case-of-hong-kong-correspondence-between — Page 2

1859, when they were first restored by Mr. Wade, under official cover of that 1859.
date, to the Hong-Kong Secretariat. The “ Notification ” in question contains
an entire copy of the “ Memoranda ; ” and I understand, from Mr. May, that the
Secretary of State has also received a manuscript copy thereof, with additional
Reports, from Mr. May himself, and also from Mr. Caldwell, on the subjects to
which the entries therein contained relate. I have myself offered to give every
information in my power, to your Grace's predecessor, with respect to them .
But my letter, for the reason already mentioned , remains unanswered .
53. Those entries belong to two classes :
1. Such as affect Mah Chow Wong himself.
2. Such as affect Mr. Caldwell.
54. ( 1. ) Those which affect Mah Chow Wong show him to have been en
gaged, habitually and by way of vocation , in piratical operations on the largest
scale. They tell of the equipment and armament of pirate ships, despatch of
such on piratical expeditions,' resetting of pirates at home, confederacy with
E
 ( 14 )

pirates and assassins abroad, kidnapping at Hong-Kong, and the slave-trade in
the Straits of Malacca.
55. ( 2.) Those which affect Mr. Caldwell show him to have been, during
the whole period of those avocations of Mah Chow Wong, in intimate and
private relations with that convict. There is a message of thanks to himself,
through Mah Chow Wong, from a Chinese mandarin during the late war, for
assisting to recover and restore Government plunder, made by the Queen's
Ib. ib.,and
9
see
May's Evidence in
Mr. troops, from the writer's station. There are payments of money to Mr. Caldwell,
Printed Minutes,, and receipts from him, and on his account. There is a transaction, binding a
&18th twelftheday,
c ; June, 1858, p. Chinaman of Hong-Kong, who has a suit for lands there, to make them over (if
37 ( col. 1). the suit succeeds) to the party conducting the suit (that is to say, Mr. Caldwell ),
for the sum of 1500 dollars, out of which Mr. Caldwell , though not a lawyer
certainly, may also retain to himself the sum of 500 dollars for costs.
See the ' Letter of 56. Mr. Wade, as I have said, had been deceived, by Sir John Bowring's
Thomas Secretary
Chinese to Government, into the belief, that the original papers, to which these " Memo
Wade,Esq.,
the Plenipotentiary,' randa” were an index, had been already examined by Mr. Mongan, who was a
of the 12th March ,
1859, printedby student interpreter, and a rising scholar, and on whose accuracy he relied .
Kong ' in the Hong The Government had further concealed the fact, that it was to Mr. Caldwell
Order,
Gazette of the 23rd himself that they had been entrusted for that purpose, and that the examination
myletterofthe
June, 10th
1859, to Secre (if any) was made by himself, and not by Mr. Mongan. Mr. Wade, not yet un
tary SirE. B. Lytton. deceived, now advances the same erroneous belief, to explain a fact — not known
when I left the island, -namely that he ( Mr. Wade) “ never went through
and never looked into the papers ” so referred to him, during the whole period
of their being in his hands ; for, if Mr. Mongan had searched them, his search ,
he thought, would be only labour in vain . Before he returned to his office, the
burning had taken place, and it was then too late . He therefore gives “ no
opinion” upon the accuracy of the references, contained in the “ Memoranda ;"
having no longer the means of judgment. But he acknowledges that they are
" documents of an important character ,” and that “ they note, as being amongst
the destroyed documents, other important papers, gravely reflecting on the cha
racter of Mr. Caldwell.”
Cross- examination 57. Mr. Mongan, who had the originals in his custody, before and after
of Mr. Mongan at
the trialof the Queen Mr. Wade, has deposed, in open court, that “the · Memoranda ' were too cir
v.Tarrant, ubi suprà. cumstantial to be forgeries."
Printed Minutes, 58. The Queen's Printer, Mr. Dixson, and the Acting Attorney -General,
& c., second, seven-
teenth , and eigh
Mr. Kingsmill, each of whom had at the time a peculiar reason of his own for
teenth days,June,
May, 30th 28th testing their accuracy , confirm ( the former upon oath) Mr. May’s narrative, as
and '1st July,1858, to the nature of the entries in the destroyed documents, so “noted” in his
pp. 8, 9, 62, and 64, “ Memoranda ."
( ist col.).
1
Printed Minutes, 59. The Chief Magistrate, Mr. Davies, himself the committing magistrate
& c., twenty-second
day, 13th July,
in Mah Chow Wong's case, and afterwards aa Commissioner of Enquiry into that
1858, pp. 87 (2nd of Mr. Caldwell, saw the “ Memoranda ” soon after they were made, had them
col:).. and 88 (Ist in his possession “ two or three days,” while the originals were in the hands
of the Local Government, and says that, if Mr. May did not then volunteer
their production to the Government, it was because he (Mr. Davies) dissuaded
 ( 15 )
him from parting with a document, which he thought would be Mr. May's
safeguard against imputations, already hinted at by Dr. Bridges, of malicious
meaning towards Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Davies “ really does not think, that he
( Mr. May) was guilty of even the smallest act, from which , even now , when he
(Mr. Davies) looks back on his (Mr. May’s) conduct, with the further know
ledge of his relations with Mr. Caldwell, he (Mr. Davies) could, even if he had
the greatest wish to do so, conclude that he (Mr. May ) acted unfairly, or with
hostile feelings, towards Mr. Caldwell.” He too confirms the secondary evi
dence, given by Mr. May, as to “ the general nature of the contents of the
)
Memoranda ." "
60. It follows then, that, on the face of these papers, Mr. Caldwell is, now
at least, convicted, of having had pecuniary accounts and dealings with aa China
man whose only way of life, at that very time, was notoriously the way of
piracy and murder ; and, further, of having deliberately deceived the Executive
Council, as to the nature of those papers and their contents, by preparing and
presenting to that body a Report ” of a so -called “ Examination ” of the
documents ; whích “ Report ” was false, as well in respect of the entries which
related to the convict, as of those which related to himself.
61. But the Commission of Enquiry, hampered already by packing of its
members, the terms of its warrant of appointment, and its own ill-advised
submission of all its actions to the arbitrary opinion of Mah Chow . Wong's
counsel (and perhaps my expectant successor in the Attorney -Generalship ),
was, by the entire destruction of the original documents, by an untrue state
ment of the cause and manner of that destruction , and by the suppression of
the “ Memoranda” ( containing that secondary evidence of their contents which
is now before your Grace), further 'misled into making a Report of a most
unsatisfactory nature.
62. The Chairman , whose casting vote alone carried the Report, so far as Cross - examination
of the Hon . the Sur
it favoured Mr. Caldwell, has at a subsequent period, and upon oath, explained veyor-Generalatthe
that vote away. He has explained, in open court, that “there had been im- vtrial of theubi suprà
. Tarrant, Queen.
portant evidence, subsequently given in the Supreme Court, which the Com
missioners had not heard ; " that “the (sworn) evidence of Dr. Bridges and
* Mr. Mongan was so different from what had been given by them (unsworn)
before the Commission, as to amount to new evidence ; ” and that, “ since the
Report of the Commission had been handed in, further evidence had come to
his knowledge ."
63. The Commissioners are certainly entitled to all the benefit of that Printed Report,
pp. i.-iii.
explanation. But it cannot excuse them for having added, to these difficulties,
those of their own creation already noticed ; nor the haste, with which they
proceeded to draw up, pass, and return their Report, without taking a day's
time to consider the evidence which they (in “ 25 sittings extending over seven Ib. par. 2, p. i.
weeks ” ) had contrived to take ; and from which Report, consequently, all notice
of very important matters, that had been established ,—some days, or even some
weeks, before, to their entire satisfaction ,-is altogether excluded! ; whilst others,
which are noticed, are very imperfectly noticed, and very unsatisfactorily, and
 ( 16 ) Mr. (
plata
sometimes very erroneously, found. I invite your Grace's attention to a few
instances. and be
See their printed
Report ; pars. 5, 6, 64, Mr. Caldwell's unsupported statements, in his own exculpation, no
8, 10, and 22 ; and denial
see theprinted Mi- matter how much soever contradicted, were invariably admitted , as " satis
proce
third,winth;, factory " evidence, by the Commissioners, in his favour ; and their “ legal
nutes,,, and 2 >
third days; 1st,12th, adviser” and “ examiner,” Mr. Day, certainly did not point out the impropriety
and 16th June, and
3

