C
8
The Hongkong Government Gazette.
cannot be any doubt. Viewed in this light therefore, your Committee regret to say, that they consider Dr Bridges's conduct in reference to the Opium Grant blameable, though, as they have before stated, they consider his honesty and honour quite unimpeached.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman. JOHN DENT.
Council Chamber, 31st May, 1858.
EVIDENCE.
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEE.
At a preliminary Meeting of the Committee of the Legislative Council, appointed on the 7th day of May, to inquire into the statements involving the integrity of the Acting Colonial Secretary as connected with the Opium Mono- poly" and held in the Council Room on the 10th day of May, 1858, it was decided,—
That Mr H. Tudor Davies, Chief Magistrate, be Chairman: That an advertisement of the publicity of the proceedings and of the days of Meeting be sent to one of the Newspapers: That the first Meeting take place at 11 A.M., on Wednesday
the 12th instant:
That the Attorney General, Mr Hoey, and Chun-tai-kwong,
be summoned to give evidence on that day.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman.
Wednesday, the 12th May, at 11 a.m. Present, Both Members of the Committee. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,-Examined.
By the Chairman.On what day did Mr Hoey" call on you, and what statement did he make, in reference to the payment of certain moneys by Chun-tai-kwong, the Opium:Monopolist, to the Acting Colonial Secretary.
Attorney General-On the 23d of last month, (April,) Mr Hoey came to my Office and reported to me that the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions in a matter in which he had through his Attorney consulted me, had been obtained in his favour by Mr Day, who appeared as Counsel on bis behalf, being disqualified as Justice of the Peace to appear in that Court. He then said, that he had come to secure my services in future cases, when I was at liberty to act, by giving me a general retainer. I warned him that a general retainer in this Colony I could not take, except on my usual terms-$250 a-year. He then said to me "I think that is a very small sum,, and you have treated me with more lenity than Dr Bridges has treated Chun-tai-kwong," I expressed no wish to know what Dr Bridges had received, but he, pausing in his discourse, said, "He (Dr Bridges) got $400 from Chun-tai-kwong when the recognizances were entered into." He (Hoey) was speaking of the grant of the Opium Monopoly. I observed that that was certainly a large retaining fee: but Hoey said "It was not a retaining fee, Sir; I thought it was so, and I asked Chun- tai-kwong whether it was, but he said, 'No, Dr Bridges taking the mpney said to me of course that is as a cumshaw." made Mr Hoey repeat these words at least six times, telling him that he would probably have to swear to them. I can have no doubt these were the words he used.) Mr Hoey then proceeded to say, "I asked Chun-tai-kwong, What retainer then do you mean to give Dr Bridges; he said, Why, you see, Dr Bridges is a very clever man; he can do what he likes with the Governor; he can make any law he pleases and then tear it to pieces, and then put it together again; I suppose must give him $1,000,'" I asked Hoey, "how do you know that Chun-tai-kwong paid Dr Bridges $400?" Hoey said, "I don't know it, because after I had signed the recognizances as surety for Chun-tai-kwong, Dr Bridges ordered me to withdraw from the room, but Chun-tai-kwong staid behind, and when he came out he told me what had happened, and he said that Mr D'Almada had been called in to witness about something 1 do not know what." Hoey added, that on the way to the Office that day, Chun-tai-kwong said he had a lot of money on him, which he (Chun-tai-kwong) said he was going to pay at the Office, "and I know" (said Hoey) "this, Chun-tai-kwong had none with him when he came back." He did not explain
how he knew this.
The moment this scandalous charge was obtruded upon me by Mr Hoey, I said I could not consent to be the depository of so scandalous a secret, but that either he or I must report it without delay to Dr Bridges as Colonial Secretary. Mr Hoey objected, that it would ruin Chun-tai-kwong, his wife, and family. I said that I did not care if it were so. I presume Mr Hoey meant when he said this, to refer to a prosecution which I told him I should very possibly have to institute against Chun tai-kwong. He (Hoey) then said, that it would also be in- jurious to himself, for that the Governor would very likely believe Chun-tai-kwong and not him, as the Governor was very And of Chun-tai-kwong, and was always having him up on
[JUNE 19, 1858.
deputations. I told Hoey that, by proving Chun-tai-kwong unworthy of those favours, those favours would be withdrawn. Mr Hoey then proceeded with his statements, which were bo the effect I have stated above, after the parenthesis relating
to the cumshaw.
