case-of-hong-kong-correspondence-between — Page 1

CASE OF HONG KONG .



CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN




T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY, ESQ . ,
LATE ATTORNEY -GENERAL OF HONG KONG,



AND




HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE,
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.




3RD TO 29TH JULY,, 1859 .




LONDON :

EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.
1859 .
 1




I ST JUS
ED
RI




LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWER AND SONS, STAMFORD STRRET, AND CHARING CROSS .
 HONG KONG .


Correspondence with Secretary the Duke of Newcastle, &c.

<p><p><p>&nbsp;<span></span></p><!--more--><p></p> 2, Plowden Buildings, Temple,
3rd July, 1859.
MY LORD DUKE,
I have the honour to lay the following statement before your
Grace, upon your resumption of the office of Secretary of State for the
Colonies.
It embraces the leading points in the case of my suspension, from the
duties of Attorney -General of Hong Kong, and of the confirmation of, that
suspension by the Home Government. I have never as yet had the opportunity
of replying to the charges involved in it — be they what they may — and which,
when I know them ( for as yet I know them not), I will demonstrate to be
frivolous and absurd .
But there are also questions, involved in my own case, which are of great
public importance. For, besides the question of the justice due, from her Majesty's
Government, to its Officers, there are those of the dignity of the Crown itself,
the reputation of England abroad , and the safety and advancement of her
commerce . For my vindication of those great interests, I have been suspended,
by Sir John Bowring, from the office conferred by Her Majesty.
Nor have the consequences been otherwise than fatal to those interests ;
and so they are regarded by the British Public. I need but refer your Grace to
the Petitions presented to Parliament, long before my return to these shores, Petitions from
Tyne
( complaining of the scandals brought to light by the proceedings in the Queen Newcastle, Sheffield,
v. Tarrant), in proof of this assertion . Leeds, Birmingham ,
and Marylebone, Fe
On my side, I am still a suppliant for justice. This is the eleventh month bruary, March, and
of my total privation of office and its emoluments . Yet, to this moment, no April, 1859. Printed
by order of the late
House of Commons.
final decision has been intimated upon the matter ofmy complaints.
Your Grace will indeed find, that there has been a recent correspondence , Letters from my
Secretary Sir
between your department and myself - official on my side, but (with the excep- self
E. B.toLytton, Bart.,
tion of a letter of the 13th April) of a merely semi-official character on that of Mopir, of17ththe4th
a
, 18th ,
your department. Your Grace, however, will also find that,-from the illness 10th
and 30th May,and
June, 1859, and
and absence of Secretary Sir E. L. Bulwer Lytton, and the express declarations toUnder-Secretary
of Under -Secretary the Earl of Carnarvon, that he addressed me without the Earl of Carnar
von, of the 14tlı
authority ,” —that correspondence has beenwithout any result, except indeed April,and2nd,3th
June, ,.
that of adding, very much, to my painful uncertainty,as tothe views of Her from
LettersPrivate
tomemyself
-Secre
Majesty's Government in my regard. tary Mr. Drummond
B
 ( 2 )
Wolff, of the 7th It was my object in commencing that correspondence (interrupted by the
April, 1859, and
from Under -Secre- sudden separation of the then Ministry from office), and it is the object of the
narvon, of the 13th present communication, to obtain information, enquiry, and redress. And I hope
and April,30th, to be able to produce a conviction, in the minds of Her Majesty's Government,
and 16th a

and 17th June, 1859. and of the public, that my original suspension was unjust and illegal, and its
subsequent confirmation one founded on error ; every opportunity to defend
myself having been denied me, and the necessary information being thereby
lost to this Government.
London Gazette, And it will be on all the above grounds, that I shall ask your Grace, to hold
letters to myself of me entitled to adequate and suitable compensation, by re-employment or other
April,13th
the 1859, 16th wise ; my own place having, since my return to England, been filled up, by the
and from
Under-Secretary the late Ministry, during your predecessor's absence from your department.
Earl of Carnarvon .
At the same time that I make this application to your Grace, I think it
right that I should lay all the material information, as to my suspension, which I
possess, before you, without any reservation . In so doing , I shall not state any
thing, that is not proved , by documentary evidence , long since of record in the
Colonial Office, and I therefore respectfully ask, that, if any portion of it shall
appear to be not so supported, your Grace will do me the justice to direct my
attention to the supposed deficiency.
1. In the month of October, 1855, upon the recommendation of the then
Secretary of State, the late Sir William Molesworth, Her Majesty was pleased
to appoint me her Attorney-General for Hong -Kong ; and, on the 21st Novem
ber, 1855 , I left London , by the overland route, for my destination .
2. Arriving at Hong-Kong, on the 30th January, 1856, I at once entered
upon the arduous duties of my office.
3. Amongst those duties, perhaps the most arduous was one, to which I was
See the printed called by the then Governor himself, his Excellency Sir John Bowring, that “ of
taken byoftheCald- bringing to light, and if necessary to punishment,” as in my evidence on cross
well Commission
Enquiry, of examination before the Caldwell Commission (hereafter to be noticed ) I have
, fifteenth
and eighteenth days, expressed it, “ the malpractices of which he complained, in the corrupt state of
28th June and ist
July, 1858, pp. 48 the Hong -Kong Government, and, in particular, those of the police, those of the
( 1st col .) and 67
(1st and 2nd col.)." branch of the judicial department connected with the police, and those of my
own department of Attorney-General.”
4. For that purpose, I was directed, by his Excellency, to put myself into
communication with several persons, whom he named , and, amongst others, with
the late Mr. Shortrede, Queen's Printer, and Mr. Rienaecker, at that time
Colonial Treasurer, but who was soon afterwards superseded as a defaulter.
5. These gentlemen, and particularly the late Colonial Treasurer, advised
me, in like manner, to communicate with a Mr. Caldwell, of the Police Interpre
ter's department, as one who could give me every information, touching the
malpractices of the Police and the Police Court.
6. Mr. Caldwell was, however, at that time, as it afterwards transpired,
Printed Minutes, much occupied in speculations of his own, wherein a certain Chinese pirate of
&c., ,twelfth,
teenth nine- the name of Mah Chow Wong was concerned ; and particularly in the “ convoy
and twenty
third days, 18th business” of the Chinese coasts ;—and for some months I had very few opportu
 ( 3 )
nities of meeting him . Afterwards, upon his return to the Government service, Juneand
14th July , Sth
1858, and
pp.
40 (1stand 2nd col.),
I had learned too much of his own antecedents, and of the history of his asso- 71-6, and 90-5 .
ciate, Mah Chow Wong, to consult him : at the same time that my confidence
in Mr. Rienaecker's advice was altogether destroyed, by the disclosure ( inci- pré's,
See Messrs.Grand
Bridges', and
dental to his insolvency and consequent removal from the public service) that May's evidence, in,
Mr. Caldwell had been a partner in land and sea speculations with the same sixth,seventh,ninth;
and tenth ,
Colonial Treasurer, and had shared in the same insolvency, his creditors -- as 9th
, 12th, and 16th
he himself afterwards admitt -compounding with him for a dividend of 477 June, 1858, pp. 17
(1st col.), 20 (1st
per cent. upon their debts. These circumstances prevented me from entering 24col.), 21" (2nd col.),
( 2nd col.), 25
into those confidential communications, with Mr. Caldwell, which Messrs. Short- (2nd col.), and 29
rede and Rienaecker had advised . ( 1st col.).