them,
14th July, 1858, pp. or even the largeness of the concession.
10, 11, 25-7, 28-9, 80000
88-96 . 65. In this favourable position, the only witnesses, whom Mr. Caldwell 7
Ib. .
haib, Minutes
printed and see judged it prudent to call, were his Chinese wife, Ayow ,—his Chinese servant, Sze I am
& c., third, fifth, se- Kai,—his solicitor, Mr. Stace,—his Chinese quack -doctor and vendee of brothel
venth, eighth , tenth ,
-




Mr. I
fifteenth, sixteenth, property , Lum Ateen , —the Acting Colonial Secretary, Dr. Bridges,—and his -




and days ; naerk
1st, third, ninth, (Mr. Caldwell's) own assistant, in the office of Registrar - General, a Mr. dialar
eleventh; sixteenth, Grandpré (a Macao-Portuguese ) ; who also was at the time, and probably now
28th, and 29th June, Flere
and 1st July, 1858 ; is, a tenant of other licensed brothel property, under lease, from Mr. Caldwell's
pp. 11, 12, 15, 16 , anc list
and 16 (1st and 2nd partner and co- insolvent, Mr. Rienaecker, the defaulting Colonial Treasurer
cols. ), 20-1, 23 (1st
and2nd cols.), 29. mentioned above. let the
30, 50-4 , 64-5, and
69-70 . 66. Ayow was called to speak to her own character, and to lay claim , in
25 ()
Pars.4, 5, 6,supra . her own right, to the property , standing in Mr. Caldwell's name, at the Land
Office or elsewhere. The indelicacy of her being present, for such a purpose,
TEST
occasioned great pain to nearly every one who heard her evidence.
67. Sze Kai, Lum Ateen, Mr. Stace, Dr. Bridges, and Mr. Grandpré,
only confirmed the main facts of the real or reputed ownership of Mr. Cald
30000
well over the brothel property ( claimed nevertheless to have been purchased
from him by Lum Ateen himself), and of Mr. Caldwell's acts of interference,
on behalf of Mah Chow Wong, as already stated . They gave no material TAY

