can properly be construed as referring to pirates or piracy.
e The exception I refer to is the following :
" A letter of money lent $22 and 8 taels to a celebrated pirate named Chu Ahquai ,
now an officer of Chun Queh Tsik. This man was the man (sic. ) charged with ex
tortion who Mah Tsow Wong aided to escape for which Mah Chow Wong , was [let]
off."
This is Mr. May's version of the entry, but divest it of the dressing up
Mr. May has given it, what does it amount to ? " A letter of money
lent $22 and 8 taels to a man named Chu Ahquai."
This Chu Ahquai was formerly a resident in Hongkong. He left the
place about three years ago and joined the rebels who were in open war
W against the Chinese government. How long he was thus engaged, I do
not know, but he was next heard of as commandant of a fleet of piratical
vessels cruising in the neighbourhood of Lintin and Cap-sing-moon.
Shortly after this he was taken into the service of the Chinese govern
ment, where he still remains, under the celebrated Chun Quai Tsik, the
Mandarin who shewed more active hostility against this Colony during
the Arrow-war, than any other officer of the Chinese government. It
is not by any means probable that this Chu Ahquai would have dared.
to shew himself in Hongkong-where his person was well-known-after
he had left it to turn pirate, rebel and mandarin ; and therefore it is not
too much to infer that this small sum of 22 Dollars was lent to him
while he was a resident in the Colony. Indeed the very fact of the note
remaining in Wong Akee's possession, is prima facie evidence that he
has not had the opportunity of enforcing its payment.
The probability of this sum being lent to Chu Alquai before he be
came pirate receives additional support also from the fact that Mr. May has
not thought fit to give the date of the note. All Chinese are very par
ticular about dates, and it would be absurd to suppose that in a note for
the payment of money a man of business like Wong Akee would omit
to insert the date. That the note had a date, I think there can be no
reasonable doubt. Why has Mr. May suppressed it ? Had the date
been one which would have made out the fact which it was so much Mr.
May's interest to establish, namely, that this money was lent to Chu
Ahquai during the time he was known to be engaged in piratical prac
tices, there is not a doubt that Mr. May would have set it forth . In
deed , to a man like Mr. May, who is said to possess some ability in
analyzing and sifting evidence, the date of the note would have been
the first point to which he would have directed his, attention ; and yet
this date, which would either have proved the truth of Mr. May's re
marks on this entry, or cleared Wong Akee's character, is not given !
It was clearly Mr. May's duty to furnish the date of a document (in it
self harmless) to which he has appended those damaging remarks . His
reason for suppressing it is best known to himself. If, on the other hand,
the note bore no date at all, it was equally his duty to have stated it, as
he has done to other entries in his memoranda, insignificant in their
character, and having no bearing whatever on the question of Wong
Akee's alleged connection with pirates.
The latter portion of Mr. May's remarks on this item deserve also to
be noticed :
"This man was the man charged with extortion, who Mah Tsow Wong aided to es
cape for which Mah Chow Wong was [let ? ] off."
45
The case to which this remark refers was as follows : -During the
time that Chu Ahquai was a resident in the Colony, and before he took
to his piratical courses, a charge of extortion was brought against him at
the Police Court. It was said or supposed that Chu Ahquai was con
cealed in Wong Akee's house, and a constable was sent to apprehend
him . The constable was an Indian, and having no warrant, and being
unable to make himself understood as to what he wanted, was forcing
himself upstairs into the family part of Wong Akee's house. Wong
Akee naturally objected to this proceeding, and would not allow the
Indian to enter. Upon this, Wong Akee was charged with having
obstructed the constable in the execution of his duty ! He was sum
moned before the Magistrate, but there was no proof whatever of Chụ
Ahquai being in Wong Akee's house, and altogether the circumstances
attending the supposed obstruction were such, that he was immediately
discharged.
But Wong Akee did not rest satisfied with this. In order to clear
himself of even a suspicion that he was harbouring Chu Ahquai, and
shielding him from justice, he immediately set about getting him appre
hended. He succeeded in doing so, and Chu Ahquai was committed
for trial. He was acquitted of the charge, and he immediately left the
Colony, in no friendly mood, it may be supposed , towards Wong Akee
for having been the cause of his apprehension . Chu Ahquai has never
since returned to Hongkong.
The above facts were perfectly well-known to Mr. May when he
penned his remarks on this particular item, for he applied to me at the
time (although I was not then in the service) to assist him in securing
the attendance of the witnesses at the trial against Chu Ahquai ; and
they bear the fullest confirmation of the fact of the 22 Dollars having
been lent to Chu Ahquai before his apprehension by Wong Akee's
means-before he left the Colony, and, a fortiori, before he became
rebel, pirate, and Mandarin as above stated . The imputation, there
fore, of Wong Akee's complicity with a " celebrated pirate, " so disinge
nuously introduced by Mr. May in his remarks on this particular trans
action, completely falls to the ground.
I have selected this one item for remark because, as I have said be
fore, it is the only one in the whole of these much vaunted memoranda
that has any reference whatever to pirates or piracy, and then only by
reason of the remarks Mr. May has attached to it ; the aggregate of the
items of ammunition and arms being barely sufficient for the ordinary
equipment of two large size trading lorchas, of which vessels Wong
Akee, for some time, owned four,
46
While upon the subject of these books and papers, I shall notice an
other of Mr. Anstey's charges against myself. He says in his pamphlet,
in reference to the report made by me on an examination by the acting
Chinese Secretary and myself, of the books and papers of Wong Akee
after his trial, by order of the Governor, that, "it is now admitted that
" this report had been prepared and presented by Mr. Caldwell himself,
" the party under suspicion of practising deceit upon the Government ;
" that the books and papers had actually been referred to him for that
"6
purpose, and that although the acting Chinese Secretary Mr. Mongan
" had been directed to help him, the chief part of the examination had
"( fallen on the accused, and that the labour of his assistant had been
66
" very cursory.' " He says further that the report was a false com
" pilation of the entries relating to the convict and Mr. Caldwell."
Now what are the facts ? After Wong Akee's trial his books and
papers were sent by the Government to the office of the Chinese Secre
tary. I was directed to report, with Mr. Mongan, the acting Chinese
Secretary, on whatever might be found in them " favourable or unfavour
able to Wong Akee." The acting Chinese Secretary had the books and
papers in his possession. They were contained in sealed parcels. Mr.