5 [bis]. In all other respects I conformed to his Excellency's suggestions,
and, for several months, continued to receive his approval of my proceedings,
in the line he had pointed out. But, towards the end of my first half year of Seecross-exami
on
my Evidence
na
office, I became aware that, even where I had his approval, I was not to expect tion, ib. ; fifteenth
and eighteenth days,
his open avowal and support. 28th June and 1st
6 [bis ). On the 25th August, 1856, I acquainted the Governor, that I had July, 1858 ;and
(2nd col.) pp. 48
67
er, ht
received notice of trial, in an action of sland broug again st me, by the 2nd col.); and also
three Letters
see

then acting Chief Magistrate, Mr. Mitchell, for words, spoken by me, in the fromSir JohnofBow the
ring to myself
course of my official duty, and with direct reference to the matters, into which 21st and 22ndAug.,
I had been so directed to enquire. I requested the Governor to take the 22nd ; Aug.tomyself
one
necessary measures, to enable me to prove those facts in my defence . His from Colonial Secre
tary, Mr. Mercer ;
Excellency refused my application. He said, the question was a merely private and one of the23rd
August to myself,
one “ between Mr. Mitchell and myself. ” Mr. Mercer, the Colonial Secretary, asfromActing
Mr. D'Almada ,
Colonial
took a different view of the matter. Although then absent on sick leave, he Secretary
hadthe kindness to come up from Macao, expressly, to testify on my behalf to
the bona fides of my communications. The jury ( a special one) returned their
verdict in my favour.
7. I have reason to believe, that my conduct, on that occasion, was not See Sir John Bow .
'
unacceptable to your department . I beg to refer to one of the documents con- of the 2nd Aug.,
nected with the present case, and to my former remarks, upon the mutilated 1858; and my Let
ter to Secretary Sir
condition, in which it was laid before the Executive Council, by the late 16th
E. B.Aug.,
Lytton1858of. the
Governor Bowring - I mean the joint Report, which Secretary Mr. Labouchere
received, from Sir Richard Bethell and Sir H. S. Keating, then, as now, Her
Majesty's Law Officers ; and which Secretary Lord Stanley, in 1858, caused to
be forwarded to Sir John Bowring, for his guidance, in future cases, like that
of Mitchell v. myself. With regard to that case, the Attorney -General and
Solicitor-General, for England, reported their opinion to be, that, " where so
vexatious and unfounded an action was brought, against aà law officer, for acts
done in the discharge of his duty, he had a right to expect every assistance
from the Governor, both in the way of testimony and otherwise ;” and Secre
tary Lord Stanley expressed himself in conformity with that opinion.
8. It is, perhaps, necessary for me to explain , that Mr. Mitchell was one
of the official persons, against whom my suspicions of malversation of office had
 ( 4 )
been, from the date of my arrival, directed by Sir John Bowring himself, and 04
| ‫يا‬


also by the advisers whom he had recommended to my confidence. 1
102
9. Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police and Acting Assistant Magis 1

Da
trate, was another.
w
C
10. But I afterwards discovered that both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. May were NI

altogether undeserving of the suspicions so produced by those informants ; and of
that Mr. May, at least, had actually rendered good service, against the doers of LE
the very malpractices in question.
WLA