evidence in his favour, and they failed to impeach the motives of those who
allein
had testified, or were going to testify, against him .
68. But the last two witnesses made further admissions ; apparently with But
Call
out feeling their force, as to their own part in these matters.
Colleg
Printed Minutes, 69. Dr. Bridges stated, that he had himself afforded his voluntary profes
&teenth
c.,seventh andfif-
days, 9th and
sional services, for Mr. Caldwell, in adjusting his insolvency, and inducing
28th June,1858, pp: the creditors to accede to the arrangement, as above mentioned ; and that, in
20 ( 2nd col.) and 50
(1st col.). giving Mr. Caldwell his support and countenance against all accusations, he
-
of the Hon. the Sur. had acted out of a sense of his duty, “ as a Freemason ;" which last observa
veyor-General
trial v. tion was thereupon unanimously expunged from the Minutes, “ as highly
at the
of the Queen
Tarrant, ubi suprà ; improper ;" for so, the Chairman of the Commission - himself a Freemason
and see Mr. Cald
well's three Appeals has since deposed upon oath. beau
to the Freemasons in
printed Minutes, &c., 70. The narrative, which Mr. Grandpré gave, of his own conduct, is still
-
twenty-Fourth days, more instructive; and the rather, since, in their haste to get done ( the English th
14thand16th
1858, pp . ( 2nd, Mail being about to
July be despatched ), the Commissioners overlooked it altogether,
dow
col.), 93-4, and97 during the few hours engaged in preparing and signing their Report. It must
(1st col.).
be supposed that, if they had not so overlooked it, they would have cen
sured it.
71. He began by declaring, “ that he had nothing to do with the registration He
Printed Minutes,
&c., sixth day,8th of brothels ; that he was not Assistant Registrar-General ; that the branch of
June, 1858, p. 17
(1st col.).
 ( 17 )
Mr. Caldwell s duties was entirely distinct from his own ; that he had nothing
whatever to do with Mr. Caldwell, beyond having an office in the same building,
and being on the pay list of his department.”
72. The Commission, giving credit to these repeated and unequivocal
denials, decided not to affect Mr. Caldwell, with notice of Mr. Grandpré's
proceedings. To that extent they were, for the time, in the right; but only
for the time ; and, even at that time, some notice ought to have been taken of
them , as affecting Mr. Grandpre, himself a public officer. This is his own
account of them :
73. “ I am collector of Police Rates, and have been so since January, 1858. Ib., ib.
I am the occupant of (Crown ) Lot 218. This lot still stands in the name of
Mr. Rienaecker, as owner , in the Land Office books. From the time Mr. Rie
naecker left this colony , to the present , I have rented it from him, at one hundred
dollars a month . It is now sublet to two persons ; one house to Victoriano
Flores , and the other four to a ( Chinese) woman named Assoo . Three of these
are licensed brothels. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Caldwell has no direct
or indirect interest in this property ; nor has Mr. Caldwell , since Mr. Rienaecker
left the colony, interfered with me in the management of it. I have never paid
any of the rent to him, but always to Siemssen and Co., as agents for Mr.
Rienaecker. I let the houses to Assoo , long before the · Brothels Ordinance '
was passed . I believe her to be a notorious brothel keeper. She has been , I think,
twice prosecuted by the police, for keeping a disorderly house . I get, for the houses,
AN ADVANCED RENT , beyond the one hundred dollars, which I pay in, on
account to Mr. Rienaecker , to Siemssen and Co. I have not received any
permission , from Mr. Caldwell , to have any connection with this property .
WHY SHOULD I ?"
74. The question was not answered at the time ; and the Commissioners Printed Minutes,
allowed their commission to expire, and the question still to remain unanswered . & c.,eighth day,11th
p. 24
But they might have replied, that this “ Mr. Rienaecker ” had been Mr. (2nd col.).
Caldwell's partner, and was his co- insolvent; that Mr. Caldwell had himself
alleged, that, to this very firm of “ Siemssen and Co.” he had executed the
assignment of all his property, in trust for his own creditors, and had but
carried out their wishes, when he made sale of “ Licensed Brothel, No. 48 ”
to his own quack -doctor, Lum Ateen ; and, above all, that Mr. Grandpre’s
disclaimer of all connection with the licensing of brothels, was, within a few
hours afterwards, proved by documentary and other evidence, and even ad
mitted by himself, to be utterly false ; and his memory as to dates shown to
be equally erroneous.
75. For, on the next day after Mr. Grandpré had made that disclaimer,
the Commission took the following uncontradicted evidence of Mr. May himself,
whose official subordinate the former had been, in the Police Department,
down to his then recent appointment to the office, which he actually held,
under Mr. Caldwell.
76. “ I heard Mr. Grandpré's evidence. I saw his letter of appointment. 9thIb., seventh
June, 1858,day,
p.
He was therein appointed as second in rank in the Registration Office, to have 21 (2nd col.).
F
 ( 18 )
special charge of the collection of the Police Rate, and to assist (when not so
employed ) in the business of the Registration Office. I know, of my own know 世

ledge, that the houses let by Mr. Grandpré to Assoo were not occupied by her until
ABOUT OR AFTER the passing of the Brothels Ordinance."
Ib., ib., p. 20 (2nd 77. And, on the same day, the Acting Colonial Secretary himself confessed
col.).
that, in practice, as well as by the very letter of the “ Brothels Ordinance,” it
was the sole duty of the Registrar -General “ to license the brothels, to register 1

them , to receive the license fees, and to send their women to hospital.” Dr.
Bridges also produced, being required, the “ Letter of Appointment, from
himself, of Mr. Grandpré to the post of Assistant Registrar-General.” LE
1b., ninth day, 78. Resummoned, to explain or retract his former statement, Mr. Grandpré
12th June, 1858, p.
25 (2nd col.). was consequently obliged to confess that, “ on having his attention drawn to
the letter of the 2nd December last from the Acting Colonial Secretary, he T

perceives, that he is attached to the Registrar-General's department, second in rank
and subordinate to the Registrar -General, and expected to co-operate generally in
the service of the department, when not employed in the discharge of peculiar
duties." !




Ib., fourteenth day, 79. There is also some further uncontradicted evidence of Mr. May, to the
24th(1stJune,1858,
46 col.). p. effect, that Mr. Grandpre’s leaning towards Mr. Caldwell's interests, at the time
of Mah Chow Wong's arrest, led him into a serious disobedience of orders, im 1

posed upon him as then Acting Assistant Superintendent of Police, and such as
to have nearly occasioned the criminal's escape from arrest and from justice ;
and that, but for Mr. May's compassion, Mr. Grandpré's own punishment, at the
hands of the local authorities, must have ensued. .




80. On all these points, however, the Report of the Commission is perfectly
silent — that body contenting itself with the admission of Mr. Grandpré, as if he
had been an unexceptionable witness.
81. The chief witnesses, against Mr. Caldwell, upon the Commission, were
myself, Mr. May, J.P., Mr. Inglis, J.P., the Chief Magistrate (the Hon. Mr.
Davies, J.P.) , the Assistant Magistrate (Mr. Mitchell, J.P.), Mr. Turner, the
Crown Solicitor, Mr. Kingsmill, now Acting Attorney -General, Mr. Dixson ,
>