Mongan told me he had instructions not to let any of the books or papers
go out of his sight, and he was very particular about them. The exami
nation was conducted in the following manner :-Mr. Mongan, assisted
by his Chinese Teacher, sitting at one desk, opened each parcel and
examined their contents ; and as either document or entry struck his
attention it was handed over to me for translation , which, with the aid
of my Chinese clerk, sitting by me at another desk immediately in front
of Mr. Mongan, I performed . As I finished each translation, I returned
the original to Mr. Mongan, who then gave me another, and in this
manner we proceeded to the end of the examination .
The selection of each paper for translation was made by Mr. Mongan
himself. I had no means of seeing or making myself acquainted with
the contents of any of the books or papers save those which Mr. Mongan
selected and handed to me. The responsibility of the selection of the
entries and papers for translation, therefore, rested entirely with the acting
Chinese Secretary. I merely translated into English such as he thought
were necessary to be submitted to the Government. When I had com
pleted the report of the examination, I submitted it to Mr. Mongan for
correction ; he expressed himself satisfied with it, and the report was
then sent in to Government. It will be seen from this how little truth
there is in Mr. Anstey's statement that " the chief part of the examina
tion had fallen on me."
47
19
As to the charge of the report being " a false compilation of entries
let the acting Chinese Secretary speak for himself. He says in his evi
dence before the Commission, " I was requested to afford Mr. Caldwell
66
every assistance in my power in the translations required, favourable
" or unfavourable to Ma-chow Wong." " I was assisted by my Chi
66 nese teacher and Mr. Caldwell had his Chinese clerk. I and my
“ teacher first sorted the papers, and in doing so, ran over their contents
66 and any that were of a suspicious nature we put on one side." " The
"
' papers put on one side were then examined by Mr. Caldwell and the
" contents noted down . In doing this Mr. Caldwell consulted me, and
" also upon what he noted down . I think, but am not quite sure, that
"this examination occupied about three half-days. As far as I was con
" cerned, I should call it a cursory examination ; I should not call it a
66
searching one unless I went over every item myself and compared it
"with the books. Of this I am certain, that I saw nothing of a suspi
66
cious nature in the books which I did not put on one side, and I be
" lieve all those so put aside were afterwards examined. I think it
"hardly possibly that anything of a suspicious nature escaped me, but
" I cannot pledge myselfto the exact accuracy of every item noted down.
" I have read through the report made on the examination of the books
by Mr. Caldwell, and do not recollect seeing any entries of a suspicious
"L nature not therein enumerated ."
If therefore the report prepared by me from the books and papers
selected by the acting Chinese Secretary and handed to me for transla
tion, be, as Mr. Anstey asserts it is, a " false compilation of entries," and
does not contain the same entries which Mr. May has made in his me
moranda , the fault does not lie with me. But Mr. Anstey attempts to
account for the discrepancy between this report and Mr. May's memo
randa, by alleging that some of Wong Akee's papers must have been
abstracted between the time that Mr. May made his translations at the
Police Station, (which was before Wong Akee's trial ) and that of Mr.
Mongan's examination of them at the office of the Chinese Secretary ;
and although, strange enough, Mr. Anstey does not expressly charge me
with having made this abstraction, his insinuations point pretty broadly
thereto, for in his letter to the Secretary of State, he says, that " Mr.
" Caldwell and the convict's Attorney, Mr. Stace, had been allowed
" during the preparations for his trial to have free access to these im
"C
portant documents, and even according to one authority, to carry them
66
away from their temporary place of custody."
It is not true that I had free access to the books and papers of Wong
Akee previous to his trial, nor did I ask for or require it. Nor is it
true that they were carried away by me, or by any one else that I am
48
aware of, from their temporary place of custody. Mr. Stace, Wong
Akee's Solicitor, was permitted to see the papers at the Central Police
Station, and he had with him to assist him in his examination ofthem , a
Chinese preacher attached to the London Missionary Society's establish
ment ; a correct and upright man, in no way interested either for or
against Wong Akee . I was only there on two occasions on my way to
and from my office, once for about the space of half an hour, and once a
little longer. I took no part in the examination, and never even looked
into a book or document, save one unimportant paper which Mr. Jarman,
the head Inspector of Police, casually handed to me. Whether any
documents or books could possibly have been abstracted, will be best
seen from the following extracts from the evidence given before the Com
mission by Mr. Jarman himself, in whose care and custody the books
and papers remained from the time of their seizure, to that of their
transmission to the office of the Chinese Secretary :
$6
" While the books and papers were being examined I was sitting at the table on
which they were placed . I considered it a part of my duty to see that no papers
were taken away, and that all that were examined were returned to my custody, and C
I did so." of
" From the time I seized them until I sent them up to the Magistracy for trans
mission to the Government Offices, they remained in safe custody in my hands, and Ste
I do not think it possible that any ofthem could have been abstracted ." SC
A great deal has also been said to my prejudice by M. Anstey because,
when application had been made to the Government by some of the Chi
nese inhabitants for a pardon to Wong Akee, I interested myself in
support of the application . I admit that I did so, and I can only regret
that my endeavours did not prove successful . I did not at the time, nor do
I yet believe that Wong Akee was guilty of the offence of which he was
convicted. I do not believe that he ever confederated with pirates, or
had any connection with them. On the contrary, I knew that he was always
opposed to them both from inclination and personal interest, and that
he voluntarily gave information obtained by him from the fishing Junks,
in numerous instances against them, which often led to their destruction. se
The Acting Attorney General who prosecuted the case admitted that
20
the evidence against him was of a purely circumstantial nature , and the
verdict was such as the Judge himself did not expect from the evidence. I S
believed at the time, and do still believe that Wong Akee was the
victim of a certain person's envious feelings against myself, and spite
against the man who had made himself so useful to me when I was
Assistant Superintendent of Police ; of Mr. Dixson's private feelings of
animosity, which induced him by means of his paper the China Mail,
to prejudice the public mind against him ; and of the hostility of the
49
Chinese Interpreters of the Police Court (always, from their position,
men of influence among their countrymen) and other subordinates in
the Police, to whom Wong Akee had rendered himself obnoxious by
bringing to light their mal-practices, and who saw the efforts which
were being made by their chief to crush him. I may not succeed in
removing the prejudice which exists against Wong Akee ; but that shall
not deter me from expressing my own convictions regarding him.