See Mr. Dixson's 11. The same evidence, which satisfied me of the injustice, done to those
Evidence in printed 1
Minutes, & c. ; se two gentlemen , turned my suspicions upon Mr. Caldwell himself, the partner of
condday,
1858, pp. 28th
6-9 ;May,
and the late Colonial Treasurer, Mr. Rienaecker. It is singular, that the first im
his Police Court Dec
the portant information, on that head, was contributed by Mr. Dixson, the Queen's
Queen Ⓡ. Tarrant
Hong -Kong, 11th
, printer, the partner and successor of Mr. Shortrede, to whom Sir John Bowring
G
October, 1858. had referred me, and who had referred me to Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Shortrede was
72
at this time in Europe.
12. On the 4th July, and 3rd September, 1857, two remarkable convic
tions for piracy took place in the Supreme Court of Hong -Kong : the first that
of the famous American leader of Chinese pirates, Eli Boggs ; the latter that of
his employer and confederate, the Chinese pirate, Mah Chow Wong. Both
these men had been nearly connected with Mr. Caldwell ; and the facts, which
transpired at their trials, came in aid of other information, received by me, about
that time, from Mr. Dixson, Mr. May, Mr. Inglis, the Marine Magistrate, and
others, so much to the prejudice of Mr. Caldwell's character, that, by the end of
1857, my suspicion had ripened into absolute conviction, that to him, and his
close alliances with Chinese criminals, the corruptions complained of were
chiefly, and perhaps solely, to be ascribed.
See my Letters of 13. The first -named pirate, Eli Boggs, in a speech of great power, which
the 8th July, 1857,
May,1858,
andDr.13thBridges, Act
lasted two hours, and made a great impression upon everybody present, bitterly
ing Colonial Secre- reproached the Hong-Kong Government, and Mr. Caldwell, with his own seduc
tary; and of the17th tion into the crimes for which he was about to suffer. It was a most scandalous
May, 1858, to Secre
tary Lord Stanley, scene, and, especially, because the demeanour of Mr. Caldwell, under the infliction ,
was certainly that of a guilty man . The statements moreover were, in my
own opinion (and I was not the only one who so thought), too circumstantial
to be entirely false. I found it my duty to represent the scandal, which had
See Minutes, & c., occurred in Court ; and I expostulated strongly against the influence, admitted
seventeenth and
twenty-second days ; to be exercised by Mah Chow Wong in
matters of police. At my request, Mr.
30th June and 13th May and Mr. Inglis, as representing their respective departments, were referred
July, 1858, pp . 58
(1stand 2nd cols.), to on this last point. Their Reports fully justified mine ; and that of Mr. Inglis,
59-60, 87 (1st col.),
and$888 ((1st col.); in particular, going far beyond mine, imputed to Mr. 'Caldwell an affinity with
and see Mr. May's
in the the pirate Mah Chow Wong, through marriage and adoption , according to the
Police Court), in the customs of China. But, so far as the Government were concerned , all these
Queen v. Tarrant,
August, 1858 . representations were fruitless.
14. For Mr. Caldwell himself had been promoted, in the mean time, to the
offices of Justice of the Peace, and Registrar-General and Protector of Chinese,

i
 ( 5 )
at Hong-Kong, and had greatly increased his credit and influence with Sir John
Bowring, by means of the great ascendancy, with which this extraordinary
combination of powers had invested him , over the 72,000 Chinese inhabitants
of Hong-Kong. Moreover, a Dr. Bridges, a barrister of Hong -Kong, and
practising also as an attorney there, and who, before my arrival, had filled the
office of Acting Attorney-General for the Queen,—had been, in February, 1857,
appointed by Sir John Bowring to act as Colonial Secretary and Executive
Councillor, during the absence in Europe of Mr. Mercer, upon a sick leave of
18 months, with liberty to continue to practise for his clients, notwithstanding
such acting appointment. Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell were on very intimate
and friendly relations. Mr. Caldwell had recommended Dr. Bridges to Chinese See his Evidence
Minutes, &c . ,
clients. Dr. Bridges had adjusted the insolvency already spoken of — not at seventh and fifteenti
the Governor's direction , as Dr. Bridges at first wished to be believed and days, 9th and 28th
June, 1858, pp. 20
afterwards retracted ,—but out of his great private regard and friendship. (2nd col .) and 50
( 1st and 2nd col.).
15. I myself, shortly after the date of my unanswered Report on Eli
Boggs' case , and in the same month of July, was obliged, by severe sickness, to
quit Hong-Kong, for Calcutta, upon a six months' leave. But, before my
departure, I had the satisfaction to know, that the exposure, which had taken
place, was beginning to encourage the Chinese to come forward, and make
complaints, against their powerful oppressor, the pirate Mah Chow Wong ; and See printed Report
of the Caldwell Com
I had taken steps to ensure a full and searching enquiry into such . Within mission,, p. ii.,, and
printed Minutes, &c.,
two weeks from the events, mentioned in my Report, and, as I believe, purely bith, fourteenth ,
in consequence thereof, two distinct charges of piracy were brought against twenty-second,
twenty -third,
, and
twenty-fourth
Mah Chow Wong, before the Chief Magistrate, the Hon . Mr. Davies, and the 3rd days,
and 24th June,
Assistant Magistrate, Mr. May ; and, shortly after my departure for Calcutta, 15th
and 13th, 14th,and
July, 1858 ,
he was held, by those gentlemen, to bail, upon both charges, for trial in the pp. 15 (2nd col.),44
Supreme Court. It should be mentioned, that the bail were introduced, and col.),
(Ist coba)
91, Z
(1st (2nd
.) ,and 96
guaranteed ,” by Mr. Caldwell, and that, amongst them , was a late servant of 2nd ".col.)
his own ,
but recently out of prison for debt.
16. On the 3rd September, 1857—I being still absent at Calcutta — Mah See printed Mi
Chow Wong was tried and convicted. The charge selected was the first, and least butes,& , second,
fifteenth c.

strong, charge; and a nolle prosequi was, immediately thereupon, most un- and eighteenth,
teenth,twenty - second
, 28th May,
accountably, entered on the other. The trial was further remarkable for the days
28th and 30th June,
strenuous efforts of Mr. Caldwell on his behalf ; who retained and instructed and 1st and 13th
, 1858, PP . 7
the legal advisers of the pirate, marshalled his witnesses, and gave evidence July
(1st col.), '49"(1st
in person ; and, in doing so, was compelled to disclose his own partnership with and . ,
cold),8850( (2nd col.)
the prisoner. The convict was sentenced to transportation ; and he is now
undergoing that punishment at Labuan ; having been detained , however , a long
time in Hong -Kong, during the intervening negotiations for his pardon.
17. Nor was the piracy in question a solitary instance of the guilt of the Printed Report of
convict. Mah Chow. Wong was, and had been for years, notoriously the chief mission
the Caldwell Com
, pars . 14 ,
pirate and resetter of pirates in the China Seas ; and the notoriety of his con- 22,
15, pp.17,i .19,
ii .
21, and
nection , with Mr. Caldwell , had produced in the minds of many Europeans, a
conviction of the guilty character of that connection , before even a suspicion
of the truth had occurred to my own mind.
6 С
 ( 6 )
Par. 15, suprà . 18. There is little doubt that the convict relied firmly upon obtaining a
See “ Mr. May's
Memoranda” (referred verdict ; I being absent from the colony, and Mr. Caldwell being actively
to in the Caldwell En
quiry Commission) , as engaged in his defence. Otherwise there appears to have been nothing to
published " for general
Information” by .Go restrain him from flight, for he was out on bail; and what the substance of
vernment Notification "
3




of 19th April,1859,in that security was, albeit “guaranteed ” by Mr. Caldwell, I have already shown
the Hong -Kong Govern
ment Gazette of the
23rd April, 1859 ; and
- referring your Grace to the evidence of the deceived magistrate who took it,
the evidence
see