the Queen's printer, Inspectors Lyons and Roberts, Mr. Tarrant, and ( for the
purpose merely of verifying the entries in the Land Register and the Treasury
receipts of Crown rents for the brothel property) the Clerks of the Land Office
and Treasury .
82. By one or more of these witnesses, every statement that I had ever
made was fully proved against Mr. Caldwell. I am not answerable for the
wording and arrangement of the pretended “ nineteen charges,” which I had
protested against and repudiated. And yet, even those were, substantially,
proved, as the minutes of evidence — for I shall not attempt to analyse them
will shew ; even in the instances, where the hastily-drawn Report ignores, or is
silent with regard to, such evidence.
83. I have already said much to explain the discrepancies of that docu
ment. But there is yet one incongruity remaining, to account for which, special
circumstances have been also alleged, by some of the Commissioners themselves ;
 ( 19 )
I mean the fact that, instead of sending in a separate Report of their own , the
hostile minority of two affixed their own signatures to a Report, carried against
them by their three colleaguesma circumstance twice recorded on the face of
the Report itself.
Cross-examination
84. It was promised, they say, that all the evidence, oral and documentary, of the Hon . the Sur
as taken by the Commission , was to be printed and circulated with the Report. trial
veyor-General at the
of the Queen v .
Tarrant, ubi suprà ;
But the promise was not kept. The local Government, on obtaining the Report and
see my letter of
itself, “ suppressed the whole of the documentary evidence,” and “thereby the30th yeah ye heste,
rendered the printed minutes of the oral evidence quite unintelligible .” The to Acting Colonial
same bad faith is complained of, with respect to another “understanding" come My letter of the
August, 1858 ,
to between the majority of three and “ the minority of two,” namely, that on to Sectetarg Sire
the Report being signed by all, the three Members of the Commission, who B. Lytton .
were also Legislative Councillors, should support, in Council, my motion ( which
stood for the very day following their Report) for the suppression of Mr.
Caldwell's office. It was said that, by carrying that motion, they would get rid
of the man himself, as a Justice of the Peace and Registrar-General, without a
direct vote against his capacity for meaner employment. Mr. Scarth, J.P., a My letter to the
member of that minority, is now in England, as I have informed the Colonial same Minister ofthe
Department, and will prove the fact —- if your Grace desires it. It is certain
that, at the Executive Council, which was sitting to receive the Report so
agreed to, the Resolution was at once taken , to postpone, sine die, the next day's
meeting of the Legislative Council. And it was not until nearly three months of Cross - examination
the Hon . the Sur
afterwards, that it was again called together. In the mean time, my suspension veyor -General,ubi
suprà.
from the Attorney -Generalship had taken place, on which event I necessarily
ceased also to be summoned to the Council ; and, thereby, the anticipated motion ,
for the suppression of the office, dropped ; there being no one to undertake it.
85. Having now stated every circumstance, within my knowledge, which
may serve as an apology for the Report, I will , before proceeding to state its
main findings, merely add, that it was drawn, considered, and approved in draft Cross - examination
of the same.
on Saturday morning, copied for signature on Sunday, and signed in the
morning of Monday - no time having been taken to consider the two months'
evidence, on which it was supposed to rest.
86. By that ill-considered instrument, the Commission reported to the
following effect :
87. That the “ Brothels' charges ” were “ Not Proven” (but no grounds Printed Report,
.
for that finding were assigned ); and it was added that “ there were grounds for & c., pp. i. üi.
bringing those charges.”
88. That the character of Mr. Caldwell's connections, by marriage or
otherwise, amongst the Chinese was also “ Not Proven ” (and, again, without
assigning grounds for this latter finding).
89. And that, with respect to some matters of mere inference, or matters
stated merely in corroboration of charges, Mr. Caldwell was “ Not Guilty.”
90. They found him Guilty under the following heads :
91. (1.) “ A long and intimate connection between himself and Mah Chow
Wong ."
 ( 20 )
92. (2.) “ Being in the habit, on Mah Chow Wong's unsupported informa
tion, of arresting persons.”
93. (3.) “ Aiding in the acceptance of Szekai, his former servant, as bail
for Mah Chow Wong ; Szekai having been imprisoned for debt for a few days
a short time previously .”
Printed Minutes, 94. ( 4.) “ A partnership with Mah Chow Wong in a lorcha (Mr. Caldwell
&c ., -
day, 14th July, himself having admitted aa connection with eight").
1858, p . 90 (2nd
col . ). 95. (5.) “ Inducing the Attorney -General, at the beginning of 1857, to
order the release of a great number of men, whom Mr. May knows to have
been pirates, and who Mr. Caldwell ought to have known were pirates.” 5

.

96. (6.) Making, for that purpose, “ a representation of their (good )
character ; it appearing incomprehensible (to the Commission ) how any person , 11




with Mr. Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language, and holding the
appointment he did, could have been ignorant of the character of the boats, in
which the men were seized, and that one at least of these men was a notorious
pirate,-PARTICULARLY, as it is in evidence, that Mau Chow Wong was concerned
with the boats .”
97. (7.) And of having, “ since the commencement of this enquiry, solely
upon the information contained in an anonymous (Chinese) letter (that certain
property had been stolen ), personally, and without the assistance of the police,
searched a room in the occupation of a Chinese interpreter, whom Mr. Caldwell
knew to be about to give evidence before the Commission , acting therein
injudiciously, to say the least of it" (the Commissioners having, twice previously
in the same Report, recorded “the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence,"
and that “ it is manifest, that the Chinese are very averse to give evidence
against him, Mr. Caldwell").
98. They further find, unanimously, but specially (a majority of Three to
Two having declined to make it a direct finding of Guilty ; unanimously
admitting, however, that “the said finding is in support of the inference of his
unfitness to be a justice of the peace ") ;
99. (8.) “ That a sum of money was offered, by a Chinaman , as a mark of
gratitude to Mr. Caldwell, for being instrumental in the release of a lorcha
seized by pirates, in which the man's father was ; but that this money was
refused by Mr. Caldwell, and, on such refusal, offered to Mrs. Caldwell, as a
present for the children ; a majority, however (of Three to Two ), do not feel
satisfied that Mrs. Caldwell accepted this money."
100. (9.) “ That a Chinese female, named Shap Lok, who had been in
frequent communication with Mr. Caldwell, and is reported (reputed ? ) but not
proved ( ? ) to be a sister, by Chinese usage, of Mrs. Caldwell, received from
the Foo T'ai pawn -shop the sum of four hundred dollars, because the sentence
on a pawnbroker, belonging to the said shop, had been mitigated, as was sup
posed, through her influence; and that she received a further sum of fifty dollars,
for her trouble in the matter." 1




101. (10.) “ Mr. Caldwell's connection with so notorious a character as
Mah Chow Wong ."




1
 ( 21 )

102. (11 ). “ That Mr. Caldwell's original appointment may have been
injudicious.”
103. ( 12.) But, lastly, “ That, notwithstanding these facts, it appears to a
majority (Three to Two) of this Commission, that they do not necessitate so
>
strong a measure, as his removal from that office.”
104. Even if this Report had acquitted Mr. Caldwell ,-- still it had only
been , in the first instance, my duty to have represented, to the authorities, the
charges made, by persons of credit, upon matters so gravely concerning the
administration ofjustice. But there can be no doubt that, for all the purposes,
which alone can even justify any government enquiry whatever, into the con
duct of an official, the above Report must be taken to be fatal to the character of
Mr. Caldwell, and his fitness to retain his employment.
105. The Governor, however, appears to have thought otherwise . Letter from the

