CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12] — Page 410

201

( 103 )

Cross examined by MR TARRant,

from 4 to 6 hours in the examination of the documents.

10 or 11 hours.

I fearnt from Mr Jarman that there were 3 separate To go through them carefully would require one day, say sets of books,-I cannot give the precise dates of my ex-

I never had a good opinion of Ma-chow Wong. After amination of the books. It was after the commitment and before the Trial. There was nothing reported to meamining the books, my opinion was in no way affected No entry or document that I perused relating to gambling houses as appearing either in the for better or worse.

led me to infer that Ma-chow Wong was connected with books or other documents. have now perused Mr May's evidence, as given before the Caldwell Commission. pirates or was not with them. There was nothing in the documents or books to implicate Mr Caldwell or Dr Bridges, Items Nos. 1 to 8, were not reported by my examiner.

or any other British official, in any way with pirates or outlaws, by nick name or otherwise. The only name mentioned was Mr Caldwell, as the buyer of one picul of

As to No. 9, I recollect one small mottled cover book in

(Signed)

Rice.

which there was only one entry, which was in Mr Cald- well's handwriting, an entry of wages paid to an European Master of a Lorcha. That book was part of the docu

By Mr Tarrant. Dr Legge asked me to examine the ments seized as Ma-chow Wong's. Items No. 10 to 12

books for Mr Stace. I examined them at the Supreme Court were not reported to me by my examiner. No. 13 was reported to me as being the entry of payments to myself. The quantity of books which I examined there would Nos. 14 to 16 inclusive were not reported to me.

No. 17 measure 9 inches by 10. I knew that Ma-chow Wong was in custody on a charge of purchasing goods unlawfully was reported to me. No. 18 was not reported to me.

obtained, when I was sent to examine his books. The Taken before me this 11th day of August 1858.

EDWARD K. STACE...

quantity of books which I examined at the Police Station W. H. MITCHELL

would measure about 3 cubic feet. The books were not consecutive; one was 10 years back, one was 5. I under. HO-SHUN-SHEN,—I am an Assistant of Dr Legge, and tand the books to be Ma-chow Wong's. I saw his name a preacher of the London Missionary Society. I examined

veral times in some of the books. It did not happen at certain Chinese books and other papers stated to have

1 in some; by several I should say 1 or 2. The books belonged to Ma-chow Wong in August or September last appeared to represent the transactions of different firms year. I cannot confirm Mr May's items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Some were books of the Quang-yek-loong shop (Mah- With reference to No. 7, I recollect one entry referring to chow Wong's) others appeared to be the books of other Mr Caldwell, in which he was recorded as the purchaser,parties, whether Mah-chow Wong's or not I cannot say. of a picul of rice. That was the only instance in which, a his name was mentioned under any denomination what-

soever,

(Signed)

Court adjourned from 1 to 2 P.M.

HO-SHUN-SHEN.

Examination of HO-CHUN-SHEN,-resumed,

By

HO-SHUN-SHEN.

JAMES MONGAN,-examined on oath. [The evidence of this witness as given before the Caldwell Inquiry Commission on 23th June 1858 is here

d over to him, with an intimation that he should correc', the instant, any statement which might have been his reported, and further that he was to give any fresh the English language, and did not see No. 9, or any do-evidence of which he might be in his possession not here- cument from which it was derived.

tofore given.]

I have no recollection of item No. 8. I write and speak

Item No. 10. I have some recollection of an official letter, from, I think, the Cowloong Mandarin, but do not recollect its contents,

Item No. 11, I have no recollection of this. Item No. 12, the same.

Witness states. With exception of a slight discrepancy the date of 29th September, which should have been the 30th, I now confirm the evidence read over to me.

I found nothing in the documents to involve any com. plicity on the part of Mr. Caldwell or Dr Bridges or any other British Officer in unlawful transactions. I have read lover Mr Caldwell's report of our conjoint examination dated 5th October of 1857 (Report put in evidence. marked B) (infra). Dr Bridges or Mr Caldwell never sug- The writer's name or the services ren-gested in the first instance what was to be done with the dered by Mr Stace were not stated.

books. I put the questions myself.

Item No. 13, I have the following recollection of a small paper, about the size of my hand, as examined by me shewing a payment of $50 to Mr Stace. This was only one of several other items, but I have no recollection of what they were.

Item No. 14, I do not recollect

Item No. 15, the same.

Item No. 16, the same.

Item No 17, I have some recollection. There was a small book containing the names of several persons having shares in a certain boat.

Item No. 18, I have no recollection of. I wish to mention that I examined these books and documents without my attention being directed to any particular point, I spent

By Mr Tarrant. The books would measure about 12 'cubic feet, and were an actual incumbrance in our office. When I sent the packages to Mr Wade I did not stamp the sealing wax, I merely put it over the joinings of the tape. I do not recollect seeing any book with Mr Caldwell's writing in it. Mr Caldwell was the principal party in the investigation of these papers, I was secondary, I never saw the books, and had nothing to do with the until the articles appeared in the China Mail.

