COL
(113)
(112)
401
"hent. I must confess, however, that my recollection of the memoranda is very imperfect indeed, and that they never made the strong impression upon me which they ought to have done."
I really am afraid to say anything about my recollection of the contents of the memoranda. I recollect that their general nature has been correctly described. My recollection of Mr May's memoranda is sufficiently clear to enable me to state that I believe his description of them to be generally correct. I always thought that the documents referred to at the beginning of my evidence this day were sent off from this office the moment they were sealed up that day.
(Signed) H. TUDOR DAVIES.
CHAS. ST. GEO. CLEVERLY—being sworn states. I was present at the Legislative Council on the 10th and 14th May last. I remember the Attorney General referring to certain papers in the Ma-chow Wong case as tending to support his statement against Mr Caldwell. His reference was made on one or both of those days. I remember similar references being made by the Attorney General and Mr May before the Caldwell Commission on various days previous to the 17th June last, and think I remember on an early occasion Mr May prefaced his evidence with a request that the Commission would call for those books and papers and memoranda. After consulting with the Commission, I prepared a memorandum to that effect and sent it into the Colonial Secretary's room. Mr D'Almada came to me and said that they were not in their possession and that they were handed over to the Superintendency. He came back a second time and showed me the minutes of the Executive Council to that effect.
I remember, at the close of the day, the Attorney General coming up to my chair and speaking in a low tone to me, that Mr D'Almada had just told him that those documents must be in Mr Wade's hands, but that he, the Attorney General, knew from Mr Wade himself, before he left for the North, that he had done with them, and that the Attorney General thought that if it was pretended they were missing, it would be ground for the Commission to call Mr May to give secondary evidence of their contents.
I remember previous to the sitting on the 17th June, that I had a conversation with the Attorney General, and immediately afterwards, on the same day, I wrote a second memorandum to the Secretary. I am a clerk in the Colonial Secretary's office. I remember on several occasions before the Caldwell Commission, inquiring about the Chinese documents. The answer on one occasion (on the same day when Mr May was examined) was that they were burned by orders of the Acting Colonial Secretary.
JOZÉ D'ALMADA—examined on oath states. Mr May and yourself (Mr Anstey) were examined on the same day. I did hear both these witnesses refer (frequently) to the Ma-chow Wong papers and asked that they might be called for by the Commission. I remember also going into the Council room where the Caldwell Commission was sitting and being asked by the Chairman respecting certain papers in the Ma-chow Wong case. I replied to the chairman that the documents were not with me—were not to be found.
As I passed out, I remember telling the Attorney General that those papers were not to be found. I do not know whether I did tell Dr Bridges what the Attorney General said about the papers. I did go a second time to the Council room soon after. I then informed the chairman that the papers not to be found must have been delivered to Mr Wade, as appeared by the Council books.
I have searched the Records by direction of the chief clerk, Dr Bridges not having been there at the time. The Chief clerk is also Clerk of the Councils. I was led to believe that the papers had been sent to Mr Wade from an entry in the Council minutes. I did not tell the Chairman that any of the papers had been burnt for I never knew (at that time). I did not know it until after it became notorious.
I think there is a letter on record in our office from the Chief Magistrate's Office advising that the Ma-chow Wong papers had been sent to the Chinese Secretary's Office. This was either in September or October last year.
Deponent being asked whether he ever saw the Ma-chow Wong papers, answers that he never saw them.
(Signed) CHAS. ST. GEO. CLEVERLY.
CHARLES COLLINS—being sworn states. The Chinese documents were brought into my office by Mr Jarman on the 30th September last, between 11 and 12 o'clock A.M.
I know it was on that day because I wrote and despatched the letter with the books and papers to the Secretary of the Superintendent of trade. The date of the transaction was entered in the office despatch book. I assisted Mr Jarman to seal the baskets. There were two baskets, I think, which contained the documents. The documents were not loose but in packages and sealed with the Police seal. I then despatched them by the office coolie, Ayee, and an outside coolie, whose name I do not know. This was about 1 P.M. of the same day. They could not have been in my office more than from one to two hours altogether. I swear positively that they were not in the office for one night.
Being asked whether he ever saw Mr May's memo., he answers that he is not at liberty to disclose what took place in Executive Council. I now recollect seeing 2 baskets (casually) in the Chinese Secretary's Office which one of the Student Interpreters told me were the Ma-chow Wong's documents.
(Signed) C. COLLINS.
