means of getting them investigated.

Excuse haste, as I am off to Macao. But, as Mr. Davies and I agree in nearly

all matters relative to the Caldwell enquiry, he will act for me, if there is anything

to be done, in further giving an opinion on the subject.”

116. I transmitted to the Governor, with my “ Defence and Explanation,” Cross - examination

of the Hon . the Sur

the above two certificates of opinion, although the former of the two had veyor-General at the

It afterwards trial, ubi suprà.

been already sent up by the Commissioners themselves.

transpired, that they had been treated with much discourtesy for having sent

it. But , to me, no notice has ever been taken of either certificate.

117. I likewise caused my “ Defence and Explanation ” to be accom

panied with certain letters, received from all the unpaid Justices of the Peace,

excepting those who had been on the Commission, and also excepting the

Governor's own son ; who, for obvious reasons of delicacy, had not been

consulted upon the question, which was, “ Whether, taking for true the facts

found, by the Report, against Mr. Caldwell , the Justices agreed with the

majority of the Commission in thinking, that the said facts did not necessitate

his removal from the Bench .”

118. One Justice, the Hon. Mr. Jardine, declined to give any opinion Letter to myself

from the Hon.Joseph

upon an inconsistent finding, and preferred to wait for the publication of the July,

Jardine1858.

, J.P.,29th

whole of the evidence. And another Justice, then recently returned from

Europe, Mr. Antrobus, who concurred in that opinion, further remarked that, Letter to myself

from R. C. Antro

the unpaid Justices not having themselves, as he thought they ought to have bus, Esq., J.P., of

the 30th July, 1858.

done, undertaken the enquiry, must now deem themselves estopped, by what

ever conclusions the Commissioners had come to, and the Government had

thought fit to adopt.

119. With these two exceptions, if such they can be considered, all the Letters to myself

from the Hon . John

unpaid Justices, so consulted, declared that, “ assuming to be true the facts, Dent, J. P., John

Rickett, Esq., J.P.,

stated to be true by the Report, they entirely concurred with the minority of J. D. Gibb, Esq.,

the Commission , and were of opinion, that Mr. Caldwell was unfit to remain in P., H. J. Lamond.

Esq., J.P., and Pa

the Commission of the Peace. " I find that, to one of those certificates of J.P.,

trick Campbell,Esq. ,

all of the 30th

opinion, is appended the further declaration, “ that the thanks of the Justices pare

July,par.1858. Com

36, suprà.

are due to me, for having been the means of promoting the investigation .” Letter of the 30th

120. The contents of the whole of these letters, some months after being prà,

July, and ubi su

1858,cross-exa

embodied in my letter of “ Defence and Explanation ,” were produced, in open mination ofthe

the Surveyo Hon.

r -Gene

Court, and admitted on the part of Sir John Bowring's Government. ral at the trial,

ubi suprà.

121. Beyond the bare acknowledgment of the receipt of my letter in Letter (No. 469)

question, and the mere intimation - without reasons assigned — that his Excel- ofthe 2nd Aug. 1858,

( 24 )

from Dr.

Acting Bridges,

Colonial Se lency in Executive Council had not found it a “ satisfactory defence ” or

cretary, to myself. “ explanation ,” and had resolved to proceed, in the Executive Council, to my

suspension, requesting me “to furnish in writing (within four days) such

vindication of my conduct as I might deem necessary,” no answer was ever TH

+

attempted, so far as I know, to its statements.

Idem , and my 122. To what extent the suggested “ vindication ” was, by his Excellency ,

reply thereto of the

3rd Aug. 1858 . deemed requisite, I never knew ; and, therefore, I was in no position to judge

how far I ought to “ deem it necessary .” It is true that I was assured , that

any of “ the documents which I might be desirous to consult, with a view to it,

would be submitted to me for my perusal at the Government offices during

official hours.” But, on the same day, when I went there, as I in reply

informed his Excellency, “ I was positively refused access ” to those, which I 14

was desirous to consult, except only “ in extract.” I was, therefore, as I

further informed his Excellency, at a loss how to prepare any further “ vindi

cation " of myself, or even to understand, for what matters in particular, it was

needed .

123. This was the more uncertain, because there was not one material

point, contained in the letter of accusation against me—that of the 23rd July,

1858 —— which had not been already answered by me, and refuted by the therein

cited letters from the Commissioners themselves.

124. I confine this last observation to points deemed material, because

those letters certainly left untouched the imputations of irrelevancy and

officiousness in giving my testimony ; minor imputations, however, from the

former of which their Report, and from the latter of which Sir John Bowring's

own Warrant of Commission, had, by anticipation , absolved me.