Besides being actuated by a conviction of Wong Akee's innocence, I
interested myself in his behalf in consideration of his many acts of public
usefulness, of the many instances of valuable and truthful information
he readily and willingly gave me against delinquents in the Colony, but
more especially against the pirates of the China Seas ; and it was to his
activity and fidelity that I probably owed my own life, when it was
placed in jeopardy by the offer of the Mandarin's reward of 20,000
Dollars for my head. He it was who gave me information of the pre
sence in the Colony of the Mandarins ' emissaries . If, in aiding the
application for a pardon to Wong Akee under such circumstances, be a
crime, I at once freely confess it, and I give Mr. Anstey the full benefit
of the admission. From first to last I believed the case to be one of
bardship and oppression, and in assisting the prisoner, I neither over
stepped the line of my duty as Protector of Chinese, nor committed an
act which could, by any possibility, render me liable to censure .
Much has also been said by Mr. Anstey about the burning of Wong
Akee's books after the decision on the application for his pardon had
been given . This application was refused, and Wong Akee was left to
undergo his sentence. What further use was there for a parcel of Chi
nese books which, according to the Acting Chinese Secretary, were only
lumbering his office ? This officer complained of the incumbrance, and
they were ordered to be burnt ; and Mr. Anstey seizes that circum
stance to indulge in further detraction of myself. He does not allege
that I had anything to do with the burning ofthe books, but he professes
to be under the " conviction " that they contained evidence against my
self of complicity with pirates, &c. , and he charges the authorities with
having destroyed these books for the purpose of screening me ! Were
not these books examined by Mr. Anstey's own accomplice Mr. May ?
and was not the discovery of accusatory matter against myself one of
Mr. May's objects in doing so ? Mr. May has embodied the results of
his search in his memoranda so often referred to by Mr. Anstey, and so
much relied on by him in his charges against myself. If these books
contained proofs of my complicity with pirates or of any other offence,
how is it that Mr. May has not set them forth in his memoranda ?
Could he, or would he have overlooked them had they been there ?
50
These books and papers were, during several weeks in his custody, or
under his control ; and if his memoranda do not contain the damnatory
evidence Mr. Anstey refers to, we may rest assured it was not from
want of inclination or industry on the part of Mr. May, and his Chinese.
Interpreter.
The Commissioners in their report when referring to the burning of
these books, state, that " it has been clearly proved that their destruction
"was ordered solely because they incumbered the Chinese Secretary's
(6
office, while it appeared that they were then of no value, and could not
"be further required ."
There are some other accusations of a minor character which Mr.
Anstey sets forth against me, such as what he calls " deceiving Mr. May
into the delivery of certain gold dust to a false claimant "—imputing a
want of honesty to me, on the opinion of Mr. Hudson , in the failure of
an attempt to discover the perpetrators in a case of robbery of tin, &c.,
which I can afford to treat with contempt, since I have shewn how little
his other statements are entitled to credit, even in his more serious charges
against me. I will merely say that these accusations exhibit the same
perversions of fact, the same flagrant disregard to truth, which character
face of them the
1 ise all his other charges, and that they bear upon the
same malignant impress.
I feel satisfied that no one possessing any delicacy of feeling, will ex
pect me to enter into the particulars of the infamous and unmanly attempt
"
Mr. Anstey has made to defame the character of my wife ; as if his ac
cusations against myself were not sufficient, in themselves, to satisfy his
insatiable malignity. It will, I trust, suffice, if I declare in the most so
lemn and earnest manner, that the aspersion against my wife is as false
as it is dastardly, and that it has foundation neither in fact nor probabi
lity. That Mr. Inglis was mistaken in the conclusion he arrived at
when giving his evidence before the Commission, is a question which,
those who knew my wife never for a moment doubted ; and that he made
this statement under a misapprehension of a circumstance occurring as
far back as thirteen years ago, rather than from a deliberate intention to
traduce an innocent woman, I am willing to believe . I can only hope
that Mr. Inglis may yet see his error, and when he does so, that his sense
of honor, and his feelings as a gentleman , will induce him to come forward
and frankly avow it. Of Mr. Anstey I have no such hope.
I deem it necessary also, in justice to myself, to make a few observa
tions on some of the proceedings and findings of the Commissioners .
Although the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the charges
brought against me by Mr. Anstey have acquitted me of the whole of
them, I cannot help taking exception to the vague and ambiguous man
51'
ner in which some of their findings are worded. That two of the mem
*
bers of that Commission exhibited from the commencement a strong bias
against me, was too palpable to be doubted. Mr. Cleverly, the Chairman,
Mr. Lyall, and Mr. Fletcher I believe to have been actuated by an up
right and impartial feeling to arrive at the truth of the matters they had
been appointed to investigate, however distasteful and repugnant to their
sense of delicacy, many of the questions brought forward by Mr. Anstey,
may have been. I cannot however pay the same tribute to either of the
two other members, Mr. Davies and Mr. Scarth. The former was no
toriously a partisan of Mr. Anstey, and did his best to support him in his
iniquitous proceedings against me. Mr. Davies' conduct, even after the
close of the Commission, in taking the extra-judicial statement of a man
named Kirtly- another instrument in the hands of Messrs . Anstey and
May- involving grave charges against myself (the falsity ofwhich I had
no difficulty in establishing to the entire satisfaction of His Excellency
the Governor) and forwarding the same to the Government, in the hope
of further injuring my character, was of so gross a nature, that I felt it
my duty to bring his conduct publicly to the notice of the Government,
with a request that some official cognizance might be taken of so flagrant
an abuse of his powers as a Magistrate.
