A
{
366
nature of the subject, I went further than I should have
done in the case of any other person, and told him partial-
-ly the reasons which had prompted the decision as stated
in his paragraph 12. I recognise that it was inadvisable
to have done so, the more so that the reasons were in-
-complete since I did not wish to say anything which might
be offensive to Mr. Ho Tung. Sir F. Piggott then said that
the decision of the Council was illegal, and requested
that I should agree that he and the Attorney-General
should each state a case which should be referred to one
of the Lords Justices of England for decision. I replied
that by Colonial Regulations I was debarred from agreeing
to such a proposition, and that if he considered that an
injustice had been done to him by which he had lost
pecuniarily it was open to him to submit the matter to
"
Your Lordship which I would of course do. I added in a
private letter that I had heard regret expressed that he
should be a pecuniary loser in the matter and that if he
so desired, it would be made good. I mentioned this even in
a private letter with some reluctance. It had nothing to
do with the matter he had raised officially with myself,
but Sir F. Piggott continually insisted on his personal
loss, and it was for this reason that I made the allusion.
8.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.