125. As to the former, their Report states :

Printed Report, 126. “ We have extended our enquiries into aa number of matters, some of

par. 2, p. i .

which , irrelevant as they may now appear, were so woven into and combined

with the iromediate subject of enquiry, that it was not considered safe to leave

them unexamined ."

127. And as to the latter, it is not to be forgotten, that I was a Govern

ment officer, and that, even if any of their questions had appeared to me

irrelevant (which was certainly not the case ), I was bound to answer them .

Printed Warrant

of Commission, in

By the last clauses in Sir John Bowring's own warrant, appointing that Com

Preface to Report mission, and which was neither draughted nor settled by me, “ all persons

and Minutes, p . i .

superintending or employed in or under the several public departments " were

released from official confidence, “ for the purposes of the proposed enquiry .”

Nay, more ; all “ persons in the public service ” were expressly “ charged ” to be

66 9

“ aiding and assisting to the Commission,” whensoever and howsoever required.

My Letter to the 128. In this state of perplexity, I renewed my application, ( for a hearing

Acting

cretary, Dr.Bridges, and trial), to the Governor officially ; and I wrote privately, at the same time, to

of the3rd August, the Lieutenant-Governor, on the subject of that application .

Letter ( No. 473) 129. The only answer, vouchsafed me by the Governor, was , that “ my

myselfActing

toBridges, Dr. letter would be laid before the Executive Council on Saturday next ;" (the day

from Co

lonial Secretary .of named by that body for my suspension ; resolutions to that effect having been

already passed in my absence ).

( 25 )

130. It is true that the Lieutenant-Governor, who was also the senior of

the three members who composed it (Dr. Bridges himself being another), was,

at the same time, encouraging me, by private notes (now in your Grace's See Notes from

the Hon . Lieut. - Col.

department) , to believe that aa trial would be granted me. For he promised me Caine to myself of

to attend, in his place in Council, and make answer to whatever questions I the 2nd, 1858, andin 3rd

the

might, at such trial, put to him. Distrusting, however, the sincerity of personal Lett

Append ix my

er to Secretary

to

assurances , so little corresponding with the official communications of Govern- Sir E. Bulwer Lyt

ton , Bart ., M.P., of

ment, I lodged, in the hands of the Clerk of the Councils, on the very morning the 7th Aug. 1838.

(7th August , 1858) when the Council was about to assemble for my suspension , submittMemorandum

ed by the

a succinct “ Memorandum of Protest ” against any step taken , or to be taken , Attorney-General of

Hong -Kong," dlated

to my prejudice by that body in my absence, or except in conformity with the 6th August,1858.

above-cited “ Rules and Regulations ” of the Colonial Department, to which I

referred them , in detail, as bearing on my case.*

131. The due receipt of that document is verified, by the entry of the

initials of the name of the Clerk of the Councils, against that of the document

itself in my messenger's book, still in my possession. But no other reply what

ever was ever made to it. The Council only sat two hours that day ; and the

greater part of the time was occupied with military business. But, before they

adjourned, they caused me to be informed, very briefly , and without reasons Letter to myself,

from Dr. Bridges,

assigned ,—that “ I was suspended, from that date, from all the functions and Acting Colonial Se

salary, appertaining to my office of Attorney-General of the Colony, until her August, of the. 7th

cretary 1858

Majesty's pleasure should be known .”

132. On the same day, I addressed, through his Excellency the Governor, Letters from my

self to Sir

and also through the Post-Office, a letter, in duplicate originals, to the Secretary E. B.Lytton, Bart.,

.

of State, communicating the above illegal measures, referring to my so long Mili Jith 21st10th,

16th, and Au

intercepted letter of the 17th May, 1858, and appealing against the suspension gust,1858.

See par. 33, supi.

as illegal and unjust towards myself, and of most alarming consequences in its

certain effect upon the minds of the Chinese. The open duplicate of that letter

having been detained, in Sir John Bowring's hands, for at least one mail, I again ,

on the 16th of August, and , upon that letter being likewise detained , again

on the 21st August, 1858 , forwarded (also in duplicate originals, through the

Governor and Post-Office ) my grounds and reasons for such appeal.

133. In an almost dying state, and against the strong remonstrances ofmy My Letters of the

21st and 28th Janu

own medical adviser, who was also the Colonial Surgeon , Dr. Menzies, I re- ary, 6th February,

mained in those regions, until the 30th January, 1859, when, as my corres- April, 1859,to 13th

see

Se

pondence with your Grace's department shows, the increasing “ pressure of sick- cretary Sir E. F.