Messrs. Dixson, May ,
of 19. It had also transpired, through the examination of the papers and books
and Jarman,in printed of the pirate's: “ Hong " at the Police Court - documents containing the daily
Minutes, &c., second ,
twelfth, and nineteenth evidence of the piratical occupations of the convict -- that they also contained
days, 28th May, 18th
June, and 8th July, evidence of Mah Chow Wong's payments and receipts, to and from Mr. Caldwell,
1858, pp. 8 (2nd col.),
9(1st col.), 35 ( 2nd or on his account : and that, nevertheless, Mr. Caldwell and the convict’s at
col.)), and 70(2nd col.),. torney, Mr. Stace, had been allowed, during the preparations for his trial, to
Evidence on cross-of have free access to those important documents, and even, according to one
examination
JamesMongan, Esq. authority, to carry them away from their temporary place of custody.
( a witness for the
Crown ), in the Queen 20. It was also believed by, at least, the acting Chinese Secretary, as
v. Tarrant,on Tues-
day , 23rd Nov. 1858,
early as the 12th October 1857, (at which period all the documents in question
in theHong-Kong were supposed to be in his official custody, and only five weeks after the
Supreme Court.
pirate's conviction,) that the most important of these papers “ must have been
Ib., ...; and com- taken out, by a contemptible and damnable trick, on the part of the perpe
pare his
fore the Commission, trators, to get off Mah Chow Wong, before they came into his (Mr. Mongan’s)
&c.,thirteenth day, hands.” They had “ come into his hands ” on the 29th or 30th of the previous
23rd June, 1858, P. month .
41 ( 1st col.).
See the proceed- 21. In the mean time Mr. Caldwell and Dr. Bridges, himself an Executive
ings in the Queen 0.
Tarrant, SupremeCourt, Councillor, were supporting the application of Messrs. Day, the counsel, and
21st, 22nd, 23rd, and
24thNov.,1858 and Stace, the attorney, for the convict, to his Excellency in Executive Council for
see my Letters of the
13th May, 1858,to a free pardon. I again remind your Grace, that some one had, already, caused
Acting Colonial Secre
tary, Dr.Bridges;
of the 17th
; and to be entered a nulle prosequi, in respect of the untried charge against the same
May, 1858,
to the Secretary ofState prisoner for the second offence, albeit a much stronger one than the first, and
Lord Stanley, M.P.; see
also printed Minutes, one entirely unconnected with it ; that the Chief Justice has declared, from the
&c. , for the Evidence of
Messrs.
Davies,
Kingsmill and bench, that he did not order, and could not have, ordered the nolle prosequi ; and
fitteenth, seven that the Governor has been heard to declare that it was ordered by himself.
twenty - second days ;
29th and 30th June, 22. It has been further admitted, by the then Acting Colonial Secretary,
and istand. ( 1st .),: and on oath, that, but for the interposition of the parties, mentioned in the next
, pp. 49IliktCouls
1st .) , 62 (
col.),63 (2nd"co?.), and following paragraph, probably the pardon would have been granted, and the
88 ( 1st col.).
See printed Mi
pirate again let loose on society, by Sir John Bowring's Government.
nutes, &c., second 23. A rumour of the probability of such an event having reached the
day, 28th May, 1858 ,
p. 7 ( 1st col.). Queen's printer, Mr. Dixson, the latter published, in the Government organ of
Dr. Bridges' Evi
the 17th September, 1857, a protest in the name of the community. In
dence
cross-ex- enumerating the crimes of the man, and in alluding to his pecuniary dealings
on cross- ex
, in the
v Tarrant with Mr. Caldwell, the Queen's printer made free use of a sort of index, to the
Queen om?
(22n d Nov., 1858), contents of the pirate's books and papers, originally prepared by Mr. May
Hong -KongSupreme
Court, himself, at the period of their first examination, for use at the trial. This
his
ubi suprà
the
; and see index was headed “ Memoranda,” and is so styled throughout the subsequent
China Mail
newspaper,
17th narrative .
Sept., 1857. 24. Mr. Dixson was thereupon summoned, by the Clerk of the Councils,
See Mr. Dixson's
 ( 7 )
in the name of the Governor, to attend the Executive Council, and support his Minutes,
Evidence&c.,
in printed
second
statements. The- “line of examination,” he himself says, “ adopted by his day,28th
p. 8 (
May,1358,
.
,
Excellency, as Chairman, was so one-sided, and so unfair, that I told the his list
Depositions and
ola); at
Council, it seemed as if I had been put upon my trial.” This was on the 12th the Police Court,in
October, 1857, the day originally named for the purpose. In the interval, by 1858
ith . and 12th Oct.,
an official letter of the 28th September, an examination of all the documents
in question, avowedly for the purpose of verifying or disproving the charges See the Evidence
of the
the newspaper, to the prejudice of Mah Chow Wong, and also, it may be of Messrs. Dixson
added, of Mr. Caldwell,was directed to take place. It was however to Mr. and ,Mongan,paubi
Depo
Caldwell himself that the examination was confided ; and, practically speaking, well
sitionsandoftheMr.Cald
Chinese
it was he alone who made it. It is true that Mr. Mongan was at the same time witnesses for the
Crown in the Queen
directed to " assist ” Mr. Caldwell. But that was all. And from his and Mr. v. Tarrant, Police
» Court, August and
Mongan's own statements, it plainly appears , that Mr. Mongan's “assistance October, 1858.
consisted in merely handing the papers over to Mr. Caldwell, without even
counting them , or being in all cases consulted by Mr. Caldwell ; and that Mr.
Mongan himself made only a “ cursory ” examination of one bundle - into the
rest not examining at all. Moreover the “ Report,” containing the results of
the examination so made, speaks for itself; for it was prepared and signed by
Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Mongan compared it, he says, with “ Mr. Caldwell's notes,"
but not with “ the documents themselves,” which Mr. Caldwell had examined.
25. This “ Report ” of Mr. Caldwell was to the effect, that the books and
papers of the pirate contained no evidence of his guilt ; and, on the subject of
the entries relating to Mr. Caldwell himself, it was altogether silent.
26. Mr. May's “ Memoranda, ” which were read in the Executive Council
along with the “ Report,” caused an immediate reference to be made back to
Mr. Mongan, who however was unable to explain the wide discrepancy, per in See his Evidence
the Queen v. Tar
ceived to exist, between two professed analyses of the same documents. He rant, ubi suprà.
however “ thought Mr. May's Memoranda ' were too circumstantial to be
forgeries ;" and he concluded, that “some of the papers must have been taken
out before they came to his office. He could not imagine who could have done
it ; nor did he know where the papers were before they came to his hands ;
but he would call it a contemptible and damnable trick, on the part of the
perpetrators ; for he thought their object was to get off Mah Chow Wong .”
The Council broke up suddenly. The papers were referred to Mr. Wade, the See Mr. Wade's

