58
as their long detention.
Mr Wade more than once alleges "the defectiveness of his memory, "deserves to "and "answer positively for every "detail of that explanation, but expresses "great confidence in "his own powers of memory, save in the only instance, where "he hesitates to agree to facts.
I must add that his explanation does but confirm my own previous impressions in every instance, and I leave it to reiterate my recorded statements, not excepting the solitary instance of disagreement alluded to; I mean my statement that it was to the Mah Chow-wong papers (and not, as Mr. Wade inclines to think, the Beaver papers, for I had never heard of these) that the long disputed but now admitted conversation, on the eve of his departure, thward reserved.
Mr. Wade's letter appears to have been written with a very imperfect knowledge of the discrepancies he would explain away in the sworn and unsworn evidence given in his absence, by Mr Mongan, then Acting Chief Secretary, and Dr. Bridges, then Acting Colonial Secretary for Hong Kong.
It would appear, in fact, that Mr Wade had not read their Depositions in the Police Court, in the Queen v. Tarrant, nor their Examination and Cross-examination at the trial of that case, nor Mr Mongan's Unsworn statement before the Caldwell Commission, nor more of that evidence before the Caldwell Commission, more of that of Dr. Bridges himself, than the five short portions of statements, which he says, were received from Dr Bridges, enclosed in printed form; and which he cites at large.
Printed for Ref. 32-3.
Page 64
The 'note' in question had no authority; having been written long after Dr Bridges had ceased to be connected, in any way, with the Hong Kong Government. From Mr. Wade's letter it is clear that no communication whatever on the subject of that "note" had been made to him by, or on the part of, the Hong Kong Government. It is, doubtless, to these shortcomings on their part, that the irregularities leading to his explanation are to be attributed.
For he was thus erroneously made to suppose that the papers (which were afterwards burned)...
58
as their long detention.
Mr Wade more
in his hands.
than once alleges
" the defectiveness of his memory,
deseries to
and
"answer positively for every
"detail of that explanation, but expresses
cory considence in
" memory,
my.
own powers of wen in the only instance, where
he hesitates to agree
to facts.
I must add that his explanation
does but confirm my own previous im_
I beg
- prossions in every instance, and I. leave to reiterate.
my
Printed M... te. ff. 32-3.
recorded statements, not recepting the solitary instance of disagrament
· alluded to; I mean my statement that it was to the Mah - chow-wong papers - (andet
as Mr. Wade inclines to thenk, the Beaver
papers, _ for I had never heard of thes_) that the long disputed but now admitted
his departure
Conversation,
on the Eve
thward reserved.
M. Wade's letter bears to have been written with a very imperfect knowledge. the discrepancies he would explain away in the sworn and unsworn evidence; given then Acling in his absence,
absence, by Mr Mongan, then t frères seentary, and D. Bridges, then chilingplomat
Lecretary.
Heritary for Hong Kong.
It would appear, in fact that Mr Wade had not read their Depositions in the Police fourt, in the Queen & Tarrant, nor their txamination and Croplxamination at the that case, nor Mr Mon gan's Unswohn
pp. 41–2.50.52. ====
64.
treal
nor
of evidence before the (aldwell Commission, more of that of Dr. Bridges himself, than the tive short portions of statements, which
note from & he says, were
Bridges, enclosed in prented form ; and which he cites at large.
received cie a
official
The 'note' in question had no ruthority; having been written long cefter Dr Bridges had ceased to be connected, in any way, with the Hong Kong Government From M. Wade's letter it is clear that ris Communication whatever on the subject of that
"note", had been made to him by, part of:
+
or an
the
the Hong Kong Government. 4 is, doubtles, to these starting
on their part, that the for
ties on
ingulanties leading
attribuited.
کرتے
his explanation.
are to be
For he was made this, erroneously to suppose that the papers," (which were afterwes
3
burned)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.