106. No sooner was the Report handed in, than I was officially informed Acting ,Dr.
Colonja! Se
Bridges,
by the Acting Colonial Secretary, that his Excellency considered that “none of to23rdmyself (No.433),
July , 1858.
the charges had been substantially proved;" that, “ many of them were reported
to have been brought on insufficient grounds ; ” and that “ his Excellency could
consider the decision of the Commissioners, in no other light than as an excul
pation of Mr. Caldwell.” This supposed failure of the charges, against the latter,
I was further informed, seemed to his Excellency good ground for proceeding
to my own suspension ; as having thereby “ proved myself to be entirely defi
cient in the qualities, necessary to the discharge ofmy functions, by my inability,
in that matter, to distinguish between real guilt, and the mere effusions of private
malice or common report.” I was further charged, with having given my own
evidence, beforethe Commission ,“ with precipitancy, intemperance, an appear
ance of malignity and partiality ;" and with baving introduced into it“ vitupe
rative and defamatory matter, without, in any way, furthering the objects of the
Commission, or the promotion of the public good.” His Excellency concluded ,
by calling upon me to furnish “ a satisfactory defence or explanation" of my
conduct; and he intimated that, in the event of its not being “ satisfactory ,”
he should proceed, in Executive Council, to my suspension .
107. I lost no time in sending the demanded “ defence and explanation .”
108. Apprehending, from the tenor and tone of the demand, and, as the Letter from my
self of the 30th July,
sequel soon proved, with too much reason , that the proceedings in Executive 1858, totheActing
Council were designed to be taken ex parte, II prefaced my“ defence and expla- Colonial Secretary,
nation ,” with a protest of the illegality of the measure ; claiming, as of right, Printed Rules and
the benefit of the “ Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service,” M. ColonialService,,
promulgated by the Secretary of State for general information ; which peremp- Rules, Edition
79:81 (Rerof
torily forbade any Governor, even in Executive Council, to suspend any officer, and
1856),
see PP:
the 25-6
cases;
appointed by the Queen, without first observing the formalities thereby pre- Re
(in Willis
Privy Council)
and Re
scribed ; and which were intended to secure deliberation on the part of the tri- Montague ; and see
bunal, and to the accused notice of the charges, time to answer them , open Parl . Pa. on the case
of Chief Justice Ped
trial, and the opportunity of being personally present thereat. It is however der, 1949-50,
Land . Van
one of the peculiarities of my case, that, neither then nor afterwards, was any
notice whatever taken by any person of this claim of right and justice.
G
 ( 22 )
Letter (No. 454) 109. My “defence and explanation " contained as close an analysis of the
to
myself, 28th July, Report and Minutes of Evidence as was possible under great difficulties ; that is
1858. to say, the shortness of the time allotted me (only two days from the date of the
Cross-examination Minutes being placed in my hands), pressure of official occupation, sickness, and
of the-General
Hon.theSurë
and above all, the Governor's deliberate and final refusal, in defiance of the protests
Dr. Bridges
trial of at thev. of the expired Commission , to allow any portion of the documentary evidence
the Queen
Tarrant, ubisuprà. to be printed ; a refusal, which was a breach at once of his own engagement to
And see letter to
myself (No. 447) the public — to print “ the whole of the evidence ” —and his “ order” in favour
from Dr. Bridges,
24th July, 1858. of myself — that I was to be furnished with “ a printed copy of such evidence.”
Memorandum ofthe I was not even allowed any copy of, or access to, those documents, although so
gistrate,29thJuly, interwoven with the vivâ voce portion of the same as to be absolutely essential,
1858 .

in the opinion of the Commissioners themselves, to the due understanding of
the latter.*
>

110. If that “ Defence and Explanation " is, as it should be, in the Colonial
Department, t it will speak for itself. To recapitulate its contents here would
be to reiterate much of what I have already stated. The same ground is taken
—the same refutation given to the suggestion, that the Report of the Commission
deserved to be considered, by his Excellency, in the light in which, according to
the letter of his acting Colonial Secretary, Sir John Bowring considered it.
111. The Commissioners had themselves repudiated one portion of that
suggestion. On the day of the date of my “ Defence and Explanation,” and
whilst I was putting the last hand to it, I received, through their Chairman,
the following communication, signed by himself and three other members of
the Commission ; including every one of the majority which had carried the
My letter twE. Se-
creta B.
Report. There was but one name—that of Mr. Scarth, J.P. -not appended to
Lytton, Bart.,M.P., the communication. He, however, was then absent at Macao ; and, before his
1859e. 18th May, departure, he had already addressed me on the same subject. I have already
notified your Grace's department, that he is now in England, and may be ques
tioned on the subject. In the mean time, I subjoin , to the letter of his colleagues,
the contents of his own, which will show your Grace , that he not only con
curred in the opinion , expressed by his colleagues , so far as Mr. May and myself
were concerned , but that he and the Chief Magistrate , the Hon . Mr. Davies ,
also concurred in the opinion , entertained by Mr. May and myself, of the
“ charges ” themselves, so far “ as they affected Mr. Caldwell.”
112. The former is as follows :
Letter to myself 113. “ The members of the late Commission, appointed to investigate cer
How the tain charges against Mr. Caldwell, have been led to believe, that their Report
from the-General
30th July, 1858 .
has been construed, by the Government, as imputing grave misconduct to Mr.
Anstey and Mr. May, in connection with that enquiry. I therefore, as Chair
man of this Commission, in concurrence with my fellow Commissioners, deem
it my duty to declare that, when we signed that Report, we did not conceive
that it would be so construed ; nor did we intend, in our Report, to imply that,
there was any want of good faith and justice, in the proceedings of these gentle
[* It would now appear that the latter too has been since suppressed . See post, pp. 32-5.
† And this also . — 16 .]
 ( 23 )
men . The Report was simply intended to refer to the charges, as they affect
Mr. Caldwell.”
114. Mr. Scarth's letter is as follows :
115. “ I think it only just to you and Mr. May, after what I have heard Letter from John
Scarth, Esq ., J.P.,
this morning, to state that I, as a member of the Caldwell Commission , wasfirmly of the 24th July,
of impression, and am so still, that there were not only good grounds for bringing 1858, to myself.
nearly all the charges, but that some of them were proved against Mr. Caldwell, as >