Of the other member, Mr. Scarth, and his ability to form an opinion
on the various matters investigated by the Commission, I leave the reader
to judge, when I quote his friend Mr. Anstey's own words respecting
him. In para : 37 of his letter to the Secretary of State, in speaking of
Mr. Scarth, Mr. Anstey says, that " his extensive mercantile occupations
" elsewhere, caused him to be absent [from the sittings of the Commis
66 sion] whole days, and seldom allowed him to be present for more than
" an hour at a time during any one sitting of the commission." How
could such a man undertake to give an opinion at all ? It is true he
may have read the minutes of the evidence ; (which I very much doubt,
considering his " extensive mercantile occupations") but it is not so
much from the evidence of a witness, as from his demeanor at the time
of giving it, that its value should be judged. Mr. Scarth had few or
no opportunities of witnessing what was so palpable at this investiga
tion, namely, the undisguised animosity of the prosecutor-the strong
animus of his chief witness, Mr. May, and the gross prevarications of
others. Knowing his dificiency in this respect, Mr. Scarth seems to
have entirely surrendered his judgment to the keeping of Mr. Davies,
for in his own letter to Mr. Anstey, as quoted by the latter, there occurs
this extraordinary passage : " Excuse haste as I am off to Macao. But
""
as Mr. Davies and I agree in nearly all matters relative to the Cald
" well inquiry, he will actfor me ifthere is any thing to be done infurther
52
66 giving an opinion on the subject " ! I need say no more of the unfitness
of such a person to form a correct judgment on the various matters
brought before the Commission , which involved the examination of Six
ty-nine witnesses , which occupied in their investigation no less than
Twenty-five sittings , extending over a period of Seven weeks, and from
which he was " whole days" absent, and never present " more than an
hour at a time during any one sitting " !
One of Mr. Anstey's charges against me was the following :
" Charge 13.-With inducing the Attorney General at the beginning of 1857 to
order the release of a great number of men, who Mr. May knows to have been pirates ,
and who Mr. Caldwell ought to have known at the time were pirates."
The charge itself, to say the least of it, is an extraordinary one-the
finding thereon, however, is still more so :
" Finding. That of the fact stated in charge 13 of the release ofthe men upon
Mr. Caldwell's representation as to their character there is no doubt whatever ; and that
it appears incomprehensible how any person, 1 with Mr. Caldwell's knowledge ofthe
Chinese language and holding the appointment he did, could have been ignorant of
the boats in which the men were seized, and that one at least ofthese men was a
notorious pirate, particularly, as it is in evidence that Mah - chow Wong was connected
with the boats."
This finding contains the strongest reflection on my conduct in the
whole report of the Commissioners, and yet the evidence given in sup
port of the charge was not only weak and contradictory, but of the most
worthless character. All that I had to do with the question was this :
Mr. Grand-Pré, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, was directed to
examine the suspected boats and to report upon their character, and I
was desired by the Colonial Secretary to accompany Mr. Grand-Pré and
assist him with my opinion on the subject. This I did. I examined
the boats, their papers, armament, &c., and I found nothing in any of
them to induce me to suppose that they were pirate boats. They had
Registers under the official seal of the Kwun Mun Foo of Canton, their
cargo-books shewed that they had been trading between Shan-tung and
Hoi How, and their books with the list and wages of the crew shewed
that they did not carry more men than other trading boats of their size.
Pirate vessels always carry a larger number of men than trading vessels ;.
but the armament of a trading junk and that of a pirate junk is, general
ly, pretty nearly equal, for the former find it necessary, for their own
protection, to go about quite as heavily armed as their enemies.
There was not a syllable in the evidence brought before the Commis
sion to shew that my opinion of the character of the two boats was not a
correct one. An attempt was made by Mr. May to shew that a man
named Po Pak Shing found on board of one of the boats was a " pirate
53
chief” and a “ notorious pirate ;" but he knew nothing of the man him
self, and merely judged from hearsay—his informant being Ah -sow or
Munsow, a Police Interpreter, a man of worthless character and since
: discharged from the service for corruption . This man says in his evi
1 dence " I know Po Pak Shing from what I have heard to be a notorious
66
pirate." This is all he says about him, and this is Mr. May's reason
for believing Po Pak Shing to be a pirate, as far back, as he says, as
July 1857. I certainly had never heard of the man until he was arrest
10 ed with his crew on board of his boat on this particular occasion , which
was at the instance of a Portuguese who, Mr. May says, " positively
" identified Po Pak Shing as a Pirate Chief, and the others as pirates "
R in an attack at Ningpo. But because a Portuguese chooses to swear to
the identity of Po Pak Shing as being a Pirate Chief at a place 700
miles distant from Hongkong, and Mr. May's delinquent Interpreter
གྲུ
makes the unsupported assertion that "he knew, from what he had heard,
" that Po Pak Shing was a notorious pirate," the Commissioners declare
it to be " incomprehensible to them how any person with my knowledge
" of the Chinese language and holding the appointment I did, could
" have been ignorant of the boats " in which he was seized !
I still adhere to the opinion I originally expressed, that there was
nothing in the appearance of the boats themselves— their equipment, or
armament- the character of their papers, or the number of their crews, to
indicate that they were pirate vessels, and there was no attempt to shew
the contrary. It is rather too much for the Commissioners to assume
that because I speak the Chinese language and because I hold the ap
pointment of Registrar General, I must know every pirate (even though
I may never have seen or heard of him) among the thousands that infest
the China seas, and that I ought also to know every pirate boat, that
though engaged in piracy at sea, may, nevertheless, when she comes
into harbour, conceal the marks of her calling and have all the attributes
and appearances of a peaceful trader !
Po Pak Shing's own account of himself as given at the Police office
had all the appearance of truth in it. It was as follows : That he was at
Ningpo for the purposes of trade at the time of the disgraceful fights
between the Cantonese and Portuguese at that port. That his own
vessel, in common with other trading junks then lying there, was press
ed into the service of the Chinese government, by the Mandarins, for the
purpose of resisting the attacks of the Portuguese lorchas, and that he
thus took part with the Mandarins in that affair. After peace had been
restored, his junk was released, and he resumed his trading operations.
It is not at all unlikely that the Portuguese who made the charge of
piracy was one of those " sanguinary harpies," described by Dr. McGowan
54
as being engaged in these Ningpo fights- nine tenths of whom he says
were Portuguese-on which occasion he may have recognized the junk
and possibly the person of Po Pak Shing, and hence his reason for calling
him a "6 Pirate chief."
