394
early as I had intended, and in the meantime I have received a note from G. Bridges enclosing, in printed form, certain portions of statements made by himself before the Court of Enquiry which sat last Summer, and requesting me to declare whether his or Mr Anstey's version of a particular incident is the correct one.
I trust that I am guilty of no impropriety in availing myself of this opportunity to attempt an adjustment of the discrepancy to which Mr Bridges has drawn my attention.
Mr Bridges states on the 15th February, "I recollect it as being the day the French Captain was buried, I was with Mr Wade three or four hours. We had some talk about the Ma-chow Mong Case, and I distinctly understood from him that he had made no investigation of the books, and had no intention of doing so." And again, "Mr Wade never made any report to me as Acting Colonial Secretary, of the contents of the books and papers, and after the Executive Council had determined not to pardon Ma-chow Wong, did not intend to make any."
Mr. Anstey states "I heard His Excellency state on the 10th instant, as recorded in my letter of the 13th, that the reason why Ma-chow Wong was not pardoned was that his accounts and papers...