CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12] — Page 375

OVE

371

( 90 )

The whole therefore of these seven charges may, I trust, be considered as having been satisfactorily met and answer ed; and should such be the case, the evidence brought for- ward by my accusers in support of the remaining charges will, if proceeding from the same parties, and got up in a similar manner, be viewed I think with considerable suspi-

cion.

I will now proceed to consider the charges arising out of what may be called the Ma-chow Wong branch of this in- quiry, and which in fact embrace all the remaining heads of accusation, except the first and the two last.

It will simplify the matter, if I make two preliminary statements,-one regarding my own early life in China, the other as to my connection with Ma-chow Wong,

habit of giving me the most valuable information. I will particularize, for instance, among many others, the attempt to cut off the steamer Hongkong, in 1841, and as to the complicity of Tong Achik (the brother and predecessor of Tong Akú as Interpreter at the Magistracy,) with pirates, which led to his dismissal from Government employ. I always had the most thorough reliance in him as far as one can have in any Chinaman, and I must repeat to this Hon'ble Commission, what I have already notified to the Government that it was owing principally to Ma-chow Wong, that I have been enabled to render those services, for which I have been over and over again thanked by my official superiors.

I do not pretend or even wish to moot the question of I left Singapore for China for the first time (not being been decided; but I do most respectfully point out to the Ma-chow Wong's innocence or guilt-now that point has then quite seventeen years of age) in July, 1834, under the charge of Captain Clevely, and carrying with me a letter Commission, that as Protector of Chinese, and as a private of introduction from Messrs A. L. Johnston & Co., of Sin- in duty to the Government, in bringing the Petition in Ma- individual, I violated no law, and was in no way deficient gapore, to Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co. We arrived

chow Wong's favour to the notice of His Excellency the during Lord Napier's troubles, and I remained for a few weeks at Lintin on board Jardine, Matheson & Co.'s receiv-behalf. I only did what any man might I think do for an Goernor, and in exerting myself in a legal manner on his ing ship the Hercules. While there, Mr W. Jardine intro- assistant of tried usefulness. duced me to Mr Keating, in whose employ I remained until his death at Macao, in the early part of 1837. I then be came Book-keeper to Mr Innes until the autumn of 1838, when I left him in consequence of the violent language he used to me on a Chinaman absconding, to whom I had sold some Turkey hankerchiefs. About this time the dis- turbances commenced regarding the Opium trade, and I went to Macao; shortly after this all the foreigners left Canton, and I then took charge, as Accountant for Mr Markwick, of the Isabella, a storeship lying with the Opi- um receiving ships, until my health broke down in the latter part of 1839, and I went to reside on shore at Ma- cao. Mr Innes, hearing that I was ill, sent Dr Anderson to attend me, paying his account himself. My illness lasted some time, and in February, 1840, I went down to Singapore in the Angelica. I returned to China in June 1840, attached to the Commissariat of the Expeditionary Force, and was stationed at Chusan until the expedition renewed its operations against Canton in 1841. I remain- ed in the department until the conclusion of hostilities there. With the assistance of some fiends I then purchased and sailed a brig called the Thistle, until the latter end of 1842 In January 1843, I entered Government employ; my con- duct since then has been stated by the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor.

What portion of this career has been particularly select- ed by the Attorney General as passed among Chinese out- laws and pirates, I am at a loss to say.

While I was out of Government employ, I was engaged in three several pecuniary transactions with Ma-chow Wong. The first, a speculation to the West Coast, for which I chartered seven Chinese vessels to carry cargo; one of these belonged to Ma-chow Wong, and all of them during the time of their charter carried the Eaglet's flag, but at no other time. There were four partners in this specula. tion-Siemssen & Co., the Tai Cheong Hong, Ma-chow Wong (who begged me to allow him to have a share,) and myself; and it was terminated at the end of 1955. May in the confidence of private intercourse, that he has It is out of this single transaction, mentioned by me to Mr

concocted the evidence appearing at page 40, as to my being a partner with Ma-chow Wong in a carrying statement as to my granting the Eaglet's flag as a pass trade carried on in many vessels, and has invented the

of protection.

for me in Taipingshan, and provided him with the funds The Second, I employed Ma-chow to build five houses

the books in which Mr May mentions my name as oc- as they were required from time to time. The entries in

curring, and which have been more ingeniously than truthfully attempted to be made out, both by him and Mr Anstey, to be payments to me, had reference to this tran- saction, and were payments from, not to me.