Whether there was any connection between Mah-chow Wong and
these boats I had no means of knowing, nor was it likely that I would
have known it. The only evidence of any such connection is the state
ment made by one of Mr. May's constables (De Silva, another Por
tuguese) who says that he saw Mah-chow Wong on board of one of the
boats as he was passing it, which piece of evidence certainly looks as if
it had been got up for the sole purpose of connecting Mah-chow Wong
with the boats.
It was in reference to this charge that Mr. Anstey made the follow
ing statement to the Commissioners : " I think there were about five
" and twenty people whom I discharged on the occasion in question.
" I was sitting in my rota as Justice of the Peace according to the then
" recently gazetted arrangement. The Police brought them up and
66
charged them with being notorious pirates. The deportation Ordi
" nance was then in full vigour, and my thought was, to send them
" before His Excellency in executive council for deportation. But Mr.
" Caldwell came before me and upon oath declared them to be peaceful
" traders and not pirates nor reputed pirates." Now here is a delibe
rate statement made by Mr. Anstey in support of his own charge against
me of inducing him to order the discharge of a great number of men
whom, he says, I ought to have known at the time were pirates. I never
induced Mr. Anstey to discharge these men, and they were not in fact
discharged, but held to bail by him. I never made oath before him in
the case at all, nor did I declare before him that these men were peace
able traders and not pirates. It was Mr. Grand-Pré, the Assistant
Superintendent of Police, who appeared before Mr. Anstey and made the
statement on oath with reference to these men. It is true, that when
Mr. Anstey found that this false statement of his against myself would
not hold good, he, after the lapse of a whole week, and after " refreshing
his memory," as he calls it, wished to correct himself. But how does he
do it ? He has not the candour and honesty to state in a frank and
straight-forward manner that he was mistaken (if it really was a mistake
and not a deliberate mis -statement) that I really had nothing to do with
his decision, and that it was on Mr. Grand- Pré's evidence that he released
the men and not mine ; but he says, " Instead of saying that I dischar
" ged the prisoners, I ought to have said that I dismissed the charge and
" liberated them on bail-not heavy bail. I also find that the oath on
which Mr. Caldwell made the application was not his own path but
ĐỀĐ
55
" that of his subordinate Mr. Grand- Pré." He is unwilling to state
the plain and simple fact that it was Mr. Grand- Pré and not myself who
appeared before him and made oath to the facts, for he would then con
vict himself of a falsehood. He is equally unwilling to exonerate me
altogether from blame ; so he still drags my name in, and in his own
tortuous language , says, " the oath on which Mr. Caldwell made his ap
"plication was not his own oath but that of Mr. Grand- Pré " ! How
could Mr. Grand- Pré's oath be my oath-or how could my oath be Mr.
Grand-Pré's ? Mr. Grand-Pré moreover, as Assistant Superintendent of
Police, was, at that time, the subordinate of Mr. May, the Superintendent
of Police, and not of myself as Registrar General and Protector of Chi
nese.
Another finding of the Commissioners, at which I have cause to feel
aggrieved, is the following : " That with regard to charge 6-a long and
" intimate connection between Mr. Caldwell and Mah-chow Wong has
"been proved, but that there is no proof of affinity according to Chi
66
nese law and custom," and in another place-" notwithstanding these
" facts, coupled with the circumstance of Mr. Caldwell's connection with
66 so notorious a character as Mah- chow Wong, &c."
Now what I have to complain of in the above finding is its ambiguity
and want of precision with respect to the nature of the connection, which
P₂ the Commissioners say, existed between myself and Wong Akee . I
have already detailed the instances in which I have ever had transactions
with Wong Akee, and there was no connection proved which I had not
already admitted. I have made free use of him in obtaining information
1
leading to the destruction of pirates at sea, and the punishment of de
linquents in the Colony ; and I have had pecuniary and mercantile tran
13 sactions with him at a time when I was in no manner connected with
the Government service, and when nothing was shewn against the man's
character for honesty and probity. This was the whole extent of my
connection with Wong Akee, and who can say that there was anything
improper or blameable in it ? An attempt was made to shew that there
was, what Mr. Anstey calls, " a bond, of affinity by adoption according
to Chinese law " between Wong Akee and myself, the meaning ofwhich
I do not quite comprehend, but of which, the Commissioners say, there
ake was no proof. It was in fact only another of Mr. Anstey's wild asser
tions. Even Mr. May, with all his animosity against myself, and his
petty spite against the man, does not go the length of saying that I even
Ar admitted Wong Akee to terms of intimacy ; for he states in his evidence :
200 " I have seen Mah-chow Wong seven or eight times in Mr. Caldwell's
" house. I may instance on one occasion I saw him in a room used as
66
Bar an office in Mr. Caldwell's house in Gough Street. I went there early
56
" in 1857 about a case then under inquiry in connection with the
" conspiracy to carry off Colonel Caine and Mr. Caldwell. Mah
" chow Wong was then seated in Mr. Caldwell's office.* I have
66
never seen him there in the position of a friend. In the one case
. " already mentioned he was there I believe on business connected with
"the prosecution, and on the other occasion he did not appear to be there
" as a friend." This is the evidence of Mr. May. If there was anything
blameable or improper in the connection alluded to by the Commissioners
in their finding, it was their duty to have stated it. If there was not, it
was equally their duty to have said so, and not leave the question in the
ambiguous and doubtful state in which it now stands on their finding ;
unjust to the Government if, in their opinion , the connection was a cul
pable one-still more unjust to myself, if they believed it to be an inno
cent one .
I have also another instance of unfairness to myself on the part of the
Commissioners to complain of.
In the revised printed copy of the evidence published by the Commis
sioners, they have omitted the following passage from the evidence of Dr.
Bridges, the Acting Colonial Secretary :
" Upon reference to a memo. I am enabled to state that my charge to the Governor
against Mr. May was, that the Superintendent of Police, being a married man, had
been keeping a mistress within one door of a Brothel kept open in violation ofthe
Ordinance restricting such houses to a certain locality. The fact of the existence of
the Brothel being notorious to the neighbourhood, and no attempt having been made
on the part of the Superintendent of Police to put it down.