Lytton, Bart ., M.P.,

ness

was such as to compel me, most reluctantly ,' to comply with that advice , and

April and the 16th

of 14th June,

accept leave of absence from Sir John Bowring upon medical certificates, and 1859, to Under-Se

proceed to Europe, without waiting any longer for the delayed decision of the Cretary the Earl of

Secretary of State.

134. In the mean time, Sir John Bowring, as though unsatisfied with the

decision of his own Commission of Enquiry and its consequences, determined

to refer, to another tribunal of his own choosing, the question , whether the

[* This document also appears to have been suppressed. See pp. 32-5, post.]

H

( 26 )

character of his Government was, to any and what extent, compromised by

its protection cf Mr. Caldwell ; and, more especially, by its actings, in respect

of the suppressed and destroyed documents, bleonging or relating to Mah

Chow Wong

Proceedings in the

Queen v. Tarrant, 135. An information for libel was accordingly filed, (after much evidence

ubi suprà. had been taken in the Police Court*) against the proprietor of a Newspaper,

which had charged the burning of thepapers, as “ a contemptible and damnable

trick” of Sir John Bowring's Government, with the deliberate intent to screen

criminals. The defendant pleaded, in justification, that the statements of the

article were true. The Acting Attorney-General informed the Court, that “ he

was instructed to say, that Sir John Bowring felt, that the plea of justification

had put himself, and his Government, quite as much upon his and its trial, as

the defendant.” Dr. Bridges, Mr. Mongan, and the Surveyor-General, were

examined for the prosecution, and cross-examined for the defence ; and all the

documents demanded, for the latter, from the Secretariat, were brought into

court. The Jury was a Special Jury of Merchants and Bankers, of great

credit , and little disposed to give a factious verdict. But their verdict and

an unanimous one, was given, immediately on the closing of the case for the

prosecution, and without hearing the defence . It was a verdict for the

defendant, on both issues. It found him not guilty ; and it found that his

plea of justification was fully proved, against the Government, out of the

mouths of the Crown witnesses. Costs were immediately awarded, by the

Chief Justice, against the Crown ; and they have been since paid by Sir John

Bowring ; and, as I hear, under the head of " Miscellaneous Expenses of the

Crown Solicitors' Department .” †

136. Your Grace will not blame me for again observing, that the court

and jury, which thus determined the case of Mr. Caldwell and the Hong-Kong

Government, was a . tribunal chosen by the latter, and that I had no part in

the selection .

137. No decision was taken by the authority to which I did submit my

case — the Secretary of State--until I had arrived in Germany, on my way

Hansard, Session homeward . But, even then , I only learned it, through the newspaper report

1859,

13, 14xol, PP: of the announcement, made in the House of Commons, on the 11th March last,

; 153,com

pare thenewspapers

of 12th March, by your immediate predecessor ; which was simply to the effect that “ he (Sir

1859.

E. B. Lytton) regretted to have been obliged to confirm my suspension .”

138. No reasons were assigned - no reasons have ever been assigned for

the confirmation. On the contrary, the Secretary of State was pleased, on that

Ib., ib. occasion, to say, that my conduct in office had exhibited, in the most favourable

light, my “ talent,” my “ learning," my “ energy," my “ zeal for the public

My Letter of the service, " and my “ character.” Subsequently again, in reply to my letter of

4th

Secretary E. B. the 4th April last, ( reporting my arrival, and complaining of a passage, in the

April,Sir1859,to

Lytton, Bart., M.P. newspaper versions of his speech, which represented him to have adopted for

aspersion , cast by Sir John Bowring, upon my evidence before the Caldwell

These Police Court Depositions also appear to be suppressed . See sp. 32-5, post.

† And the Judge's Notes (and indeed all Notes) of the Trial, ib.]

( 27 )

Commission ), the Secretary of State assured me, that he had not made the Letter to myself

from Under - Secre

unfavourable remark, and that the passage in question was a misreport; and, narvon

tary the ofEarlof Car

the 13th

in correcting it, had the goodness to renew his expression of opinion, of my April, 1859.

official and personal merits, and, substantially, in the same flattering terms.

139. I have therefore applied for re-employment, and for compensation

for my wrongs. But, neither to that application, nor my letters to the Secretary

of State, of subsequent dates to the 13th April last, have I received any reply.

