352
(52)
was the only instance in which I knew any delegation of the power of liberation.
down, I think, from the Ningpo Consulate, in 1855, - Dr Winchester, to give evidence against pirates. He was paid his expenses. The 70 alleged rebels towed to Kowloong by the Auck land, and handed over to the Mandarins, were so handed over by order of the Governor. I won't be positive one way or the other, but if my mind leans either way, it is to the opinion that Mr Caldwell was averse to the men being sent over to Kowloong. It is my impression, that he and I differed on the subject. I decline to answer whether the Governor's instructions were in writing. The whole of this matter having been referred to the Secretary of State, and decided by him, I decline to answer any question concerning it, which does not refer to Mr Caldwell's conduct. For the purpose of procuring Ma-chow Wong's pardon, there was a petition from the Chinese, presented through Mr Caldwell, as all other Chinese petitions are. Mr Day, as Counsel, and Mr Stace, as Solicitor, also moved in the matter, and Mr Caldwell himself was interested. I wished to withdraw the investigation of Ma-chow Wong's case from Mr May, because I considered that Mr May acted entirely as a partizan in the matter throughout. I gave the Acting Attorney General no instructions regarding the case. I ordered the Acting Superintendent of Police, I think, to liberate Ma-chow Wong's house and shop from the custody of the Police. I do not distinctly remember at what stage of the proceedings I did this, nor whether before or after conviction. I must have spoken to the Governor on the subject before I did anything. I may as well state, that as far as concerns my own ideas, I never, until after the trial, had any doubt that Ma-chow Wong was guilty of the offence with which he was charged.
I have not, within a short time since, entered a respectable Chinese shopkeeper's house, and withdrawn on discovering my mistake. In consequence of instruction from the Governor, I gave certain instructions to the Superintendent of Police, who carried them out.
I was not present when the entry was made. Mr Caldwell knew nothing of this, and had no more to say to that matter than any member of the honourable Commission.
Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
SIXTEENTH DAY,
Tuesday, 29th June, 1858, at 12 o'clock, Noon.
Present,-All the Members, except Mr Scarth.
WILLIAM THOMAS BRIDGES.-Cross-examined.
The books of Ma-chow Wong were referred to Mr Caldwell and Mr Mongan, upon the petition for his pardon being presented, before the article in the China Mail appeared, and before Mr May's memoranda were heard of. They were referred to Mr Wade. Mr Caldwell made a report of his and Mr Mongan's examination, then appeared an article in the China Mail which differed materially from Mr Caldwell's report. Mr Dixson was then requested to attend the Council, to give the sources of his information for that article; he referred to Mr May as his authority. Mr May produced the memoranda, which were then for the first time heard of by any Member of the Council, and the question at issue between Mr May's memoranda, and Mr Mongan and Mr Caldwell's report, was referred to Mr Wade. Then Beaver was apprehended--a translation was made by Mr Wade of the papers found on Beaver, and on their translation was the question of the petition in Ma-chow Wong's favour decided. They were referred to Mr Wade by the Governor in Council, because the statement in the memoranda were considered at that time all important, and if true, they would have had a great effect on my mind. There was also another question apart from Ma-chow Wong's case.
My conversation with Mr Grand-Pré concerning the release of the shops, is, as far as I can recollect, correctly stated by Mr May. It is my impression that the Governor was certainly empowered to order these shops to be given up. I do not know whether Mr Caldwell made any representation to the Governor in the delivery of the shops. I wished to keep myself as clear as possible.
Mr Grand-Pré made some remark to me about Policemen being taken off their duty, to attend to these houses, and it was to relieve the Police, and not on account of Mr Caldwell, that I ordered them to be given up. I have not, on Mr Caldwell's recommendation, employed a man named Ashing as a spy. I never, to the best of my recollection at the present moment, employed any man as a spy, neither Cock-eye nor any others, though they have been so employed, but through Mr Inglis, Governor of the Gaol, I have never consulted Mr Caldwell, regarding the employment of any such men. The only time when I have had anything to say to any agent of Mr Caldwell's was when the 70 men were sent to Kowloong, upon which occasion he sent a man. I have never consulted Mr Caldwell regarding the propriety of employing spies.