YING-LUNG-TIEN—Chinese Teacher.
He made some excuse for their non-production which I do not recollect. I remember, at the close of the day, the Attorney General came up to the chair, stood at Mr Cleverly's right hand, and referred to Mr José D'Almada's statement and said something to the effect that we (the Commission) might take secondary evidence of the contents of the memo. by calling Mr May.
I was present when the Attorney General in his evidence stated to the effect quoted by him from the printed minutes page 32. I recollect that on that day, and I believe as soon as the Attorney General's examination had closed, a letter which the chairman had shown me that morning was read by him from the chair. I believe it was from Mr Mongan. It stated that the papers had been burnt.
Up to that date, 17th June, neither in the debates in Legislative Council, nor in any communication ever made to me by any officer of the Government, nor in the proceedings of the commission or otherwise, had I the slightest idea that the Government were aware or wished to have it believed that the documents had been burnt. I was perfectly astonished when Mr Cleverly showed me Mr Mongan's note.
The witness reads the following paragraph from page 88 of his evidence of the printed minutes.—
"I recollect although I had quite forgotten it until after Mr Mongan went to Canton or after he returned, that shortly before this commission commenced sitting, it was intimated to him that the Ma-chow Wong documents which were transmitted to the Superintendency had been burned, and that the officers of the Superintendency knew nothing whatever of the memoranda."
(Signed) YING-LUNG-TIEN.
Remanded to Tuesday, 12th Oct., 1858.
W. H. MITCHELL
ELEVENTH HEARING.
Tuesday, 12th October, 1858.
Defendant's Witness,
AND. SCOTT DIXSON—examined on oath states.
By Mr Anstey.—I was examined before the Caldwell Commission on Friday, 28th May last. I have since read the printed minute of my evidence. I now confirm the same upon oath as far as it refers to Ma-chow Wong and the documents and the enquiry before the Council.
Before that enquiry, I was Editor as well as Proprietor of the Friend of China. I was sitting on the bench at mid-day when Mr Collins had reported to me that the papers had arrived, by which I understood just arrived. I went into the clerk's office and there saw Mr Jarman, one of the officers who had sent the papers up or brought them up.
I was not quite satisfied with the packing of the baskets and had the magistracy seal put on the things in my own presence. I see no reason why they should have been detained here. I am almost certain they were sealed within a quarter of an hour after they were brought here. From what I know of Mr Collins's great caution, I should judge that they were forwarded forthwith.
Think I sent for the papers to the Central Police Station, immediately on receiving the Colonial Secretary's letter requiring them.
"Mr May lent me his memo. for 2 or 3 days. As I found 'they had nothing immediately to do with the cases under 'investigation, which were already cumbered enough, I told 'Mr May that I thought he had better say nothing about 'them until some occasion should arise on which they 'would be clearly useful.
"I recollect also when the efforts for obtaining a pardon for Ma-chow Wong were going on, that Mr May again asked me if he should mention them to the Government. As by that time I had learnt that Mr May was supposed to be actuated by jealous and hostile feelings towards Mr Caldwell, and as also the Government were in possession of the originals from which the memoranda was taken, I told Mr May that I should certainly not volunteer their production to the Government."
COL
( 113 )
( 112 )
401
"hent. I must confess, however, that my recollection of the "memoranda is very imperfect indeed, and that they never "made the strong impression upon me which they ought to
"have done."
I really am afraid to say anything about my recollection of the contents of the memoranda. I recollect that their general nature has been correctly described. My recollec- tion of Mr May's memoranda is sufficiently clear to enable me to state that I believe his description of them to be generally correct. I always thought that the documents referred to at the beginning of my evidence this day were sent off from this office the moment they were sealed up that day.
(Signed) H. TUDOR DAVIES.