As soon as Hoey had finished, I asked his attention to note I had taken of his statements, arranging them in their order; I read that note to him deliberately, and desired bin to point out any deficiency or mistake that I might immediately correct it. He did so in some triding particulars.
He asked me to put "as a cumshaw" instead of "for a cumshaw," something else I had at first written. I did so; I read over twice the note of his statements after it had been finally settled by him, and each time he (Hoey) said that is it, I am ready I then told Hoey that it was to swear to every word of it." very desirable Dr Bridges should get his statement before leaving the office that day. He promised that should be done, and that he would return me my note the same after. noon. He then said, "I am an ignorant man, I don't know how to write official letters. I once wrote to Dr Bridges and he did not answer it; I suppose it was because it was wrong: will you therefore put a beginning and ending to this note and make it a letter." I did so, and even wrote the form of address. On going out of the room he (Hoey) said to me, "Would it do if I send you a copy of your draft ?" I said "No, you must send me the draft itself." Hoey then said By-the-bye, Chun-tai-kwong has sent for me this afternoon, to see if we can't come to an understanding about my interest in his Opium Farm; had I not better settle with him first, and then send the letter to Dr Bridges." I said, “you may do as you please, but I intend that Dr Bridges should not be one night without knowing this, so if you don't write, I will.” He
said, very well, sir, I'll write at once," and went away. On reaching my house that night I found the letter from Hoey these four points: 1st, to express my astonishment at his breach now band in (A). I wrote a letter in reply, which embraced of promise, in not writing to Dr Bridges; 2d, at his not returning me my draft as promised; 3d, at the manifest false hood of describing a letter dictated by him as a letter dictated by me; and, 4th, at his false statement, that his conversation with me had been a communication between counsel and client, or privileged a such. I also demanded the return of the draft by bearer. He sent me back a verbal message, that Mr Hoey "chir chin'd me, and would send an answer next messenger returned, saying that Mr Hoey would come early in morning. I sent again to him demanding an answer. The the morning to see me. Acting on my first hasty impres sion, I wrote and sealed a "semi-official" account of the matter to Dr Bridges, and addressed it to his private residence, but reflecting that Hoey was an ignorant person and that I should Hoey did not appear in the morning, and I wrote to him again see him in the morning, I withheld my letter till the morning. demanding the draft. My servant brought back this answer ment's delay the official letter now produced, enclosing the (B) which I hand in. I then wrote and sent without a mo- sealed "semi-official" letter which I had before written. [Let- ter read, (C)] Within two hours of sending this I received in the Supreme Court letter No. 222, addressed to me by the Colonial Secretary. This I now read as part of [Read (D] I have no copy of the "semi-official" letter, my evidence. which was substantially the same as the official letter. My only knowledge of the official conversation referred to in the last letter, was from a statement made to me by Mr Cleverly and the explanations made at the last meeting of the Council. has, in a general and "ambiguous" way, denied my statement From that information I am led to suppose, that Mr Hoey of the purport of his communication to me; and that Chun-tai- kwong denied having told Mr Hoey anything about the $1,000 retainer, and that the $400 was only a cumshaw, but that both Hoey and Chun-tai-kwong admitted that the one had told the other, as repeated by me, that the motive for giving the retainer be the amount what at may was because Chun-tai- kwong believed that Dr Bridges "is a very clever man, &c.," as above stated. With Mr Hoey I have had no communica office a few days afterwards to ask me, as he said, a question, tion since his last letter given in evidence. He came into my and I told him that I understood he denied the accuracy of my statement, as to the purport of his last conversation with me, and that I had made up my mind to hold no communica tion with him on any subject, except in the presence of a third party. He made no reply, but went away seemingly very much ashamed. I have not heard from him since--but am told he went to Canton yesterday morning, since the risent of this meeting. I have heard nothing more of emissing draft. In conclusion, I will say, that I nevertheless believe Mr Hoey's statement to be a correct version of what passed between Chun-tai-kwong and himself.
"Net
JUNE 19, 1858.]
to me.
