REPORT.
324
COUNCIL CHAMBER, SATURDAY 17th July, 1858.
SIR—We, the Members of a Commission appointed by Your Excellency, on the 20th day of May, 1858, to inquire into and report upon certain charges brought against Mr Caldwell, the Registrar General, having inquired into the same do now report,——
That we commenced our public proceedings on the 27th of May last, and have had Twenty-five Sittings, extending over a period of Seven Weeks; that we have examined upwards of Fifty Witnesses, and a vast mass of Documents, and have extended our inquiries into a number of matters, some of which, irrelevant as they may now appear, were so woven into and combined with the immediate subject of inquiry, that it was not considered safe to leave them unexamined. We allowed ourselves great latitude as to the kind of evidence we admitted, and were obliged to do so particularly in the matter of hearsay evidence, though not to the extent which the Attorney General (who sent in a protest on the subject) considered justifiable or even necessary. We may observe here, that the same gentleman also forwarded a protest against the manner of taking Chinese evidence, as being in his opinion palpably favourable to Mr Caldwell. But we now repeat, what the Chairman stated at the time of the reception of the protest, that we consider the Attorney General's complaint totally unfounded.
We have experienced great difficulty in our labours: First, from the nature, arrangement, and wording of the charges—some of which it appeared unnecessary, as it certainly was most distasteful to us to inquire into; Secondly, from the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence; and Thirdly, and especially from the refusal of the Attorney General to act as accuser, or to recognize the charges as his charges. Under these circumstances, we considered it advisable to engage the services of Mr Day to act as examiner, parties interested being informed that he would receive at his Chambers any information which it was intended to bring before the Commission.
On the subject of our inquiry we report:
That charge 2, has been satisfactorily met and explained by Mr Caldwell, though there existed strong prima facie grounds for bringing it.
That charge 4 is not proved, but that there were grounds for bringing it.
That no proof whatever has been brought forward in support of charge 5.
That charge 14 is not proved as regards Mr Caldwell himself, though it appears that Mrs Caldwell has had transactions in land and houses for her sister since December last, when Mr Caldwell became Licenser of Brothels, but that there is no evidence that Mr Caldwell had any knowledge of such transactions.
That charge 15 has not been proved.
That no proof has been given in support of charge 16, but that there were grounds for bringing it.
That there is no proof whatever of charge 17, and that there were no sufficient grounds for bringing it.
ts:
REPORT.
324
COUNCIL CHAMBER, SATURDAY 17th July, 1858.
SIR-We, the Members of a Commission appointed by Your Excellency, on the 20th day
of May, 1858, to inquire into and report upon certain charges brought against Mr Caldwell, the Registrar General, having inquired into the same do now report,——
That we commenced our public proceedings on the 27th of May last, and have had Twenty-five Sittings, extending over a period of Seven Weeks; that we have examined up- wards of Fifty Witnesses, and a vast mass of Documents, and have extended our inquiries into a number of matters, some of which, irrelevant as they may now appear, were so woven into and combined with the immediate subject of inquiry, that it was not considered safe to leave them unexamined. We allowed ourselves great latitude as to the kind of evidence we admitted, and were obliged to do so particularly in the matter of hearsay evidence, though not to the extent which the Attorney General (who sent in a protest on the subject) con- sidered justifiable or even necessary. We may observe here, that the same gentleman also forwarded a protest against the manner of taking Chinese evidence, as being in his opinion palpably favourable to Mr Caldwell. But we now repeat, what the Chairman stated at the time of the reception of the protest, that we consider the Attorney General's complaint totally unfounded.
We have experienced great difficulty in our labours: First, from the nature, arrange- ment, and wording of the charges—some of which it appeared unnecessary, as it certainly was most distasteful to us to inquire into; Secondly, from the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence; and Thirdly, and especially from the refusal of the Attorney General to act as accuser, or to recognize the charges as his charges. Under these circumstances, we consider- ed it advisable to engage the services of Mr Day to act as examiner, parties interested being informed that he would receive at his Chambers any information which it was intended to bring before the Commission.
On the subject of our inquiry we report :
That charge 2, has been satisfactorily met and explained by Mr Caldwell, though there existed strong prima facie grounds for bringing it.
That charge 4 is not proved, but that there were grounds for bringing it.
That no proof whatever has been brought forward in support of charge 5.
That charge 14 is not proved as regards Mr Caldwell himself, though it appears that Mrs Caldwell has had transactions in land and houses for her sister since December last, when Mr Caldwell became Licenser of Brothels, but that there is no evidence that Mr Caldwell had any knowledge of such transactions.
That charge 15 has not been proved.
That no proof has been given in support of charge 16, but that there were grounds for bringing it.
That there is no proof whatever of charge 17, and that there were no sufficient grounds for bringing it.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.