The only communications, indeed, which I have ever received from him , are the Letter to myself

from Drummond

letter last mentioned, and a previous intimation, through his private secretary, WolffMr.of the 7th

that “ he (Sir E. B. Lytton ) had been unwell for some days, but would inform April, 1859.

me when he could receive me;" I having requested, on the 4th April last, the

usual interview , on the subject of my case.

Letters to myself

140. It is true that, from the late Under-Secretary of State, the Earl of from Under - Secre

Carnarvon, I have received several letters, noticing some of my unanswered narvon tary theofEarltheof 16th

Car

letters to the Secretary of State, and that his Lordship’s letters purport, in part, April, 30th May,

7th June, 13th June,

to be written in his late official capacity. But those letters also deny me all and 17th June,1859.

information — although I had asked it — as to the grounds of my suspension by

Sir John Bowring, or its confirmation by Sir E.Bulwer Lytton. His Lordship My letters of the

has also informed me that, “ during the illness,” and “ in the absence of the tary

17thSir

MayE.toB.Secre

Lyt

Secretary of State,” he himself addressed me“ with less authority,” and without ton, Bart.,M.P., and

of the 2nd, 9th , and

capacity “ to undertake anything, on the part of the Secretary of State, or on Secreta

14th June to Under

ry the Earl of

that of Her Majesty's Government.” Consequently , those letters have only Carnarvon .

added to my painful uncertainty ; and I have so advised your department .

141. The state of health of the late Secretary of State, and his prolonged

absence from town , having been considered sufficient reason , for my being thus

kept in ignorance and suspense, as to my position in the Colonial Service, it is

needless to add , that the promised interview with Sir Edward B. Lytton never

took place .

142. Yet, whilst awaiting the performance of that promise, I have read, London Gazette,

19th April, 1859 .

in the Gazette, the appointment of Mr. Adams to the Attorney -Generalship

of Hong-Kong, as to a vacant office. It has occasioned me some surprise,

happening, as it did, while the Secretary of State was ill and absent.

143. Such, my Lord, being the posture of the case, at this moment of your

accession to the Colonial Seals, I have no other resource than to present it to

your consideration ; and to ask you to decide that, in all these my trials and

sufferings, I have but acted in my duty, to the post I held, and the profession to

which I belong, and as became a man of honour.

144. I shall not here enlarge upon the privations and losses, which I have,

for eleven months past, patiently endured, nor on the pain, with which I return

to the common walk of my professiou here, to find myself a stranger.

145. But I must observe - for this is what I feel more poignantly—that

in the colony, where my past course is best understood, my actual position,

towards your department, is interpreted in a way most pernicious to the cause

of good government. Europeans can hardly believe, and Chinamen cannot be

persuaded-even if it were not Mr. Caldwell's interest to persuade them to the

( 28 )

contrary—that the unjust and ruinous sentence, which was passed upon me by

Sir John Bowring, was not intended to condemn exertions to put down crime.

146. Even if the proceedings, with which Mr. May, and the other Govern

ment officers, were threatened, for having, like me, given their evidence, and

for honestly avowing the information I had received from them , are not now

to take effect, and I am solely to suffer, still the injustice, done to me, is sure

of its effect, with that shrewd, suspicious, and selfish people, the Chinese. And

Letters from my-

Sir

any present sanction given, or to be given, to that injustice, will, as I have

E. B. Lytton,17th advised your department, utterly deprive any renewed enquiry, such as the late

May and 10th June: Administration proposed , at Hong-Kong, of all hope or even prospect of

, Under

Secretary the Earl of success .

Carnarvon of the 9th This is the more certain, since the resignation of the excellent Chief

June, 1859. Magistrate — a consequence of my own departure — and his retirement, from

Hong -Kong, to a precarious post under the Empire of China.

149. Not accepting the unauthorised communications, from Under-Secretary

the Earl of Carnarvon, I now appeal to your Grace, to weigh the matters sub

mitted to your department; and to restore confidence and character, at Hong

Kong, by the same act which shall do me justice .

I have, &c. ,

T. C. ANSTEY.

The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,

H. M. Principal Secretary of State

for the Colonies.

Downing Street, July 22nd , 1859 .

SIR,

With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed, by his Grace the

Duke of Newcastle, to inform you, that he h- s no objection — Sir John Bowring

having now arrived in this country — to give you an opportunity, of seeing the

despatch of his predecessor, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton , to the Governor of

Hong -Kong, conveying the Secretary of State's confirmation of your suspension

from the office of Attorney -General, with a general view of the reasons which

led him to that conclusion ; a conclusion in which the Duke of Newcastle feels

himself compelled to concur. If, therefore, you will call at this Office, upon

any day which may suit your convenience, you will be at liberty to read the

despatch in question.

