did so with his tin story (v. pp. 56, 71, 78), which might have stood very seriously against the accused, had not Mr Jarman, the officer engaged in this case, remembered the facts more correctly, and had not Mr Mitchell himself corrected his first statement. Again, Mr Inglis, (the only old Colonial Official, except Mr Caldwell, well acquainted with Chinese,) showed great and very proper reluctance to give evidence; but can this reluctance be interpreted otherwise than favourably to Mr Caldwell, when it is plain that Mr Inglis had nothing certain to say, and when, yielding to pressure, he fell into mistakes? If this be mercy which Mr Caldwell has received, not merely at the hands of the prosecutors, but in general, then may we well exclaim that it is better in this place to have enemies than friends. The fact appears to us plain, that the fama against Mr Caldwell rested on evidence which would not bear production, and so arose the reluctance of witnesses. And though we should not put our finger in the fire for the truth or falsehood of many reports which may have been going about concerning him, we may remark, that these reports chiefly issued from Tai-ping-shan or its neighbourhood, and the dangers and nas attendant on drawing knowledge were pure well of undefiled truth, make the adventurous possessor duly more importance to such ge than others are disposed to.
The Report of the Commission itself bears evidence of an objectionable spirit, and we can only explain it by supposing that a majority of the members actuated by a weak dread of appearing to shield or favour the accused, or that they were imposed upon by the reiterated professions and solemnly humble demeanour of the prosecutors. Nothing is established in evidence against Mr Caldwell, but what was never denied by him, and was a matter of public notoriety before the Commission sat. However disposed to condemn his unworthy and blamable connection with Ma-chow Wong, we think it highly creditable to him that he has acted in a straightforward open manner, neither concealing his faults from public criticism, nor seeking to shun the consequences.
Of the four charges which have been found proven, only two were not admitted and notorious, and any rational man may satisfy himself in half-an-hour, that the deliverance of the Commission on these two is very unfair, without being absolutely incorrect.
No 13 is the most serious of these, and stands as follows with the deliverance on it:-
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.
That of the fact stated in charge 13, of the release of the men upon Mr Caldwell's representation as to their character, there is no doubt whatever; and that it appears incomprehensible how any person, with Mr Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language, and holding the appointment he did, could have been ignorant of the character of the boats in which the men were seized, and that one at least of these men was a notorious pirate, particularly as it is in evidence that Ma-chow Wong was connected with the boats.
The only statements we can find bearing on it in evidence, are at pp. 33, 34, 44, 47, 86, 91, 96, 97. First, Mr Anstey states (p. 33), that in the commencement of 1857, twenty people before him charged as pirates, and he were brought discharged every one of them, ordering also their boats to be restored, because Mr Caldwell upon oath declared them to be peaceful traders.” At p. 47 this accurate gentleman admits that he released them, not on Mr Caldwell's oath, but on that of Mr Grand Pré; that he did not discharge the prisoners, but only liberated them on bail; and that his memorandum is silent as to whether he ordered the boats to be restored. These corrections make, of course, all the difference in the world, and conscious of this, Mr Anstey attempted to bolster up his case with new errors and gratuitous suppositions (which the Commission should have checked), such as that Mr Grand Pré was a subordinate of Mr Caldwell, and brought up by Mr Caldwell, in order that the men might be released. When the Commission asserts "there is no doubt whatever" that the men were released on Mr Caldwell's representation, it talks big where it should sing small; even Mr Anstey not saying so much, implied opinion on the matter being not except in so far as he retracts, and his evidence, and, if it were, utterly valueless in face of his evident animus and extraordinary misstatements. The other half of the decision is still more objectionable. When Mr Grand Pré examined the boats, Mr Caldwell, belonging to another department, acted as interpreter, and therefore “it is incomprehensible" how he did not know the men to be piratical! Do the Commission think that a knowledge of Chinese enables a man to know pirates by sight or by smell? and what grounds have they to conclude that these were piratical boats? Mr May says so, and says that Po-pak-shing, a notorious pirate, was on board one of them, and Po-pak-shing, he adds, was connected with Ma-chow Wong. But it is not proved that Mr Caldwell saw or knew Po-pak-shing, though one of his expressions may be understood to imply the former. He solemnly asserts, that up to that time he had never heard of the existence of such a man, and that he found the register and papers of the boat in perfect order. When piratical boats come into this harbour, they do not prominently display indications of their profession. If Chinese mariners are to be deported, and not released on bail, when there is no positive evidence against them, and their papers are in rule, then the harbour might as well be cleared of all China boats whatever. The decision of the Commission on this point may almost be brought to a reductio ad absurdum, for it amounts to this, that it is incomprehensible how any person with Mr Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language can find no ground to determine that a boat is piratical when ignorant policemen suspect that it is. Reverse the case: suppose Mr Caldwell had, on his general knowledge of Chinese, concluded the men to have been pirates, and got them deported, would not the virtuous Messrs Anstey and May have had a still better charge against him, and might not there have been a risk of the Commission finding his conduct "incomprehensible?"