14

}

SIR,

APPENDIX.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Monday, 24th May, 1858.

After office hours on Saturday, the 22nd instant, I had the honour of receiving yours of that date, covering "a copy of the charges to be forwarded to the Committee appointed for investigating the accusations brought by me against the Regis- trar General,"

Had it reached at an earlier period, you should have had my reply to it the same day.

I have the honour to remind H. E. of my appeal to the Se- cretary of State, and of his own repeated absolutions of Mr Caldwell, against which I have presented that appeal.

I do this the rather, because I perceive that, at least two of the "charges" or "accusations" which are contained in H. E's "list"-I mean Nos. 15 and 16-were stated to Lord Stanley, and to none else, in my letter of the 17th instant, and go where else, and merely by way of support to the charge which I did make and prove, but which H. E. overruled, that of being concerned in the brothel, No. 48, or the management thereof.

all important documents and affects of the convict, then at the Police Station; also his previous conduct at the Police Court, nolle prosequi on the stronger charge; and a number of other matters, not specified in the letter of the 13th instant, which H E.'s decision of the 10th instant, in Legislative Council, com- pelled me to send in.

!

II. To what it contains: Because it is not a true and faithful abstract of what I really did say or write:-

1. To the Governor in Council;

2. To the Secretary of State;

or 3. To yourself, as Acting Colonial Secretary.

But I

1. For the reasons already assigned in a former letter, I waive all benefit of the "privilege of debate," invented by H E.'s own "standing orders," a few months ago, and, so far as I am concerned, submit to be "questioned out of Council by Government for what I have said or done in Council." cannot help thinking that H. E., before approving of the "List" before me, ought to have had his attention called to the fact, that the "privilege" was also intended to enure for the benefit third parties. And I abstain here from recording the "charges

› which I particularly refer, and in which a name is mentioned. 2. With regard to the Secretary of State, I have above sig- fied my determination, not to incur his Lordship's censure by

})

Not willing to obstruct any enquiry which H. E. may be ow advised to make into the subje-matter of my appeal, I must respectfully decline to accepty share in the responsiblishing, except to H. E., the charges" said to be contained bility attaching to the examinationof a document, not reg ferred back, for that purpose, by the minister to whom alo

was directed.

Not desiring, in the least, to shelter

Bigus vlateve interrogatorios I may be asked to underly) o to with d what ever help Turay be asked afford, I must not viate or waive

y appeal to the Imperial Gover

erein.

But, as to my correspondence with yourself, commencing on the 6th July, 1857, occasionally re-appearing during the flutest months of the last winter, and revived and pressed from the 13th instant to this date inclusive, I do most confidently aver, that the effect thereof cannot be truly ascertained from the nalysis supposed to be furnished in the "List of Charges "—

Therefore, not inhibiting the course, nw at the twelfth hou ryny many of which are but studied varieties of the same staken, I must not sanction it;-ready the a witness, I deny ge, many imperfectly stated, some mere inferences from the

that I am any longer an accuser ;-

#ing the presumed establishment of the rest, and others never made at utoros fall, or if made, expressly alleged to be merely probable or doubt-

case, or otherwise qualified.

function of prosecutor before a Tribun

me, on the point of being named

CEL

resti

which, I am aware, has been already judged by H. E.

I shall, nevertheless, cheerfully furnish the members of the Commission collectively, or individually, with whatsoever as sistance they may think me capable of rendering, in the course of their enquiry.

I cannot close this protestation, without including my grave objections to the way in which the "List" has been prepared; both with respect to what it omits and to what it contains.

I. To what it omits-Because it does not contain the least reference to some of the stronger facts: e. g., the "accusations". (for H. E. holds these and "informations" to be synonymous) brought by Mr Cleverly and Mr Forth, on the authority of the Land Office and Treasury books, and by Mr Gilmour, the Treasury Clerk, on his own authority, corroborated at the last moment by the confession of Mr Caldwell; and importing against the latter, not only the guilt charged in No. 17 of the "List." and others of its "charges," but also that of a twice repeated falsehood told in defence, and to which I presume the 14th "charge," in its extraordinary vagueness, relates; and also the conduct of Mr Caldwell, in his character of "friend" of the pirate, after his conviction, in applying for and obtaining the

1. Of the first are "charges" 2, 5, 14, 15, and 17; 3, 4, 6,

and 16; and 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12,

2 Of the second are "charges" 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17.

3. Of the third are "charges" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. 4. Of the fourth are "charges " 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14.

For reasons already suggested, I must not offer any advice to F. E., touching the mode of supplying the deficiencies or correcting the excesses of the "List," with respect to the

atements in Council or the letter to Lord Stanley.

But I have no hesitation in saying, that the whole of my correspondence with you, including the appendices, ought to be laid before the Commission, together with this my very respect ful remonstrance.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your very obedient serving,

(Signed)

T. C. ANSTET

The Hon. W. T. Bridges, Esq., D.C.L., A.C.S.