The Third, Ma-chow Wong wanted $500, to lengthen the Kee-Loong Poo-on, his own lorcha. I advanced him this money, and to secure myself took out papers for her in

I will now proceed with the second statement, as to my my own name, giving him a share of the profits. Subse- connection with Ma-chow Wong.

quently the balance of account being in his favour, I restor- Up to the time that I resigned Government service ined the lorcha to him in the end of October 1856, and ceas- July 1855, and since I returned to it in November 1856, Ied to have any further interest in her. Mr Anstey has never had any commercial or pecuniary transaction with Ma-chow Wong, except one or two trifling loans made by me to him. He had been for years continually in the

stated, that at Ma-chow Wong's trial, I desposed to still having an interest in this vessel. The notes of the Chief Justice will be the best possible evidence as to this inven-

( 91 )

tion, and I respectfully request the Commission to consult parties. Ma-chow Wong was afterwards held to bail, I the notes of the Chief Justice (if they have them) upon it, think for using threats, and the Chief Magistrate request- as affording another remarkable instance, if more be wanted my attendance at the Magistracy on the subject. Sze- ed, of the insufficient grounds upon which the Attorney kai was one of the four bail on this occasion, but without General ventures to make serious statements.

my having heard a word on the subject, and he had not been in any way in my employ since I returned to Go- vernment service. The Hon'ble the Chief Magistrate has stated, that on another occasion, whem Ma-chow Wong was brought before him, I procured the bail for his ap- pearance within six weeks. I beg leave most respectfully to deny this. I was present at the Magistracy at the time on other business, and never left it; bail was tendered and referred to me on the bench, and I approved it. This was my sole action in the matter.

Since Ma-chow Wong has been in Gaol, I have never, except in the presence of the Acting Colonial Secretary, or the Governor of the Gaol, or by order of the former, seen, or spoken to Ma-chow Wong, with three exceptions, and these were as follows-once for the purpose of ascer- taining with certainty regarding his being committed for trial at the Supreme Court in 1847, when he was either acquitted or no bill found; and twice while visiting the Gaol as Visiting Justice in my regular turn. Mr Inglis has made one mistake on this point, as will appear from the note which I here hand in. [1]

When I further add that Ma-chow Wong can neither read nor write beyond just marking his name, and that there is not, nor ever has been, any affinity by adoption of any kind whatsoever between him and any member of my family, or any person in any way connected with me, I shall have concluded my general statement as to my con- nection with Ma-chow Wong.

So much extraneous matter has arisen in the course of

this inquiry, that I should not be dealing fairly to myself or to the Commission were I to confine my reply to the evidence brought in support of the specific charges in this second branch of the case; I must therefore, at the risk of wearying the Hon'ble Commission, pick out, item by them, everything which appears worthy of remark, and deal with the several matters successively. 1, however, omit from this list all statements which have no further support than the "it is said" of my occusers.

Document (Q) was handed in by the Attorney General as a proof of my having, in his opinion, committed an ilegality, in giving a pass to a Chinese vessel. I was directed by His Excellency the Governor, in consequence of an arrangement come to with His Excellency the Admiral for the protection of honest traders during the hostilities on the Canton River, to give passes to boats bringing provisions here. I received these instructions as Registrar General, for the Attorney General knows full well that I was Registrar General long before the Ordin- ance he refers to passed, and I put my official seal to the pass in accordance with the instructions I received.

I am charged with having procured bail for Ma-chow Wong-such bail being a servant of my own. Although this charge is utterly false, and has not been support ed by any evidence, some explanation may be useful on the subject. Ma-chow Wong was held to bail twice. On the first occasion-by order of the Chief Justice in a heavy sum-his securities were Loo Aqui of the Lower Bazaar, and Loong Achu, formerly the P. & O. Company's, Comprador. I was in no way consulted on the subjec't not even in the usual manner, as to the substance of the

Mr Anstey having himself proved that he had incor- rectly stated the charge against me, as to procuring the release of 25 men, I should simply confine myself to the remark that, when an Assistant Superintendent of Police is called and recommends the discharge of supected per- sons, it is hardly fair to accuse the Registrar General of guilt in concurring, supposing him, as I certainly then was, to be also satisfied; but I feel it necessary to call the attention of the Commission to the disingenuous manner in which Mr Grand-Pré's name is introduced. Mr Grand-

Pre was not in any way my subordinate then; he was totally disconnected with me, and appeared simply as a

Police official. As a further instance of this style of ac-

cusation, I would point out the passage in Mr Anstey's statement in page 71. "I did not then know the fact of his (Eli Boggs') connection with the Eaglet or Mr Cald- well." Mr Anstey did not then know it for the same reason that he does not know it now, and that is, because such fact never had any existence save in his own ima- gination, as has been most satisfactorily proved in the course of this enquiry.

The only other "fact" which Mr Anstey has brought against me, of his own knowledge, the deportation of Mr Cooper Turner's clients,—has broken down in an equally remarkable manner. Mr May has, strange to say, destroy- ed his friend's fabric, for if these Chinese were improperly deported, who had nothing to say to the measure, could not certainly be blamable. But so far from my having got them out of the way, as is poetically asserted, I was very much pained to hear that Mr May had, without any reference to any one, included them in the list, and Mc- Kenzie the Jailor has related to the Commission my com- plaints on the subject, which had reference to these very two men. I may here take the opportunity of observing that, in the same manner as I objected, and successfully, I am glad to say to the Rebel chiefs being included in the deportation, (Mr Wade's letter will bear me out in this), so also I made my respectful remonstrance against what I conceived to be the impolicy of sending the 72 men taken by the Niger to the authorities at Cowloong. The Acting Colonial Secretary, who differed from me, will, however, I am sure,if required, still further confirm the evidence he