I am Sir,

Your most obedient Servant,

C. FORTESCLE.

( 29 )

2, Plowden's Buildings, Temple,

Friday Night,

22nd July, 1859.

SIR,

Your letter of this date has been delivered to me to- night by your

messenger, at a late hour.

Tomorrow ( Saturday), at four o'clock in the afternoon, I shall call at the

Colonial Office.

I have the honour, &c.,

T. C. ANSTEY.

Chichester Fortescue, Esq ., M.P.,

Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies,

Downing Street.

2, Plowden Buildings, Temple,

Monday, 25th July, 1859.

MY LORD DUKE,

Letter of the 3rd

On the 3rd instant, I had the honour to submit to your Grace a July,11859, to Se

“ Statement, embracing the leading points in the case of my suspension from Newcastle,

cretary the Duke of

the duties of Attorney -General of Hong -Kong, and of the confirmation of that 1

suspension by the Home Government ”-complaining of that suspension, as

having been effected by secret, ex parte, and illegal ways, and calculated to in

timidate principal persons, who had given, or were likely to give, evidence of

criminal practices, or connections, against the parties promoting the measure

asking your Grace “ to decide that, in reporting the same, I had but acted in

my duty, to the post I held and the profession to which I belong, and as became

a man of honour,” — and soliciting (1°.) “ information ” as to the charges (if any)

made against me, by way of recrimination , on the part of the accused Govern

>

ment ; ( 2° .) “enquiry” into the whole case ; and (30.) such “redress and

compensation for my losses, by re-employment or otherwise, as should serve,,

at once, to restore confidence and character, at Hong-Kong, and to do me

justice.”

No reply has been made to that letter, nor has its receipt been acknow

ledged.

But, late in the night of Friday last, the 22nd inst., I received, from Under Secretary

Letter of Under

Mr. For

Secretary Mr. Fortescue, a short letter, informing , me, that your Grace “ con- tescue, Ň.P., of the

22nd July, 1859.

curred in the confirmation of my suspension ” (not giving, however, any reasons

for that conclusion) ; that “ I was at liberty to read ” (at your office ) “ the

despatch of your predecessor, Sir E. B. Lytton, to the Governor of Hong -Kong,

conveying that confirmation ; ” and that this liberty was accorded me, " with

reference to previous correspondence ” ( unspecified ), and because “ Sir John

Bowring had now arrived in this country.”

I

( 30 )

Letter to myself Anxious to avail myself of any means of information, however partial,

,

Acting Colonial Ses and of whatever date , -1, after appointing the hour, called at your office on

fretary July, 1858of. Saturday afternoon, the 23rd inst., at four o'clock ( just one year—to a minute

23rd(No.4333;

—from the first announcement of the suspension then being resolved upon ),,

and was shown the despatoh, by Mr. Arthur Blackwood, the clerk in charge.

I was informed, by that gentleman, that I was not at liberty to make a

single extraet from the despatch itself. But I was permitted to extract the

marginal references to the papers, on which alone it was supposed to be

grounded. I presume that it will be printed immediately, in conformity with

Under-Secretary Mr. Fortescue's announcement in Parliament of last Tuesday

week, the 12th inst. I presume also that my present observations will be

allowed to accompany it.

Despatch of Se The date of that despatch is remarkable :

cretary Sir E. B.

Lytton to the Go Only six days before its date, the very same fact — of his confirmation of

vernor

Kong, of oftheHong:

17th my suspension - had been made known to Parliament, by Secretary E. B.

March , 1859. Lytton himself, on the 11th March last, in the terms (so complimentary to

. 153, pp. 13-14.: myself) which I have

volHansard,3rdSess

>

noted in my unanswered letter to your Grace.

London Newspapers It is notorious, my Lord, that, in the interval, his deplorable illness had

of the 12th March ,

1859 . greatly incapacitated him for the discharge of any public business;; and it ap

pears, from his Under-Secretary, the Earl of Carnarvon's, speech, in your Grace's

house, on the 3rd of the same month, that, even down to that recent date, the

papers had notbeen all considered, or even read ; that their volume was found

a considerable difficulty in the way of enquiry -- amounting, as his Lordship,

in his own justification, “ had ascertained , to eleven pounds in weight :" and

Hansard, vol. 152, that the Earl had not had time to acquire more than that which, I am sure,

P: 1168, and London he will now confess to be — the very imperfect and erroneous view of the facts,

4th March , 1859 . which his reported speech presents, and on which his Lordship, even then, felt

Despatch of the

17th March, 1859 . himself unable to found a satisfactory judgment.

