CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12] — Page 362

358

En

( 64 )

der; it was a case of a fruit hawker murdered in Mr Wood's compound, and thrown over the steps below Mr Lyall's house. Dr Bridges spoke to me about that case. He asked me, had I seen the prisoners in the case. I said "No;" then he asked me to go with him to the Gaol to see them. One of them was so young, and in fact such a child, that he thought it would be anything but justice to try him on a capital charge. I did go to the Gaol and saw the two prisoners, and this one, Lee Atong, was what we would consider in England about the age of 12 to 13. On referring to the depositions I saw very good reasons to conclude that he was not the guilty party, so I took him out of the dock and made him Queen's evidence.

Cross-examined,—There was an entry or entries in the books of the Kwong Yik Loong shop, referring to the purchase of the blue dye and sugar bearing on the second case. I certainly think the absence of the evidence to which I allude would weaken the case on the second charge if now tried, for there would be a certain amount of identity lost. I think I recollect some entry in the Kwong Yik Loong books shewing a privious connection between that shop and the vendors of the sugar and blue dye, but I cannot say positively about this. There was documentary evidence, which shewed a dealing and an underhand dealing, on that particular day succeeding the piracy, from about early in the morning till about 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and the absence of that documentary evidence would weaken the case if tried now.

GEORGE COOPER TURNER,-Called and examined. I recollect two clients of mine, Chinese traders-Ng Aling and Chee Mun-kwong, being seized and thrown into Gaol under the Deportation Ordinance, in January 1857. They were arrested under the warrant of Mr Caldwell, I believe. I applied to Mr Anstey, then sitting as Magistrate for their liberation on bail. I spoke to him first pri- vately on the subject, and then made a formal applica- tion. He did not say whether he would grant the applica. tion when I applied to him privately. When I applied formally at the Police Court, I do not remember whether Mr Caldwell was present or not. My application was re- fused, in consequence of the information Mr Caldwell had given the Government on the question. I think Mr Anstey

1

at the time told me he refused the bail on this account. was present and made the application. The prisoners were not brought into the court; the bail rested entirely

with the Government. I then wrote to the Colonial Secre-

tary, and had a letter leading me to believe that bail would be granted. I heard no more, but two or three days after

I saw the two men being marched down for deportation by the Phabe Dunbar. I do not recollect any one stating to Mr Anstey that they were very bad characters, and had been guilty of some offence without specifying whit, when 1 applied for bail I had no intimation from any quarter

Phoebe Dunbar. Had I received any such information, I should have applied to the Chief Justice in the matter, for

a writ of habeas corpus.

them.

I

I did not after I saw the men complain to any one. thought the case must have been sufficiently strong, or the Government would not have pursued such a course with I do not to this hour know on what ground they were deported, except, as I have said before, that they were spies sent by the mandarins. There was no evidence given before the Police Court as to their being spies sent by the mandarins, and I do not know whether they were examined by the Executive Council.

I have had no conversation with the Attorney General before he gave his evidence to the Commission. I am a little deaf, and can't hear distinctly, but apprehend the questions put to me.

I don't exactly recollect whether Mr Caldwell was sitting

Caldwell and Mr Anstey was private, and I did not hear it. on the bench at the time, but the conversation between Mr

for bail standing over for a few days. I think Mr Caldwell I remember that something was said about the application

was on the bench. [Read letter of 19th January, 1857, from Colonial Secretary to Mr Cooper Turner, saying that the bail of 'Ng Ating cannot be sanctioned until the Chi- nese New Year holidays have passed by.]

It is very likely that Mr Caldwell opposed the bail in this private conversation, although I did not hear him. Mr Caldwell is in the habit of frequently speaking to the Magistrate on the bench. I do not think I informed the Attorney General that the prisoners had been deported.

I cannot give an opinion whether there were any per- ment, capable of conducting the prosecution of Ma-chow sons, other than Mr May, attached to the Police Depart- Wong to a successful issue; nor as to what would have been the fate of the case, had not Mr May taken an in- terest in seeing the inquiry properly conducted.

The perusal of my letter of 14th January, 1857, to the Acting Colonial Secretary, applying for bail for 'Ng Kanit- ing, does not enable me to add anything to what I have already stated, except that there is difference in the name,

WILLIAM THOMAS BRIDGES. Recalled at his own request, to correct part of his evidence given on the 29th ultimo, and also to make a statement in answer to some remarks made by the Attorney General.

[The Chairman annouced that cross-examination would be allowed on Dr Bridges's corrections of his evidence ; but that, although his statement and any answer to it on the part of the Attorney General would be received, no cross-examination would be allowed on either of their

statements.]

papers were referred for examination to Messrs Caldwell and Mongan, previous to the appearance of the article in the China Mail. Such was my impression, but I find

I believe that I stated that Ma-chow Wong's books and

at all that it was intended to deport these men by the that I was under error, and that the referrence was made

( 65 )

ing the examination, was written by the Clerk of Council, and this is probably the reason of the fact escaping my mind.