I think in the year 1853 or 1854, I was retained in a case either for or against--I cannot say which--Wong Akee. I did not know at that time that Wong Akee and Ma-chow Wong were the same man. Eli Boggs was sent to Kowloong.
(53)
As far as I know, no report from Mr Wade was ever received. I spoke several times to him for a report, by order of the Governor. I cannot, from my own knowledge, answer whether the prisoners were discharged within a week after that minute was made. I know that it came to my knowledge, and directions were given to Mr Inglis to liberate them. The matter continued unabated, a report was expected from him, but Mr Wade went up to Canton, and had several other matters to attend to, and the matter gradually died away. The applications for the report were continued after the productions of the papers found on Beaver. Mr Wade told me that he had so much to do, that he could not give any time or attention to the report, and that is how I explain its not having been produced. What Mr Mongan says, about the order for the destruction of the papers, is substantially correct. The order was given shortly after Mr Wade's departure for the North.
ing the question why I applied the term "partizanship" with reference to Mr May, on the occasion of my last giving evidence, I would say, that having been Crown prosecutor here for nearly three years, I have been enabled to form an accurate knowledge of the manner in which Mr May generally conducted Police investigations, or assisted in getting up cases; and having found him pursue an entirely different course so far as regards activity and energy in Ma-chow Wong's case, from what I had ever seen or known him shew in any other case: knowing the bitter spirit that he had for many months past shewn towards Mr Caldwell, and believing that Ma-chow Wong was made but the cause to attack Mr Caldwell--because Mr May, during my tenure of office, had never brought Ma-chow Wong's crimes or conduct to my notice in any way,—I came to the conclusion, which I still adhere to, that Mr May was actuated with regard to the getting up of the case against Ma-chow Wong, by the private feelings of a partizan.
To the best of my belief I never, without consulting the Governor, ordered the release of prisoners or their property---their persons certainly not. Having had time to think over the question of the liberation of the property of Ma-chow Wong, I think that I did give directions to Mr Grand-Pré as to taking away the Police from the premises without consulting the Governor, and I should do the same thing again under similar circumstances, having been directed by His Excellency not to trouble him about questions of Police details of which I considered this to have been one.
I decline to answer the question whether I have, without reference to the Governor, liberty of action as Colonial Secretary, under the Government Memorandum of January last; or whether the Secretary of State has sanctioned or even seen that memorandum.
Subsequently to September last, the question of a pardon of Ma-chow Wong has never come before His Excellency or the Executive Council; the subject was mooted to myself once, by my late Comprador, it was relative to the escape of some prisoners from the Gaol, and he asked me, if Ma-chow Wong's friends brought the prisoner back to Gaol, whether Ma-chow Wong could procure a pardon. An offer of mitigation of sentence was made to another prisoner in the Gaol, whose sentence was mitigated in consequence of effecting the capture. I told the Comprador that nothing would get Ma-chow Wong's liberation. I added, that neither would I do anything myself, nor did I think the Governor would pardon him under any circumstances. That is the only time, and this the only person, when and with whom I have spoken concerning Ma-chow Wong's pardon, subsequent to September 1856. I think it was from Mr Caldwell himself, that I understood it was he who arrested Beaver. I remember a minute being made in the Gaol book by Mr Anstey and Mr Lyall, or somebody else, regarding the commitment of certain prisoners. I cannot take upon myself to state whether the minute said they were all committed under the warrant.
All Chinese petitions for pardon or commutation are sent either through Mr Inglis or Mr Caldwell,—if from prisoners, through Mr Inglis; if from prisoners' friends, through Mr Caldwell. It is the custom to refer them sometimes to the Chief Justice for his report. They are referred to the Chief Justice I should say, eight times out of the ten, the other two out of the ten consist of petty cases, and cases which it has been already determined not to pardon. I do not remember, since I have held office, a single Supreme Court case, in which such an application was not referred to the Chief Justice. I do not allude to such a case as that I mentioned just now, of a mitigation of punishment in consequence of services rendered in the recapture of prisoners. It is very seldom, if ever, that...