368
and since he concurred apparently in the wisdom of the
decision I concluded that the only matter at issue was the
money loss, and that if that loss were met he would be
satisfied. This view was also taken by the Colonial
Secretary who had read all the correspondence, and might
still be inferred from paragraph 19 of Sir F. Piggott's
Memorandum. In regard to that paragraph I have already
explained that I considered that Your Lordship's legal
advisers and not myself or a Lord Justice of England, were
the proper persons to decide the point of law involved. In
regard to paragraph 20, as I have explained Mr. Ho Tung has
made two of his wives co-equal. It is impossible therefore
to be sure when he speaks of his wife which wife or
whether one wife or both is meant.
9.
The Chief Justice maintains that
the whole matter resolves itself into the fact that the
Council desired "to increase the seclusion of the Govern-
-or's residence", and so to do by a side wind what they
should have done in a more legitimate way, viz.:- by
purchasing the property (paragraph 22). Neither at this nor
at any other time has the question of purchasing the
"Eyrie" been considered by the Execuitve Council. Sir F.
Piggott appears anxious to drive the Government into the
purchase