Crime and Government at Hong Kong/The Caldwell Enquiry Commission
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 stage in the Legislative Council.
On my way to attend it, a letter from the Superintendent 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 ordinance 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 immediate 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 Registration Ordinance,—and the ulterior consequences of these proceedings, are correctly stated in my printed evidence before the Commission:—[1]
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 concurrence with Dr. Bridges (the Acting Colonial Secretary), proposed to go down and examine his books, and returned with the statement, 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 a mistake; and it is a mistake;" and he read the memorandum to us, which purported to lay the blame on his lawyer, Mr. Stace, who ought to have registered 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 position, 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,[2] 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 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.
Upon which I gave in this document (List of Ground-rents, see appendix B in letter C)[letter] in to the Governor, shewing that if there had been one mistake, there had been eleven mistakes, all in one day. 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.
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 a further judgment upon this complaint. 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 immediate 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 persons, 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 before the Commission.
That evidence is as follows:[3]—
My resignation was not accepted.
Under these circumstances, and considering that the decision of the Government—for decision it was—left me 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 circumstances, 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 on a Saturday,—I was notified by Dr. Bridges, that the Commission was then issued;[4] 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 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).[5]
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.
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 advised 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 a 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 interrogatories 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 Imperial Government.
Therefore, not inhibiting the course, now at the twelfth hour taken, I must not sanction it, ready to be a witness, I deny that I am any longer an accuser, altogether eschewing the function of prosecutor before a 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—I shall, nevertheless, cheerfully furnish 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 objections to the way in which the "List" has been prepared; 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 moment by the confession of Mr. Caldwell; and importing against the latter, not only the guilt charged 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 the 14th "charge," in its extraordinary vagueness, 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-important documents and effects of the convict, then at the Police Station; also his previous conduct at the Police Court, nolle prosequi on the stronger charge; and a 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 abstract 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 Secretary. |
1. For the reasons already assigned in a former letter, I waive all benefit of the "privilege of debate," invented by H. E.'s own "standing 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 "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 18th instant to this date inclusive, I do most confidently aver, that the effect thereof cannot be truly ascertained from the analysis supposed to be furnished in the "List of Charges"—charges, many of which are but studied varieties of the same charge, many imperfectly stated, some mere inferences from the presumed establishment of the rest, and others never made at all, or, if made, expressly alleged to be merely probable or doubtful, or otherwise qualified.
1. Of the first are "charges" 2, 5, 14, 15, and 17; 3, 4, 6, 12, and 16; and 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
2. Of the second are "charges" 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17.
3. Of the third are "charges" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8.
4. Of the fourth are "charges" 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14.
For reasons already suggested, I must not offer any advice to H. E., touching the mode of supplying the deficiencies or correcting the excesses of the "List," with respect to the statements in Council or the letter to Lord Stanley.
But I have no hesitation in saying, that the whole of my correspon dence with you, including the appendices, ought to be laid before the Commission, together with this my very respectful remonstrance.
Sir,
Your very obedient servant,
The Hon. W. T. Bridges, Esq., D.C.L., A.C.S.
I likewise subjoin that "List of Charges," as printed by Dr. Bridges, in the Hong Kong Government Gazette, and also at the head of the "Report."
LIST OF CHARGES
PREFERRED BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL.
1. With being unfit to be a Justice of the Peace [an inference].
2. With having a scandalous connection with a Brothel licensed by himself, namely, Brothel No. 48.
3. With having passed a portion of his life among Chinese outlaws and pirates [involved in No. 6, 7, 9, and 13].
4. With an alliance with some of the worst Chinese in this colony through his wife—a Chinese girl from a Brothel.
5. With being a speculator in Brothels and Brothel Licenses [involved in No. 2].
6. With being long and intimately connected with Mah-Chow Wong; and that that connection is still subsisting; and that the principal link in that connection is the bond of affinity by adoption, according to Chinese law.
7. With being in the habit, on Mah-Chow Wong's unsupported information, of arresting and discharging persons, and of confiscating or restoring property.
8. That the Chinese dare not now complain of the connivances and procurements of Mr. Caldwell, the patron of the outlaw Mah-Chow Wong [an inference].
