CO129-197 - Governor Hennessy - 1882 [1-2] — Page 20

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

shews that (irrespectively of the question of the book being mis-described - to which Dr Eitel denied this repudiates having made the statement) is true so found he did. not consider Dr Litel's having told the story about Mr Abyster a serious offence.

As to his reply to Sir Hennessy - I agree with des Voeux that his despatch does not satisfactorily meet the circumstantial statements in Dr Petel's letter 27 Oct 927 (1) as to his responsibility for Dr Litel's slander. As I have already observed, I see no way of deciding between the conflicting statements as to the instructions given by Sir Hennessy to Dr Eitel and Dr Litel as to the line to be taken.

but even assuming that Sir Hennessy did give instructions to Dr Eitel, I do not see that he would have been justified in authorizing Dr Brunefy to state to members of the Leg Council the true facts as to the exclusion by the Government of ...

On the other hand, if Sir Hennessy had not authorized Dr Litel to repeat the story, the latter having told a false and scandalous story, his conduct is unworthy of Her Majesty's Commission.

It is therefore material to know whether the Governor did make to Dr Eitel the statements attributed to him in par 30 of Dr J; Willey's letter 27 Dec and whether these statements were true.

It is stated that the Governor in his despatch does not explicitly deny making these statements, nor does he explicitly say that Dr Eitel's statement to Mr Whason was incorrect.

"authoritative statement" reported to in par 5 and transmitted with his Confidential Despatch 2583 KRALA omits mention of the steamboat excursion or the hiding of the book and states that the book was the catalogue of the Naples Museum, not the British Museum.

I think that Sir Hennessy should be called upon to state whether or not he did make the statements attributed to him by Dr Eitel and whether they were true.

Page 19

MINUTE PAPER.

the anthem statement written statement read to Dr de Voeux contains the whole of the facts and whether the action taken was real in that written statement.

...

Page 327

8

...

Edit History

2026-05-22 22:31:46 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
shews that (irrespectively of the question of the book being mis-described - to which Dr Eitel denied this repudiates having made the statement) is true so found he did. not consider Dr Litel's having told the story about Mr Abyster a serious offence. As to his reply to Sir Hennessy - I agree with des Voeux that his despatch does not satisfactorily meet the circumstantial statements in Dr Petel's letter 27 Oct 927 (1) as to his responsibility for Dr Litel's slander. As I have already observed, I see no way of deciding between the conflicting statements as to the instructions given by Sir Hennessy to Dr Eitel and Dr Litel as to the line to be taken. but even assuming that Sir Hennessy did give instructions to Dr Eitel, I do not see that he would have been justified in authorizing Dr Brunefy to state to members of the Leg Council the true facts as to the exclusion by the Government of ... On the other hand, if Sir Hennessy had not authorized Dr Litel to repeat the story, the latter having told a false and scandalous story, his conduct is unworthy of Her Majesty's Commission. It is therefore material to know whether the Governor did make to Dr Eitel the statements attributed to him in par 30 of Dr J; Willey's letter 27 Dec and whether these statements were true. It is stated that the Governor in his despatch does not explicitly deny making these statements, nor does he explicitly say that Dr Eitel's statement to Mr Whason was incorrect. "authoritative statement" reported to in par 5 and transmitted with his Confidential Despatch 2583 KRALA omits mention of the steamboat excursion or the hiding of the book and states that the book was the catalogue of the Naples Museum, not the British Museum. I think that Sir Hennessy should be called upon to state whether or not he did make the statements attributed to him by Dr Eitel and whether they were true. Page 19 MINUTE PAPER. the anthem statement written statement read to Dr de Voeux contains the whole of the facts and whether the action taken was real in that written statement. ... Page 327 8 ...
Baseline (Original)
', shews that (irrespectivly of the question of the book being болу mis-described a1 to which die Money that Eitil denied this repudiates having made the statement) is trans so found he did. not consider D. litel's having and the tild infchusen the story about Ms Abyster M. Mar a serious Mence As to his pher Hennesy - I aper with des Soden that his despatit my does not satisfactorily meet the Circumstantial statements in Dr Peteli letter 27 Det 927 (1) as to his responsibility for Dt liteli slander_ As I Leen already dieved I see no way of deciding hlinen the of the live hlien the conflicting statements as 4 the instructions price & die / Hinnesy 15 Dr Eitil 8. Siteli 4h the live version but even aframing I do not se would have femme for authorizing thas Sie I Brunefy was to Name for hes Prich Scereting to explain to members y the Ley Council the live facts as to the exclusin I her Hayter pom govemment do да so have precies was what bean he stays wish to munding t helloy the quail just before testing p. Pakar cherpe the pah hiding On the other hand win Sis I Hennesy had not autherived Athlet & repeat the story, of :he litd. D: Eitel a pole & scandeleus stery his conduct is unwertly Her Majes&i Ammission a pullemar. butting - it is therefpe I Reik g MINUTE PAPER. material to know whether the Groomer 19 did make to for fitil the statements attributed. totein in par 30 g DJ; Willey 27 De Lo and whether these statements wore time. thed that the Governor in his despatch there statements respect does not explicitly ding making por does he explicitly say fast Dr. Vitel's statement to Mr Whason was Morschuson was inconect "authoritativ but the statement" reporred to in for 5 and hansmitted with his Confidential Despatch 2583 KRALA omilo arez mention the steamboat. Excursion or the hiding of the book and states that the book was the catalogue of the but, hot, If the Pruster Museum- Naples Rolling Museum and also affipes hi I think that by JWmnesty should he called ĥ Jaz whither wote he did or did upen but batt. De hitel that to fear and had this the book and that he renke the statements &D. Vitit set pitt Shein and whether the liller & 27 Sw= is par 30 327 8 the anthemstation written statement read them & derpharon Cutamis the whole of the facts and whether M the action antes real in that wonten stelivat ant which writ
2026-05-22 22:31:46 · Baseline
View content