" Secondly. That the Superintendent of Police had given tacit opposition to the
Brothel Ordinance from the commencement, and in this specific instance, positive en
couragement to offenders. That the whole Police force would necessarily follow the
lead of their chief, and it would be impossible to carry out the Ordinance, with the
Police force in opposition to it. The matter was taken out of my hands, and there is
nothing in these documents to inform me whether the whole of these charges were
referred to the Chief Magistrate to inquire into, or whether they were sent to Mr. May.
The reprimand in His Excellency's words, conveyed by me to Mr. May, was made on
the special matter reported to him, as well as on the general charge of not rendering
assistance in carrying out the Ordinance.
The Commissioners have also omitted from the evidence of Mr. May's
own servant, Yoong Ayoong, the following passage :
" I went with my mistress and two children dressed in English clothes to East
street in Tai-ping-shan . I do not know my mistress' name, nor whether she is a
Chinese. She has been dressed in English clothes ever since I have been in the
service. My mistress does not live in the same house as my master. She lives in
a house behind the chapel in Hollywood Road. By my mistress I mean my
master's wife."
*
Wong Akee was there upon the same errand which brought Mr. May.
57
At the time that the evidence was given, Mr. May made application to
the Commissioners to have these two portions of it expunged. The Com
missioners replied that they would do so provided that I had no objections.
I stated that I most decidedly objected to any portion of them being left
out of the minutes ; it was decided that they should remain, and they
were accordingly printed with the day's proceedings ; but in their cor
rected printed copy of the evidence published by the Commissioners these
portions are omitted .
As much care was taken to publish every thing which occurred on the
inquiry tending to injure the character of my wife and myself, most of
which was brought forward by Mr. May-whose moral character would
thus appear to be establishd— I can only look upon the omission of the
passage affecting him, to be an unjustifiable attempt to screen him from
the odium his real character so richly deserves.
From the time that Mr. Anstey first commenced his system of vilify
ing me, to that of his leaving the Colony, he systematically opposed every
public act of mine-every measure which he believed to emanate from
myself. His attempts to injure me were many and various. Some
idea may be formed of his vexatious proceedings from the circumstances
detailed in the following case.
By Ordinance No. 8 of 1858 no public meeting is permitted to be held
by Chinese in the Colony except by permission of the Governor. On
the 10th of December of that year I received information from the Teepo*
of the Lower Bazaar that all the Pork-butchers of the Colony were about
to form themselves into a society for some purpose which he had not
been able to assertain, and that they intended to hold a meeting that
afternoon at a large public eating-house in the Bazaar, when the rules
of the association were to be read and discussed. A large feast had been
prepared for the occasion, and all who partook of it would be considered
as thereby consenting to become members of the society. Knowing
that no permission had been granted by the Governor for holding this
meeting, and suspecting that it was for some unlawful purpose, I in
formed Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police, of the matter, and in the
first instance, left him to deal with it. Upon further consultation with
him, however, I consented to go to the place of meeting myself and give
my assistance in endeavouring to discover the object of the proposed
society. The Police received their instructions from their Superintendent
and acted upon them. I also went to the house but not in company
with the Police. We found about 40 men assembled, and we found also
a paper containing the rules of the association, the object of which was,
* A head Chinese district officer, elected by the people and appointed by the Governor.
58
by concert and combination , to form a league for the purpose of raising
and keeping up the price of pork in the Colony. Those who appeared
to be the principal persons were taken to the Station, where a charge for
breach of the 22nd section of the Ordinance was preferred against them,
as well as a charge for unlawful combination . The next morning the
Defendants were brought before the Assistant Magistrate, Mr. Mitchell,
and my evidence • was
taken. The Magistrate considered the case to be
one of so grave a nature that he declared he would not deal with it
summarily, but would refer it to the Supreme Court. He expressed his
satisfaction that I had been the means of bringing to light one of those
mischievous combinations so common among the Chinese, and tending,
as in this case, to cause hardship to the people by enhancing the price
of provisions.
The case was accordingly deferred, and a day or two afterwards I was
informed that I must be prepared to satisfy the Magistrate that the
meeting was a public one, and that it was held for the purposes of com
bination ; both of which I was quite prepared to do. I heard nothing
" more about the case, however, until the 17th, when I received a note
from the usher of the Chief Magistrate's (Mr. Davies) Court requesting
my attendance. On reaching the Court I was informed by Mr. Davies,
to my surprise, that Mr. Anstey had been there on behalf of the pork
butchers, and that he, Mr. Davies, had discharged them ! That Mr.
Anstey had applied for his costs against me, which he had refused to
grant ; that Mr. Anstey had also applied to have me fined for a malicious
arrest, which also he had refused, and that Mr. Anstey had then threat
ened to take the matter into the Supreme Court.
Comment here is unnecessary. The magic of Mr. Anstey's presence
and the fact of the case being one in which I had taken a prominent
part, were sufficient to overrule the stong opinion formed of the case
Mr. Mitchell, the Assistant Magistrate, and to dispense with the neces
sity of any further proof.
The case however did not end here. Mr. Anstey had not succeeded
in his attempts to get me mulct although he had got the offending pork
butchers discharged. Three days afterwards I was served with two
writs of Summons at the suits of two of the butchers, each for the sum
of a thousand dollars damages for arrest and false imprisonment. This
would have been legitimate enough had it been done in the regular way;
but no person could have been more astonished than were the two but
chers themselves when they afterwards heard that summonses had been
issued against me in their names to recover damages for the alleged
malicious arrest. They declared that they never gave any instructions
intention
or authority for any such proceeding that they never had any
59
of doing so, and that they knew nothing whatever about it. They could
only account for these proceedings by the following circumstance. They
stated that on the day after they had been discharged by the Chief Ma
gistrate, Mr. Tarrant (the Editor of the Friend of China newspaper)
came to their house with his servant and asked them if they were two of
the pork-butchers that had been apprehended by Mr. Caldwell. On their
replying in the affirmative Mr, Tarrant told them they must go with him.