The Hongkong Government Gazette.
107
9
everywhere. I should say particularly here, because the late Ordinance for the Supreme Court, which amends the "Ordi. nance for Fees and Costs of 1856" expressly recognizes the principle of estimating the remuneration of counsel, not with reference to any circumstances in particular, but with a due 1 do not know regard to all the circumstances of each case. whether counsel here see clients without the intervention of an Attorney, more frequently than they do at home. I certainly do not do so.
CHUN-TAI-KWONG,-Called in and examined.
I
By Mr Dent-What are your grounds of belief? Attorney General,-I believe so, because Hoey had on motive to mislead me when he first communicated the matter After I had warned him of the consequences, and that I should report to the proper authorities everything he had said, and everything he was going to say, he had the strongest motive to mislead me in the other direction, by retracting and explaining away what he had said before. For Ist, he knew that it was my intention to put him to his oath in a Court of Justice, which he strongly and earnestly prof
In answer to the Chairman,The rule of the bar at home tested against; and, secondly, he was evidently most fearful of and here in reference to counsel seeing clients without the offending the Governor, whom he believed to be the patron intervention of an attorney is one of restriction. It is called of Chun-tai-kwong; and lastly, he was at least as much alart for by the unfortunate division of the profession into two at the danger of defeating an amicable and lucrative com branches, the barrister having a right of exclusive audience promise which he hoped to effect of his disputes with Chun-tail-in Court shuts out the attorney from the chief ways to fame, kwong at their private meeting which was to take place that day. fortune, rank, and power, and in return he is compelled by He nevertheless persevered in his statement, of the important statute to leave to the attorney the exclusive right of access particulars which I have set down in their order. My second
to and practice in the offices attached to the Court. To these reason for believing Hoey is this, that he never attempted even statutory restrictions the etiquette of the bar has superadded an "ambiguous" contradiction of my statement, until he was
others, which were at first confined to the legitimate purpose brought into the presence of the Acting Colonial Secretary of enforcing the restrictions of the former class, but which have and the two other gentlemen referred to in Dr Bridges gone much further and are now grown up into a body of law letter of the 24th April. I feel bound to state that, in and usage nowhere enforcible but in the courts of honor to which opinion, it was a most ill-advised measure to put any ques barristers, but not attorneys, are subject, and which are in tion to Me Hoey, except under one of two conditions: either many cases such as, in my opinion, ought to be considered as upon his corporal oath in the Police Court, or in my presence impracticable, and as disregarded of late years by the great body and I am not surprized at the result. A further reason for of the bar itself. With this explanation I beg to say, that the my belief of Mr Hoey's statement is, that it is quite consistent rule to which my attention is directed must be considered as with what I have heard from other sources with respect to forbidding the access of the client to the barrister, without the the connection of Hoey and Chun-tai-kwong in the Opium intervention of an attorney in every case not coming under Farm, and the boasting vaunting way in which the latter has
one of the following exceptions, viz: first, cases for opinion of been heard to speak of his assurance of influence with the counsel; &condly, conveyancing; thirdly, where thecircumstan- Government. I advise that Mr Day, and Mr Parsons, be re
ces are such as to make it innracticable for the parties to obtain quested to attend this committee, and that the former be asked
the intervention of an attorney, within the spirit and meaning whether Mr Hoey did or did not state upon oath, in his pret of the rule. I conform to this rule myself, and I am assured sence and hearing, that at a somewhat earlier period, Hoey by others that they conform to it also. Whether they under- attended upon the Acting Colonial Secretary at his request stand the exceptions in the sense in which I do, it is of course and being examined by that officer as to his (Hoey's) interest impossible for me to say. in the Opium Farm declined to answer the question put, and whether, on being pressed as to why he declined to answer
In answer to the Chairman,I am the possessor of the that questions, he did or did not make answer that it was Opium Monopoly. I became so a few days before the 1st because he (hey) knew that the Acting Colonial Secretary had an interest in the Opium Farm himself; and I advise that April. I have no "Grant" of the monopoly-no document the latter (Mr Parsons) be asked whether Chun-tai-kwong to shew that I am the monopolist except two receipts from
the Treasury, of my first and second monthly payments. in person, days and weeks before he became the patentee of also entered into a bond with the government connected the Opium Farm, did or did not wait upon him, and informing!