Had the matter remained

after the appearance of the article, and most probably in | Governor, stated to him what I had heard, and asked him consequence of it. I may state also, that the letter request- if anything of the kind had taken place. His Excellency stated, that he should take no official notice of anything which occurred before the Commission until it had con- cluded its labours; but he assured me that he had made I was Acting Attorney General, from the 28th February, no such statement, and added that it would have been 1852, to 13th February, 1853: and from 13th April, 1854, impossible for him to have appointed me Acting Colonial to the 15th January, 1856, with the exception of one week. Secretary if he had done so. I cannot say if I communicated with any one regarding there, I should have been content to pass this matter by, my report to Mr Secretary Labouchere, recommending the as one of those aberrations from the truth to which the establishment of a Thuggee police system, and the pla. Attorney General is continually liable; but when I found cing Mr Caldwell at the head of it. I have no doubt I told that the Commission had printed this statement, I deemed somebody of it. I was requested by Mr Labouchere offi-it necessary for my own defence, and also for the instruc- cially to make this report. I had a long interview with tion of the Commission as to the weight to be given to Mr Labouchere and Mr Ball, regarding the different ques-any statement of the Attorney General, to go further in to tions connected with the colony, and I had a letter from the matter. I turned up from the records of the office an Mr Elliott requesting me to put what I said to Mr Labou-official letter written to me on the 5th of January, 1856. chere in writting, which I did, and to which I had an I left the Colony on the 15th January, 1856. That letter answer thanking me for it. 1 decline to answer the ques-is from Mr Mercer, the then Colonial Secretary, as to the tion whether I have any knowledge, theoretical or practical formal part of it; but as to the substantial part is in the of that kind of police. I decline to answer what I know Governor's own handwriting, and is to this effect,— about it. If the Commission sits on the subject, I shall he happy to give them the information I have got. I de- cline to answer whether it was to be introduced here with or without modifications. I don't know that my sugges- tion was refused. It has not been adopted. No question arose as to Mr Caldwell's antecedents making him unfit for such high office. I do not know whether I have kept the letter from the Colonial Office or not. I was about to be married at the time I received it, and had plenty of other things to think about.

5th January, 1856.

SIR. In acknowledging your letter of the 1st instant, I am directed to inform you, that the nomination by H. M's. Government of Mr Anstey to the office of Attorney General of this colony, has been officially announced by the Secretary of State. H. E. the Governor directs me to express to you bis high sense of the zeal and ability with which you have discharged the duties imposed on you, while exercising the important functions of Attorney General of Hongkong.

(Signed)

W. T. MERCER.

I then turned up a letter from Mr Mercer, in which he

Cross-examined, --I do mean the Commission to under-states he was unwilling to express himself the Governor's stand, that Mr Mongan was not informed at that meeting, opinion, and therefore left it to His Excellency to write in his own hand. I also lay in before the Commission, letters or any other meeting of the Executive Council, of the au- thority- Mr May's memoranda,-on which that statement from the Lieutenant Governor, from Admiral Stirling, and a letter presented to me on the 14th January, and signed in the China Mail was made, and that he was not ex- amined on those memoranda. I have never had anything by the greater portion of this community, expressing their to say to any of the papers, beyond the conversation opinion of my conduct during the five years I had been in this colony. I should never have shewn these documents with Mr Mongan. The papers regarding the Ma-chow Wong and Beaver case were in the hands of the Clerk of to anybody, but it is only in a case like this I am com- Councils, and the Ma-chow Wong papers were in the hands pelled to bring them forward, considering that it was of Mr Mongan, who made an application as to what was impossible His Excellency the Governor could have forgot- ten the official letter, not three weeks old, or could have to be done with them. That is the only reason I can

been unaware of the opinion in which I was held by my give why the one set was destroyed and the other not.

fellow servants, and by the community at large. I wish 1 now proceed to my statement. I happened accident- to state, that I do not consider it to be a question of credi- ally to come in here on the 28th of June, and I heard the bility between His Excellency the Governor and the Attorney General state that within two days after his Attorney General, but that I believe the statement, to be arrival, therefore on the 2d February, 1856, His Excellency knowingly made, with the deliberate intention to attempt I have also to state, that when I returned the Governor begged him to make it his business to bring to injure me,

to light, and if necessary to punish, the malpractices of to this colony, Mr Anstey shewed no backwardness in which he complained. Mr Anstey begged to specify in making my acquaintance; he in no way behaved toward particular to the Commission the malpractices of the Police, me as a person who had been guilty of malpractices, and and of his own department of Attorney General. Now, that, considering his line of conduct towards me recently, as I was the only officer who had acted as Attorney Ge- neral with Sir John Bowring, those malpractices, if any, must have been mine. I went in to His Excellency the

it is almost impossible, that had so important a charge been made against me by the Governor, he would not have brought it forward long ago. I wish merely to add with