They did so. Mr. Tarrant took them to the house of Mr. Anstey, and
after some conversation between these two gentlemen, they were taken
by Mr. Tarrant to the office of a Solicitor, who asked them their names
and also if they had been apprehended by Mr. Caldwell, and they were
then told to go away. They further stated that nothing was mentioned
to them, either by Mr. Anstey or any one else, about issuing summonses
against me, that they paid no money to the Solicitor, nor were they asked
to do so, nor did they sign any paper. This is what these men volunta
rily told me, which they said they were ready to verify, and there were
others who heard their statement. It also receives singular confirmation
from the following letter which had been picked up by a friend - found
open, and handed to me. It was in the handwriting of Mr. Tarrant
and addressed to Mr. Anstey. I put it into the hands of two gentlemen
thoroughly conversant with Mr. Tarrant's handwriting-a certified copy
of it was made, and I sent the original to Mr. Tarrant with my compli
ments :
2 STAUNTON STREET, 29/12/58.
DEAR SIR,-In the Pork Butchers case hearing from * last night that
Caldwell was going to prove that the Chinese Plaintiffs had never instructed an action
for pecuniary damages, and, as it would follow, had never requested any further action
than their release, I sent for the man, Chuu Assoo, who acted as spokesman between
myself and the Plaintiffs, and he has told me that Caldwell has called on them, and
they have assured him, Chinese-like, they did not want to trouble him—what is being
done is not their doing, & c.
I send this letter by Chun Assoo himself that you may hear this from his own lips.
I think under the circumstances, it will be best to let Mr. Caldwell fall between the
stools, i.e. let the action drop on the presumption which the public cannot but arrive
at, that the terror we are trying to subdue has been too much in the present case.
The public on learning the fact of his having called on the man, which I will duly
report to-night, will form their own opinions and be disposed to aid in stopping his
fun just as warmly as if the case went to trial. Prior to seeing Mr. I went
to see Mr. " but he was out.
I had written the article in the Overland edition of my paper for to-morrow, of
which I enclose proof.-I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
W. TARRANT.
P.S.-I have been thinking of a memorial to the Executive Council to be signed
by the oppressed Pork Butchers, or some of them of whom I could make sure. Pro
perly pleaded it should effect what is necessary.
*
I omit the name of the gentleman here referred to. The italics are my own.
60
• This letter admits us into the penetralia of the connection which
appears to have existed between Messrs. Anstey and Tarrant. Proofs
of articles intended to appear in that low and scurrilous paper are first
submitted for Mr. Anstey's approval, and we now know where to trace
the origin of those libellous attacks which of late so frequently appeared
in that paper against myself and others.
I need scarcely add that there was an end of this particular attempt
to injure me, though the astonished and deceived butchers were called
upon to pay the costs of the two cases, which they had not the means of
doing, and, to avoid incarceration, were compelled to leave the Colony.
I impute no blame to the solicitor engaged, who, I verily believe, took
his instructions from Mr. Tarrant in the full belief that he represented
the wishes of the two butchers ; but it was a case of cruel hardship to
these poor men, who were compelled to leave their homes and give up
their sources of livelihood to avoid the consequences of the law suits into
which they had been inveigled by Mr. Tarrant and Mr. Anstey, to say
nothing ofthe gross conspiracy which the letter of Mr. Tarrant so clearly
reveals had been entered into by these two persons to injure myself.
Both Mr. Anstey and Mr. May have stated that I was detested by the
Chinese of the Colony on account of the " terror," which they allege, I
exercised over them, and that it was in consequence of this terror that
the Chinese shewed a reluctance to appear and give evidence against me
at the inquiry. As to this last allegation I find, on looking over the
minutes of the evidence taken by the Commissioners, that out of 69 wit
nesses examined, no less than 32 were Chinese ; the whole of whom,
with the exception of 4, were brought forward by Messrs. May and
Anstey or called by the Commissioners ; and although it is true that
(save the immediate retainers of Mr. May) they said little or nothing to
my prejudice, it at least shews that there was no disinclination on the
part of the Chinese to come forward if they really had anything to say
against me. But the following circumstance will shew what little
truth there was in the above statement ; and with it I shall close my
replies to Mr. Anstey's accusations."
In the month of February 1859 I was temporarily absent from the
Colony on special duty, and it was rumoured amongst the Chinese that
I was to be removed from the Colonial service. When I returned I
found that a Petition had been presented by the Chinese to His Excel
lency the Governor of which I give a translation :
" The Petition of the [ Chinese] Merchants and Teepos ofthe whole of Hongkong,
to His Excellency the Governor, praying His Excellency's clear consideration and
skilful disposal of the matter [ mentioned therein. ]
61
" During the years which we have peacefully passed under Your Excellency's rule,
we have not failed to be deeply sensible of the benefits derived from those who have
governed us well- and whilst fearing their dignity we have felt grateful to them. For
instance, the late Chief Magistrate Mr. Hillier, and since him, Mr. Caldwell the Pro
tector of Chinese, both were thoroughly versed in Chinese affairs, and though firm
were yet merciful and kind , and the consequence is that traders and people from all
quarters have congregated in this place.
" Mr. Caldwell still holds the office of Protector of Chinese and his doing so is the
consumation of our wishes and a great blessing. But we have lately seen it rumour
ed in the newspapers that he is about to resign with the intention of returning home.
We cannot but feel deeply concerned at this, and hasten to write in beseeching Your
Excellency to be pleased to detain him in office in order that our security may be
continued [the attainment of which desire] will cause the people to say in their glad
ness that they have two heavens over them, and the whole place to be grateful for
Your Excellency's favor.
Signed by 918 Merchants, Shopkeepers, and Teepos.
February , 1859.
The 918 merchants and shop-keepers who signed this Petition were
the most respectable and influential men in the Colony ; and I believe
that a Petition more numerously and more respectably signed was never
before presented to the Government on any occasion whatosever. It was
a spontaneous act on the part of this large and influential body of men ,
done during my absence, and beyond all doubt dictated by a feeling of
disquietude and regret at the apprehended removal of a public officer
whose duties brought him into such intimate relations with themselves,
and in whose public conduct they felt confidence and security. I print
it here not only as a refutation of the statement that I was held in de
testation and dread by the Chinese, but as a proof of the utility and
appreciation of the office of Protector of Chinese, as it is at present
exercised, by the class of persons for whose benefit it was especially
created, notwithstanding Mr. Anstey's attempts to decry it.
