the pirate's Hong, but not Mr. May's “ Memoranda. ”
These, by some accident, were confused with the
papers of the mission, stowed in his despatch box,
and so carried to the north . No communication
having been made to him on the subject, from Hong
Kong, it was not until his return to Shanghae, to
wards the beginning of this year, that he learned that
they had been inquired after by Mr. May, and their
very existence ignored, or even denied, by Dr. Bridges
and Sir John Bowring, and the grossest aspersions
cast on the veracity of those who asserted them to
have been in his custody. When I left Hong Kong
for England, the arrival of those important documents
from Shanghae was hourly expected.
During the proceedings in this case of Mah Chow
Wong, from his third or fourth appearance in the
80
Police Court, down to about six weeks after the sifted
books and papers of his Hong, and the “ Two Meino
randa ” of Mr. May, thus got into Mr. Wade's hands,
I had been absent in India upon sick leave. I never
heard a syllable of what had occurred, until after my
return .
But I now endeavoured to recall the attention of
Government, to the scandalous connection between
Mah Chow Wong and Mr. Caldwell; on which I had,
on the 4th July, 1857, already officialised His Excel
lency, begging a reference to the heads of the Police
and Jail Departments; and on which the gentlemen
in question, Mr. May, J.P., and Mr. Inglis, J.P. , being
so referred to, had expressed sentiments in unison with
mine, and had moreover submitted, in illustration
and support of those opinions, facts previously
unknown to me.
In the presence of these endeavours, on iny part,
of the general distrust of Mr. Caldwell amongst the
public departments, and of the conviction, which
every one, conversant with the proceedings in Execu
tive Council, must have entertained, of the dishonest
purpose, with which he had composed his false compi.
lation of the entries relating to the convict and himself,
it cannot but have occurred to the minds of Sir John
Bowring and Dr. Bridges, that, as well the originals,
as Mr. May's “ memoranda” from them , were now of
as much importance as ever, -if, indeed, they had
not become— (regard being had to the use I was like to
make ofthem )—of still greater importance, than when
the question they were used to solve, was merely one
of the guilt or innocence of a Hong Kong Chinese
convict.
Therefore their destruction , at such a juncture,
81
by the hands of those officials themselves, must be
regarded, not merely as a wanton waste of public
records belonging to another and an independent
department of the service,—but, much more, as a deli
berate spoliation of evidence, the production whereof
was known to be, at the period of such spoliation,
most necessary to the due determination of imputa
tions of the gravest magnitude, on the character and
conduct of that officer, whom the Hong Kong Govern
ment had made the sole representative of the Queen
of England, before the eyes of Her Majesty's Chinese
subjects, -- the sole medium through which they were
to receive and learn their lesson, of allegiance and
loyalty, to the still higher Majesty of English Law.
Nevertheless, that spoliation of evidence was com
mitted ;-by the hand of Mr. Mongan, in obedience to
the orders of Dr. Bridges, and with the assent — so the
latter asserts — most certainly with the tacit connivance
-of Sir John Bowring.
The guilty mind can rarely, with safety to its scheme
of defence, condescend upon particulars, and least of
all upon dates.
In the present instance, it is to me nearly indifferent,
whether I take, as the true date of spoliation , the un
sworn and more favourable computation, with which
the Caldwell Commissioners suffered themselves to
be amused, or that computation -- probably much less
untrue - which , under the pressure of a cross -exami
nation upon oath, was wrung from the Acting
Colonial Secretary, Dr. Bridges, at the trial in the
Supreme Court.
In the first hypothesis, the burning of the docu
ments took place between the 20th and the 30th
March, 1858.
G
82
In the latter, it was “ about six weeks before the
“ fact, of their having been burned , was made known
66
by Government to the Commission ; which appears
by their minutes to have not been made known to
them until the 17th June then following.
In either hypothesis, the spoliation of evidence was
perpetrated, long after my conclusions and intentions
were fully apprehended.
Only, if the latter hypothesis be the true one - and , -
since it is the latest,, and also given in upon oath,
and, therefore, the more mature of the twain , I am
bound to assume that it is the least untrue -- it will -
follow ,—that the said spoliation did not take place
.
until about five days, at least, after the debate of the
10th May last, * in the Legislative Council upon the
case of Mr. Caldwell's connection with Mah Chow
Wong - in which debate, the Government and Dr.
Bridges both admitted that the documents were, at
that time, in existence and producible — about two
days after my own resignation of the Justiceship of
the Peace,† on the express ground of Mr. Caldwell's
being still retained in the commission of the peace,
about a day after the second debate ( 14th May, 1858 ),
in the Legislative Council on the same subject, when
the former admission of their existence was reiterated.
--about two days before the date of my appeal to the
Secretary of State, t - and about the same number of
days before the first official announcementę ofany in
tention, on the part of the Bowring and Bridges'
* Minutes, etc. , p . 32.
+ Letters of the 13th May, 1858, to the Acting Colonial
Secretary.
Letter of the 17th May, 1858, to Lord Stanley , M.P.
$ Letter of the 17th May, 1858, to myself.