the Report will show. And I think that those charges, which were proved, were of
such a serious nature, and affecting so much the general interests of the Colony, that
you are entitled to thanks, for having been the means of getting them investigated.
Excuse haste, as I am off to Macao. But, as Mr. Davies and I agree in nearly
all matters relative to the Caldwell enquiry, he will act for me, if there is anything
to be done, in further giving an opinion on the subject.”
116. I transmitted to the Governor, with my “ Defence and Explanation,” Cross - examination
of the Hon . the Sur
the above two certificates of opinion, although the former of the two had veyor-General at the
It afterwards trial, ubi suprà.
been already sent up by the Commissioners themselves.
transpired, that they had been treated with much discourtesy for having sent
it. But , to me, no notice has ever been taken of either certificate.
117. I likewise caused my “ Defence and Explanation ” to be accom
panied with certain letters, received from all the unpaid Justices of the Peace,
excepting those who had been on the Commission, and also excepting the
Governor's own son ; who, for obvious reasons of delicacy, had not been
consulted upon the question, which was, “ Whether, taking for true the facts
found, by the Report, against Mr. Caldwell , the Justices agreed with the
majority of the Commission in thinking, that the said facts did not necessitate
his removal from the Bench .”
118. One Justice, the Hon. Mr. Jardine, declined to give any opinion Letter to myself
from the Hon.Joseph
upon an inconsistent finding, and preferred to wait for the publication of the July,
Jardine1858.
, J.P.,29th
whole of the evidence. And another Justice, then recently returned from
Europe, Mr. Antrobus, who concurred in that opinion, further remarked that, Letter to myself
from R. C. Antro
the unpaid Justices not having themselves, as he thought they ought to have bus, Esq., J.P., of
the 30th July, 1858.
done, undertaken the enquiry, must now deem themselves estopped, by what
ever conclusions the Commissioners had come to, and the Government had
thought fit to adopt.
119. With these two exceptions, if such they can be considered, all the Letters to myself
from the Hon . John
unpaid Justices, so consulted, declared that, “ assuming to be true the facts, Dent, J. P., John
Rickett, Esq., J.P.,
stated to be true by the Report, they entirely concurred with the minority of J. D. Gibb, Esq.,
the Commission , and were of opinion, that Mr. Caldwell was unfit to remain in P., H. J. Lamond.
Esq., J.P., and Pa
the Commission of the Peace. " I find that, to one of those certificates of J.P.,
trick Campbell,Esq. ,
all of the 30th
opinion, is appended the further declaration, “ that the thanks of the Justices pare
July,par.1858. Com
36, suprà.
are due to me, for having been the means of promoting the investigation .” Letter of the 30th

120. The contents of the whole of these letters, some months after being prà,
July, and ubi su
1858,cross-exa
embodied in my letter of “ Defence and Explanation ,” were produced, in open mination ofthe
the Surveyo Hon.
r -Gene
Court, and admitted on the part of Sir John Bowring's Government. ral at the trial,
ubi suprà.
121. Beyond the bare acknowledgment of the receipt of my letter in Letter (No. 469)
question, and the mere intimation - without reasons assigned — that his Excel- ofthe 2nd Aug. 1858,
 ( 24 )
from Dr.
Acting Bridges,
Colonial Se lency in Executive Council had not found it a “ satisfactory defence ” or
cretary, to myself. “ explanation ,” and had resolved to proceed, in the Executive Council, to my
suspension, requesting me “to furnish in writing (within four days) such
vindication of my conduct as I might deem necessary,” no answer was ever TH
+

attempted, so far as I know, to its statements.
Idem , and my 122. To what extent the suggested “ vindication ” was, by his Excellency ,
reply thereto of the
3rd Aug. 1858 . deemed requisite, I never knew ; and, therefore, I was in no position to judge
how far I ought to “ deem it necessary .” It is true that I was assured , that
any of “ the documents which I might be desirous to consult, with a view to it,
would be submitted to me for my perusal at the Government offices during
official hours.” But, on the same day, when I went there, as I in reply
informed his Excellency, “ I was positively refused access ” to those, which I 14



was desirous to consult, except only “ in extract.” I was, therefore, as I
further informed his Excellency, at a loss how to prepare any further “ vindi
cation " of myself, or even to understand, for what matters in particular, it was
needed .
123. This was the more uncertain, because there was not one material
point, contained in the letter of accusation against me—that of the 23rd July,
1858 —— which had not been already answered by me, and refuted by the therein
cited letters from the Commissioners themselves.
124. I confine this last observation to points deemed material, because
those letters certainly left untouched the imputations of irrelevancy and
officiousness in giving my testimony ; minor imputations, however, from the
former of which their Report, and from the latter of which Sir John Bowring's
own Warrant of Commission, had, by anticipation , absolved me.
125. As to the former, their Report states :
Printed Report, 126. “ We have extended our enquiries into aa number of matters, some of
par. 2, p. i .
which , irrelevant as they may now appear, were so woven into and combined
with the iromediate subject of enquiry, that it was not considered safe to leave
them unexamined ."
127. And as to the latter, it is not to be forgotten, that I was a Govern
ment officer, and that, even if any of their questions had appeared to me
irrelevant (which was certainly not the case ), I was bound to answer them .
Printed Warrant
of Commission, in
By the last clauses in Sir John Bowring's own warrant, appointing that Com
Preface to Report mission, and which was neither draughted nor settled by me, “ all persons
and Minutes, p . i .
superintending or employed in or under the several public departments " were
released from official confidence, “ for the purposes of the proposed enquiry .”
Nay, more ; all “ persons in the public service ” were expressly “ charged ” to be
66 9

“ aiding and assisting to the Commission,” whensoever and howsoever required.
My Letter to the 128. In this state of perplexity, I renewed my application, ( for a hearing
Acting
cretary, Dr.Bridges, and trial), to the Governor officially ; and I wrote privately, at the same time, to
of the3rd August, the Lieutenant-Governor, on the subject of that application .
Letter ( No. 473) 129. The only answer, vouchsafed me by the Governor, was , that “ my
myselfActing
toBridges, Dr. letter would be laid before the Executive Council on Saturday next ;" (the day
from Co
lonial Secretary .of named by that body for my suspension ; resolutions to that effect having been
already passed in my absence ).
 ( 25 )
130. It is true that the Lieutenant-Governor, who was also the senior of
the three members who composed it (Dr. Bridges himself being another), was,
at the same time, encouraging me, by private notes (now in your Grace's See Notes from
the Hon . Lieut. - Col.
department) , to believe that aa trial would be granted me. For he promised me Caine to myself of
to attend, in his place in Council, and make answer to whatever questions I the 2nd, 1858, andin 3rd
the
might, at such trial, put to him. Distrusting, however, the sincerity of personal Lett
Append ix my
er to Secretary
to