',

shews that (irrespectivly of the question of the book

being

болу

mis-described

a1

to which die Money

that Eitil denied this repudiates having made the statement) is trans

so found he did. not consider D. litel's having and the tild infchusen the story about Ms Abyster

M. Mar a serious

Mence

As to his pher Hennesy -

I aper

with des Soden that his despatit

my does not satisfactorily meet the Circumstantial statements in Dr Peteli letter 27 Det 927

(1) as

to his responsibility for Dt liteli slander_ As I Leen already dieved I see no way of deciding hlinen the

of the live

hlien the conflicting statements as 4 the instructions price &

die / Hinnesy 15 Dr Eitil

8. Siteli 4h the live version

but even

aframing

I do not se

would have femme for authorizing thas Sie I Brunefy was to Name for

hes Prich Scereting to explain to members y the Ley Council the live facts

as to the exclusin

I her Hayter pom govemment do да

so have precies was what

bean he stays wish to munding t helloy the quail just before testing p. Pakar cherpe the

pah hiding

On the other hand win

Sis I Hennesy had

not autherived Athlet & repeat the story, of

:he litd. D: Eitel a pole & scandeleus stery

his conduct is unwertly Her Majes&i Ammission

a pullemar. butting

- it is therefpe I Reik

g

MINUTE PAPER.

material to know whether the Groomer

19

did make to for fitil the statements attributed.

totein in par 30 g DJ; Willey 27 De

Lo

and whether these statements wore time.

thed that the Governor in his despatch

there statements respect

does not explicitly ding making por does he explicitly say fast Dr. Vitel's statement to Mr Whason was

Morschuson was inconect

"authoritativ

but the statement" reporred to in for 5 and hansmitted with his Confidential Despatch

2583 KRALA

omilo

arez

mention

the steamboat.

Excursion or the hiding of the book and states that the book was the catalogue of the

but, hot, If the Pruster Museum-

Naples Rolling Museum

and also affipes

hi

I think that by JWmnesty should he called

ĥ

Jaz

whither wote he did or did

upen but batt. De hitel that to fear and had this the book and that he renke the statements &D. Vitit set pitt

Shein and whether the liller & 27 Sw= is par 30

327

8

the anthemstation written statement read

them & derpharon Cutamis the whole of the facts

and whether

M

the action

antes real in that wonten stelivat ant

which writ

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.