720810-1861-GOVERNMENT-NOTIFICATION-NO-104 — Page 1

DIE

MAL

MON

DROIT

THE HONGKONG

Government Gazette.

Published by Authority.

No. 40.

No. 104.

VICTORIA, SATURDAY, 5TH OCTOBER, 1861.

VOL. VII.

GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.

His Excellency the Governor has been pleased to direct the publication of the following extracts from the Minutes of the Executive Council, being the conclusions arrived at by the Council at the termination of the Civil Service Abuses Inquiry.

By Order,

Colonial Secretary's Office, Victoria, Hongkong, 1st October, 1861.

W. T. MERCER,

Colonial Secretary.

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AT A MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY THE 20TH JUNE, 1861.

Finding in Mr. May's Case.

The room being cleared the Council deliberated-

The Council unanimously agreed that Mr. Caldwell had not only failed to substantiate any one of his charges, but that he had no grounds whatever to justify him in bringing those charges against Mr. May.

The Council were farther of opinion that the explanations voluntarily offered by Mr. May in reference to these charges were satisfactory.

1)

As regards the allegations and insinuations against Mr. May contained in the printed pamphlet published by Mr. Caldwell and called " a Vindication," the Council were of opinion (1) that the allusion at page 24. already referred to, as to wealthy Ofivers in the Police taking bribes, was calculated to lead to the supposition that Mr. May was pointed at, and that there was justification for such an insinnation, and the Comcil had listened with surprise to Mr. Caldwell's asseverations that in the words used he had no intention of alluding to Mr. May; (2) that the statement at page 23, of Mr. May being a notorious owner of Brothels, ought in justice to have been accompanied by the mention of the fret, that from the date of Mr. May becoming the purchaser of the property in question he had taken the most active measures to dispossess these tenants, and succeeded in doing so within four months; (3) that the account given at pages 24 and 25 as to the escape of the women from Attai's brothel into Mr. May's house was false, and was known by Mr. Caldwell to be false when published by him in his "Vindication." As regards this misstatement the Conneil found that Mr. Caldwell load (in the words of the Chief Magistrate) "sworn before the Justices to a fact which the slightest care would have shown him not only did not take place, but which could not possibly have taken place;" that such statement was most prejudicial to the character of a brother officer (Mr. May) with whom he (Mr. Caldwell) was on unfriendly terms; that when shown his error he neither corrected his evidence, or offered any apology to the brother officer whom he had unjustly traduced; and that he subsequently repeated the mis- statement, before the Caldwell Commission of Inquiry, and again in his "Vindication," on both occasions knowing, as he now admitted, that it was incorrect.

With reference to the general question as to Mr. May's conduct in the matter of the Caldwell and Anstey charge, and the propriety of retaining him in die Government employment (subjects referred to His Excellency the Governor for enquiry and report in the Secretary of State's Confidential Despatches of the 11th January, and 27th July, 1800)--the Council found that Mr. May's conduct in the case referred to, had already been tande the subject of a very full and searching oficial investigation before the Excentive Council in the year 1858, the result of which was communicated to the Secretary of State in Sir Johu Bowring's Despatch No. 144 of 1st November 1858,

This Despitch with all the papers comocted with the enquiry in 1858 (printed in the Blue Book laid before Parliament, See pages 243 to 260) having been carefully considered by the Executive Council, as also a letter from Mr. Davies, the late Chief Magistrate, attached to the Minutes of this day's proceedings, and no now fiets as to Mr. May's conduct in the Caldwell and Austoy case and the matter of Mah-chow Wong's Books, having been elicited during the course of the present Investiga- text--the Council concurred in the conclusion arrived at by the Executive Council on the 25th October 1858, that Mr. May #eatly erred in furnishing information of an important character to a local newspaper instead of submitting such information to the Goverment; but the Council considered that the ceasure then passed was a sollicicat punishment for the offence, the image especially as Mr. May, when such censure was conveyed to him, "admitted the perfect justice and propriety" thereof, and expressed his deep regret that his conduct had brought him under its weight.”

As regards the further opinion expressed by the Executive Council in the Resolution of the 25th October 1858, that M». May had en actuated by an unfriendly animins in the part he took in the Caldwell Commission Inquiry," it appeared to the