CIE
350
(48)
was whilst I was moving or about to move up to Scott's Bungalow. Within two days after my arrival, His Excellency was pleased to lament to me the corrupt state of the Hongkong Government, and the utter want of support to himself in his endeavours to stem the tide of corruption. He said there was but one public officer whom he could trust, besides the three who were going away to England or Siam—one of whom, Mr Rienaecker, I have since ascertained to have been a kind of partner to Mr Caldwell in his speculations—and that as to the one trusty public officer who was remaining in the colony, Mr Mercer, he was well disposed but timid. The Governor begged me to make it my business to bring to light, and if necessary to punish, the mal-practices of which he complained, and I beg to specify in particular, the mal-practices of the Police, and of my own department of Attorney General. The latter not being within the compass of this Commission, I confine my present statement to the first. He said there was nobody whom he could trust, who was or who had been connected with Police, or the branch of the Judicial Department particularly connected with it. He assured me, that if I took the initiative, I should be supported, for that he had no doubt that Mr Mercer would cooperate with me, and that at all events His Excellency himself would.
I did my best to carry out His Excellency's wishes. I reported upon cases that were referred to me by him; I made my own official inquiries into the existence of these alleged public grievances—for such I imagined bribery, extortion, conspiracy, perjury, and resetting of criminals to be; and at His Excellency's suggestion I proposed, in an official letter to Mr Mercer, which I suppose is on the file, the reappointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the organisation of the Police, which His Excellency told me had been sitting in the year 1855, but which had not satisfied him at all by the progress it had made in the inquiry, and which had been broken up by the departure for England, of the then late Acting Attorney General without making any report. It was reappointed.
The result of the inquiry was such as to satisfy me of two points:—first, that the iniquities detailed by His Excellency did exist, and had some species of official sanction; but, secondly, that Mr May was not only in no wise to answer for them, but had incurred considerable ill-will by his persistent endeavours to put them down—an opinion in which Mr Mercer and also Mr Hillier, who had been on the Commission of Inquiry of 1855, and who sat upon it with me for a few weeks after its reappointment in 1856, in pursuance of my before stated suggestion, entirely concurred. I availed myself of the opportunity afforded by the circumstance mentioned in my letter now before the Commission of 1st November, 1856, to record for His Excellency's information, in the strongest terms, my opinion of Mr May as here expressed.
His Excellency had told me that Mr Shortrede could give me very valuable information about many of these iniquities, and in that way, I was led, partly whilst Mr Shortrede remained here, but principally after his departure for England in the month of April, 1856, to consult with Mr Dixson his partner upon the subject. Mr Hillier's departure for Siam reduced the Police Inquiry Commission to two, and we were unable to devote that time to the inquiry which was requisite to bring out the secret of those iniquities; and we therefore agreed merely to report in general terms the existence of them, and propose an entirely new organisation of the Police.
I owe it to myself to say that, from the time that His Excellency first put me upon these disagreeable inquiries, public and private, to this time, I have not had the honour of a single communication from him on the subject, and all my communications to him, official and otherwise, have remained unanswered. Even the report of the Police Inquiry Commission, signed by Mr Mercer and myself, was stated in the Legislative Council by His Excellency to be disapproved by him, and that he would neither act upon it nor make communication of it to the Council for the purposes of the discussion on the Registration Ordinance of last year.
An action of damages was brought against me in May or June 1856, for steps taken by me in performance of these general wishes of His Excellency, and I have in my possession His Excellency's letter distinctly apprising me, that I must be responsible for those steps—and that he would neither give evidence in my favour, nor take steps to relieve the officers of his Government from the obligation of official confidence, so as to enable them if disposed to give their testimony in my favour at the trial. I mention these facts, as showing that a singular change must have taken place in His Excellency's conviction at some period between my arrival and the month of June, 1856, with respect to the proved iniquities of the Hongkong Police.
I am perfectly aware that during that time Mr Caldwell was not in Government employ, and Mr Berenhart therefore advised me to summon Mr Caldwell as a witness before the Commission, for no man, he said, was better acquainted with the crimes of the Police, being himself in a great measure to blame for them and the iniquities in question; having been in the most part committed at a period when Mr Caldwell was either solely invested with the control of the Police, or in a great measure responsible for it. Mr Berenhart's words were, "Mr Caldwell having now a good speculation of his own in the steamer, is independent of the Government, and will probably not be afraid to tell the truth."