CHAS, ST. GEO. CLEVERLY-being sworn states. I was present at the Legislative Council on the 10th and 14th May last. I remember the Attorney General referring to certain papers in the Ma-chow Wong case as tending to support his statement against Mr Caldwell. His reference was made on one or both of those days. I re- member similar references being made by the Attorney General and Mr May before the Caldwell Commission on various days previous to the 17th June last, and think.I remember on an early occasion Mr May prefaced his evi- dence with a request that the Commission would call for those books and papers and memoranda. After consulting with the Commission I prepared a memorandum to that effect, and sent it into the Colonial Secretary's room. Mr D'Almada came to me and said that they were not in their possession, and that they were handed over to the Superintendency. He came back a second time and shewed me the minutes of the Executive Council to that effect. I remember, at the close of the day, the Attorney General coming up to my chair and speaking in a low tone to me, that Mr D'Almada had just told him that those documents must be in Mr Wade's hands, but that he, the Attorney General, knew from Mr Wade himself, before he left for the North, that he had done with them, and that the Attorney General thought that if it was pretended they were missing, it would be ground for the Commission to call Mr May to give secondary evidence of their contents. I remember previous to the sitting on the 17th June, that
I had a conversation with the Attorney General, and in-
never had them. Almost immediately afterwards, on the JOZÉ D'ALMADA,-examined on oath states, Mr May and yourself (Mr Anstey) were examined on same day, I wrote a second memorandum to the Secretary I am a clerk in the Colonial Secretary's office. I remem-several occasions before the Caldwell Commission in inquiring about the Chinese documents. The answer on one occasion (on the same day when Mr May was my hearing from the 27th May to the close of the enquiry. that was Mr Mongan states they were burned by orders of amined) going into the Council room where the Cald- I did hear both these witnesses refer (frequently) to the the Acting Colonial Secretary. The answers to both thesell Commission was sitting, and was asked by the Chair Ma-chow Wong papers, and asked that they might be memoranda were returned forthwith. Both answers weran respecting certain papers in the Ma-chow Wong case, called for by the Commission. I remember also, either read aloud by me on the 17th, after the Attorney General ongst them Mr May's memo. I replied to the chairman on the 10th or 14th of May, in Legislative Council, the evidence had been taken. All the Commission had set the documents were not with me-were not to be Attorney General in reply to an observation from the the answers previously, either that morning or the da und. As I passed out I remember telling the Attorney Governor refer to the Ma-chow Wong's papers and to Mr before. Up to their receipt, I had not the slightest ideeneral that those papers were not to be found I do not May's memo., in support of his statement respecting Mr that the facts were as therein stated. I was fully con collect whether I did tell Dr Bridges what the Attorney Caldwell. I do remember at an early period of the Cald- vinced that the memoranda and documents would beneral said about the papers. I did go a second time well Commission, Mr May requesting that his memo. forthcoming. I never heard a hint from a single soul as to the Council room soon after. I then informed the and the Ma-chow Wong papers should be called for by. the destruction of the Chinese documents, and the possibi chairman that the papers not to be found must have been the Commissioners, if not already laid before them. I re bility of the non appearance of the memoranda. None livered to Mr Wade, as appeared by the Council books member the chairman sending out for the papers and the documentary evidence taken before the Commissio hich I produced. I have searched the Records by direc-memo., and Mr D'Almada coming into the council room. has been printed, with a trifling exception of an extracon of the chief clerk, Dr Bridges not having been there from one note addressed to the Attorney General by at the time. The Chief clerk is also Clerk of the Councils. unnamed writer, Several documents from the Colonial was led to believe that the papers had been sent to Mr Secretary's Office were laid before the Commission bearing Wade from an entry in the Council minutes. I did not dates between October and May last, shewing that thell the Chairman that any of the papers had been burnt Attorney General had on those occasions referred to the for 1 never knew (at that time) I did not know it until af danger of employing Mr Caldwell as a public servant.
er it became notorious.
I think there is a letter on record in our office from the hief Magistrate's Office advising that the Ma-chow Wong offapers had been sent to the Chinese Secretary's Office. This was either in September or October last year.
Deponent being asked whether he ever saw the Ma- how Wong papers, answers that he never he did see hem.
(Signed) CHAS. ST, GEO. CLEVERLY. CHARLES COLLINS,--being sworn states. The Chinese documents were brought into my by Mr Jarman on the 30th September last, between 11 and 12 o'clock A.M.
I know it was on that day. because I wrote and despatched the letter with the books and pa pers to the Secretary of the Superintendent of trade. The date of the transaction was entered in the office despatch book. I assisted Mr Jarman to seal the baskets. The were two baskets, I think, which contained the documents The documents were not loose, but in packages and seal ed with the Police seal. I then despatched them by the office coolie, Ayee, and an outside coolie, whose name do not know. This was about 1 P.M. of same day. they could not have been in my office more than from one to two hours altogether. I swear positively that they were not in the office for one night.