As to charge 9, the second of the two new charges which have been found proven, it is in a sense true that Mr Caldwell aided in the acceptance of Sze-kai, his former servant, as bail for Ma-chow Wong, and that Sze-kai had been imprisoned for debt, for a few days, a short time previously; but this wording leaves an unfair impression. From the evidence it only appears that Mr Caldwell "aided" in as much as, when questioned by Mr Davies as to the sufficiency of Sze-kai and other three men who tendered bail, he answered in their favour; and there is no reason to suppose that he was wrong in doing so. Sze-kai, though Mr Caldwell's comprador two years before, appears a man of substance, and his imprisonment, which may, possibly, have been unknown to Mr Caldwell, was for a partner's debt which he resisted.
Such are the direct results of the Commission's inquiry! Even as worded by the Commission, no action could be based upon them; and that wording is unfair, as may be seen from the evidence which was taken down verbatim. Again, as in the case of Dr Bridges, we must protest against the insidious and almost impalpable influence of supposed public opinion.
Though, from its tendency to oscillate between extremes, public opinion is not so just at any given moment as it is on the whole, yet at any moment it ought to be influential; but all the more on that account should it be distinguished from the whispers of interested parties, and the bluster of a few naturally noisy persons. There is always danger of the selfish cunning of the one set, and the thoughtlessness of the other, doing mischief; but this danger, with its attendant evils, is almost unavoidable, when, as in the case before us, there is so much ground for rational censure that the irrational censure of such men as Messrs May and Anstey may, for a time, be confounded with it, to the confusion of truth, and the discouragement of all honest and reasonable criticism.
In a future article we shall take up some other sides of the case, and in the meantime conclude with expressing a confident hope that those who feel interested in the matter will endeavour to procure and peruse the Evidence, and that they will not allow themselves to be influenced by the rumours which are being circulated as to the character of that evidence and Mr May's freedom as a witness.
126
did so with his tin story (v. pp. 56, | 71, 78), which might have stood very seriously against the accused, had not Mr Jarman, the officer engaged in this case, remembered the facts more correctly, and had not Mr Mitchell himself corrected his first statement. Again, Mr Inglis, (the only old Colonial Official, except Mr Cald- well, well acquainted with Chinese,) showed great and very proper reluctance to give evidence; but can this reluctance be interpreted otherwise than favourably to Mr Caldwell, when it is plain that Mr Inglis had nothing certain to say, and when, yielding to pressure, he fell into, mistakes? If this be mercy which Mr Caldwell has received, not merely at the hands of the prosecutors, but in general. then may we well exclaim that it is better in this place to have enemies than friends. The fact appears to us plain, that the fama against Mr Coldwell rested on evi- denee which would not bear production, and so arose the reluctance of witnesses. And though we should not put our finger in the fire for the truth or falsehood of many reports which may have been going about concerning him, we may remark, that these reports chiefly issued from Tai-ping-shan or its neighbourhood, and the dangers and nas attendant on drawing knowledge
were
pure well of undefiled truth, make the adventurous possessorg atly more importance to such ge than others are disposed to
The Report of the Commission itself! bears evidence of an objectionable spirit, and we can only explain it by supposing that a
majority of the members actuated by a weak dread of appearing to shield or favour the accused, or that they were imposed upon by the reiterated pro- fessions and solemnly humble demeanour of the prosecutors. Nothing is established in evidence against Mr Caldwell, but what was never denied by him, and was a matter of public notoriety before the Commission. sat. However disposed to condemn his unworthy and blamable connection with Ma-chow Wong, we think it highly creditable to him that he has acted in a straightforward open manner, neither con- cealing his faults from public criticism, nor seeking to shun the consequences.
Of the four charges which have been found proven, only two were not admitted and notorious, and any rational man may- satisfy himself in half-an-hour, that the deliverance of the Commission on these two is very unfair, without being abso- Jutely incorrect.
No 13 is the most serious of these, and stands as follows with the deliverance on it:-
13. With inducing the Attorney General at the beginning of 1857, to order the release of a great number of meu who Mr May knows to have been pirates, and who Mr Caldwell ought to have known at the time wore pirates.-
That of the fact stated in charge 13, of the release of the men upon Mr Caldwell's representa- tion as to their character, there is no doubt what- ever; and that it appears incomprehensible how any person, with Mr Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language, and holding the appointment he did, could have been ignorant of the character. of the boats in which the men were seized, and that one at least of these men was a notorious pirate, particularly as it is in evidence that Ma-chow Wong was connected with the boats.