In judging of the credibility of evidence it is usual to take into con
sideration the character of the witness. That is indeed the surest test of
its value. The damaging notoriety which Mr. Anstey has established
for himself fortunately relieves me of the necessity of saying any thing
further in proof of his utter untrustworthiness than I have already done
in the preceding pages ; but Mr. May's claims to public discredit may
not be so well known . Not wishing to expose myself to the charge of
recrimination , I shall say nothing of his antecedents, but confine myself
to the relation of a single instance of his perfidy to myself, which I think
will suffice to shew the character of the man.
Until a short time previous to the commencement of Mr. Anstey's
crusade against me, I had always regarded Mr. May as one of my truest
and most-to - be -trusted friends. My house was open to him at all hours
62
a seat at my table was always at his disposal, and he freely availed
himself of my hospitality. Our relations indeed were upon the most
friendly and confidential footing, and they were further strengthened by
the circumstance of our being in the same department of the service. I
never dreamt of placing check or restraint on my almost daily intercourse
and conversation with one whose professions led me to believe to be sin
cerely interested in my welfare. I little thought that under the mask of
friendship this man was insinuating himself into my confidence-worm
ing out my thoughts- making himself master of my actions- noting
every remark which fell unthinkingly from my lips and treasuring all this
up for the purpose of some day using them in order to crush and ruin the
man who had been blind enough to trust in his professions of friendship.
" That this picture, repulsive as it is, is not overdrawn, let any one who
doubts it read Mr. May's evidence against me given before the Commis
sion of Inquiry. Does he conceal any thing -no matter how the informa
tion may have been acquired, or how vague the nature of it- which he
• thinks may tend to my prejudice ? He does not altogether deny that he
was on friendly relations with me, but he qualifies it in such terms as
" he may have been some half a dozen times at my house-he may have
" done this or he may have done that." It would not have done for him
to have admitted the full extent of this intimacy, for he would then have
stood convicted, on his own admission, of his subsequent treachery ; but
there are many of my friends still in the Colony who have had ample
opportunities of witnessing at my house the frequency of Mr. May's pre
sence there and the unrestrained nature of my intercourse with him, who
were not a little amazed, and shocked too , when they read the extraor
dinary evidence he gave before the commission in reference to it.
One of the charges brought against me by Mr. Anstey was : " WithK
(6
having informed Mr. May that although he, Mr. Caldwell, would not
" himself take bribes he would not object to his wife doing so."
Mr. May himself came forward to support this charge and he related
the following incident in proof of it :
" Upon another occasion, I should fancy three or four years ago, Mr. Caldwell
mentioned to me that if he did not receive presents with his own hands he should not
object to his wife receiving them."
Let us examine what foundation Mr. May had for making such an
assertion.
In 1854 an American gentleman of the name of Perkins was most
barbarously murdered and robbed by Chinese on his way from Hongkong
to Macao in a boat in which he had taken his passage. The event caused
great excitement and indignation in the Colony, and I used very great
63
exertions to discover the murderers. After much labour and anxiety, I
succeeded in tracing them, and had two of them apprehended. They
were tried, convicted , and one of them was executed. The United States B
Vice Consul of Canton on behalf of the relatives and friends of the mur
dered gentleman, in gratitude for the exertions I had made in discover
ing the murderers, wished to present me with a testimonial, (value £ 100)
but the local government refused permission to my receiving it without
a previous representation home. I naturally thought this a hardship,
and while chatting in a friendly way with Mr. May in my own house,
my wife and some others being present, I said, " It is a great shame :
" the next time I shall ask them to give it to my wife." This was all
that took place, and these trifling words, treasured up for years by the
" conscientious and zealous Mr. May," as Mr. Anstey calls him, are re
produced as indicating a willingness on my part to consent to my wife
taking bribes, and formed into a charge against me ! The finding ofthe
Commissioners was : " That there were no grounds whatever for bring
" ing the charge."
I have now replied to the principal accusations Mr. Anstey has made
against me. I have shewn, I trust, their utter falsity as well as their
malignity. I have shewn his wilful perversions of fact, and his
base and unscrupulous inventions. I have also shewn something
(but only a little in comparison with what I might have done) of
the morals of the man, whose pretensions to virtue were such , that
he declared he could not possibly allow his name to remain in the
Commission of the Peace, whilst I retained a seat on the Magisterial
Bench ! I have shewn also the untrustworthiness and perfidy of his
accomplice and chief witness Mr. May-his envy and jealousy-his
coveting of the offices I hold, and his direct interest in getting me re
moved from the service. A more detestable conspiracy on the part of
two public officers to disgrace and ruin a brother officer I do believe was
never before perpetrated ; and I leave their conduct to the just repre
hension of all right thinking persons. One of my accusers has since
been removed from the public service, and it would be no more than just
if a similar retribution were visited upon the other.
In conclusion I venture to append to this paper, in further refutation
of the scandalous accusation of my having been connected with pirates
and participated in the profits derived from piratical expeditions , the
testimony borne to the exertions I have for many years made in the sup
pression of piracy in the China Seas, by the officers of Her Majesty's
Navy.
I place first on record two despatches of Rear- Admiral Sir Michael
Seymour, G.C.B. , whose distinguished chracter, great sagacity, and
64
unusual acquaintance with the subject of piracy and every thing con
nected with the maritime affairs of the Chinese, entitle his opinions to
the very highest respect ; and whose unsolicited testimony in favor of
myself and on the wide spread existence of Chinese piracy, I look upon
as sufficient to cast into utter insignificance and contempt the ravings
of a displaced Attorney Generala discomfited prosecutor and a dis
contented monomaniac. 'da 1
9 45
11 D. R. CALDWELL .
# "
31
•
• 21
rf
}
tangle
10.
} th
};
Is
DOS
an
37
IB
ort
oa
+ 17
91
12 8
65
6:
Culcutta," at HONGKONG, 28th March, 1857.
SIR, I have the honor to bring to Your Excellency's notice the
valuable services rendered to this Colony by Mr. Caldwell, Registrar
General, on several occasions when lent to Her Majesty's ships to act
as Interpreter in pursuit of piratical craft near Hongkong.
On these expeditions Mr. Caldwell from his intimate knowledge of
the Chinese language and customs, has enabled the Commanders of Her
Majesty's ships to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, a
question of great difficulty without such assistance, and his presence has