Being asked whether he ever saw Mr May's memo. he answers, that he is not at liberty to disclose what took piace in Executive Council. I now recollect seeing 2 baskets (casually) in the Chinese Secretary's Office which one of the Student Interpreters told me were the Ma-chow Wong's documents. The papers sent to Mr Wade were not sent through the Clerk of Councils. I do not know through whom they were sent.
(Signed) J. D'ALMADA CASTRO. HENRY TUDOR DAVIES,--examined on oath states. I am Chief Magistrate of this Colony. I can only speak to my very strong impression that on the very same I do not know whether the day on which I saw the payday the Ma-chow Wong's papers were brought to my
(Signed) C. COLLINS. YING-LUNG-TIEN,-Chinese Teacher.
He made some excuse for their non-production which I do not recollect. I remember, at the close of the day, the Attorney General came up to the chair, stood at Mr Cleverly's right hand, and referred to Mr José D'Almada's statement, and said something to the effect that we (the Commission) might take secondary evidence of the con- tents of the memo. by calling Mr May. I was present when the Attorney General in his evidence stated to the effect quoted by him from the printed minutes page 32. recollect that on that day, and I believe as soon as the
I
Attorney General's examination had closed, a letter which
the chairman had shewn me that morning was read by
him from the chair. I believe it was from Mr Mongan. It stated that the papers had been burnt. Up to that date, 17th June, neither in the debates in Legislative Council, nor in any communication ever made to me by any officer of the Government, nor in the proceedings of the commission or otherwise, had I the slightest idea that the Government were aware or wished to have it believed
that the documents had been burnt. I was. perfectly as
tounded when Mr Cleverly shewed me Mr Mongan's
note. It was not till after that Mr Mongan and Dr Bridges were called to give their evidence respecting it (the des- truction.)
The witness reads the following paragraph from page 88 of his evidence of the printed minutes.-
"I recollect although I had quite forgotten it until
timated to him that the Ma-chow Wong documents which pers burned was before Mr Mongan went to Canton or office, they were forwarded from this office to the Secretary "shortly before this commission commenced sitting, that
after he returned.
(Signed) YING-LUNG-TIEN.
were transmitted to the Superintendency had been burned, and that the officers of the Superintendency knew nothing whatever of the memoranda. The Attorney General after Remanded to Tuesday, 12th Oct., 1858, W. H. MITCHELL some general statements regarding the act, said he felt convinced it was done for a purpose. I subsequently went to the Governor, and told him of these circumstances and of the Attorney General's remark, and asked him if he could give me any information regarding the memoranda as we were anxious to obtain them. He said he had
not. He supposed they must be with the rest of the pa- pers, and that he had given no orders for their destruction. I had written, I think the day before, to the Secretary of the Superintendency to enquire about the memoranda only; the, answer was they were never in their possession, and they
ELEVENTH HEARING. ****
Tuesday, 12th October, 1858.
Defendant's Witness,
AND. SCOTT DIXSON,-examined on oath states.
By Mr Anstey.-I was examined before the Caldwell
Commission on Friday, 28th May last. I have since read the printed minute of my evidence, I now confirm the
the documents, and the enquiry before the Council. Be same upon oath as far as it refers to Ma-chow Wong and fore that enquiry I was Editor as well as Proprietor of the
of the Superintendent. I was sitting on the bench at mid days when Mr Collins had reported to me that the papers had arrived, by which I understood just arrived. I went into the clerk's office and there saw Mr Jarman, one of the officers who had sent the papers up or brought them up. I was not quite satisfied with the packing of the baskets, and had the magistracy seal put on the things in my own presence. I see no reason why they should have been detained here. I am almost certain they were sealed within a quarter of an hour after they were brought here, From what I know of Mr Collins's great caution, I should judge that they were forwarded forthwith. Think I sent
"Mr May lent me his memo. for 2 or 3 days. As I found "they had nothing immediately to do with the cases under "investigation, which were already cumbered enough, I told "Mr May that I thought he had better say nothing about "them until some occasion should arise on which they
"would be clearly useful. I recollect also when the efforts " for obtaining a pardon for Ma-chow Wong were going on, "that Mr May again asked me if he should mention them "to the Government. As by that time I had learnt that Mr "May was supposed to be actuated by jealous and hostile "feelings towards Mr Caldwell, and as also the Govern- "ment were in possession of the originals from which the for the papers to the Central Police Station, immediately "memoranda was taken, I told Mr May that I should on receiving the Colonial Secretary's letter requiring them."certainly not volunteer their production to the Gover
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.