assurances , so little corresponding with the official communications of Govern- Sir E. Bulwer Lyt
ton , Bart ., M.P., of
ment, I lodged, in the hands of the Clerk of the Councils, on the very morning the 7th Aug. 1838.
(7th August , 1858) when the Council was about to assemble for my suspension , submittMemorandum
ed by the
a succinct “ Memorandum of Protest ” against any step taken , or to be taken , Attorney-General of
Hong -Kong," dlated
to my prejudice by that body in my absence, or except in conformity with the 6th August,1858.
above-cited “ Rules and Regulations ” of the Colonial Department, to which I
referred them , in detail, as bearing on my case.*
131. The due receipt of that document is verified, by the entry of the
initials of the name of the Clerk of the Councils, against that of the document
itself in my messenger's book, still in my possession. But no other reply what
ever was ever made to it. The Council only sat two hours that day ; and the
greater part of the time was occupied with military business. But, before they
adjourned, they caused me to be informed, very briefly , and without reasons Letter to myself,
from Dr. Bridges,
assigned ,—that “ I was suspended, from that date, from all the functions and Acting Colonial Se
salary, appertaining to my office of Attorney-General of the Colony, until her August, of the. 7th
cretary 1858
Majesty's pleasure should be known .”
132. On the same day, I addressed, through his Excellency the Governor, Letters from my
self to Sir
and also through the Post-Office, a letter, in duplicate originals, to the Secretary E. B.Lytton, Bart.,
.

of State, communicating the above illegal measures, referring to my so long Mili Jith 21st10th,
16th, and Au
intercepted letter of the 17th May, 1858, and appealing against the suspension gust,1858.
See par. 33, supi.
as illegal and unjust towards myself, and of most alarming consequences in its
certain effect upon the minds of the Chinese. The open duplicate of that letter
having been detained, in Sir John Bowring's hands, for at least one mail, I again ,
on the 16th of August, and , upon that letter being likewise detained , again
on the 21st August, 1858 , forwarded (also in duplicate originals, through the
Governor and Post-Office ) my grounds and reasons for such appeal.
133. In an almost dying state, and against the strong remonstrances ofmy My Letters of the
21st and 28th Janu
own medical adviser, who was also the Colonial Surgeon , Dr. Menzies, I re- ary, 6th February,
mained in those regions, until the 30th January, 1859, when, as my corres- April, 1859,to 13th
see
Se
pondence with your Grace's department shows, the increasing “ pressure of sick- cretary Sir E. F.
Lytton, Bart ., M.P.,
ness
was such as to compel me, most reluctantly ,' to comply with that advice , and
April and the 16th
of 14th June,
accept leave of absence from Sir John Bowring upon medical certificates, and 1859, to Under-Se
proceed to Europe, without waiting any longer for the delayed decision of the Cretary the Earl of
Secretary of State.
134. In the mean time, Sir John Bowring, as though unsatisfied with the
decision of his own Commission of Enquiry and its consequences, determined
to refer, to another tribunal of his own choosing, the question , whether the
[* This document also appears to have been suppressed. See pp. 32-5, post.]
H
 ( 26 )
character of his Government was, to any and what extent, compromised by
its protection cf Mr. Caldwell ; and, more especially, by its actings, in respect
of the suppressed and destroyed documents, bleonging or relating to Mah
Chow Wong
Proceedings in the
Queen v. Tarrant, 135. An information for libel was accordingly filed, (after much evidence
ubi suprà. had been taken in the Police Court*) against the proprietor of a Newspaper,
which had charged the burning of thepapers, as “ a contemptible and damnable
trick” of Sir John Bowring's Government, with the deliberate intent to screen
criminals. The defendant pleaded, in justification, that the statements of the
article were true. The Acting Attorney-General informed the Court, that “ he
was instructed to say, that Sir John Bowring felt, that the plea of justification
had put himself, and his Government, quite as much upon his and its trial, as
the defendant.” Dr. Bridges, Mr. Mongan, and the Surveyor-General, were
examined for the prosecution, and cross-examined for the defence ; and all the
documents demanded, for the latter, from the Secretariat, were brought into
court. The Jury was a Special Jury of Merchants and Bankers, of great
credit , and little disposed to give a factious verdict. But their verdict and
an unanimous one, was given, immediately on the closing of the case for the
prosecution, and without hearing the defence . It was a verdict for the
defendant, on both issues. It found him not guilty ; and it found that his
plea of justification was fully proved, against the Government, out of the
mouths of the Crown witnesses. Costs were immediately awarded, by the
Chief Justice, against the Crown ; and they have been since paid by Sir John
Bowring ; and, as I hear, under the head of " Miscellaneous Expenses of the
Crown Solicitors' Department .” †
136. Your Grace will not blame me for again observing, that the court
and jury, which thus determined the case of Mr. Caldwell and the Hong-Kong
Government, was a . tribunal chosen by the latter, and that I had no part in
the selection .
137. No decision was taken by the authority to which I did submit my
case — the Secretary of State--until I had arrived in Germany, on my way
Hansard, Session homeward . But, even then , I only learned it, through the newspaper report
1859,
13, 14xol, PP: of the announcement, made in the House of Commons, on the 11th March last,
; 153,com
pare thenewspapers
of 12th March, by your immediate predecessor ; which was simply to the effect that “ he (Sir
1859.
E. B. Lytton) regretted to have been obliged to confirm my suspension .”
138. No reasons were assigned - no reasons have ever been assigned for
the confirmation. On the contrary, the Secretary of State was pleased, on that
Ib., ib. occasion, to say, that my conduct in office had exhibited, in the most favourable
light, my “ talent,” my “ learning," my “ energy," my “ zeal for the public
My Letter of the service, " and my “ character.” Subsequently again, in reply to my letter of
4th
Secretary E. B. the 4th April last, ( reporting my arrival, and complaining of a passage, in the
April,Sir1859,to
Lytton, Bart., M.P. newspaper versions of his speech, which represented him to have adopted for
aspersion , cast by Sir John Bowring, upon my evidence before the Caldwell
These Police Court Depositions also appear to be suppressed . See sp. 32-5, post.
† And the Judge's Notes (and indeed all Notes) of the Trial, ib.]
 ( 27 )
Commission ), the Secretary of State assured me, that he had not made the Letter to myself
from Under - Secre
unfavourable remark, and that the passage in question was a misreport; and, narvon
tary the ofEarlof Car
the 13th
in correcting it, had the goodness to renew his expression of opinion, of my April, 1859.
official and personal merits, and, substantially, in the same flattering terms.
139. I have therefore applied for re-employment, and for compensation
for my wrongs. But, neither to that application, nor my letters to the Secretary
of State, of subsequent dates to the 13th April last, have I received any reply.
The only communications, indeed, which I have ever received from him , are the Letter to myself
from Drummond
letter last mentioned, and a previous intimation, through his private secretary, WolffMr.of the 7th
that “ he (Sir E. B. Lytton ) had been unwell for some days, but would inform April, 1859.
me when he could receive me;" I having requested, on the 4th April last, the
usual interview , on the subject of my case.
Letters to myself
140. It is true that, from the late Under-Secretary of State, the Earl of from Under - Secre
Carnarvon, I have received several letters, noticing some of my unanswered narvon tary theofEarltheof 16th
Car
letters to the Secretary of State, and that his Lordship’s letters purport, in part, April, 30th May,
7th June, 13th June,
to be written in his late official capacity. But those letters also deny me all and 17th June,1859.
information — although I had asked it — as to the grounds of my suspension by
Sir John Bowring, or its confirmation by Sir E.Bulwer Lytton. His Lordship My letters of the
has also informed me that, “ during the illness,” and “ in the absence of the tary
17thSir
MayE.toB.Secre
Lyt
Secretary of State,” he himself addressed me“ with less authority,” and without ton, Bart.,M.P., and
of the 2nd, 9th , and
capacity “ to undertake anything, on the part of the Secretary of State, or on Secreta
14th June to Under
ry the Earl of
that of Her Majesty's Government.” Consequently , those letters have only Carnarvon .
added to my painful uncertainty ; and I have so advised your department .
141. The state of health of the late Secretary of State, and his prolonged
absence from town , having been considered sufficient reason , for my being thus
kept in ignorance and suspense, as to my position in the Colonial Service, it is
needless to add , that the promised interview with Sir Edward B. Lytton never
took place .
142. Yet, whilst awaiting the performance of that promise, I have read, London Gazette,
19th April, 1859 .
in the Gazette, the appointment of Mr. Adams to the Attorney -Generalship
of Hong-Kong, as to a vacant office. It has occasioned me some surprise,
happening, as it did, while the Secretary of State was ill and absent.
143. Such, my Lord, being the posture of the case, at this moment of your
accession to the Colonial Seals, I have no other resource than to present it to
your consideration ; and to ask you to decide that, in all these my trials and
sufferings, I have but acted in my duty, to the post I held, and the profession to
which I belong, and as became a man of honour.
144. I shall not here enlarge upon the privations and losses, which I have,
for eleven months past, patiently endured, nor on the pain, with which I return
to the common walk of my professiou here, to find myself a stranger.
145. But I must observe - for this is what I feel more poignantly—that
in the colony, where my past course is best understood, my actual position,
towards your department, is interpreted in a way most pernicious to the cause
of good government. Europeans can hardly believe, and Chinamen cannot be
persuaded-even if it were not Mr. Caldwell's interest to persuade them to the
 ( 28 )