9. With having procured bail for Mah-Chow Wong: such bail being a servant of his own (Mr. Caldwell's), who had been but a month before in prison for debt.
10. With audaciously denying that the books and papers of the Pirate's Hong contain any evidence of Mah-Chow Wong's guilt; with having deceived the Executive Council in the enquiry had relative to Mah-Chow Wong; and with being convicted of falsehood by Mr. May.
11. With being partner with Mah-Chow Wong in a lorcha; and that there were entries in Mah-Chow Wong's books, and made by him, of moneys paid to Mr. Caldwell on account or out of the produce of plunder made at sea.
12. With harbouring Mah-Chow Wong's wife after his conviction.
13. With inducing the Attorney-General, at the beginning of 1857, to order the release of a great number of men who Mr. May knows to have been pirates, and who Mr. Caldwell ought to have known at the time were pirates.
14. With buying land in the colony since December last, when he became Licenser of Brothels.
15. With having once owned three unlicensed Hong Kong Brothels at a time.
16. With having a Chinese sister-in-law by blood or usage, who in 1856-57 was keeping Brothels.
17. With receiving the monthly rack-rentals of houses, and in particular of a Brothel standing on 11 Crown Lots, down to the present month of May.[6]
18. With having informed Mr. May, that he, Mr. Caldwell, was a member of a Secret Society.
19. With having informed Mr. May, that although he would not himself take bribes, he would not object to his wife doing so.Lastly, I subjoin the "Report" itself. For it contains the account—meagre and unsatisfactory though it be—which the Commissioners have given of their own proceedings and notions.
But I must first premise that, even with that dishonestly prepared "List" to hamper them, their findings would have been far more unfavourable to Mr. Caldwell, but for some unhappy mistakes into which, as stated on oath by their Chairman, in the Queen v. Tarrant, they were led by their assessor, Mr. Day, of the local bar.
For, under his advice, they accepted Mr. Caldwell's verbal statement, in every instance, as evidence, for or against, himself, as he chose to give it; treating it, in the first case, as "satisfactory explanation," and in the second instance, as "admission."
And, under the same advice, they rejected as "hearsay," all evidence of "reputation," whether as to pedigree or character;—thereby voluntarily depriving themselves of at least twenty witnesses in attendance, and of a hundred who might have been summoned.
And, lastly, they held themselves to be so bound, by the wording of the "List," as to have no other muddle term, between finding for and against the "charge" as laid, except passing it by, sub silentio;—a proceeding of which I have already furnished many instances.
And yet, with all this, their "Report" was a mere compromise, effected in a couple of hours, for the sake of peace, if not to save the mail.
Three of them—a majority—were Legislative Councillors.
These remarked that there stood among the notices for the next day, a motion of mine, for omitting, from the estimates, the post of Registrar-General and Protector of Chinese, as useless and mischievous.
They further observed that, "as they were going to vote for it, and it was sure to be carried, Mr. Caldwell would be got rid of in that way most effectually. Why put a stigma on him now, which might prevent him from gaining some employment, of a lower grade than his present office."
So they all agreed to sign the Report; trusting to the morrow to cure the mischief they were doing.
Unhappily, that morrow never came. For somehow the compromise got wind.
The Legislative Council was immediately prorogued sine die, and did not meet again for more than two months;–by which time, my suspension had caused that notice of motion to drop!
With this explanation of their Report, I now proceed to set it forth in extenso.
REPORT.
Sir—We, the Members of a Commission appointed by Your Excellency, on the 20th day of May, 1858, to inquire into and report upon certain charges brought against Mr. Caldwell, the Registrar-General, having inquired into the same, do now report,—
That we commenced our public proceedings on the 27th of May last, and have had Twenty-five Sittings, extending over a period of Seven Weeks; that we have examined upwards of Fifty Witnesses, and a vast mass of Documents; and have extended our inquiries into a number of matters, some of which, irrelevant as they may now appear, were so woven into and combined with the immediate subject of inquiry, that it was not considered safe to leave them unexamined. We allowed ourselves great latitude as to the kind of evidence we admitted, and were obliged to do so particularly in the matter of hearsay evidence, though not to the extent which the Attorney-General (who sent in a protest on the subject) considered justifiable or even necessary. We may observe here, that the same gentleman also forwarded a protest against the manner of taking Chinese evidence, as being, in his opinion, palpably favourable to Mr. Caldwell. But we now repeat, what the Chairman stated at the time of the reception of the protest, that we consider the Attorney General's complaint totally unfounded.
