The Hongkong Government Gazette.
[JUNE 19, 18
cannot be any doubt. Viewed in this light therefore, your Committee | deputations. I told Hoey that, by proving Chun-tai-k. tret to say, that they consider Dr Bridges's conduct in reference to the Opium Grant blameable, though, as they have before stated, they consider his honesty and honour quite unimpeached.
II. TUDOR DAVIES,” Chairman, JOHN DENT.
Council Chamber, 31st May, 1858.
EVIDENCE.
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEE.
At a preliminary Mecting of the Committee of the Legislative Council, appointed on the 7th day of May, to inquire into the statements involving the integrity of the Acting Colonial Secretary as connected with the Opium Mono- poly" and held in the Council Room on the 10th day of May, 1858, it was decided,→
That Mr H. Tudor Davies, Chief Magistrate, be Chairman : That an advertisement of the publicity of the proceedings and of the days of Meeting be sent to one of the Newspapers: That the first Meeting take place at 11 A.M., on Wednesday
the 12th instant :
That the Attorney General, Mr Hoey, and Chun-tai-kwong,
be summoned to give evidence on that day.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman.
Wednesday, the 12th May, at 11 a.m. Present,-Both Members of the Committee. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,-Examined. By the Chairman. On what day did Mr Hoey call on you, and what statement did he make, in reference to the payment of certain moneys by Chun-tai-kwong, the Opium Monopolist, to the Acting Colonial Secretary.
|
unworthy of those favours, those favours would be withdr Mr Hoey then proceeded with his statements, which were the effect I have stated above, after the parenthesis rel to the cumshaw.
As soon as Hoey had finished, I asked his attention : note I had taken of his statements, arranging them in t order; I read that note to him deliberately, and desired! to point out any deficiency or mistake that I might immedi correct it. He did so in some trifling particulars. He a me to put "as a cumshaw" instead of "for a cumshaw, something else I had at first written. I did so; I read twice the note of his statements after it had been finally by him, and each time he (Hoey) said "that is it, I am to swear to every word of it." I then told Hoey that it very desirable Dr Bridges should get his statement be leaving the office that day. He promised that should done, and that he would return me my note the same af noon. He then said, "I am an ignorant man, I don't k how to write official letters. I once wrote to Dr Bridges. he did not answer it; I suppose it was because it was wre and make it a letter." I did so, and even wrote the form will you therefore put a beginning and ending to this
address. On going out of the room he (Hoey) said to: "Would it do if I send you a copy of your draft?" 1- "No, you must send me the draft itself." Hoey then "By-the-bye, Chun-tai-kwong has sent for me this afterne to see if we can't come to an understanding about my inter in his Opium Farm; had I not better settle with him first, then send the letter to Dr Bridges." I said, “you may do you please, but I intend that Dr Bridges should not be c night without knowing this, so if you don't write, I will." said, "very well, sir, I'll write at once," and went away. ( Attorney General-On the 23d of last month, (April,) Mr reaching my house that night I found the letter from Hoey Hoey came to my Office and reported to me that the decision
now hand in (A). I wrote a letter in reply, which embrac of the Court of Petty Sessions in a matter in which he had these four points: 1st, to express my astonishment at his brea through his Attorney consulted me, had been obtained in his of promise, in not writing to Dr Bridges; 2d, at his : favour by Mr Day, who appeared as Counsel on his behalf, returning me my draft as promised; 3d, at the manifest fa being disqualified as Justice of the Peace to appear in that hood of describing a letter dictated by him as a letter dictat Court. He then said, that he had come to secure my services by me; and, 4th, at his false statement, that his conversati in future cases, when I was at liberty to act, by giving me a with me had been a communication between counsel a general retainer. I warned him that a general retainer in this client, or privileged as such. I also demanded the return Colony I could not take, except on my usual terms-$250 the draft by bearer. He sent me back a verbal message, t a-year. He then said to me "I think that is a very small sum, Mr Hoey chin-chin'd me, and would send an answer ne and you have treated me with more lenity than Dr Bridges has
