018
341
(30)
visit the first time to Hongkong, was in Cleverly Street; from thence I removed to Choong Wan. I did not know Mr Caldwell at that time. The house belonged to Ashè, who was a ship's comprador. I remained in Achow's house in Choong Wan about eight months. From thence I removed to Jervois Street, and remained there three months, and then again to Taipingshan East Street, to a house built in lieu of Achow's house which had been pulled down. There my first child was born on the 24th day, 10th month, 24th year of Taoukwang. Mr Inglis never came to the house in Taipingshan in which I was living, but when I removed from there to the upper part of a druggist's shop, near Western Market, he did visit me there,
Chun Atsoo owns eleven houses in this colony, besides one lately purchased. The houses were bought with money of her own. Szekai has received the rents and paid them to me. I have kept them till asked by my sister for them, when I paid them over to her. None of the eleven houses have been bought with money belonging to my husband. I do not know the numbers of the lots, but can tell the position; six of them are near the Chinese Joss-house, and five are about the last houses beyond Circular Buildings.
quiry, the Commission would, on the morrow, proceed to investigate the charges contained in the second branch.
Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 Noon.
ELEVENTH Day.
Thursday, 17th June, 1858, at 12 o'clock Noon.
Present—All the Members.
The Chairman stated that the Commission would now proceed to investigate the 2d branch of the Enquiry consisting of Charges 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,—Called and examined I wish again to disclaim giving evidence according to the charges as made out on the Charges List. Some of those alleged charges I have never made at all, others are incorrectly stated, and others were certainly not intended to be the subject of a public and scandalous inquiry, because they affect the family at least as much as the head of it. My statement therefore has reference not to the List of Charges at all, but to my own letter of 13th May.
"Chinese outlaws and pirates" I certainly consider Ma-chow Wong and his gang to be. "That the antecedents of Szekai came to me and asked me if I would like to purchase a house, and also produced some documents. I said, if it was cheap I would buy it for my sister. It was agreed to be bought at $500. I asked my husband to examine the document, and see whether it was a whole lease or a portion of a lease. He told me that it was in the name of Leong Ayook, and as the person offering it for sale was not Leong Ayook, I refused to buy. It was about the middle of April that I spoke to my husband about this. I did not at that time mention that I was going to purchase the house. I only asked him to look at the lease, and see in whose name it was.
Of this $500, I have paid $400 to Szekai, the purchase-money being at length fixed at $470, to allow $30 to pay for the transfer of the lot, owing to a defect which had been found in the lease. I can confidently affirm, that my husband has no direct or indirect interest in this property, and that no part of the purchase-money belonged to him. I remember my husband coming home from Council last month, and saying he had been charged with having bought land lately in this Colony with the Eaglet or Mr Caldwell. The Commission have a right to know what was the public repute respecting Mr Caldwell at the beginning of his early career in these waters, and the oldest surviving members of the present Canton and Hongkong Community might speak to that.
As to the Chinese girl from a brothel, if the alliance itself proved it will follow as of course to have been an alliance with some of the worst of the Chinese; but there is direct evidence of notoriety and reputation. When I penned those words in my letter, I had read a list of names prepared by Mr May from the mouths of neighbours or acquaintance of the parties, and I recommend that list to be asked for, as it shews what the occupations of the relations or reputed relations of this female were and are.
I again refer to the evidence already taken as to Ma-chow Wong. Witnesses already examined on other points, particularly Mr May and Mr Inglis, will be able to say whether there was not a long and intimate connection between that convict and Mr Caldwell. As to its still existing, I am personally aware that Mr Caldwell has evinced great resentment to every one who has taken a different view as to the propriety of a pardon of the man from himself, and I have, as Attorney General, had reason to believe that since his conviction the functions of police spy and informer continue to be discharged by the man under the immediate auspices of Mr Caldwell.
Chinese of good repute have been arrested, thrown into Gaol, and refused bail, upon charges got up in the Gaol, Mr Caldwell and his clerk being personally present, founded upon the unsupported evidence of Gaol inmates believed to belong to the same gang—proved to be false—then replaced by more aggravated charges, founded on the same unsupported evidence which broke down in like manner.
The people of this Colony no more dare to complain now of these connivances and procurances of Mr Caldwell, than down to his conviction they dared to complain of the immediate tyrannies and exactions of Ma-chow Wong. I venture to say, that the fact is notorious to every member of the Commission, and that their own compradors, if they ask them, would confirm the statement, but would not dare to appear to support it. Take this recent fact: A levy of money by way of reward for services rendered by Mr Caldwell and others in the case of Ma-chow Wong, upon the clan or secret society to which he belongs, has taken place since the final rejection, if it be final, of the last attempt to procure his pardon. Purposely concealing the place where these Chinamen live, I have to state that not less than three of them have placed in the hands of the writer of this letter, which I hold in my hand, the account, I believe receipted, in Chinese, of this quota; they being supposed to belong to the body on which the levy was made. These men complain loudly of the exaction, and my correspondent spoke to me on the subject, I think two months, certainly more than a month, before I dreamed of being ever able to direct the attention of Government to Mr Caldwell's case.
I remark here an incidental observation, not a charge, but introduced by way of explanation and corroboration of the last foregoing paragraph. I have stated that when I first represented the scandal of this connection to His Excellency more than eleven months ago, I was not aware that the principal link in it was a bond of affinity by adoption according to Chinese law. The fact is immaterial, but I have no objection to state who my informant was, and if the Commission think it material he may be called and examined.
[The name of the informant handed into the Chairman.]
For what follows in the letter I am personally responsible, but I respectfully decline to give up the name of any of the Chinese informants, whose representations so completely satisfied my mind as to justify the strong language I used in my letter, that I knew that it was Mr Caldwell's habit to act in the way they had described, on the unsupported information of that pirate.
There are Europeans, the Commission has some evidence already on this point, and I think if the authorities Naval and Police are pressed, the Commission can get still more. There was one notorious case in which the Nankin, I think, was imposed upon by false information, and induced to destroy torches belonging to Rebels—upon false representation of a so-called Chinese merchant, that they were his own, and had been piratically captured from him. That merchant is said to have been Ma-chow Wong in person.
I re-assert in the language of my letter, and upon my own personal knowledge of the fact, that the Chinese girl was captured by one of our cruisers in the attempt to break the blockade of the Canton River, and on board of her was found Mr Caldwell's certificate to her character, which was handed over with her papers to the Queen's proctor, and which I now hold in my hand. It bears a seal which he had no power to put on it—the seal of his Registrar Office, and bears date anterior by some months to the Registration Ordinance of last year. I hand in that document (Q).
As to the fact, that a suspicious vessel obtained the patronage and protection of Mr Caldwell, I presume on the same information. Inspectors of Police had been frequently told me by Inspectors of Police, how they had been embarrassed in their actions on pirates or alleged pirates by means of this deplorable influence, and I have no doubt if they are called they can give information upon this head to the Commission.
Unfortunately he had given them back these papers, and I told him that without them I could do nothing, for he wished me to take it up as crown prosecutor, at least so I understood him. For weeks he endeavoured to get these papers back, but after a good deal of hesitation on their part, they finally told him they would not produce them. These are the reasons given by him in the note which I now read:
"I have your note regarding the papers, but am sorry to say I cannot get them, the holders being afraid that they may be troubled by Samkwei, or some of Ma-chow Wong's friends—at least so they told me when I saw them the other day,"—dated 5th May, 1858, five days before the subject of this inquiry was bruited in Council.
(31)