I saw nothing, in the despatch , which made necessary the present denial

of a copy, or extracts, or the past delay, during several valuable months, to

acquaint me with its tenor.

It was strictly confined to the recriminatory charges, brought by the

>

accused against myself, viz.-- those of “ bitter hostility ” towards inculpated

officials ; of refusing to sit on the bench of justice,if the chief criminal sat there ;

of disrespect to my superiors, —that is to say, in applying to the late Governor,

the late Lieutenant-Governor, and the late Acting Colonial Secretary (when I

accused them) , the words of accusation ; of presuming to address to the Secre

tary of State any appeal against the Governor, unless the Governor thought fit

to admit such appeal; and of having failed to prove the main charge, against

the principal criminal, Mr. Caldwell , to the satisfaction of a Commission of

Enquiry, nominated by the inculpated officials themselves, after my appeal to

the Secretary of State had been presented, and, above all, after those officials

had destroyed, with fire, the only proofs still extant, whereby the main charge

in question ( that of having, in connivance with his pirate partner, the convict

( 31 )

Mah Chow Wong, endeavoured to deceive the Executive Council into the

pardon of that convict) would have been proved .

Yet the despatch expressly guarded your predecessor, from being under

stood to have formed any opinion, on any one of the charges, to the prejudice

of the guilty, or even to intend to make them the subject of any enquiry, in

Letter of the 3rd

England , or, for the present indeed, any where else . It even suggested that July, 1859,

" those charges which were proved,” (including, inter alia, as my unanswered

letter of the 3rd instant, will show , that of “ a long and intimate connection ,

and partnership in lorchas with a notorious Chinese Pirate,” ) “ were com

paratively unimportant ; ”—as bearing on the question, of the English partner's

fitness, for an English Justiceship of the Peace, in the locality which was the

scene of that alliance.

In fact, the despatch was evidently written with the single object, of being

communicated to me, and, sooner or later, to the British public ; with a view to

the offer made, by Secretary Sir E. B. Lytton himself, in the House of Hansard ; and

Newspapers ; ubi sa

Commons, six days previously, “to produce all the documents, if Mr. Ridley prà.

moved for them ; ” there being, as the Minister then declared , " no personal or

official objection to the production."

I need ::ot say that, at that time, neither had Sir John Bowring returned

to this country, nor was my return expected. But I have further to say, that

the only reasons, by which the non -production of the documents in question had

been justified, down to Friday last, were the supposed good of “ the public

service, " and " the absence of the ( late) Secretary of State through illness ;” so

that I learn now, for the first time, that the absence of Sir John Bowring,

(whose return had been expected ever since January last,) was ever considered

an objection.

But it is with satisfaction that I perceive, that I am not invited, by Under

>

Secretary Mr. Fortescue, to make any observations on the contents of the now

produced despatch. I must presume that, since the 12th instant, when he

announced in the House of Commons, that there was an intention so to invite

me, Your Grace has had an opportunity of perusing, in extenso, my un

answered letter of the 3rd instant. For, in that letter, as it were by anticipation ,

every false assumption of material fact, contained in the despatch, appears to

me to have been corrected, and every erroneous conclusion displaced.

It must strike your Grace that, before your predecessor could arrive at a

legitimate position, whence to judge of the charges of “ intemperate ” and

“ disrespectful” opposition, to the accused Hong-Kong officials, (brought by

themselves, against me, before themselves, and in reprisal for my own accusa

tions of positive crime), he was bound to have decided upon the truth of the

latter. Not only would this be the natural order, in any case of charge and

countercharge, but, here, the countercharge was not appreciable at all, until

after an investigation into the prior charges.

“ Moderation of language ” (says a great jurist) “ is aa relative term , which Sir James Maciu

tosh .

varies with the subject to which it is applied. Atrocious crimes are not to be

( 32 )

related as calmly and coolly as indifferent or trifling events. If there be a

decorum, due to exalted rank and authority, there is also a much more

sacred decorum , due to virtue and to human nature ;; which would be outraged,

and trampled under foot, by speaking of guilt in a lukewarm language, falsely

called moderate .”

