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
ያ
1
1991