SIH,
References.
Copy of the letter of H. M. Consul Canton, selative to the
Claim on the Chinese Government.
British Consulate, Canton, 24th December, 1801.
Regarding your claim for Indemnity respecting which you spoke to me, I have to acquaint you that it is entered on the records as follows:-
Cessation of Trade, Loss of Charter employment for postal Steamers,...$62,604. Steamer "Thistle" burnt by Mandarins, Lorcha "Anonyma" destroyed,
$30,000.
$ 4,000.
$96,604.
This Claim is still before His Excellency Her Majesty's Minister in China and I am without instruction regarding at.
Y. J. MURROW Esq.
I am, Sir,
Your Obedient Sersant,
D. B. ROBERTSON.
Mode adopted by the late Administration of Hongkong, to deceive
H. M. Government.
اسوج را معين
[No. 11 of the appendices to the Official Minutes of Enquiry into the Civil service abuses.] Charges made by the undersigned against the late administration of Hongkong, in having misrepresented, distorted, and suppressed facts from the Home Government with the view of shielding Mr. Caldwell from the accusations brought against him—as from the Correspondence which has been published by Order of the House of Commons, March 1860.
First. That whereas Sir John Bowring in a letter dated 4th June, 1858, addressed to Lord Stanley, represented Dr. Bridges as being a fit and proper person to be Acting Colonial Secretary, although Sir John had spoken very disparagingly of Dr. Bridges to Mr. Anstey, the late Attorney General, (vide his evidenec, Caldwell Enquiry page 66), which statement Sir John corroborates in his despatch to Sir E Lytton of 9th August, par. 63. I submit it to be clear from this that Sir John chose Dr. Bridges as a foil to Mr. Anstey, and that he is responsible for their animosity from first to last. If the character which Sir John gave of Dr. Bridges he correct, I submit the fact of Dr. B. being made Mr. Anstey's superior officer goes far to palliate the violence of the latter. It will be seen, that Sir John was induced to employ Dr. Bridges at the strong recommendation of Mr. Mercer, and as the intimacy between Dr. Bridges and Mr. Mercer has noto- riously continued to this day, I submit the latter gentlemen should not sit on this inquiry. Again in Sir John's letter to Lord Stanley of 4th June, 1858, he enclosed a letter from Dr. Bridges to His Lordship stating that he (Dr. Bridges) was a man who "never cared much for money," which is a notorious untruth of which Sir John was well aware.
LL
K
Second-In Sir John Bowring's letter to Sir E. Lytton of 9th August, 1858, he makes use of the following expression [ par. 50] "A few days afterwards further light being unexpectedly thrown upon Mah-chow Wong's connexion with pirates from an entirely different source, the Executive Council resolved not to interfere with the sentence passed upon him." This refers to the paper found on Beaver which is designedly suppressed for two very plain reasons. First.--ás Mr. May, in his evidence before the Caldwell Commission, stated that among the papers seized in Mah-chow Wang's shop, were Some receipts for wages paid this very pirate Beaver in Mr. Caldwell's hand writing (a fact admitted by Mr. Cald- well himself) the production of the paper alluded to would have exhibited to II M. Government Mr. Cald- well's connexion with a second professed pirate. And Secondly. The paper found on Beaver would have exposed the principles on which Mal-chow Wong acted in giving Mr. Caldwell such information as led to the employment of British men-of-war.
Third-In the same letter of 9th August, 1858, to Sir E. Lytton, Sir John Bowring states, [par. 88 that Dr. Bridges had not benefitted by Mr. Anstey's dismissal inasmuch as Mr. Day had been appointed to the vacancy-the truth being that Dr. Bridges had benefitted thereby, having been appointed legal adviser to the Superintendency.
Fourth. In the same letter to Sir E. Lytton, par. 66] Sir John Bowring affirms that the Caldwell Commission had acquitted Mr. Caldwell, of all the charges brought against him except one act not amounting to more than indiscretion-which is an unfair and an untrue deduction on the face of it-particularly when Sir John Bowring must have known that the Chairman of that Commission subsequently stated on oath that had he, when he gave the casting vote, known what he then knew, such casting roto would have been for the severe finding-and even more particularly still after Sir John certainly knew that five Justices had declared Mr. Caldwell unfit to sit upon the bench. *
Fifth. In paragraph 71 of the same letter. Sir John Bowring avers that he gave the Caldwell Com- mission a carte d'anche to publish what they liked without Hmit, and that Mr. Anstey does not even pretem! to blame the Government for the omission of the appendices. The truth being that Mr. Anstey did very much blame the Government for such omission, and it was the Government which prevented the said appendi- ces from being published, albeit the Commission were anxions for the publication.