83
Government, to institute any inquiry whatever into
any matters which the production of those documents
—if not destroyed - could, by any possibility, have
elucidated .
In either hypothesis, therefore, I am prepared to
adopt the language of the libel, which formed the
subject-matter of prosecution, in the Queen v. Tar
rant, and to say of this spoliation of evidence ,
in its connection with the absurd findings of the
Caldwell Commission with respect to it , -- that, if
“the principal charge broke down " -it was solely
" through a contemptible and damnable trick, .on the
part of the Government - a trick, which should
certainly be punished in some way or other : for it
“ is farcical to suppose, that it was not performed
" after deep meditation, and with reference to con
sequences." *
For these words, which , in the judgment of those
spoliators of evidence, amounted to seditious libel
against the Queen, Mr. Tarrant, the proprietor of
the newspaper in which they appeared, was put upon
his trial for that misdemeanor. It is true, that he had
merited prosecution, for daring to give evidence, before
the Caldwell Commission of the early life and conversa
tion of the Protector of Chinese and Brothels' Licenser.
I subjoin a concise, but on the whole, accurate
report of the proceedings and evidence, which I find
in the Daily Press.t
* Friend of China , newspaper, 28lh July, 1858 .
+ Daily Press, newspaper, 31st November, 1858.
G2
$
4
INFORMATION.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG .
The Eighteenth day of November, One thousand eight hundred
andfifty - eight.
Hong Kong towit . - The Acting Attorney -General charges William
Tarrant, of the Colony of Hong Kong aforesaid , Editor of the News
paper- called the Friend of China, with having, with intent to move
the Queen's subjects to hatred and contempt of the Queen's Go
vernment in the said Colony, and to cause it to be believed that a
certain grave and scandalous charge having been preferred, with
others to the said Government, against Daniel Richard Caldwell,
Esquire, Registrar-General of the said Colony, and submitted to the
investigation of a Commission appointed for that purpose by Sir
John Bowring, the Governor of the said Colony, and which said
charge might have been satisfactorily proved before the said Com
mission, but for the interference of the said Government to prevent
it, the said Government had perpetrated some wicked and con
temptible maneuvre for the purpose of preventing, and in effect
had thereby prevented , the establishment of the said charge to the
satisfaction of the said Commission , heretofore, to wit on the twenty
eighth day of July in this present year, one thousand eight hundred
and fifty -eight, in the Colony aforesaid , falsely and maliciously
printed and published a certain scandalous, false, and malicious
libel of and concerning the said Government according to the tenor
and effect following ( that is to say ), “ the principal charge” (mean
ing the said charge against the said Daniel Richard Caldwell)“ broke
down ,” (meaning that the said charge was not established to the
satisfaction of the said Commission ) “ through a contemptible,
damnable trick on the part of Government ” (meaning the said
Government), " a trick which should certainly be punished in some
way or other, for it is farcical to suppose that it was not performed
after deep mediation and with reference to consequences ."
(Signed) FREDK . WM , GREEN .
William Tarrant, take notice that you will be tried on this In
formation at the Criminal Sessions at the Supreme Conrt, to be
holden at Victoria, in and for the Colony of Hong Hong, on the
85
eighteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and fifty -eight, and following days.
A. WEATHERHEAD , Clerk of Court.
PLEA.
IN THE SUPREME COCRT OF HONG KONG .
The Queen against William Tarrant.
And now the said William Tarrant in his own proper person comes
into Court here, and having heard the said information read , says
that he is not guilty of the premises charged in the said information
or any part thereof.
And for a further plea to the said Information, the said de
fendant protesting that he is not guilty as aforesaid, nevertheless,
according to the form of the statute in such case provided , says that
the said alleged libel in the said Information mentioned was printed
and published by him, the said defendant, after the passing of the Act
of Parliament of the seventh year of the Queen, chapter ninety -six ,
to wit on the day and year in the said Information mentioned , and
not otherwise; and that, before the composing , printing , and pub
lishing of the same alleged libel, to wit on the 26th day of January ,
in the 21st year of the said Queen , one William Thomas Bridges
did, by connivance with Sir John Bowring , in the said Information
mentioned , unlawfully , contemptuously, and against the express
declaration of the said Queen and of the Government of the Queen ,
accroach , assume and usurp unto himself the Government of the
said Colony, and the powers, authorities, and duties thereof within
the same , and in particular, the authority to bind the obedience ofthe
several departments of and subordinate to the said Government of
the said Colony, and to require command and compel the several
officers thereof, in all cases, to consider, respect, and render obe
dience, to all instructions given by him , the said W. T. Bridges, as
though the same instructions had emanated , or should emanate, from
a Governor lawfully appointed by the said Queen , in and for the
said Colony ; and such his unlawful accroachments, assumptions,
and usurpations did - on the day and year last aforesaid - publish and
86
notify unto the several proper officers of all the said departments
respectively, for the information and guidance of them , and of all
other officers of the Colonial Government, to wit, the said Govern.
ment of the said Queen in the said Colony, and with intent to cause
and compel them respectively to submit to his pretended authority,
and to obey him , the said W. T. Bridges, and his said accroached,
assumed , and usurped Government, and other his accroachments,
assumptions, and usurpations aforesaid . And the said defendant fur
ther says, that the said William Thomas Bridges did afterwards,
to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid , act in and exercise his
said pretended authority and other the functions, powers, and
authorities of his said accroached , assumed , and usurped Govern
ment, and did, from the day and year last aforesaid , for aa consider
able time, to wit, down to the composing , printing , and publishing
of the alleged libel, continue so to accroach , assume, and usurp as
aforesaid , and so to act in and exercise the samepretended authority ,
and other the said functions, powers, and authorities as aforesaid .