We have experienced great difficulty in our labours: First, from the nature, arrangement, and wording of the charges—some of which it appeared unnecessary, as it certainly was most distasteful to us to inquire into; Secondly, from the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence; and Thirdly, and especially from the refusal of the Attorney-General to act as accuser, or to recognise the charges as his charges. Under these circumstances, we considered it advisable to engage the services of Mr. Day to act as examiner, parties interested being informed that he would receive at his Chambers any information which it was intended to bring before the Commission. On the subject of our inquiry we report:
That charge 2, has been satisfactorily met and explained by Mr. Caldwell,[7] though there existed strong primâ facie grounds for bringing it.
That charge 4 is not proved; but that there were grounds for bringing it.
That no proof whatever has been brought forward in support of charge 5.
That charge 14 is not proved as regards Mr. Caldwell himself, though it appears that Mrs. Caldwell has had transactions in land and houses for her sister since December last, when Mr. Caldwell became Licenser of Brothels; but that there is no evidence that Mr. Caldwell had any knowledge of such transactions.
That charge 15 has not been proved.
That no proof has been given in support of charge 16, but that there were grounds for bringing it.
That there is no proof whatever of charge 17, and that there were no sufficient grounds for bringing it.
That there were no grounds whatever for bringing charges 18 and 19.
That there were no grounds whatever for bringing charge 3.
That with regard to charge 6, a long and intimate connection 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.[8]
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 money. It has also been proved that a Chinese female, named Shaplock, who had been in frequent communication with Mr. Caldwell (and is reported, but not proved, to be a sister by Chinese usage of Mrs. Caldwell), received from the Foo T'ai pawn-shop the sum of 400 dollars, because the sentence on a pawnbroker belonging to the said shop had been mitigated, as was supposed, through her influence, and that she received a further sum of 50 dollars for her personal trouble in the matter. Further, since the commencement of this inquiry, Mr. Caldwell has, solely upon the information conveyed in an anonymous letter that certain property had been stolen, personally and without the assistance of the police, searched a room in the occupation of Assow, the Police Court Interpreter, whom Mr. Caldwell knew to be about to give evidence before the Commission. Mr. Caldwell, in the opinion of the Commission, acted in this matter injudiciously, to say the least of it.
Notwithstanding these facts, coupled with the circumstance of Mr. Caldwell's connection with so notorious a character as Mah-Chow Wong, it appears to a majority of the Commission, that, although Mr. Caldwell's original appointment as a Justice of the Peace may have been injudicious, they do not necessitate so strong a measure as his removal from that office.
Finally, we would state that in the course of the inquiry it has come to our knowledge, that previous to the appointment of the Commission, certain papers connected with Mah-Chow Wong's trial, and which might have been of service to the Commission, have been destroyed; but it has been clearly proved that their destruction was ordered, solely because they encumbered the Chinese Secretary's Office, while it appeared that they were then of no value, and could not be further required.
We have the honour to be,
Your Excellency's
Most obedient humble Servants,
CHS. St. GEO. CLEVERLY, Chairman.
H. TUDOR DAVIES.
GEORGE LYALL.
A. FLETCHER.
JOHN SCARTH.
To His Excellency
SIR JOHN BOWRING, Kt., LL.D,
Governor of Hong Kong,
etc., etc., etc.
Yet Dr. Bridges and Sir John Bowring affected to regard the "Report," as tantamount to a finding, "that none of my charges had been substantially proved," and, "the decision of the Commissioners in no other light than as an exculpation of him." I was therefore notified of their intention, to summon an Executive Council for the purpose of suspending me from my office.[9]
In my reply, I demanded a hearing for myself and my witnesses before the Executive Council; and,—no other attention being paid to my demand, beyond in forming me that the Council had condemned me already, and a renewal of the intimation, that Sir John Bowring was about to submit to that body the propriety of my suspension,—I lodged my protest against its jurisdiction to proceed, in so flagrant a violation of the law of the land and the Queen's regulations, already noticed.