Sixth. In the same letter, [par. 49,] Sir John Bowring, palpably to traduce the character of a man who was inimical to Mah-chow Wong and Mr. Caldwell, stigmatizes Tong-Akni as being a man of more than suspected character. Whereas the truth is that Tong-Akai was and is a man of remarkably good character, as can be discovered on the testimony of those officers under whom he has served, say, Messrs. Hillier, Lay, Davies, Mitchell, May, and Collins.
The statement here made as to the evidence of the Chairman of the Caldwell Committee is an error,
¡
Seventh. In the enclosure No. 3, to the above named letter page 63, it is stated that the Chief Justice reported that he would have been better pleased had the verdict against Mah-chow Wong been the other way -the truth being that the Chief Justice had refused to recommend that the verdict should be disturbed, had passed a very severe sentence, and had stated from the bench that all he had ever said was that the evidence night have been stronger.
Eighth. That in enclosure No. 4, to the letter, page 64, it is stated that Mab-chow Wong's papers were seized after Mr. May had written his letter of 20th July, 1857, whereas they were seized before then, and were actually referred to in that letter as having been examined and found to implicate Mr. Caldwell.
Math. In transmitting the copy of Met May's better, of 20th July, 1857, the marginal notes Dr. Bridges made for the purpose of misleading the Governor, are omitted.
Tenth.-In Sir John Bowring's letter to Lord Stanley of 9th August, 1858, in para 7 and 9, Mr. Anstey's quarrelsome propensities are dilated upon. He is stated to have quarrelled with Mr. Bevan, the Judge's Clerk whose character is upheld. In an enclosure to be found at page 8, to Sir John's letter to Lord Stanley of 4th June, 1858, this same Mr. Bevan's name is used for quite another purpose, namely, as the ostensible editor of a newspaper always in scurrilous opposition to Government, and as being a discharged servant of The such Government. The latter letter it will be observed is dated two months previously to the former Hongkong Register, the paper referred to, is the only one in this Colony that has escaped a prosecution for libel, Eleventh-The false malicious defamatory manner Mr. May is persistentiy maligned throughout the whole of the Correspondence. The object of this is clearly to throw discredit on Mr. May's evidence, for cer tainly had H. M. Government been properly advised of Mr. May's real character bis evidence against Mr. Caldwell would have had great weight. I am the oldest European resident in the South of China, and for the greater part of the period I have had upwards of one hundred Chinese constantly in my employ. Even now I have between thirty or forty-I say not one single foreigner here has been so intimately associated with the Chinese as I have been, and I will declars I never heard a charge whispered against Mr. May that touched his honor and integrity. I will further declare that I never knew a man in my life who so strictly adhered to the letter of the truth as Mr. May. I am not singular in my opinion. The two public officers who stand prominently forward in the service of this Colony during the late scandals, as high minded, high principled, Mr. Green in a letter which appears and above all reproach, are Messrs. W. F. Green, and H. Tudor Davies.
in the Blue Book declares Mr. May's veracity to be unimpeachable, and Mr. Davies in a private letter I have from him dated 16th ultimo, thus writes :-There is another man to whom few of you do justice. That is May. I don't believe that anything would induce May to give a Magisterial decision that he didn't think "just and I can assure you that is great praise in such a place as Hongkong." I submit that Messrs. Green and Davies being both barristers, and being placed in positions where they had peculiar opportunities of forming a correct judgement of Mr. May, their opinions are entitled to great respect. Besides the idea of Mr. May being jealous of Mr. Caldwell is supremely ridiculous. Certainly I have always thought that Mr. May's faults have consisted in his attachment to ease and routine, and I think my idea cannot be more forcibly illustrated than by the forbearance he displayed in charging Mr. Caldwell with complicity with Mah-chow Wong. I will divide this portion of my charge against the Government under separate heads.