And the said defendant further says, that, during the said continuance
of the said W. T. Bridges so to accroach , assume, and usurp, and
so to act and exercise as aforesaid , and before the composing , print
ing, and publishing of the said alleged libel, to wit, on or about the
month of May, in the twenty - first year of the said Queen , he, the
said W. T. Bridges, did unlawfully, contemptuously , and against
the express declaration of the said Queen , cause certain public
papers and records of the said Queen, of great value and importance
to the peace and good order of the said Colony, and to the honour
and reputation of the Queen and her Government, and whereby , if
preserved and produced , the truth or falsehood of certain criminal
charges and accusations, theretofore made and then pending before
the Queen against the said Daniel Richard Caldwell, would appear,
and which were then in the said accroached, assumed , and usurped
power of the said W. T. Bridges, to be burned and destroyed, to
wit, in the said Colony, by the hands of certain persons, unto
the said defendant unknown , then having the custody or possession
of the said papers and records respectively , and did thereby de
feat, avoid, and make impossible whatever inquiry the said Queen
or her said Government might, and otherwise would have directed
to be made, into the truth or falsehood of the said charges, and
the contents of the said papers and records respectively, to wit,
in the said Colony ; and the said W. T. Bridges did there
87
upon, to wit, in or about the month of June in the said 21st year
of the said Queci, publicly, to wit, in the said Colony, avow and
acknowlege his having so caused the said papers and records to be
burned and destroved as aforesaid . Wherefore the said defendant, at
the said time and place, in the said Information mentioned , did print
and publish, of and concerning the said W. T. Bridges and of his
said accroached , assumed , and usurped Government as aforesaid, the
said alleged libel in the said Information mentioned , with intent
and in order that the said W. T. Bridges, and the said certain other
persons unknown, might be lawfully punished for their several and
respective actings in the premises. And the said defendant does
aver , that it was for the public benefit, that the matters, charged in
7
the said alleged libel in the said Information mentioned , should be
printed and published as aforesaid , and that the particular fact by
reason whereof it was for the public benefit that the said matter so
charged should be so printed and published as aforesaid, was and is
that the said alleged libel was so printed and published by the said
defendant in order to the lawful punishment of the said W. T.
Bridges, and of the said other persons unknown, who then and there
were guilty of the lawful and contemptuous actings aforesaid . Without
this, that he the said defendant did, at the time in the said Informa
tion in that behalf alleged or ever print or publish the said alleged
libel, with the intents or with the meanings in the said Information
respectively alleged, or with any or either of the same respectively.
And this the said defendant is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays
Judgment of the Court here, and that he may be dismissed and dis
charged of the premises in the Information above specified
( Signed ) W. TARRANT.
(Signed ) T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY.
REPLICATION ,
On the part of the prosecution ;
De Injuria sua propria, absque tali causa ;
On which issue wasjoined.
88
The Government called three witnesses -
First, · Dr. Bridges,
late acting Colonial Secretary ; Mr. Mongan, acting Chinese
Secretary ; and the Honourable Mr. Cleverly, the Surveyor
General.
The evidence of the first -named witness (Dr. Bridges, the ex
Colonial Secretary ), was to the effect, that he had been Acting
Attorney -General in 1854 and 1855, and Acting Colonial Secretary
in 1853 and 1858 — that by Government he understood the Governor
and himself, and no other person or Council, that by a Circular
Memorandum of the 26th January, 1858 (which was produced ), the
Governor had required all departments to attend to every instruc
tion of his (Dr. B.'s ), whether it had emanated from the Government
or not; and the Governor had also empowered him to intercept and
reject official letters on their way to His Excellency, if he thought
fit — that the Attorney -General (Mr. Anstey), the Colonial Trea
-
surer (Mr. Forth), the Chlef Magistrate (Mr. Davies ), and the Super
intendent of Police (Mr. May ), had refused to obey this Circular as
illegal — that Mr. Anstey had written to the Secretary of State
-
about it - that Mr. Davies had demanded in Legislative Council
thàt the Secretary of State should be consulted - that Mr. May had
officially requested in his own case that such a reference might be
made - that Dr. Bridges did not know that, from first to last, the
Secretary of State had ever been consulted or informed by the
Government on the subject — that Mr. May's letter had not been
referred home, but the writer had been threatened with suspension
or censure for “ insubordination ” - that the other public depart
ments had submitted to the arrangements made by the Circular
that he (Dr. Bridges) had, whilst Acting Attorney -General, libelled
Sir John Bowring, the Governor, in the same newspaper ( the
Friend of China ), by inserting therein an extract from Legare's book ,
with intent to ridicule him ( which libel was read in open court ],
but that he did not consider it a " seditious " libel — that it did not
-
follow from Sir John and himself being the " Government,” that a
personal libel against either or both of them would be necessarily
" seditious" that his own libel against Sir John was personal, "
not “ seditious" that he could not say what was a seditious libel
without seeing it that he could not say whether the libellous
History of the Greek Loan, if published here from the Annual
Register for 1826, would be a “ seditious " libel or not that Mah .
