Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/109

 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.