Page 351
(49)
I can explain the continuance of the connection between the Police and Ma-chow Wong, during the brief interval of Mr Caldwell's nominal separation from the Police, in this way: During the whole of the time the Commission was sitting in 1856, I was struck with the anarchy of the Police system. With the exception of about two months Mr May was Acting Assistant Magistrate, a function which took up the most of his time, and Mr Hillier having gone to Siam, Mr Caldwell was the universal referee in the Police department. It appeared to me, almost from my arrival, as if he were going to be reappointed to office in a day or two, so intimate were his relations with all the officers of Government. I know it was not till the panic of December, 1856, that the attention of the Government was aroused to the necessity of giving unity to the administration of the Police force. I remember myself being informed of the fact by Mr Mercer in that month, that henceforward the Superintendent of Police was not to be interfered with. Before that time, any Justice of the Peace, for example, could get a Policeman when wanted. I have done so myself at the Station. Captain Cowper, the Acting Surveyor General, requested to be put on the Commission of the Peace, simply that he might have the same privilege of getting a Policeman whenever he wanted; and, if he had not been a military officer, I have reason to believe that his application would have been granted. Against my own wish I was made a Justice of the Peace, His Excellency saying, that it would give me power amongst the Police, and in other quarters where power was desirable.
I suggest that the Commission call for the report of the Police Commission of 1856, and the evidence thereunto annexed. I can, under these circumstances, very well understand, that so powerful a man as Mr Caldwell or Ma-chow Wong might be able to maintain his influence over the Police, even while Mr Caldwell was nominally separated from the public service.
I have, since giving my evidence, asked Mr Cooper Turner, and he perfectly confirms my statement, that he was my informant regarding the Chinese merchant being deported to Hinan. Mr Turner can give you the man's residence.
With reference to that portion of my evidence where I mentioned it at the time to Mr Mercer, and I don't know whether he made any inquiry. I recollect his saying, that it was then too late.
As to the connection of Eli Boggs with the Eaglet or Mr Caldwell, I refer to the evidence of Lyons and Mr May, as well as to a statement which has been made to me in writing, on the authority of the writer's informant, whose name I now give in to the Chairman.
The inspection of the men for deportation to Hinan, took place within 36, if not 24, hours of their embarkation. I cannot remember any more than those already mentioned being present. I remember Mr May, Mr Caldwell, and Mr Cluff, because I spoke to them officially concerning the prisoners. I am perfectly certain there were prisoners there who had not been just arrested. I inquired what classes there were, and was informed, that some were under imprisonment for petty larceny, some were beggars lately arrested, and some suspicious characters. I can only remember having been there once, and that was the occasion above referred to.
With regard to the case, where a prisoner was charged with stealing Mr Lapraik's watch, I heard Mr Lapraik say, that he did not believe the watch had been stolen by anybody, that he had a distinct recollection of losing the watch many years ago, and he had no doubt it had been found, and appropriated honestly enough. As to other cases, Mr May, if distinctly asked, will I have no doubt speak.
I, as Attorney General, conducted the prosecution of Eli Boggs. I perfectly remember Eli Boggs with a paper or papers in his hand, from which he made his speech to the Jury. I was very much shocked at hearing Mr Lyons, the other day, state in evidence, that "Boggs had produced in the Supreme Court, a paper stated by himself to have been written by Mr Caldwell, and recommending Ma-chow Wong, Mr Caldwell's brother, to the pirates, with whom Eli Boggs served." He also stated, though it does not appear upon your minutes, that he was surprised at the paper making no impression in the Court. If I had understood that it was anything but a compilation of Boggs's own making, I should have told him to produce it in evidence, and then it would have made an impression in the Court, as a piece of evidence in his favour. But I thought it was a kind of brief, and not an original document. He certainly did state that he had read a paper from Mr Caldwell, to the effect stated by Lyons; but I did...
Page 352