479
( 53 )
by order of the Governor. While the interest in the matter came to my knowledge, and directions were given to Mr Inglis continued unabated a report was expected from him, but Mr on the subject. I do consider it the duty of a detective to put Wade went up to Canton, and had several other matters to all prima facie cases in train for trial, but there is no such. attend to, and the matter gradually died away. The appli- thing as a detective here; it is the duty of all persons cations for the report were continued after the production of not to obstruct their being so put in train. That is most the papers found on Beaver. Mr Wade told me that he had certainly the duty of the Protector of Chinese and Su so much to do, that he could not give any time or atten-perintendent of Police, but not of Justices generally. tion to the report, and that is how I explain its not having In answering the question why I applied the term been produced. What Mr Mongan says, about the order for "partizanship" with reference to Mr May, on the occ the destruction of the papers, is substantially correct. The sion of my last giving evidence, I would say, that having order was given shortly after Mr Wade's departure for the been Crown prosecutor here for nearly three years, I North. As far as I had anything to say, Mr Mongan came in have been enabled to form an
accurate knowledge of to me, and said "What's to be done with the books and papers." the manner in which Mr May generally conducted Police I said he had better ask the Governor, and he told me the investigations, or assisted in getting up cases; and having Governor had desired him to ask me; then I said, "They 're found him pursue an entirely different course so far as mere rubbish, and had better. be burnt," or words to that regards activity and energy in Ma-chow Wong's case, from effect. I had not from any quarter whatsoever at this time, what I had ever seen or known him shew in any other case: received information that they might be important. I had no kaowing the bitter spirit that he had for
many months
past hint from any one-and if I had had the remotest idea, that shewn towards Mr Caldwell, and believing that Ma-chow Wongi they would have proved important in any way, should not have wasmade but the cause to attack Mr Caldwell—because Mr May, ordered their destruction. I never had any hint from Mr during my tenure of office, had never brought Ma-chow Wong's Caldwell; nothing ever passed between Mr Caldwell and crimes of conduct to my notice in any way,-I came to the myself on the subject.
conclusion, which I still adhere to, that Mr May with regard to the getting up of the case against Ma-chow Wong, by the private feelings of a partizan.
I believe that Mr Caldwell was not in the Govern- ment employ as interpreter in the end of 1855. I am under the impression that he ceased to be interpreter when he left the Government service in June or July, 1855. I was out of the colony the whole of 1856, except the first fifteen days, and the last six, and have no knowledge whether a subsequent application in that year for promoting Mr Caldwell to a higher office was rejected in Downing Street, before the 22d November, 1856.
I hand into the Commission the original report of Mr Wade, under date 27th October, 1857, upon the document found in the possession of Beaver.
was actuated
ques
To the best of my belief I never, without consulting the Governor, order the release of prisoners or their property-their persons certainly not. Having had time to think over the tion of the liberation of the property of Ma-chow Wong, I think that I did give directions to Mr Grand-Pre as to taking away the Police from the premises without consulting the Governor, and I should do the same thing again under similar circum- stances, 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 Secre- tary, 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 prisouers from the Gaol, and he asked me, if Ma-chow Wong's friends brought the prisoner back to Gaol, whether Ma-chow All Chinese petitions for pardon or commutation are sent. Wong could procure a pardon. An offer of mitigation in either through Mr Inglis or Mr Caldwell,—if from prisoners, of sentence was made to another prisoner in the Gaol, whose through Mr Inglis; if from prisoners' friends, through Mr Cald sentence was mitigated in consequence of effecting the capture. well. It is the custom to refer them sometimes to the Chief I told the Comprador that nothing would get Ma-chow Wong's Justice for his report. They are referred to the Chief Justice liberation. I added, that neither would I do anything myself, I should say, eight times out of ten,--the other two out of the nor did I think the Governor would pardon him under any ten consist of petty cases, and cases which it has been already circumstances. That is the only time, and this the only person, determined not to pardon. I do not remember, since I have when and with whom I have spoken concerning Ma-chow Wong's held office, a single Supreme Court case, in which such an pardon, subsequent to September 1856. I think it was from application was not referred to the Chief Justice. I do not Mr Caldwell himself, that I understood it was he who arrested allude to such a case as that I mentioned just now, of a miti- Beaver. I remember a minute being made in the Gaol bookgation of punishment in consequence of services rendered in by Mr Anstey and Mr Lyall, or somebody else, regarding the the recapture of prisoners. It is very seldom, if over, that commitment of certain prisoners. I cannot take upon myself they are referred to the present Attorney General for his to state whether the minute said they were all committed opinion. The application in the Ma-chow Wong case was under the warrant of Mr Caldwell. I cannot, from my own referred to the Chief Justice, and Acting Attorney General. knowledge, answer whether the prisoners were discharged The report of the Chief Justice is certainly not conclusive. I within a week after that minute was made. I know that it can only speak of three or four cases of pardon, and certainly
and
( 55 )