Chinese Secretary, for a new examination . Mr. Wade indeed was suffered to herefter referred to,
suppose that Mr. Mongan, not Mr. Caldwell, had made the last ; and therefore vernment
in Hong-Kong Gio
Gazette.
Mr. Wade never entered upon the new one, believing it hopeless. But the
pardon was finally refused to the convict ; and, that object being accomplished,
the matter was suffered to drop, for that time, by Mr. Dixson and Mr. May.
27. It was not until after it had dropped, that I returned from Calcutta,
on the 11th December, 1857, and resumed my duties. The “ Brothels Ordi
99
nance had just been passed ; and Mr. Caldwell, as Licenser of Brothels under
it, had acquired a new and an immense increase of power over the Chinese ;
but the measure was only beginning to be carried into execution, and its
effects were not yet felt. On the other hand , I remarked a great improvement
 ( 8 )
in the criminal statistics of the colony. The number of piracies, both real and
1
alleged, had diminished by more than 50 per cent ; and, of the piracies which
did come before the monthly criminal sessions, none were “ put up ” (or fac
titious) cases ; whereas, when I was last in the colony, these had formed almost
a moiety of the whole. I inquired the reason. The Superintendent of Police
the Monthly Crimi- said, that it was owing to the conviction of the great pirate and thief- taker, Mah
nal Sessions of the Chow Wong, and the failure of his intrigues to obtain his pardon. I reported
1857-8 . andJanuary, the matter to the Acting Colonial Secretary, but received no reply.
cember
28. Having learned, from the same and other authority, the leading
features of the part taken by Mr. Caldwell in those intrigues, I lost no oppor
tunity of continuing to express, to the Government, through its proper channels,
my distrust of the man, and my inability to act upon any information I might
receive from himself, directly or indirectly , which was not powerfully supported
by other evidence. The reception of my representations was not uniform .
Evidence on cross They were sometimes heard with silent acquiescence, sometimes with an appa
examination ofDr. rent hesitation, sometimes with assurances that they should receive every con
Bridges and the Hon . i
the Surveyor-Gene- sideration , and at length with an intimation , that the Governor desired me not
ral, at the trial of the !
Queen v. Tarrant,ubi to trouble him with a matter, which, he was pleased to say, did in nowise con
suprà
Police ; Court
and seeDepo-
the cern my own department. 1




sitions and those of
the Hon . the Chief 29. Such was the posture of affairs, down to the 10th May, 1858 , when
Magistrate in the an accident occurred, to force the matter on the attention of the Local
same case (August
and October, 1858 ), Government.
and in Mr. Inglis's
evidence before the 30. On that day, the Bill for Chinese Registration and Regulation, (which
Commission,
in
printed Minutes, &c., afterwards became Ordinance No. 8 of 1858,) stood for discussion in the Legis
seventeenthday,13th
June, 1858, p. 60
lative Council. A letter, from the Superintendent of Police, was put into my 1
( 1st col . ). hands, on my way to the Council , entreating me to cause some provision to
See printed Mi be introduced, to restrain Mr. Caldwell, his Chinese wife, their family, and
nutes, & c.,first and servants, from abusing, to their own profit, the large powers over persons and
sixth days, 27thMay
and 8th June, 1858, property, which would be made permanent in his hands, as the Registrar
and seemylettersof General and protector of Chinese , within Hong -Kong, by that Ordinance. Mr.
Colo May authorised me to state to the Council, and I did state, as a ground for
the 13th May, 1858. .