Chow Wong was a notorious pirate and confederate of pirates, to use
89
the Doctor's own words, and had been a bad character for years
that Mr. Caldwell's alleged intimacy with him was equally notorious
- that Mr. Caldwell had made strong efforts to obtain the pirate's
pardon , but had been foiled by the production before the Executive
Council of certain papers found on a pirate named Beaver, during
an inquiry into the items of Mr. May's memo. taken from the
papers previously seized in the hong of Mah -Chow Wong the pirate
- that, but for Mr. May's memoranda having been produced, the
Governor would have pardoned Mah - Chow Wong long before the
production of Beaver's papers - Mr. Caldwell was accordingly
directed to examine the papers themselves, and compare them with
the newspaper report — that Mr. Mongan was merely to assist him
- that Mr. Caldwell reported that the papers did not implicate even
Mah - Chow Wong, much less himself - that Mr. May's memoranda
being then produced in Council, and Mr. Mougan being unable to
say more than that his own examination of the papershad been very
cursory ," a new inquiry was ordered to be made by his official
superior, Mr. Wade--that Mr. Wade's report was either never made,
or never produced that he (Dr. Bridges) had been asked what was
-
to be done with Mah - Chow Wong's papers that he had ordered
them to be burned ; and that, as to Mr. May's memoranda, he never
knew what had become of them from the time Mr. May put them
into his hands. He admitted that, notwithstanding the finding of
the Caldwell Committee, his notorious connection with the pirate,
and all the reports of the various departments - especially from the
Chief Magistrate, of aa date subsequent to the Caldwell Commission
inquiry, and which were read in Court to him Mr. Caldwell had
not been cailed to account by Government, because he had done
nothing worthy of being called to account for.
The evidence of the second witness (Mr. Mongan, the Assistant
Chinese Secretary ), proved that Mr. Caldwell examined part of the
papers without their having first gone through his hands -
- that
when the papers were received, one of the packages containing them
had been opened that it was his conviction that the papers had
been tampered with, and some abstracted, before they came under
his charge - that his impression was, that the motive for so tamper
ing with them was the removal of the evidences of guilt against
Mah - Chow Wong, whose release it was Mr. Caldwell's object to
effect that he had applied to the Governor as to what was to be
done with the papers C
that the Governor referred him to Dr.
90
Bridges — that Dr. Bridges had told him to burn them and that
-
the libel was true thus far at least, that a contemptible, damnable trick
had been practised in suppressing those papers.
4
The evidence of the third and last Government witness (Mr.
Cleverly , the Surveyor -General) proved that he had been the Chair
man of the Commission of Five appointed by the Governor to inves
tigate Mr. Caldwell's conduct --- that two were against Caldwell, and
two for him , of whom one (Mr. Lyall) had been named as a friend
of Dr. Bridges, and to protect his interests. That he was very much
surprised when he learnt that the Mah - Chow Wong papers were
burnt that he had heard them referred to in the Legislative
Council in Dr. Bridges' presence on the 10th and 14th May, which
was long after the period when it is stated that they were burnt,
and they were spoken of as if then in existence - that the demeanour
of the Governor and Dr. Bridges on those occasions was such as to
lead him and everybody to suppose them still in existence that -
the Caldwell Commission had been left to trace the papers, and that
it was not until late on the 16th June, when concealment of the fact
was impossible, that the destruction had been confessed that the
Governor had repudiated the act in toto —· that, during the Caldwell
investigation , the evidence of at least twenty witnesses had been
rejected , which should have been taken , This was done by a
mistake, into which they had been led by the erroneous advice of
Mr. Day, the counsel appointed by Dr. Bridges to assist them —
that the Government has refused to allow the Attorney -General's
protest against Mr. Day's conduct to be printed -- that Mr. Caldwell
used to interrupt and make gestures to the witnesses deponing against
him , which he, as chairman , on the Attorney -General's remonstrance,
had stopped - that since the report of the committee had been
-
handed in , further evidence against Mr. Caldwell had come to his
knowledge that the evidence of Dr. Bridges and Mr. Mongan was
so different from what had been given by them before the Commis
sion , as to amount to “new evidence" -and that Dr. Bridges had
openly declared before the Commission, that he felt himself bound
as a brother Freemason to stand by Caldwell, a statement suppressed
in the minutes .
So closed the evidence for the Government.
The result was an immediate verdict for the de.
fendant, without calling on his counsel for the defence.