Supreme Court, I had left a blank for that portion of it. told me, that there was an intrigue within the Gaol walls to give Mr May was present as Acting Sheriff. Far from imagining an apparent cause for the pardon of Ma-chow Wong, and that that he was willing to help me, I expostulated with him, thus-he, Mr Inglis, opposed himself to the intrigue. I do know that Good God, Mr May you cannot defend this abominable con- parties of police went to Stanley on the information derived nection between Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong; you cannot from the Gaol, that military at Stanley were called out to expect me to go on finding bills for mock piracies on the assist the police, and that very many houses at Stanley wer evidence of the wretches whom you bring before this Court as searched at dead of night. One of the cases then occurred in Crown witnesses. You have heard the speech of Eli Boggs, which police acted without any order from me, or knowledge Can any Government stand against such an infamy and dis- of the mode in which they were acting, or directions as to hoe have seen the demeanour of Mr Caldwell who they were to act, which resulted in the apprehension of two grace, you heard that speech and shrunk under it." To my astonishment or three men on a charge of murder, which case broke Mr May replied, "I have never had but one opinion about down at the Police Court. The last scene of the farce was Mr Caldwell, Ma-chow Wong, Eli Boggs, or the connection; the apprehension of some of the informants for apprehend- but I am nobody, and have no power." It was then I asked his ing two men on the charge of murder, and then attempting to permission to refer to him in the report, as one who would extort money from them; that case was, I think, decided by speak if called upon. He said "yes," and advised me also to the Chief Magistrate. My firm conviction is, that no murder I refer to Mr Inglis, who knew a great deal also. I did so. The was ever committed of the man in question. I heard from the primem over in all these inquiries is I, myself, and I have Governor of the Gaol, that Mr Caldwell has had several inter- named those who have instigated me to become such. Mr views with Ma-chow Wong, subsequent to his conviction at the May was but one of my witnesses, and as the Commission will Supreme Court. By reference to my previous evidence, and see by no means a ready one.
my letter of 20th July, 1857, it will be seen I have spoken, and then write, of a connection existing between the gold dust robberies, Pang Poi-yeen being one and Ma-chow Wong; and I
CHARLES MAY,-Recalled.
I have heard the Attorney General's statement and concur | believed that Ma-chow Wong's influence has been exercised with it. Until addressed by the Attorney General I never since his incarceration in the Gaol, to cause the apprehension expressed any opinion to the Attorney General, or to any high of persons. I also should like to speak on the subject that I Government Officer, on the subject of the impropriety of the jam a partizan, or acted as such in bringing Ma-chow Wong to intimacy between Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong. It will trial. I should like the Hon. the Chief Magistrate to be appeal- be observed by my evidence, that I was in no way a partici- |ed to on the subject of my manner of assisting in the conduct pator in this intimacy, and that I always when I had occasion of the inquiry, and I also wish to draw the attention of the exhibited my sense of the impropriety of the acquaintance, and Commission to these particular points in the evidence given full intent of bringing Ma-chow Wong to justice when I had by Dr Bridges; first, that during the three years Dr Bridges opportunity. Shortly after resuming my office of Superin- acted as Attorney General, I never brought the subject of tendent of Police, in January, 1858, a Chinaman presented Ma-chow Wong's crimes to his knowledge, and that he does himself to my office late one afternoon, and said that he want- not mention, and I now state, that I never spoke to Dr Bridges ed police to go to Stanley to apprehend some men on suspicion on the subject of Ma-chow Wong, until I presented myself to of murder of a Chinaman, whose name I knew, and whom I him with the sworn information; and yet on the 28th July, knew to have been the principal witness in the Stanley treason one day only intervening, he acts towards me as if I really case. I questioned the man, ascertained that he had no know were the partizan he wishes to make me appear. I should ledge but from hearsay, and told him to bring any person to like that a reference be made to the Hon. the Chief Magis- me who could give information of the act, and measures should trate also upon this point, that in the case initiated before him be taken. The next day on seeing the Colonial Secretary at on the 17th July, I never interfered directly or indirectly, Government Office, the Colonial Secretary said, "You go and that, as I first related to the Colonial Secretary on the to Mr Inglis at the Gaol, he will give you some important infor- morning of the 20th July, I only took usual interest in the mation on the Stanley murder case," and informed me they had case because there was no other officer of Police willing or taken three men on the charge of murder. I said "No men able to conduct the inquiry. It is also apparent to me, aud have been apprehended, but I will go to Mr Inglis," I did so, I hope will be apparent to every Member of the Commission, and Mr Inglis said, "I am quite certain that three men have that from what Dr Bridges said in his evidence this day, he been apprehended, because a Chinaman who has been employ-(Dr Bridges) felt convinced that the readiest ed in the matter, states that he saw the three men in custody Mr Caldwell was through Ma-chow Wong. I am not quite at Stanley last night." We had some further conversation in certain, but I think Dr Bridges stated in his evidence to-day which he mentioned that two Chinamen then in Gaol, under that the report of Mr Caldwell on the examination of the Ordinance 2 of 1857, supposed to have been connected with papers was made anterior to the charge in the China Mail; in the treason case, had caused this information to be given, upon is evident that Dr Bridges is mistaken, The article in the which the Acting Colonial Secretary and police had been China Mail appears on the 17th September, the report of previously acting, but strangely that they wanted to mix Ma- Mr Caldwell is dated the 5th October, and the meeting of chow Wong up with the matter, and hoist him out of Gaol on Council on the 12th October. the credit of his information. I judged from what Mr Inglis
way
to attack
In reference to the papers found on Beaver, I beg to re-
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.