The only statements we can find bearing on it in evidence, are at pp. 33, 34, 44, 47, 86, 91, 96, 97. First, Mr Anstey states (p. 33), that in the commencement of 1857,
re-and-twenty people Before him charged as pirates, and he were brought discharged every one of them, ordering also their boats to be restored, because Me Caldwell upon oath declared them to be peaceful traders.” At p. 47 this ac curate gentleman admits that he released them, not on Mr Caldwell's oath, but on that of Mr Grand Prè; that he did not discharge the prisoners, but only liberated them on bail; and that his memorandum is silent as to whether be ordered the boats
to be restored. These corrections make, of course, all the difference in the world, and conscious of this, Mr Anstey attempted to bolster up his case with new errors and gratuitous suppositions (which the Com- mission should have checked), such as tlunt Mr Grand Pré was a subordinate of Mr Caldwell, and brought up by Mr Caldwell, in order that the men might be released. When the Commission assorts "there is no doubt whatever" that the men were re- leased on Mr Caldwell's representation, it talks big where it should sing small; even Mr Anstey not saying so much, implied opinion on the matter being not except in so far as he rotracts, and his
evidence, and, if it were, utterly valueless in face of his evident animus and extra- ordinary misstatements. The other half of the decision is still more objectionable. When Mr Grand Pré examined the boats, Me Caldwell, belonging to another depart-] meat, acted as interpreter, and therefore “it is incomprehensible" how he did not know the men to be piratical! Do the Com- mission think that a knowledge of Chinese enables a man to know pirates by sight or by smell? and what grounds have they to conclule that these were piratical boats? Mr May says so, and says that Po-pak- shing, a notorious pirate, was ou board one of them, and Po-pak-shing, he adds, wasi connected with Ma-chow Woug. But it is not proved that Mr Caldwell saw or knew Po-pak-sking, though one of his expres sions may be understood to imply the former. He solemnly asserts, that opt to that time he had never heard of the existence of such a man, and that he found the register and papers of the boat in perfect order. When piratical boats come into this harbour, they do not prominently display indications of their profession. If Chinese mariners are to be deported, and not released on bail, when there is no positivo evidence against them, and their papers are in rule, then the j harbour might as well be cleared of all China boats whatever. The decision of the Commission on this point may almost be brought to a reductio ad absurdum, for it amounts to this, that it is incomprehen- sible how any person with Mr Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language can find no ground to determine that a boat is piratical when ignorant policemen suspect | that it is. Reverso the case: suppose Mr Caldwell had, on his general know- ledge of Chinese, concluded the men to have been pirates, and got them de- ported, would not the virtuous Messrs Anstey and May have had a still better charge against him, and might not there have been a risk of the Commission finding his conduct "incomprehensible?"
As to charge 9, the second of the two new charges which have been found proven, it is in a sense true that Mr Caldwell aid- ed in the acceptance of Sze-kai, his former servant, as bail for Ma-chow Wong, and that Sze-kai had been imprisoned for debt, for a few days, a short time previously;" but this wording leaves an unfair impres- sion. From the evidence it only appears that Mr Caldwell "aided" in as much as, when questioned by Mr Davies no to the sufficiency of Szo-kai and other three men who tendered bail, he answered in their favour; and there is no reason to suppose that he was wrong in doing 80. Sze-kui, though Mr Caldwell's comprador two years before, appears a man of substance, and his imprisonment, which may, possibly, have been unknown to Mr Caldwell, was for a partner's debt which he resisted.
Such are the direct results of the Com mission's inquiry! Even as worded by the Commission, no action could be based upon them; and that wording is unfair, a may be seen from the evidence which was taken down verlatin. Again, as in the case of Dr Bridges, we must protes against the insidious and almost impalp able influence of supposed public opinion
Though, from its tendency to oscillate bej tween extremes, public opinion is not se just at any given moment as it is on the whole, yet at any moment it ought to be influential; but all the more on tha account should it be distinguished from the whispers of interested parties, and the bluster of a few naturally noisy persons. There is always danger of the selfish cun- ning of the one set, and the thoughtlessness
of the other,doing mischief; but this danger, with its attendant evils, is almost un- avoidable, when, as in the case before us there is so much ground for rational cen sure that the irrational censure of such ment as Messrs May and Anstey may, for time, be confounded with it, to the con- fusion of truth, and the discouragement of
all honest and reasonable criticism.
In a future article we shall take up some other sides of the case, and in the meantime conclude with expressing a con- fident hope that those who feel interested in the matter will endeavour to procure and peruse the Evidence, and that they will not allow themselves to be influenced by the rumours which are being circulated
as to the character of that evidence and Mr May's freedom as a witness.
126
D
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.