Not for my own sake, but for that of the cause in which I have suffered, I

entreat your Grace, as you value the well-being and honour of the Queen's

Colonial Empire, to compare your predecessor's despatch with my unanswered

letter ; and, if necessary, with the documents on which it is based ; and then to

decide, for yourself, whether, in rescuing the drowned honour of my country, I

have plucked her too rudely by the locks. For that is the utmost laid to my

charge.

Letter to the Act I am the better entitled to ask this tardy act of justice, because I now find

ing Colonial Secre-

tary of the 13th that, in the list of documents contained in the margin of his despatch,, and

May, 1858 .

on which he professes to ground his opinions,—there is no reference, either to

my original statement of reasons for resigning the justiceship of the peace , and

Letter of the 30th

, 1358 , reply

of my charges against Mr. Caldwell,—nor to that of my “ Defence and Expla

to his of the 23ră nation ,” in which I offered cause against the late Governor's then announced

July, 1858.

intention to suspend me for having made and supported those charges ,-nor to

Memorandum of my “ Memorandum ” demanding a trial before the Executive Council, and

6th August, 1858 .

protesting against an ex parte condemnation, by that body or by the Governor,

Printed Warrant, without trial,--nor to the Official Report of Oral Evidence, taken by the

Report, and Minutesof Caldwell Commission, a mutilated yet still an important document ;-to every

Caldwell Enquiry.

one of which four papers I had, in my two enumerated letters of appeal to the

letters to Secre- Secretaries of State, referred for the facts of my case ; as not wishing to trouble

of the 17th May, your department, with an idle repetition of facts in evidence, and those already

1858,SirandtoSecre-

tary E.B. Lytton , too

voluminously set forth .

of the 7th August, Neither do I perceive any reference whatever, to the subsequent pro

1858 .

Hong Kong Su- ceedings in the case of “ The Queen v. Tarrant,” where the verdict of a special

preme Court, No- jury, in fact, found the late Governor and late Acting Colonial Secretary

1858 .

guilty of having procured , by a “trick” and a spoliation of evidence, that very

failure of the main charge against Mr. Caldwell, already referred to , which, by

the despatch, is made a principal reason, for confirming their own act in sus

pending me who had brought it.

It must be obvious to your Grace . that, whether these singular omissions

were owing to some further suppression of papers at Hong -Kong, or whether

they only belong to that systematic forbearance from enquiry, to which, in the

concluding paragraph of his despatch, your predecessor expressed his intention

to adhere, I cannot be expected, until these deficiencies are supplied, to protect

myself against having applied, to me and my past conduct, the only portion of

that despatch which I have not yet noticed. I refer, of course, to the startling

doctrine it lays down, as to the combined duties, of Queen's Attorney-General,

sole Grand Juror, and Justice of the Peace,

I have most respectfully to ask your Grace, for your acknowledgment

( 33 )

of my letter of the 3rd instant, and for your decision upon the points thereby

submitted .

I have, &c.,

T. C. ANSTEY .

The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of

State for the Colonies.

2 , Plowden Buildings, Temple,

26th July, 1859 .

MY LORD DUKE,

Letter to Secre

I request your Grace to consider my present communication as supple tary the Duke of

mental to my letter of yesterday. Newcastle of the

Denied any copy of, or extracts from , your predecessors despatch, I had 25thDespatch

July, 1859.

of Se

to trust to my memory alone, in enumerating its multifarious contents ; and one Lytton

cretary toSirtheE. Go

B.

of them, I find, I have inadvertently omitted. vernor of Hong -Kong

of the 17th March,

Your predecessor states, that “ some” of my letters to your department, 1859.

enumerated in the margin of his despatch, were received by him only through

an irregular channel (I presume the Post-Office), and not through the late

Governor.

Letters to Secre

In that case, the late Governor must have intercepted and suppressed the taries Lord Stanley

originals ; and I have several times forewarned your predecessors, that his ofandtheSir17th

E. B.Lytton

and 21st

Excellency had shown himself strongly inclined to such a system . May, 7th, 10th ,

With the proofs in my hands, I solemnly declare that, so long as I was in gust,

26th, and 21st An

Oe

the island, I never addressed, to your depar tment, a single letter of compl aint, tober, 1858,and 21st

and 28th January ,

accusation , or appeal, except through the Governor, and unsealed ; the only 1859.

documents which I ever forwarded, through any other channel except the

Governor , from Hong -Kong, to your department, being copies or duplicates of

letters and papers of immediate importance to my case, which had been pre- Id ., id .

viously lodged, unsealed , in Sir John Bowring's own hands , and which he had

declined to forward for the present .

