CO!
404
October last in the inner room of our office. There were three Chinese engaged in the work. Ying-loong-tim, Shum Cheok Yeen, and Chang-toong Yuen, (Mr Wade's teacher) I was myself present but am not sure whether Mr Caldwell was present, or not at the examination on the first morning. The first morning was consumed in apportioning the matter to be examined by the two teachers.
I appointed one man to take the impression of the Seals, and gave each of the others a certain batch of papers to look over.
(107) examination was taken at my office with a view of obtaining documentary evidence to support the charge against the prisoner Ma-chow Wong. The books had been brought up in an iron chest and in baskets. As each book was examined, any suspicious entry was read out to me forthwith by Tong Aku. There were two separate sorts of entries examined. Such entries as affected the prisoner charged, and other entries bearing upon the character and past transactions of Ma-chow Wong separately. The former entries were subsequently verified by the examination in Court. The second class of entries (those which formed the Heads of my memo.) were taken from books and papers found in Ma-chow Wong's house, and were contained in books found in the iron chest.
The work of examination commenced properly after breakfast. We began about 10 o'clock, I was present and had Yeong to assist me. I changed my purpose as to employing the assistance of the other two, as I could not supervise them sufficiently. I took a seat at the table with Yeong. We took a basket and tumbled out the papers on the table. Corrected,~I took out an armful from the basket at a time. As each book or paper came to hand I think I looked at it first and then handed it to Yeong. He then read it for me, and I ordered him to put it on one side or the other, according as I considered it relevant or the reverse. Amongst the documents were numbers of small receipts, which Yeong himself may have looked at and put on one side without their having passed under my eye.
As well as I recollect I had a memo book in which I noted parcel No. so and so. So many books, so many papers, but I did not take down anything of the contents as well as I recollect. My first intention was to note at least a summary of the contents of each document, but seeing such a crude mass before me I gave up that idea. Thus, from first to last, throughout the whole examination, with exception of what I have already stated, I did not make any written memo. of the contents of the books or documents. The whole of my inspection consisted in assorting suspicious documents.
The latter were put back into the bundles or baskets from which they were originally taken, and the former were handed to Mr Caldwell. He came shortly after 10. He did not take a seat at the table. I cannot recollect whether he made any memo. (I am speaking now of the first day,) I think he remained up to 12 o'clock, then went away and returned at 2. The examination lasted up to 4 o'clock, but I cannot say whether he made any notes or memo. on the afternoon of that day. I have a very imperfect recollection as to what part he took in the first day's proceedings.
The second day's work commenced about 6 o'clock in the morning. There were present Yeong, myself, Mr Caldwell and his teacher. Yeong and myself were seated at the sorting table, Mr Caldwell and his teacher were either sitting or standing at another table. Mr Caldwell had writing materials at his table, and made memo. whether with pen or pencil I do not recollect. I had placed in his hands the suspicious papers while Yeong and I went on sorting.
By Mr Tarrant. The entries I read were for Vegetables and provisions, I only saw one folio. Yeong is another teacher in Mr Mongan's office. I do not recollect Mr Caldwell being present when I had the book in my hand. I cannot say of my own knowledge whether Mr Caldwell could not read off a Chinese document at sight. Mr Mongan can read off easy documents. In reading abstracted contents of some of the documents. For instance, as we were examining with reference to certain ones he must consult his teacher.
Friday August, 20th 1858. SHUM CHEOK YEEN,--duly warned, states. I am a writer and teacher in the Chinese Secretary's Office. I was in the outer office of the Secretariat while Ma-chow Wong's books were being examined. The examination was conducted by Mr Mongan. He shewed me only one book, and thenceforth consulted one of the other teachers. A man named Yeong was employed in the examination in the inner room. I do not know whether there were any more Chinese. I saw Mr Caldwell go into the inner office, but cannot say what part he took in the business. I cannot say whether his teacher was inside.
The book shewn to me by Mr Mongan was a book containing daily disbursements for daily necessaries. I do not recollect how long the examination lasted, 1 day or 2. Think it probable that one day was not sufficient. I was called into the inner room to examine the one book referred to. That done I left. It only required a few minutes, as I only examined one page of it.
JAMES MONGAN,—recalled and resworn states. The mode of taking the examination of Ma-chow Wong's documents...