91
That there might be no doubt of the jury's mean
ing, I, as counsel for the defendant, reminded them ,
that he had not only traversed the entire information
by the ordinary plea of “ Not Guilty,” but had also
pleaded, in justification of the libel, certain facts,
viz., that the government libelled was not the Queen's
lawful Government, but the " accroached and usurped ".
government of one Dr. Bridges ; that the libellous
matter was true; and that the publication thereof
was for the common good.
I then asked them ---
“Gentlemen, do you find for the defendant on
both these issues ? ”
And their foreman answered
16 We do ! ”
They were a special jury of merchants and bankers.
I was afterwards assured by one of them , M. Vaucher,
the French Consul, that,-far from being prejudiced
in the defendant's favour, his bias, if he had one, was
to spare so great a reproach to Her Majesty's Govern
ment, as such a verdict on such an issue could not
fail to cast; but that the facts were too much for
him .
To my application for costs against the Crown, the
Chief Justice answered most readily
“You shall certainly have them !”
Nor was this the only disgrace sustained by the
Government that day.
On the face of the voluminous and conflicting de
positions of the crown witnesses, in the court of the
magistrate who had committed the case for trial,
wholesale perjury was manifest ; insomuch that my
friend, Mr. Green , the acting attorney -general, in
92
preference to abiding my threat of exposure, found it
prudent not to endorse the names of the greater
nuinber of them on his information .
Of the three whom he did call, nevertheless, the
first and principal witness, Dr. Bridges, was mate
rially contradicted, not only by the other two, but
also by himself, and this on matters of fact within his
own knowledge.
Laying hold of these startling contradictions, the
defendant, in publishing to his readers the victory he :
had gained over his prosecutor, distinctly charged the
late acting Colonial Secretary with deliberate perjury
in the witness-box ; assigned the particulars of his
charge ; and invited a new prosecution of himself for
preferring it.
So pointed was the accusation , that Dr. Bridges
found himself compelled, by the pressure of public
opinion, to notice it.
But, to the wonder and derision of every one, the
only notice he did take of it was, by circulating,
through another of the newspapers, a letter, informing
the world that he meant to take none at all.
This affectation of indifference did not serve. It
came too late. Within the past twelve months, he
had twice personally prosecuted the same newspaper
--- in the absence of a material witness--- for alleged
libels of a much less serious character ; and the very
perjury, now charged against him, had respect to
evidence, given by him in support of a third prosecu
tion, instituted against the same, in the name of his
own Government.
Consequently, his present determination not to
prosecute, when considered in its natural connection
93
with the solemn contradictions given on oath, by the
Chief Magistrate, the Surveyor-General, and another
witness, to his own sworn depositions in the police
court, upon matters where an honest mistake, on
either side, was impossible — not to speak of the in
trinsic incoherencies of his own testimony — made the
worst possible impression on every one in the com
munity :
Except only on Sir John Bowring. For so I interpret
the astounding fact, communicated to me by the last
mail, that, since my departure from the colony, his
Excellency has dared to confide into his hands the
responsible duty of locum tenens — for fee and reward
-to the acting Attorney -General in the Supreme
Court ;*—to the renewed terror of the peaceable
Chinese, and to the indignation of the British ;-albeit,
to the wonder perhaps of none, Chinese or British .
Hong Kong Government, at the best, is an ex
pensive occupation - exceeding the local revenue
and demanding a yearly Parliamentary grant.
It may be doubted whether the new House of
Commons will approve the extra allowances, required
to defray the cost of these ever-recurring instances of
corruption and misgovernment.
* Case of the murderers on board of the “ Mastiff,” Hong Kong,
February Sessions, 1859.
j
94
THE CALDWELL ENQUIRY COMMISSION.
The appointment of this Commission arose out of
the following circumstances.
On the 10th May, 1858, the Registration Ordinance
of 1858, already referred to, had reached its last
stagein the Legislative Council.
On my way to attend it, a letter from the Superin
tendent of Police was placed in my hands, to be laid
before the Council, with a view, I presume, to the
question, whether some security should not be taken
against abuse, before the final passing of a measure,
which confirmed so many of the prodigious powers
vested in Mr. Caldwell, under the condemned ordi
nance of the year preceding.
That letter charged positively, that he had already
turned to the profit, of himself or his friends, the large
powers, similarly vested in him by the much more
recent ordinance, which made him Licenser of Chinese
Brothels.
That letter specified the “ Licensed Brothel No.
48 " - a brothel therefore licensed by himself — as
being one, in which he was interested either as im
mediate or as head landlord — the land on which it
stood (“ Inland Lot 241 B.” ), being his property.
I read this letter in my place in Council. My
reasons for doing so—the demeanour and conduct of
the accused and his confederates -- the unanimous
vote of the Council in favor of the incapacitating
clause, which I thereupon moved to add to the Regis
tration Ordinance,—and the ulterior consequences of
these proceedings,-are correctly stated in my printed
evidence before the Commission :
* Minutes, etc. , pp 1, 2.
