108
between Mr. Caldwell and Mah-Chow Wong has been proved, but that there is no proof of any connection by affinity, according to Chinese law or custom.
That with regard to charge 7, it is proved that Mr. Caldwell has been in the habit, on Mah-Chow Wong's unsupported information, of arresting persons; but that there is no evidence as to his confiscating or restoring property.
That as regards charge 8, there is no evidence of any connivances or procurements of Mr. Caldwell; but that it is manifest that the Chinese are very averse to give evidence against him.
That as to charge 9, it has been proved, that Mr. Caldwell aided in the acceptance of Sze-kai, his former servant, as Bail for Ma-Chow Wong; and that Sze-kai had been imprisoned for debt, for a few days, a short time previously.
That we think it unnecessary to make any other observation regarding charge 10, than that there is no evidence of Mr. Caldwell having deceived the Executive Council.
That with reference to charge 11, a partnership with Mah-Chow Wong in a lorcha is proved, and in fact admitted by Mr. Caldwell; but that there is no evidence as to payments to Mr. Caldwell out of the produce of plunder made at sea.[1]
That as to charge 12, there is no evidence whatever.
That of the fact stated in charge 13, of the release of the men upon Mr. Caldwell's representation as to their character, there is no doubt whatever; and that it appears incomprehensible how any person, with Mr. Caldwell's knowledge of the Chinese language, and holding the appointment he did, could have been ignorant 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 Mah-Chow Wong was connected with the boats.
That with regard to charge 1, it being only a matter of inference, we find in support of such inference 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 that it was offered to Mrs. Caldwell as a present to the children. A majority, however, of the Commission do not feel satisfied that Mrs. Caldwell accepted this- ↑ But see pp. 50 and 56; where Mr. May distinctly gives evidence to that effect.