(196 Wong should not be released, the importance of the documents from which the memo. were derived ceased. But still, as a matter of curiosity, it was desirable to have Wade's report, and he was asked from time to time if he had made one. He had no leisure to do so, and the matter died out of my mind until Mr Mongan referred to as to what was to be done with the papers.
The Beer papers I have no knowledge whatsoever of. With reference to page 32 of the minutes of the Commission, Mr Anstey's evidence, commencing at the words "I cannot understand how" Mr Tarrant asks the witness what information he can give with regard to this passage.
Depo- his trial, as to Ma-chow Wong's connection with pirates, the Attorney General, in his monthly report, drew the attention of the Government to it, and recommended that opinion of Mr May and Mr Inglis should be taken as to the connection between Ma-chow Wong, and pirates. In this letter no imputation whatever was cast upon Caldwell with regard to his connection with Ma-chow Wong.
The advice of the Attorney General was followed by the Government, who instructed Mr May and Inglis, both of whom answered, and Mr May's answer contained the observations as to the nature of that connection which I have already stated. Mr Inglis also reported on the same subject. Neither Mr May's nor Mr Inglis's report gave the Government any grounds for blaming Mr Caldwell.
Mr May was of opinion that Ma-chow Wong was a dangerous person for Mr Caldwell to be connected with, that he would mislead or betray him. I wish to mention that the letters containing these reports have all been before the commission, so little design was there to keep back or conceal anything.
Nothing whatever passed between Sir John Bowring and myself regarding the papers (Ma-chow Wong's) until the sitting of the Caldwell Commission. I have no means of answering Mr Tarrant's question as to what the Governor's intention was in sending Mr Mongan to me.
Cross-examination continued,-Referring to your evidence given at page 52, in which the words occur "Mr May produced the memo. which were then for the first time he...
...of by any member of the Council, and the question at issue was "between Mr May's memo, and Mr Mongan's and Mr Caldwell's report was referred to Mr Wade." With reference to that passage Mr Tarrant asks." Was it not of importance for you to ascertain which of the two was the more credible witness?" (to which deponent replies) "The meaning which I meant to convey by the use of words was as to the credit to be attached to Mr May's memo, or Mr Mongan's and Mr Caldwell's report.
There was no reason to doubt either Mr May's or Mr Caldwell's veracity; Mr May having derived his memo. from Tong Aku, the interpreter in whom I had no confidence. The question of credibility was more Tong Aku's than May's. I wish to repeat that I never doubted Mr May's veracity or good faith in the matter of those memos, although in other points I hold his conduct to be reprehensible as an officer of Government.
When the papers were referred to Mr Wade, the question was whether Ma-chow Wong having been convicted on what appeared to be insufficient evidence, he should be pardoned or not. Consequently any facts which threw light upon his general character were important ingredients in the deliberations of the Council.
In this light Tong Aku's memo. were important. Afterwards, when it was decided upon the papers found on Beaver that Ma-chow Wong...
on any matter of State or Police, nor can I find any trace of it in his correspondence with one exception, and that was a wish on his part that no information should be given to Mr Caldwell or Ma-chow Wong, then a prisoner.
That certain parties intended to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus to deliver Viceroy Yeh from the Allied Authorities during his stay in this Harbour, and which intentions the Attorney General was prepared to defeat, gave no prescriptive right to destroy any document in public offices.
(Signed) W. T. BRIDGES.
CHARLES MAY-examined on oath states. With regard to the destruction of Ma-chow Wong's books and papers, my knowledge is as follows. I was summoned to attend before the Executive Council in October last year, I produced my memo., extending over five pages of foolscap, throwing light upon Ma-chow Wong's character. After the Council broke up, I placed them in the hands of Dr Bridges.
I have not seen them since. I was summoned to attend before the Caldwell Inquiry Commission on 27th May, 1st day, and sat down prepared to give my evidence, but as I wanted to refer to the memo., I asked the Chairman, who said he had not got them, but would enquire about them, and deferred taking my evidence until he could obtain them.
I know the Chairman sent forthwith for Mr Almada, and that some enquiries were made for them. He, Mr Almada, returned and said they could not be found. My first examination was taken on the 8th of June. Some days after that I learnt for the first time that the books and papers had been burnt;
My memoranda were burnt amongst them or I cannot say. By Mr Tarrant.-From the manner of taking down the nature of the documents, or their subsistence, there does not appear to have been any room for bad faith or malpractice on the part of Tong Aku. The preliminary...
whether