In the face of my protest, they met on the 7th August last, and, without taking any notice of it, or communicating with me in any way, pronounced the sentence of suspension from that date, and published it in their Government Gazette of the following week.
This was done in terrorem to the other European witnesses;–none of whom, however, have as yet been suspended, albeit threatened with suspension. But the Chinese Interpreter, Assow, in the very face of their own Commission's Report, was dismissed at the same time for giving his evidence against the Caldwells.
The Assessor to the Commission, Mr. Day, was gratified with my place. His death, in the following month, opened the way to the present occupant, Mr. Green, a gentleman of honour and courage, and one who has openly expressed his disgust at the manner of my suspension, and the pretences alleged for it.
And now I find, from the newspaper reports of parliamentary proceedings, that Sir John Bowring, driven from the ground taken by him on the 24th July, is engaged in an attempt to divert attention from his disaster, and to arrest it upon a counter charge against myself.
Sir E. Lytton has informed the House, that Sir J. Bowring imputes to me a breach of special confidence, in giving the evidence I did give before the Commissioners.
A few words will show the absurdity and untruthfulness of that imputation.
You will have seen, that I not only took no part in the promotion of that method of inquiry, but, on the very ground, that thereby the official confidence of the Imperial Government would of necessity be violated, protested against it. It was the spontaneous act of Sir John Bowring's Government.
By the terms of their warrant of Commission, as printed by authority,[10] the Commissioners were directed to call for whatsoever evidence they thought fit, and more especially such as, without a plenary absolution of the servants of Government from all official confidence or secresy, was not attainable.
And not only were all servants of Government so absolved from that obligation, but they were even commanded to hold it as nought, after the following fashion, by His Excellency himself.
"[11]And I do hereby empower you (the Commission) to demand and obtain access at all times to all and all manner of papers, records, and documents, relating to the subject matter of the said Commission, and in the custody or under the control of the several public departments within this colony, and, from time to time, to call before you and examine all persons superintending or employed in or under any of the said departments, and I do hereby charge all persons in the public service to be aiding and assisting unto you herein."
Nor was this clause in their warrant suffered by the Commissioners to become a dead letter.
One of them compelled Dr. Bridges to give evidence as to the connection of his protégé, Caldwell, with the Chinese spy system.[12]
In like manner, the Marine Magistrate, Mr. Inglis,[13] was most reluctantly induced to furnish them, with reminiscences of the early habits and connections of the Chinese wife of the same "Protector of Chinese."
On each occasion, the unwilling witness was reminded of the above-cited passage of the warrant, and of his peculiar liability to censure, as a Government servant, in the event of disobedience to the tenor thereof.
In no other capacity than as a witness, summoned under the hand of the Chairman, did I ever offer myself to the notiee of the Commission; and, even then, I never missed an opportunity, from the first day of the inquiry to the end,[14] of "disclaiming the charges as made out on the charge list."
Nay, my steadfastness in the course I had marked out to myself, of taking no part in the inquiry but as a summoned witness, is made the subject of animadversion, if not of complaint, by the Commissioners themselves.
In their Report,[15] they say that they "had experienced great difficulty in their labours: First, from the nature, arrangement, and wording of the charges; some of which it appeared unnecessary, as it certainly was most distasteful to them to inquire into; Secondly, from the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence; and Thirdly, and especially, from the refusal of the Attorney-General to act as accuser, or to recognise the charges as his charges."
There was, therefore, no "breach of confidence" upon my part; but, on the contrary, the strictest obedience to the Governor's own warrant.
Further evidence has been since then obtained against Mr. Caldwell—both as to his past acts, and as to his continued malpractices.
In one case,[16] a verdict has established the credit of witnesses, whose testimony, if good for any purpose at all, made out, against Mah-Chow Wong and his gang, one of the cases of extortion narrated by Mr. May, J.P., and myself, before the Caldwell Commission,—and against Mrs. Caldwell a participation in the same—and it cast upon Mr. Caldwell (who gave his evidence most unsatisfactorily) a very strong suspicion of having been engaged, so lately as the autumn of 1857, in an attempt to defraud.
In other cases, yet more recent—for which I must refer to the correspondence asked for by Mr. James—his conduct in obstructing the due administration of justice, has led to results, which have received public animadversion, both from the Supreme Court and from the Magistracy.