nial Secretary,and
of the 17th May, proposing such a clause, that the questionable authority, already vested in Mr.
1858, to Secretary Caldwell, under the then late “ Brothels Ordinance," appeared to have been
Lord Stanley, M.P.
so perverted to the private purposes of monopoly,--at least one license having
been granted by him to a Chinese brothel built upon land, which had certainly
always been , until very lately , his own land ; which, according to the tenants,
was still his own land ; and which was, beyond all doubt, still standing in his
name in the Register at the Land Office.
29 [bis]. The letter was read ; and, on Mr. Caldwell denying absolutely that
he held any land at all within the colony-a denial to which the Governor, the
Acting Colonial Secretary, and the Surveyor -General at once gave credit — the
Ib ., ib. Land Office Register was consulted by the latter official, and the Rent Books
of the Treasury by the new Colonial Treasurer, the Hon . Mr. Forth. The
result was to show that, beyond all doubt, besides the Crown lot in question ,
Mr. Caldwell held ten other lots of Crown land in the town, -- that they were
 ( 9 )
all eleven registered in his own name,—that other licensed brothels stood upon See my letters of
the 13th May, 1858,
some of them , that the Crown rents had been paid by himself in person for to theActing Colo
all the eleven lots, and this long since his appointment as Brothels Licenser ,— Hong-Kong,aand
nial of
and that the Treasury receipts had been made out, not to him, but, at his own Lord
17th May, 1858,to
Stanley, M.P. ,
the ; Secretary
request, to three Chinese people, whose names he furnished to the clerk. The State of
and see the
first of them , Lum A teen, was a quack -doctor, who was attached in that capa- printed Minutes,& c.,
city to his (Mr. Caldwell's) family ; the second, Chew Alai, the same doctor's first
, third, fourth
fifth, sixth , seventh,
Chinese concubine ; and the third, Chum Atsoo, a sister of Mrs. Caldwell, – the tenth
eighth, pinth,
days, and
27th
latter being herself a singing -girl, married from a Chinese brothel. May, and 1st to 16th
June, 1858, pp. 1-5,
30 [bis]. Moved by the facts of the case, his Excellency the Governor and 10-21, 22, 23-7,28,
29, 30.
the Legislative Council, on my motion , adopted the provision recommended by
Mr. May, nemine contradicente. At a later period of the same meeting, his Ex- Ib. , ib. ; and see,
in printed Minutes,
cellency was assured, by a line from Mr. Caldwell, that, although the land had &c., the evidence of
been his, and still stood in his name, he had no longer any “ interest ” in it ; having twenty-second day,
acted, in the way described above, merely as agent for those who were interested. 13th July, 1858,v
88 (1st col .) ; and
His Excellency then declared, in Council, that he saw nothing in Mr. Caldwell's myLetter ofthe17th
May, 1858, to the
Acting inColonial
original denials, the entries against him, or his present admissions of agency cretary Se
reply to
for brothel tenants and licensees, to disqualify him, either for enjoying the his(No. 272) of the
right of granting such licenses in future, or for remaining a justice of the same date.
peace. His Excellency added, that there was no occasion for any further
enquiry into the case .
31. On the 13th May, 1858, I accordingly tendered my resignation of the
justiceship of the peace ; alleging my inability to sit on the same bench with a
man of Mr. Caldwell's present habits and past antecedents ; and deploring the 16. ib.
impunity, continuously accorded , by the Local Government, as well with respect
to the brothels question, as to his mal-practices in the matter of Mah Chow
Wong. I ended by requesting a copy of my letter to be forwarded to the
Secretary of State, by way of appeal from his Excellency's decisions in Mr.
Caldwell's favour.
32. On the 14th May his Excellency in Legislative Council reiterated his Letters to myself
from
declarations in favour of Mr. Caldwell, and refused to accept my resignation, lonial Secretary of
and on the following day sent me an official communication of precisely the the15th
17th (No.(No:
272),269),
and
same effect. But, no notice being taken by him of my wish, that my letter 18th May Sir John
1858, and(No. 280),
should be forwarded to the Secretary of State,* I was compelled to address his paper
Bowring's slip of
enclosed in the
Lordship in person. This I did, by letter of the 17th May, 1858 , in duplicate Pasteretter.
originals, forwarding one duplicate open through his Excellency's office , and Letter from myself
to Secretary Lord
the other sealed through the post-office. Stanley, M.P., of the
17th May, 1858.
33. His Excellency refused to transmit the former, and , against my pro Letters to myself
tests, intercepted it, and referred it to a Commission of Enquiry, appointed by lonial Actingry Co
from theSecreta of
himself subsequently to its date. My protests against the proceeding were the 17th May, 1858
grounded on its being now too late ; the affair having been judged, and the one 276),25th
22nd and andMay,
the
,
(No.303),and
1858 replies
decision appealed from ; and, moreover, on its being a violation of the con- my of the
fidence, due to the personage addressed by me ( the Secretary of State) ; and I 17th ( No. 2) andto
24th May, 1858,
therefore declined to appear, as accuser , any further, except before the Secretary thetwofirst letters.
See par. 130, post.
[ * From the subsequent correspondence it would seem that this letter has been suppressed to this hour : see
pp. 32-5 post.]
D
 ( 10 )
of State himself, or as his Lordship should appoint me. But, at the same
time, I expressed every readiness, if sent for by any Commission or tribunal
whatsoever,—as a witness to be examined ,—to appear before them , merely as
such , and give my evidence.
Printed Report, 34. No notice was taken of my protests by his Excellency. But they
and par. 3, p. i.,
and printed Minutes, were respected by the Commission when appointed. It was only in the capa
and', eighteenth
first days, city of witness, that they invited , from time to time, my attendance ; and it was
27th May,17thJune, only in pursuance of such invitations,that I ever assisted at their proceedings.
pp . 1, 30 (2nd col.),
and 64 (2nd col.) ;
35. I had no part in the appointment of the Commission. As originally
and see the sum proposed, it was to consist of seven ; including the new Colonial Treasurer, and
monses addressed to
meby the Chairman the Surveyor-General; the former of whom would be, by virtue of rank, its
the Hon.Mr.Clever Chairman ; the latter being the next in precedence. But, in the Legislative
and letter
my the 7th Council, the former had expressed an anxiety for enquiry, and the latter an
16thofAugust,
1858, to Secretary anxiety not to enquire, into the accusations of Mr. May on the Brothels Ques
Sir E. Bulwer Lyt
ton , Bart., M.P. tion ; and the name of the former — who adhered, out of Council, to the views
theSee
Honthe Letter
. Mr. Forthof
, so expressed in it—was struck out of the draft. Mr. Forth protested in
May
to in 1858, referred
my letter of
writing ; but no answer was returned to his protest :—and the Surveyor-General