contrary—that the unjust and ruinous sentence, which was passed upon me by
Sir John Bowring, was not intended to condemn exertions to put down crime.
146. Even if the proceedings, with which Mr. May, and the other Govern
ment officers, were threatened, for having, like me, given their evidence, and
for honestly avowing the information I had received from them , are not now
to take effect, and I am solely to suffer, still the injustice, done to me, is sure
of its effect, with that shrewd, suspicious, and selfish people, the Chinese. And
Letters from my-
Sir
any present sanction given, or to be given, to that injustice, will, as I have
E. B. Lytton,17th advised your department, utterly deprive any renewed enquiry, such as the late
May and 10th June: Administration proposed , at Hong-Kong, of all hope or even prospect of
, Under
Secretary the Earl of success .
Carnarvon of the 9th This is the more certain, since the resignation of the excellent Chief
June, 1859. Magistrate — a consequence of my own departure — and his retirement, from
Hong -Kong, to a precarious post under the Empire of China.
149. Not accepting the unauthorised communications, from Under-Secretary
the Earl of Carnarvon, I now appeal to your Grace, to weigh the matters sub
mitted to your department; and to restore confidence and character, at Hong
Kong, by the same act which shall do me justice .
I have, &c. ,
T. C. ANSTEY.
The Most Noble the Duke of Newcastle,
H. M. Principal Secretary of State
for the Colonies.




Downing Street, July 22nd , 1859 .
SIR,
With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed, by his Grace the
Duke of Newcastle, to inform you, that he h- s no objection — Sir John Bowring
having now arrived in this country — to give you an opportunity, of seeing the
despatch of his predecessor, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton , to the Governor of
Hong -Kong, conveying the Secretary of State's confirmation of your suspension
from the office of Attorney -General, with a general view of the reasons which
led him to that conclusion ; a conclusion in which the Duke of Newcastle feels
himself compelled to concur. If, therefore, you will call at this Office, upon
any day which may suit your convenience, you will be at liberty to read the
despatch in question.
I am Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
C. FORTESCLE.
 ( 29 )
2, Plowden's Buildings, Temple,
Friday Night,
22nd July, 1859.
SIR,
Your letter of this date has been delivered to me to- night by your
messenger, at a late hour.
Tomorrow ( Saturday), at four o'clock in the afternoon, I shall call at the
Colonial Office.
I have the honour, &c.,
T. C. ANSTEY.
Chichester Fortescue, Esq ., M.P.,
Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies,
Downing Street.




2, Plowden Buildings, Temple,
Monday, 25th July, 1859.
MY LORD DUKE,
Letter of the 3rd
On the 3rd instant, I had the honour to submit to your Grace a July,11859, to Se
“ Statement, embracing the leading points in the case of my suspension from Newcastle,
cretary the Duke of
the duties of Attorney -General of Hong -Kong, and of the confirmation of that 1



suspension by the Home Government ”-complaining of that suspension, as
having been effected by secret, ex parte, and illegal ways, and calculated to in
timidate principal persons, who had given, or were likely to give, evidence of
criminal practices, or connections, against the parties promoting the measure
asking your Grace “ to decide that, in reporting the same, I had but acted in
my duty, to the post I held and the profession to which I belong, and as became
a man of honour,” — and soliciting (1°.) “ information ” as to the charges (if any)
made against me, by way of recrimination , on the part of the accused Govern
>

ment ; ( 2° .) “enquiry” into the whole case ; and (30.) such “redress and
compensation for my losses, by re-employment or otherwise, as should serve,,
at once, to restore confidence and character, at Hong-Kong, and to do me
justice.”
No reply has been made to that letter, nor has its receipt been acknow
ledged.