And still he remains the Chinese Registrar-General, Protector, and Brothels' Licenser, and one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for Hong Kong.
I left that colony, upon sick certificate, on the 30th January last; exactly three years, to an hour, from my first arrival on its shores.
On my return hither, I find myself no longer Attorney-General;—my suspension having been confirmed, on grounds not yet stated, but which, I am happy to learn, are not those alleged by Sir John Bowring—whatever those may be, for I have not seen his despatches—nor such as are not reconcileable with personal appreciation and respect.
Once, during my Parliamentary career, it fell to my lot to vindicate a public servant who had, in like manner, deserved the anger and hatred of a corrupt East Indian Proconsulate:—and I did it unsolicited, and without consulting him, and yet with entire success.
The absence of imputation makes it unnecessary for me to attempt, for my own character, a similar vindication:—and I gladly forbear.
But the good cause, for which I have suffered, I leave to the public spirit of Englishmen, their consciences, their love of constitutional liberty, and their knowledge of law and right.
The rest I resign to fortune.
I am, Sir,
Your very obedient servant,
Late Her Majesty's Attorney-General
for Hong Kong.
London
16th April, 1859.
- ↑ Minutes, etc., pp 1, 2.
- ↑ Resigning my office of Justice of the Peace for Hong Kong.
- ↑ Minutes, etc., p. 88.
- ↑ It was post-dated, however, the 20th May, 1858.
- ↑ Minutes, etc., p. 1.
- ↑ The real charge, and one which was fully proved upon them, is entirely omitted! It was, that, for months after his acceptance of the Licensership, he continued to be the registered and ostensible owner and manager, even to the payment of Crown rent for the property, on which the Brothel stood.
- ↑ By a simple denial of interest, although the agency or nominal ownership was not denied, but admitted, both by himself and his alleged vendée, the Chinese quack, Lum Ateem, "his family physician" (pp. 11, 12).
- ↑ But see pp. 50 and 56; where Mr. May distinctly gives evidence to that effect.
- ↑ Letter of Dr. Bridges, A.C.S. (No. 433), 23rd July, 1858.
- ↑ Report and Minutes, Pref. p. i.
- ↑ Report and Minutes, Pref. p. 1.
- ↑ Minutes of Evidence, etc., 28th June, 1858.
- ↑ Ibid, 11th and 16th June, 1858.
- ↑ Minutes, etc., pp. 1—3, 30, etc. etc.
- ↑ Report, p. 1.
- ↑ Cheong-shew-Shek v. Endicott; tried at Hong Kong, before the Chief Justice and a special jury, 1 & 2 Dec., 1858. Compare the Caldwell Commission Minutes, pp. 31, 3.
Return of Crown Rents paid by D. R. Caldwell, Esq., for the Half-year, ending on the 25th December, 1857.
| On Interest, Lot No. | 79 | £6 | 16 | 11 | ½ | |||
| 241 | b | 0 | 10 | 1 | ||||
| 241 | a | 0 | 13 | 1 | ||||
| 242 | b | 0 | 6 | 3 | ||||
| 262 | 0 | 8 | 3 | £8 14 7½ | ||||
| 238 | c | 0 | 9 | 9 | ||||
| 240 | 0 | 10 | 11 | |||||
| 250 | 0 | 10 | 11 | £2 2 5 | ||||
| These Lots were transferred to Clum Atsoo, prior to this payment. | 204 | 4 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| 381 | 1 | 17 | 9 | |||||
| 382 | 1 | 17 | 9 | |||||
| £18 | 14 | 6 | ½ | |||||
Paid on the 26th February, 1858.
The above Lots were paid by Mr. Caldwell in propriâ personâ; but he requested me to make out the receipts on account of Lum Ateen,[1] Chun Alai,[2] and Chun Atsoo.[3]
- ↑ Admitted by Mr. Caldwell (Minutes of Evidence, &c.), to be his wife's doctor, and to attend his family professionally as such.
- ↑ Admitted by the same, to be his doctor's concubine.
- ↑ Stated by the same to be sister to his wife, Mrs. C.
[All this documentary matter has been suppressed by the Local Government. 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].