morning." I sent again to him demanding an answer. T treated Chun-tai-kwong." I expressed no wish to know what messenger returned, saying that Mr Hoey would come early.❤ Dr Bridges had received, but he, pausing in his discourse, said, the morning to see me. Acting on my first hasty impr "He (Dr Bridges) got $400 from Chun-tai-kwong when the sion, I wrote and sealed a "semi-official account of the matt recognizances were entered into." He (Hoey) was speaking to Dr Bridges, and addressed it to his private residence, t of the grant of the Opium Monopoly. I observed that that reflecting that Hoey was an ignorant person and that I shou was certainly a large retaining fee: but Hoey said
see him in the morning, I withheld my letter till the morni not a retaining fee, Sir; I thought it was so, and I asked Chun- Hoey did not appear in the morning, and I wrote to him ag tai-kwong whether it was, but he said, No, Dr Bridges taking demanding the draft. My servant brought back this answ the money said to me of course that is as a cumshaw." (1│(B) which I hand in. I then wrote and sent without a m made Mr Hoey repeat these words at least six times, telling ment's delay the official letter now produced, enclosing him that he would probably have to swear to them. I can sealed "semi-official "letter which I had before written. [L have no doubt these were the words he used.) Mr Hoey then
ter read, (C)] Within two hours of sending this I received proceeded to say, "I asked Chun-tai-kwong, What retainer the Supreme Court letter No. 222, addressed to me by t then do you mean to give Dr Bridges;' he said, Why, you Colonial Secretary. This I now read as part of my evidenc see, Dr Bridges is a very clever man; he can do what he likes [Read (D)] I have no copy of the "semi-official" lett with the Governor; he can make any law he pleases and then which was substantially the same as the official letter. tear it to pieces, and then put it together again; I suppose I only knowledge of the official conversation referred to in t must give him $1,000." I asked Hoey, "how do you know last letter, was from a statement made to me by Mr Clever! that Chun-tai-kwong paid Dr Bridges $4007." Hoey said, "I and the explanations made at the last meeting of the Count don't know it, because after I had signed the recognizances as surety for Chun-tai-kwong, Dr Bridges ordered me to withdraw from the room, but Chun-tai-kwong staid behind, and when he came out he told me what had happened, and he said that Mr D'Almada had been called in to witness about something, I do not know what." Hoey added, that on the way to the Office that day, Chun-tai-kwong said he had a lot of money on him, which he (Chun-tai-kwong) said he was going to pay at the Office, "and I know" (said Hoey) "this, Chun-tai-kwong had none with him when he came back." He did not explain how he knew this.
•
66 It was
The moment this scandalous charge was obtruded upon me by Mr Hoey, I said I could not consent to be the depository of so scandalous a secret, but that either he or I must report it without delay to Dr Bridges as Colonial Secretary. Mr Hoey objected, that it would ruin Chun-tai-kwong, his wife, and family. I said that I didnt care if it were so. I presume Mr Hocy racant when he said this, to refer to a prosecution which I told him I should very possibly have to institute against Chun- tai-kwong. He (Hoey) then said, that it would also be in- jurious to himself, for that the Governor would very likely believe Chun-tai-kwong and not him, as the Governor was very Aund of Chun-tai-kwong, and was always having him up on
|
*
From that information I am led to suppose, that Mr He has, in a general and "ambiguous" way, denied my stateme of the purport of his communication to me; and that Chun-t kwong denied having told Mr Hoey anything about the $1, retainer, and that the $400 was only a cumshaw, but th both Hoey and Chun-tai-kwong admitted that the one had t the other, as repeated by me, that the motive for giving retainer-be the amount what at may-was because Chun-t kwong believed that Dr Bridges "is a very
clever man, as above stated. With Mr Hoey I have had no communic tion since his last letter given in evidence. He came into office a few days afterwards to ask me, as he said, a questi and I told him that I understood he denied the accuracy, my statement, as to the purport of his last conversation me, and that I had made up my mind to hold no communi tion with him on any subject, except in the presence of a t party. He made no reply, but went away seemingly very m ashamed. I have not heard from him since-but I am told went to Canton yesterday morning, since the advertisem of this meeting. I have heard nothing more of the miss draft. In conclusion, I will say, that I nevertheless belic Mr Hoey's statement to be a correct version of what pass between Chun-tai-kwong and himself.
"
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.