Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/110

 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.

Council Chamber, Saturday, 17th July, 1858.

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