95
I knew it was perfectly hopeless sending in any report to the
Executive Government, as Mr. Caldwell was always held up as quite
necessary to the administration of the colony. My second reason
was, that I wished to induce the Legislative Council to do with the
Registration Ordinance what they had neglected to do with the
Brothel Ordinance, and insert a clause disqualifying Mr. Caldwell
and his family from deriving any pecuniary benefit in the exercise
of his functions with regard to that measure. On going into Com.
mittee, accordingly, I moved that clause, and the Committee adopted
it without aa division. The Governor and the Acting Colonial Secre
tary appeared, however, much opposed to it ; the Governor treating
the charge as ridiculous, and the Acting Colonial Secretary as
impossible.
Dr. Bridges stated himself to be professionally aware of the fact
that Mr. Caldwell had parted with every inch of land he possessed
in the colony before he became Licenser of Brothels, and that he
had acquired none since.
I protested, of course, against this mode of dealing with a charge
which I said I had made upon my liability to punishment if it was
untrue.
Then Mr. Cleverly ( the Surveyor General), expressing his con
currence with Dr. Bridges (the Acting Colonial Secretary ), proposed
to go down and examine bis books, and returned with the state
ment, that the lot 241 B was registered in the name of Mr. D. R.
Caldwell; on which the Governor apologised to me for having
doubted my statement.
Some one suggested, that perhaps the Crown -rent might not be
paid by Mr. Caldwell, but by somebody else ; to which the Colonial
Treasurer, Mr. Forth , said , he had just examined his books, and his
clerk, Mr. Gilmour, who was present, could tell that the money had
been paid by Mr. Caldwell's own hand ; to which the clerk assented .
The matter then dropped for the time. But about half an hour
afterwards, Dr. Bridges having communicated with Mr. Caldwell,
Mr. Caldwell made his appearance in an adjoining room , and sent in
a written memorandum to Dr. Bridges, which that officer, rudely
interrupting the gentleman who was speaking, insisted on reading
to the Council. He observed , with an air of triumph , “ There now
I thought so-Mr. Caldwell says it's aa mistake ; and it is a mis.
take;" and he read the memorandum to us, which purported to lay
the blame on his lawyer, Mr. Stace, who ought to have registered
96
the transfer of this brothel lot from Mr. Caldwell to a purchaser, but
had not. He emphatically denied that he owned a single inch of
land in the colony.
I observed that Mr. Caldwell had forgotten to say a word about
paying the ground-rent with his own hands, which could not have
been by mistake.
Dr. Bridges said he did not pay it with his own hands.
I said, “ In a matter like that, I would rather believe the evidence
of an impartial witness like Mr. Gilmour, whom we had heard, than
the simple denial of the accused person ;" upon which Dr. Bridges
said , that he said nothing of the kind .
Mr. Forth, however, confirmed my statement of Mr. Gilmour's,
evidence.
I then asked His Excellency, whether he really meant to say, that
any charge, brought by any person, above all a person in my posi
tion, could be disposed of, or even met, by the broad denial of it on
the part of Mr. Caldwell.
The Governor said that he really thought Mr. Caldwell had met
it - upon which the matter dropped. In consequence of this, I
wrote my letter of the 13th May, * which has been put in.
Previous to the next meeting of Council, which was on the 14th
instant, I received, from the Colonial Treasurer, the return of Crown
rents paid on 11 lots. I reserved this document until I should hear
what would be the result of a discussion which I knew the Colonial
Treasurer was going to commence on the subject of lot 241 B, and
I advised him to say nothing about the remaining 10 lots.
As I expected , the Governor read from the chair, in reply to the
Colonial Treasurer, a letter (L) from Mr. Caldwell, referring to lot
241 B, and reiterating the statements of his former memorandum .
Mr. Forth had, on the morning of the 11th instant, brought into
the Governor's room Mr. Gilmour, who contradicted Dr. Bridges'
statement of his words used on the previous day — and said that the
rent of this lot was paid, as I had asserted, in propria persona, by
Mr. Caldwell, on the 26th February. Consequently, Mr. Caldwell,
unable any longer to deny this fact, admitted it ; but added , that he
did this merely
m to oblige a poor Chinaman , who was ignorant of our
language and customs, -which to my mind, as I told the Governor,
was a confession of agency for a brothel.
I then asked, whether Mr. Caldwell had made any explanation as
to any other lots besides 241 B ? and was answered, No.
* Resigning my office of Justice of the Peace for Hong Kong .
97
er, te
inch di Upon which II gave in this document ( List of Ground -rents, see ap
pendix B in letter C ) * in to the Governor, shewing that if there had
abou been one mistake, there had been eleven mistakes , all in one day.
at have I pointed out that three of the eleven were specially mentioned as
having been transferred to Chun -atsoo, previous to the payment of
26th February ; from which I said it was perfectly clear that the
other eight had not been transferred .
viders
No explanation was given by the Governor, by the Acting Colo
diethan
nial Secretary, or by anybody whatever, in answer to this important
Bridges
* Return of Crown Rents paid by D. R. Caldwell, Esq., for the
nour's Half -year, ending on the 25th December, 1857.