1st-With having repeatedly denied, that it had ever been hinted or insinuated that the papers found Whereas Mr. May in a letter in Mah-chow Wong's shop implicated Mr. Caldwell in the most remote manner.
he addressed to Dr. Bridges as Acting Colonial Secretary on 20th July 1857, distinctly stated that he had seized the papers and that they did contain proofs of Mr. Caldwell having a direct interest in Mah-chow Wong's business.
In the same regard it is stated repeatedly, that Mah-chow Wong's pardon being refused, the papers had no more value, and so the burning is justified, whereas many months before the burning, the production of Mr. May's memorandum of their contents had been read in the Executive Council, where their production caused a great sensation.
In page 47, para. 50, Sir John names as a charge against Mr. May that when he surrendered these Meme: to the Council, he said not one word about their implicating Mr. Caldwell. As the Council could see for themselves, this was clearly an act of forbearance on Mr. May's part.
(la.) At page 42, Mr. May is accused of owning a nest of brothels which he very unwillingly got rid of after considerable pressure from Government. To my knowledge this is the very reverse of the fact. I was well aware of the circumstances of the case at the time, which I will relate if required.
3nd. There are several of Mr. May's letters suppressed. Their production will test the animus which dictated their suppression. For instance at page 42, para 22, Sir John states that he more than once repri manded Mr. May. I can find no such reprimands, and I am sure from the malevolence indulged in that had Mr. May laid himself open to censure in the manner inferred, he would have been suspended. Again letters are referred to by Mr. May, page 246, which I cannot find. I therefore infer that he was either never re- primanded at all, or if he were, he fully met the charges.
3rd.--At page 43, para, 23, it is stated in order to prove partisanship between Mr. May and Mr. Anstey, If so it is strange. I never heard of it. that the latter defended the former when he was obviously wrong. The two were by no means on intimete terms.
4th-At page 63, Mr. May is charged with having taken the Memo of Mah-chow Wong's papers, for the benefit of the Press. This is totally untrue. He simply foiled Dr. Bridges in obtaining a pardon for Mah- chow Wong by telling the Editor of the China Mail what the tenor of the Memo: was some months after tuey had been taken.
5th-1 must premise this charge by stating my conviction that no man cognisant of the two cases on which Mah-chow Wong was committed for trial, can possibly entertain any doubt about his guilt. In the case on which he was convicted, Mr. Day defended him. We find from the Blue Book that the morning after the conviction Mr. Day and Mr. Caldwell called upon the Governor and solicited a pardon. The Governor suggested that the application should be made by petition to the Executive Council. A petition was got up accordingly, to which the Chinese attached their names in terrorem. Then we find that this perition woul have been successful, notwithstanding the production of Mr. May's Memo: but for the discovery of the Beaver paper. Then we find Mr Day employed by the Caldwell Commission as their legal adviser. Sir John Bow ring is very particular in advising Sir E. Lytton that the Commission employed Mr. Day, not the Government. [Simultaneously with the application of the Commission for Mr. Day's services, came an application from Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell did not employ another lawyer when he found Mr. Day reengaged.] Mr. Day attempted to control the Commission by confining them to legal evidence-they disregarded his advice and It is painfully clear tha. Mr. Day himself says, he would have retired but for his duty to the Government.
Mr. Day acted as a strong partisan of Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell throughout. The Commission over, Dr Bridges applied officially to Mr. Day for his opinion on the report of the Commission, which Mr. Day gave quite forgetful of his duty to his clients the Commission, and of course without their knowledge. The op nion was entirely in Mr. Caldwell's favor-it was the reverse of complimentary to the Commission, and was most defamatory of Mr. May. Then Mr. Anstey was suspen led on chages concocted by Dr. Bridges in the Executive Council, and Mr. Day was made Acting Attorney General, Dr. Bridges being apportioned the Super- intendency. Then Mr. May is called on for an explanation of his conduct, to which he duly responds. The esponse is submitted to Mr. Day the Acting Attorney General, (who had already grossly maligned Mr. May in the opinion upon the Report of the Caldwell Commission), and the result is a most outrageous stricture on Mr. May, which Dr. Bridges of course endorses. Then Mr. Day dying, Mr. Green is made Acting Attorney General. The Governor, apparently unwilling to commit the atrocity of suspending Mr. May, which was
DEX.