with it. I entered into two bonds, the first was cancelled- him that he (Chun-tai-kwong) was to have it, desire M Parsons to accept his general retainer as Solicitor to the said torn-up. I entered into the bond here for the second time, on the 23 March, I think. Mr Hoey came with me as Farm. I also think that a further proof of Chun-tai-kwong's assuming disposition, and his habit of leading men to think one of my sureties. I did not on any occasion when I came that he is one having authority (which here is governmental up here pay, or settle to pay, Dr Bridges $400, or any money whatever. I did not tell Mr Hoey so. Hoey asked me what authority) is furnished by the fact of his having to my knot-retainer I was going to give. I said, "Oh, $400 I suppose, as ledge, in more than one instance, exercised, and in other retaining fee and for advice also." I did afterwards pay $400 instances attempted to exercise, an arbitrary and illegal to Dr Bridges. I think on the 1st April. That was at Dr because usurped—power, of imposing customs duties on ship- Bridges's private house. I have a receipt for the money. ment and exportation of prepared Opium to foreign parts, upon declare I did not say that "Dr Bridges could make any law he the false pretence, which he has even stated under his own pleased, and tear it to pieces, and put it together again." I deny hand, of being expressly authorized by government as holder that I ever stated this, or anything to that effect, to any body of the Opium Farm to make such levy, for which he is in mly
at any time. I never acknowledged having said so not to Mr opinion liable to indictment for obtaining money under false Cleverly, or to any one else. I never told Mr Hoey that I pretences. And I here recommend that Messrs Edwards & Balley be requested to lay before this Committee, their late thought I should give Dr Bridges $1000. After Mr Hoey went out on the day when I signed the recognizances the correspondence with Chun-tai-kwong on the subject.
second time, Mr d'Almada was called in by Dr Bridges to be a witness that Dr Bridges told me that my retainer would not have the effect of enabling him to act for me against the Gov- ernment. I had before this asked Dr Bridges's Comprador how much this retainer was to be; he told me $400. The day on which I talked with Dr Bridges about the retainer, when Mr d'Almada was called in, I had signed the bond just before, and Mr Hoey had done so too. I understood that Dr Bridges was to act for me for a year as Counsel in Court, and to advise me on all matter relating to the Opium grant for a year, but not to draw documents or papers, or to write letters. Dr Bridges was to have also fees when he held briefs for me in these cases. He has held one brief for me, and I expect to The $400 pay a fee to him for it, but have not yet done so. was paid in Dr Bridges's drawing-room. I do not know the day, it was not before I signed the bond. I declare I never told Hoey, when I left the Government Offices with him, that I had paid Dr Bridges $400. I never told Hoey or any one else that Dr Bridges had said to me, "of course this $400 is a cumshaw." Dr Bridges did not say so. shaw. In the afternoon of the day before [23d April,] I' and Mr Hoey were examined by the Colonial Secretary in the presence of Mr Cleverly, [24th April,] Mr Hoey did say to me, "Mr Chun, don't you recollect you told me something about your having given Dr Bridges $100 as a cumshaw.”
By the Chairman, What do you understand to be the meaning and effect of a retaining fee to Counsel in this colony
The Attorney General,-That is a general retainer which retains the Counsel against all and sundry; that is a special retainer which retains him against a party or parties specified Their effect is however the same within their respective limits. A Counsel who has accepted a retainer and the fee for actual payment is essential to the retainer-is bou refuse to act in any matter against the client retaining without that client's express consent. It has been said, and I know those who have so acted, that the true function of the retainer is exhausted as soon as a client, on being notified of the application from the other side, has made his election either to deliver or to refuse a brief from himself to the Counsel so notifying him; but the matter is a delicate one, and I cannot reconcile such a peculiar act by notions of profes sional delicacy and honour. The only difference between the practice here and in England is, that here the general retainer is in all cases for a year, where in England, it may be for a year, or generally for all time, and that of course in England the fee is lower.
In answer to the Chairman, There is no such thing as a general consulting fee. I speak with reference not only to what ought to be the state of facts, but what is so here and
55
Ι
It was not a cum-