On Interest, Lot No. 79 £6 16 113
241 6 0 10 1
241 a 013 1
2426 0 6 3
262 0 8 3 £8 14 7}
odmet 238 C 0 9 9
1
240 0 10 11
250 1 1 9 £2 2 5
These Lots were trans- 204 4 2 0
ferred to Clum Atsoo,
TOWO
i hea prior to this payment. } 381
382
1 17
1 17
9
9
£18 14 63
B, and
Paid on the 26th February, 1858.
to the The above Lots were paid by Mr. Caldwell in propriâ personâ;
to lot but he requested me to make out the receipts on account of Lum
im . Ateen ,* Chun Alaint and Chun Atsoo .I
t into ( Signed ) DAVID GILMOUR,
idges Treasury Clerk .
at the 11th May, 1858 .
a, b5
(well,
* Admitted by Mr. Caldwell (Minutes of Evidence, &c.), to be his wife's
at he doctor, and to attend his family professionally as such.
of our † Admitted by the same, to be his doctor's concubine.
:rnor, # Stated by the same to be sister to his wife, Mrs. C.
[ All this documentary matter has been suppressed by the Local Government.
on as The Chairman (Mr. Cleverly ), in his cross examination, in the Queen v.
Tarrant, verifies some correspondence between himself and Dr. Bridges, on
the prohibition to print the documentary evidence ).
H
en
98
document ; nor could any one say who were Lum -ateen , Chun -alai,
and Chun -atsoo - names which Mr. Gilmour said had been spelt
*
over to him by Mr. Caldwell.
The debate that day, the 14th, closed with a renewed expression,
by the Governor and Dr. Bridges, of their high appreciation of Mr.
Caldwell's conduct, in the face of this evidence, and I have not heard
that Mr. Caldwell had attempted any further explanation. I have
already put in the strong testimonial contained in Dr. Bridges's letter
of the 17th, which I take to be aa further judgment upon this com
plaint. I have therefore a right to say, that the charges now under
investigation, have been already disposed of by the Executive
Council.
Even if the suggestion that there had been any mistake in the
matter had not, under the above circumstances, already been proved
to be false, I might point out to the Commissioners that it is on the
face of it ridiculous and absurd, inasmuch as it is the daily and im
mediate duty of the Registrar General, by Section 5 of the Ordinance
which gives him power to register Brothels, not only to ascertain
correctly the actual state of their title and occupancy, but to record
those particulars on the spot, and communicate the same to the
Colonial Secretary. The Section requires, that in those records
shall appear the names of the immediate Landlord or Lessor of the
licensed brothel, and also of the Crown Lessee or Tenant of the plot
of ground on which the same may be standing or built; and this is
for the purpose of the speedy and summary conviction of these per
sons, whether they are the immediate offenders or not against the
Ordinance.
The evidence of one of the Commissioners, who
was also a member of the Legislative Council, and
present on both days, confirms this statement of
the result of the discussion .
It further confirms me as to another important fact,
which I had stated in my official correspondence ; but
not wishing to do more than was necessary to the
matter then in hand, I did not give in evidence be
fore the Commission .
That evidence is as follows :*
* Minutes, etc., p. 88.
99
My impression , from what was said in Council on the 10th and
14th of May, certainly was, that His Excellency and the Acting
Colonial Secretary were convinced that Mr. Caldwell had cleared
himself from the charges then brought against him, and that there
was no need of further inquiry.
My strong impression is, that I did hear the Acting Colonial
Secretary say in debate, that he saw no harm in Mr. Caldwell's
servants being interested in brothels, and, on being reminded that it
might lead to improper persons being licensed to keep brothels, I
certainly think I did hear him say, that as any person wishing to
become a brothel-keeper must be an improper person, that would
be of no consequence.
My resignation was not accepted.
Under these circumstances, and considering that
the decision of the Government -- for decision it was
--left ine no other resource, I gave formal notice on
the 13th May, of an appeal to the Secretary of State.
On the 17th May, I despatched my letter of appeal of
that date, for transmission to Lord Stanley, M.P.,
through the usual channel.
In reply, I was then informed by Dr. Bridges, that
an inquiry being contemplated before a Commission,
to be nominated by the Government, my letter of
appeal was stopped in the Secretariat.
I had, however, taken the precaution to prepare a
duplicate, which I now forwarded, through the post
office ; adding a few lines expressive of my hope that
the Minister would consider these strange circum
stances, as constituting a case for departing from the
routine of his office, and for reading the duplicate so
transmitted. At the same time, I duly informed Dr.
Bridges of what I had done; protesting against this
tardy concession of an inquiry in a form so palpably
intended as a baulk .
Late in the evening of the 22nd May ,—which fell
H 2
100
on a Saturday, -- I was notificd by Dr. Bridges, that
the Commission was then issued ;* and a " list" of
“ charges," said to have been extracted from my
correspondence and speeches, was enclosed.
I lost no time in protesting, once and for all,
against that most absurd and dishonest compilation.