the 30th July, 1858, became first in rank upon the Commission, its Chairman, and invested with a
to the Acting Colo- double vote .
nial Secretary , Dr.
Bridges.
36. Another proposed member, Mr. Campbell, J. P., whose constant
duties, of Manager of the Oriental Bank Corporation, made it impossible for
See my Letter last him to attend the Commission, but who was nevertheless named upon it,
cited .
declined the nomination. This was probably expected — for he was known to
regard Mr. Caldwell's character in an unfavourable light. To his letter of the
Par. 117, post. 30th July, 1858 , commenting upon the Report of this Commission , I shall have
to refer your Grace hereafter.
See cross-exami 37. By these means, the Commission was reduced to Five, including the
nation of theatHon. Chairman . “ To protect Dr. Bridges' interests ,” — as the Chairman has subse
trialof ;theandQueen
Tarrant v.
see my
quently deposed in Court, according to his information and belief,—Mr. Lyall,
letter last cited . an intimate friend of Dr. Bridges, was proposed, and became another member
of the Five. A gentleman, over whom Mr. Lyall was believed to have in
fluence, was the third. The remaining two members were Mr. Scarth, J. P.,
of the firm of Turner and Company, whose extensive mercantile occupations,
elsewhere, caused him to be absent whole days, and seldom allowed him to be
present, for more than an hour at a time, during any one appointed sitting of
the Commission , and Mr. Davies, the chief magistrate ; to whom also, both
on account of sickness and official occupation, nearly the same remark is
applicable.
See printed Re 38. The Commission was further hampered, by the terms of its warrant
port, par. 3 (p.1.), of appointment, and by the choice made of a “ sole legal adviser and examiner,"
and printed Minutes,
& c., third day, 1st by itself, to control its own judgment.
June, 1858 (p. 10,
1st col.). 39. The former directed the Commission to enquire into “ the there under
written charges, which embraced the accusations made by the Attorney
See printed Re
General.” The latter was a Mr. Day.
port of the Caldwell
Commission (p. i .), and
40. But the “ underwritten charges ” were not compiled by the Attorney
my (unprinted)
protest letter
of the 24th May,of General at all, but by Mr. Caldwell's friends in office ; and they were, on
 ( 11 )
)
the contrary, beforehand and always, protested against and disavowed by the 1858,referred to by the
Attorney-General, both because they did not “ embrace his accusations” and &Ac.,;”firstprinted Minutes,
day, 27th May,
because they did “ embrace accusations ” not to be found in his own written see1858, p. 1 (Ist col.)
Ib. , eleventh day,
statements of charge, as addressed to the Local Government, and by which alone 3117th(2nd
June,col.)1858,pp.
and 33
he consented to be bound. Yet these last were never made nor treated as the (1st col.),"" and Dr.
Bridges' cross-examina
subjectmatter of the reference. tion at the trial of the
Queen v. Tarrant, ubi
41. Mr. Day, on the other hand, had been Mah Chow Wong's own suprà.
counsel, before, at, and after his applications to the Governor, for the pardon lettermyor( unprinted
profleste of)
of that powerful culprit; all which facts were perfectly well known to the June,
the 8th1858,andaddress
14th
fearful and hesitating Chinese witnesses; whom nevertheless it was the duty edto the Commis
sioners, and the re
of the Commission, by every means in its power, to encourage rather than to ferences thereto in
my letter of the 30th
intimidate. July, 1858, to Dr.
42. Mr. Day is no more . He died suddenly, within a month after lonial Actingy Co
Bridges,Secretar
succeeding to my office. I will neither infer nor state anything , against his
memory , which was not, or would not have been, admitted by himself,when
living, to be true.
1b. , ib .; and see
43. It was by his direction , then, that the Commissioners resolved to the cross - examina
tionoftheat Hon.
restrain their enquiry, by the tightest and strictest technicalities, prevailing in Cleverly Mr.
the trial
the Central Criminal Court. Having so resolved, they proceeded, with even ofthe Queen v.Tar
, ;
greater illiberality than those narrow rules would tolerate, to exclude all evi- Mr. Caldwell's' ad
dence of “ reputation,” as against Mr. Caldwell, either as to the property, the Missions in Printed.,
Minutes, &c.,fourth
tenth
relationship, or the character, of himself, or his Chinese connexions by marriage. dayth, 2nd,12th,enna
>
,
And yet, as to property at least, his own admissions were before them ; and, 14
16th(1stJune,1858,pp.
col.), 26 ( 1st
col.), and 28 (2nd
as to all three,-property, pedigree , and character — the nature of the first, the col.).
fact and circumstances of the second , and the quality of the third, were all
matters which had been referred to themselves, by Government, (against my
protest,) for a public investigation and a printed report. I had never contem
plated such a method of enquiry, nor indeed any method, but the usual one of
calling on Mr. Caldwell himself to answer, in writing or otherwise, but always
under the decent protection of official correspondence, the equally official state
ments of Messrs. May and Inglis, on which alone those charges themselves
were based . See “ No. 69, Go
vernment Notifica
tion ” of the 7th
44. I afterwards discovered, that Mr. Day had put in his claim to be August,1858, in the
Hong-Kong
appointed my acting successor, conditionally on my suspension from the ment Govern
Gazette of the
Attorney -Generalship, before the Executive Council had even met to authorise 14th August, 1858,
and the Correspond
that measure ; and the first and only Gazette notice of my own suspension was inenceappendi
relatingx tothereto
my
simply appended to that of his acting appointment , and merely by way of letter of the 16th
explaining the latter. August, 1858, to Se
cretary Sir E. Bulwer
45. Moreover, it was a condition of that appointment, and one which Lytton, Bart., M.P.
See my letter of
Dr. Bridges and Mr. Day carefully concealed until the death of the latter the 11th and 12th
, 1858, to
(which event, and Mr. Green's acting appointment, made further conceal- cretary"the Earlof
ment impossible), that Dr. Bridges, the then acting Colonial Secretary, should the
Malmesbury,thoseof
same dates to the
receive, out of the Attorney -General's emoluments, the fee of office, amounting the
Acting Secretary
Superin tendenctoy
to 250l., payable to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as of Trade atHong
Kong, and the letter
counsel to the Plenipotentiary, a misappropriation which was no sooner dis- of Under-Secretary
 ( 12 )
Mr. Hammond inre- covered by me than reported, and no sooner reported by me than peremptorily
ply to me, dated 8th
December, 1858. annulled by the Foreign Office. ta
See the second,
third , and sixteenth
46. Great numbers of witnesses were, by the means noticed (in para
paragraphs of ,their graphs 38 to 43), deterred from appearing before the Commission, or refused
i . and ii . a hearing when they appeared there; and the Commission itself appears to
have been sensible of the injury, thereby resulting to the avowed main object и Ге