Your Grace is aware that, in doing so, I only observed a very familiar pre

caution, and one which has been, in certain cases, found most useful to your Printed “ Rules

department and the public service — the general rule, which excludes from the Colonial Service,"

and particularly Reg.

consideration , by the Secretary of State, papers not sent through the Governor, 82 and 83.

always admitting the exception of cases, where the Governor has suppressed or

detained the originals without cause .

The same general rule obtains in the Foreign Office. But, notwithstanding Letter to Secre

this, Secretary the Earl of Malmesbury (on the occasion mentioned in my first tary the Duke

Newcastle of the of

3rd

unanswered letter to your Grace) did, without losing a mail , investigate and July, 1859, par. 45.

K

( 34 )

B.Secre-

tary Sir E.to Lyt decide my matter of complaint against Sir John Bowring, as Superintendent of

ton of the 12th Oc- Trade; although his Lordship had then before him only the duplicate, (trans

tober, 1858, annex

ing " Copy ofCor- mitted by me through the Post-Office) of my unsealed letter to him, transmitted

1

Earl of Malmesbury through and detained by Sir John Bowring ; thereby in fact also deciding, that

of the 11th and12th his Excellency was not justified in so detaining it.

October, 1858."

Parliamentary De- I perceive, from Under -Secretary Mr. Fortescue's reported speech , of last

bates, in Times and

Morning Star of the night, in the House of Commons, that to -morrow he is “ to place, in the hands

26th July, 1859 .

of members,” a selection made, by your department, from the papers relating

to the charges against Hong-Kong officials ; but omitting such as affect their

character, or contain the early history of the whole case against them ; and

that he will, at the same time, deliver to members all papers affecting

myself.

I trust that your Grace will see the justice, of including my present com

munication amongst the latter, so that your predecessor's statement, that I have

been guilty of ex parte or underhand communication , may not go forth, unre

futed, to the British public.

And, again referring your Grace to my letter of yesterday, and reiterating

the applications therein specified,

I have , &c.

T. C. ANSTEY.

The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of

State for the Colonies.

Downing Street, 26th July, 1859 .

SIR ,

I am directed by the Duke of Newcastle to acknowledge your letters of

the 3rd and 25th inst., and also one received this day.

His Grace had not thought himself called upon , to enter into any discussion

upon the statement addressed by you to him on the 3rd instant, nor does he

intend to make any reply to your observations, upon the despatch of his pre

decessor, confirming your suspension . That decision was taken by Sir E. B.

Lytton upon a full and careful consideration, which his illness did not prevent

him from giving to the case ; and in that decision the Duke of Newcastle, after

a like consideration, feels it his duty to concur.

He directs me, however, to inform you, that he has no objection to your

two letters, now under acknowledgment, being added to the papers which will

be laid before Parliament. I must add, with respect to those papers, that my

answer to Mr. Edwin James, in the House of Commons, appears to have been

incorrectly given in some of the reports. So far from promising to lay them

( 35 )

on the table on the 27th, I said that, from their bulk, I could not positively

promise that they would be presented during the present Session .*

I am , Sir, your obedient Servant,

C. FORTESCUE .

T. Chisholm Anstey , Esq.

2, Plowden Buildings, Temple, 29th July, 1859 .

MY LORD DUKE ,

I have received Under-Secretary Mr. Fortescue's letter of the 26th inst.,

acknowledging my three unanswered letters to your Grace, and conveying your

Letters to Secre

final “ directions,” as to the grave matters, which I thought it my duty to tary the Duke of

report officially, on the 17th May, 1858, from Hong-Kong, to your predecessor, 25th,

Newcastle of theJuly,

and 26th 3rd,

Lord Stanley, and my suspension from office by the parties named in such 1859.

Report.

The course, which your department has thought fit to pursue, towards the

unfortunate colony and myself, leaves me no alternative but to exercise all

legitimate means within my reach, both to obtain justice for the former, and

publicly to vindicate the assailed independence and honour of that English Bar,

whose cause is so deeply involved in my own claims for reparation.

I have, &c.,

T. C. ANSTEY.

The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,

Her Majesty's Secretary of State for

the Colonies, Downing Street.

(* This announced probability of so long a delay in the publication of the selection in question, makes the

present publication necessary ; which comprises only those documents, to the publication of which Mr. Fortescue’s

letter intimates that there is no objection ;-viz., the Correspondence with the present Secretary of State .]

LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHARING CROSS

1

28 JY 60

1

1991