My protest was afterwards renewed, again and again,
in writing and verbally, in Council, in Court, before
the Commission itself, and in my correspondence with
the local authorities and with Downing Street. The
Legislative Council and the Commission received and
adopted my protest. But, from the first occasion
down to this instant, no notice whatever has ever
been taken of it, in any communication to myself,
direct or indirect, on the part of the Government, or
in any of their notifications. Neither did it move
2.
them in any way to revoke their "“ list" of charges, or
qualify its language or arrangement, or to abstain
from publishing it in the Hong Kong Government
Gazette, with the mendacious statement, that such
were the charges I had brought.
I subjoin a copy of my first protest from my
manuscript. It was admitted in evidence by the
Commission , and is the suppressed document ( A ).
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ,
Monday, 24th May , 1858.
SIR ,
After office hours on Saturday, the 22nd instant, I had the
honour of receiving yours of that date, covering " a copy of the
charges to be forwarded to the Committee appointed for investigating
the accusations brought by me against the Registrar General."
Had it reached me at an earlier period, you should have had my
reply to it the same day.
* It was post-dated, however, the 20th May, 1858.
† Minutes, etc., p. 1 .
101
I have the honour to remind H. E. of my appeal to the Secretary
of State, and of his own repeated absolutions of Mr. Caldwell, against
which I have presented that appeal.
I do this the rather, because I perceive that, at least two of the
charges " or accusations " which are contained in H. E.'s " list,"
-I mean Nos. 15 and 16 — were stated to Lord Stanley and to none
else, in my letter of the 17th instant, and no where else, and merely
by way of support to the charge which I did make and prove, but
which H. E. overruled, that of being concerned in the brothel, No.
48, or the management thereof..
Not willing to obstruct any enquiry which H. E, may be now ad
vised to make into the subject matter of my appeal, I must respect
fully decline to accept any share in the responsibility, attaching to the
examination of aa document, not yet referred back , for that purpose, by
the minister to whom alone it was directed .
Not desiring, in the least, to shelter myself from whatever interro
gatories I may be asked to underly, or to withhold whatever help I may
be asked to afford , I must not vitiate or waive my appeal to the Im
perial Government.
Therefore, not inhibiting the course, now at the twelfth hour taken,
I must not sanction it,-ready to be a witness, II deny that I am any
longer an accuser,-altogether eschewing the function of prosecutor
before aa Tribunal, now, as H. E. informs me, on the point of being
named by him, to investigate a case which, I am aware , has been
>
already judged by H. E. himself,--Ishall, nevertheless, cheerfully fur
nish the members of the Commission collectively, or individually, with
whatsoever assistance they may think me capable of rendering, in the
course of their enquiry.
I cannot close this protestation, without including my grave objec
tions to the way in which the “ List ” has been preparedl ; both with
respect to what it omits and to what it contains.
I. To what it omits --Because it does not contain the least reference
-
to some of the stronger facts : e. g., the “accusations" ( for H. E ..
holds these and “ informations” to be synonymous) brought by Mr.
Cleverly and Mr. Forth, on the authortty of the Land Office and
Treasury books, and by Mr. Gilmour, the Treasury Clerk , on his own
authority, corroborated at the last inoment by the confession of Mr.
Caldwell ; and importing against the latter, not only the guilt charged
> 1
in No. 17 of the “ List , " and others of its “charges,” but also that
of a twice-repeated falsehood told in defence, and to which I presume
102
the 14th “ charge, ” in its extraordinary vagneness, relates ; and also
the conduct of Mr. Caldwell, in his character of “ friend” of the
pirate, after his conviction, in applying for and obtaining the all-im
portant documents and effects of theconvict, then at the Police Station ;
also his previous conduct at the Police Court, nolle prosequi on the
stronger charge ; and aa number of other matters, not specified in the
letter of the 13th instant, which H. E.'s decision of the 10th instant,
in Legislative Council, compelled me to send in .
II. To what it contains : Because it is not a true and faithful ab .
stract of what I really did say or write :
1. To the Governor in Council ;
2. To the Secretary of State ;
or 3. To yourself. as Acting Colonial Sccretary.
1. For the reasons already assigned in aa former letter, I waive all
bencfit of the privilege of debate,” invented by H. E.'s own “ stand
ing orders,” a few months ago, and, so far as I am concerned, submit
to be “ questioned out of Council by Government for what I have said
or done in Council.” But I cannot help thinking that H. E., before
approving of the " List " before me, ought to have had his attention
called to the fact, that the “ privilege ” was also intended to enure for
the benefit of third parties. And I abstain here from recording the
9
charges” to which I particularly refer, and in which a name is
mentioned .
2. With regard to the Secretary of State, I have above signified
my determination, not to incur his Lordship's censure by publishing,
except to H. E., the “charges ” said to be contained therein .
3. But, as to my correspondence with yourself, commencing on the
6th July, 1857, occasionally re-appearing during the latest months of
the last winter, and revived and pressed from the 13th instant to this
date inclusive, I do most confidently aver , that the effect thereof can
not be truly ascertained from the analysis supposed to be furnished
in the “ List of Charges "-charges, many of which are but studied
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.