of enquiry, namely the question whether Mr. Caldwell, for any reason what
ever, was unfitted to hold the office of a Justice of the Peace.




DC
See pars. 19 and 47. A further fact must here be stated . The books and papers of the HI,
20, suprà : and see
the printedMinutes, convict Mah Chow Wong, which remained, after the abstraction denounced by
& c ., eleventh and
twelfth days,, 17th
and 1858,
Mr. Mongan, as also the Index or “ Memoranda ” of Mr. May, had been repeat
p.32 (2nd"col.).and edly assumed by the Governor and Dr. Bridges, in the discussions of the
35-7 the Policeof Legislative Council of the 10th and 14th May, 1858, and their subsequent
Court,Depositions
theHon.
Cleverly and Messrs
Davies
. correspondence and communications, to be still in existence, and ready to be DO


( Aug. and Oct, produced, according to the tenor of my own applications to Government and
;
1858), and alsotheof of Mr. May’s application to the Commission . Yet not one of these documents
-examination BA
the former at the
trial in the Supreme was ever laid before the Commission.
Court, Queen 2. Tar- 48. At length, however, about six weeks after those documents were so hi
rant, ubi suprà ; see
also my Lettersof for the first time referred to, and nine days after the last time of such li

and24th May, 1858, reference, Sir John Bowring first informed the Commission of Enquiry, that the
nial Secretary, Dr. originals of the whole of Mah Chow Wong's books and papers had been (97
Bridges, and his
plies thereto re
bif the burned, by order of the Local Government. He further informed them that
15th, 17th (Nos and he knew nothing of the “ Memoranda .”” If these had ever had any existence,
and 276 ), 18th,. 272
25th May, 1858 . they were now no longer to be found .
Ib. , ib. ; and see
printed Minutes, fif 49. Some attempt was made to show , that the date of the spoliation and
teenthand
days, 28th eighteenth
June and burning, of the first body of evidence, was long anterior to the ventilation, by
1stJuly , 1858, pp: myself, of any matters of suspicion against Mr. Caldwell, and that the
50 (2nd col.), and
65 ( 1st col.). documents were so destroyed, merely because they encumbered the office of the
Ib . ib.,
printed and see
Report, p:gentleman in whose hands they were, and who was directed to destroy them.
. ; and printed The Commission appears to have given entire credit to both of these
iii
Minutes, & c., thir
teenth day, 23rd statements.
June, *1858, p . 41
(2nd col.). 50. But no attempt was, then or ever, made to explain that disappearance
Ib., ib.; and
'
see of the “ Memoranda ” too,—that long concealment of the authorised destruction
examination at the of the originals ( supposing it to have taken place at the period suggested ), —— and
trial of the Queen those subsequent promises ,express and implied , to produce them , both originals
and “ Memoranda ,” before the Commission. But, five months later (when the
Commission had ceased to be), it was reluctantly admitted by Dr. Bridges
himself, and on oath, that the true date on which he, with or without the
Governor's own sanction , ordered their destruction , was “ about six weeks
before the day, on which the fact, of its having taken place, was communicated
to the Commission . That day was the 17th June, 1858. And, consequently, the
destruction must have been ordered, not only long after I had commenced to
warn his Excellency, of Mr. Caldwell's connection with Mah Chow Wong, but
even at or about the very time, when I first referred, in Legislative Council, to
those papers as containing evidence of the fact ; that is to say, the 10th May,
 ( 13 )

1858. Moreover, Dr. Bridges deposed, that he was not aware, whether the
orders, then given by him, were even obeyed at the time they were given, or
long afterwards, or what was the period, when the destruction actually took
place.
51. Another of Sir John Bowring’s witnesses, on the same occasion, was Cross -examination
of Mr. Mongan, Act
the young gentleman by whose hand the destruction took place. He deposed, ing Chinese Secro
tary, at the trial of
that the whole volume of “ the suspicious papers,”—SO destroyed, for the Queen v.Tar
“ encumbering the office, ” where they happened to be, but “ ought not to have rant, ubisuprà.
been,” and of which he was at that time the acting head,-was “ not more than
à cubic foot ;" that “ he must say, that there was room in the office for them;"
that “ the office itself belonged to the general department of the Superin
tendency of Trade, a department possessing archive and other rooms, besides
his office ; " and that, as these documents were only there, on loan, from the
judicial and police departments, the proper course, even if they were any real
incumbrance, would have been to restore them to those departments, whose
“ Records ” he considered them to be. Mr. Mongan further declared , on taxing
his memory , that he had some remembrance of the missing " Memoranda ”
being sent into his office, subsequently to their production , before the Executive
Council, in opposition to the “ Report ” made by Mr. Caldwell upon the books Ib .; and see the
and papers of Mah Chow Wong. Thus, so far as regards this latter point, my printed Minutes,
&c., eleventh and
own evidence (as given before the Commission, but contradicted by Dr. Bridges) fifteenth days, 17th
to the effect that, in a conversation I had had with Mr. Wade, the head of that and 28th
32 June, 1858,
office, some months afterwards, Mr. Wade informed me of the nature of the and 51 (1st col.).
9

“ Memoranda ” in question, and that they were then still remaining in his
hands, was entirely confirmed by Mr. Mongan.
52. Since my departure from the island, it has been publicly confessed, by See No. 40 ' Go
the Hong-Kong Government, that the “ Memoranda ” were, as so stated by me, tion of the19th April,
in existence, and in Mr. Wade's hands, at that time, and so continued during 1859, in the Hong
all the sittings of the Commission, and the whole of my subsequent corres- April,
Gazette 1859
of the23rd
; and
pondence with that Government, and from thence down to the 12th March, myLetter to'Secre
ton of the10thJune,