i
The Songhong
Government Gazettę,
No, I don't recollect it." This was between 1 and 3 1 was not then on friendly terms with Mr Hocy. We
yet made up our differences about our quarrel which | tried beiòre you at the Police Court. I met Mr Hoey on day not by accident, but in order to negotiate with him Paying him out of the license. On the next day, when I came up here, I reminded him of my previous denial. I first nght about the Opium Monopoly about 20 days before the 1st April. I had never consulted any one about it before this time (the 10th March) I had first spoken to Mr Parsons about it,—certainly not before the 10th March; and had asked Min how much I should have to pay him as a retaining fee, 3 should get the' Opium Monopoly. I think he said about 224) or $300. [Corrects himself.] Mr Parsons said he wonki let me know the exact amount. He never has let me krow; either by writing or telling me. I have seen him since several times, but we have never talked about the matter ›ince. I said I would see about it; I did not say more, because
course I was not certain whether I could get the monopoly. | } d'last retain Mr Parsons. I had not been to him purposely en the business; I only asked him because I happened to be with him. I went with Mr Caldwell to have my name struck the interpreters' list at the Supreme Court, because if I were an intérpreter I could not hold the monopoly. I don't knew on what day this was-it was before I signed the second band; I don't know whether it was before I signed the first hold. I saw Dr Bridges first on this matter about the 18th or 19th March I think. I had never spoken to Dr Bridges Lowe in my life. I was told by Dr Bridges's comprador to Come up to the Government Office to give the names of my partners in the firm; this was after I was told we could have Achow told me I was to have it, and that Mr Caldwell had told him. Achew's name was mentioned as surety in our tender. Before I and my partners tendered for the Monopoly I had never seen Dr Bridges's comprador, or heard of him. At this point of the investigation the room was cleared, and in the re-admission of the public the Chairman stated, that the Committee would receive from any one present written sugges tions of questions to be put to the witnesses.]
[JUNE 19, 1838.
The
ing no amount but offering to give 5 per cent above the high. est tender. Being myself unable to read Chinese, I had amounts, explained to me partly by Mr Mongan, of the S perintendency Department, partly by Mr Caldwell, the Re. gistrar General, and I shewed His Excellency the tenders which had been received up to that time (Saturday.) I sen for the Registrar General on Monday to ascertain the characte of the security offered by the five principal tenderers, and the course of that day laid before His Excellency the list of the tenders with the character of the securities, specifying the fact of three of the tenders having come in on the Sunday, and advising the acceptance of the highest tender, which was one of those which came in on Sunday. His Excellency on that day (Monday, 15th March) directed in writing the accep tance of the highest tender [paper F read]. The tender was not accepted officially by the Governor in Executive Council until the following week, because it did not meet till then. It had met on the day when the tender was provisionally accept- ed (the 15th March,) but the meeting was over before the tender was accepted by His Excellency. As the Governor had accepted this tender, which was from a firm, I thought it advisable to ascertain which member of the firm should be selected to hold the Opium Privilege. I accordingly directed the Registrar General to have the partners in attendance at Government Office. They did attend on the following day the 16th March-three or four men. I informed them in Chinese through Mr Caldwell, and I explained in English to Chun-tai- kwong, (who was one of them, and whom I there saw and spoke to for the first time in my life,) that the Governor had granted the Opium Monopoly to their firm, and that it was necessary they should select one of the partnership to hold the Monopoly. They promised to let me know whom they would name. Opium Ordinance was, as I have said, passed the following day, the 17th March, and on the 23d March in a Gazetie Extraordinary appeared Government Notification No. 26 (G), giving the Monopoly to Chun-tai-kwong, who had been numed In consequence to nie by his partners to represent the firin. of the Friend of China newspaper having pointed out that an error that had been committed in not publishing the Opium Privilege Regulations previous to the grant of the Monopoly, His Excellency had advised that it would be desirable to cancel the grant of the Monopoly, which had been notified, and another notification of the grant appeared on the 27th March, being Government Notification No. 28 (H.) There was no form of grant. It was a preliminary necessity that a bond should be entered into with Government by the Monopolist with suretics before the privilege could be granted. One was exccuted previous to the 24th March, on which the first Noti- fication of the grant was signed. This was destroyed in the presence of one of the sureties (Achew), and a fresh bond was entered into on the date to be seen on the face of it, the 25th March. After Chun-tai-kwong had signed the bond on that day, and Mr Hoey had signed it also, as surety, I asked Mr Hoey whether he had had any interest in the Opium Monopoly; he said he had not. I therefore told him that I wished to speak to' Chun-tai-kwong alone. Mr Hocy went out; I called Mr Almada, the Chief Clerk in my office, into the Colonial Secretary's Office, and when he had come, I said to Chun-tai- kwong that, with reference to the retainer, which he had on some previous day at my own house asked me whether I could accepi, he must understand distinctly that I could not act for him in any way, or advise him on any matter, in which the Government was concerned. I should wish to state that the reason why the farm was not put up to auction was, as far as De Bridges,—Matters connected with the Opium Ordin- I know, that it being altogether an experiment, and the sum ance were brought several times before the Legislative Council tendered being so very high, and so much higher than we had before the month of March last. This Ordinance was finally any reason to expect, it was considered better to rest content- ed with the amount obtained by tender, than to run the risk passed on the 17th March last. But it being altogether an experiment, it was doubtful what sum would be obtained from of causing embarrassment to the Colony by getting a much the Monopolist, and whether the better plan for obtaining higher sum by public auction. It was also pointed out to me revenue would be by teaders or by Public Auction. Notices that at public auction Government had no security that the far Tenders were issued, and the first appeared in the Govern highest bidder would be a responsible person; and the diffi- ment Gazette of 20th February 1858, being Government Notifi-culty of disposing of such a farm by public auction was shewa cation No. 18 (E.) In order to give as much publicity as possible, by the fact that Mr Glatz did not confine himself to any sum an musual step was taken by sending to the papers of gratis but stated his willingness to give 5 per cent above the highest similar course of It was clear to me, that were a circulation the advertisement for tenders. These two papers | tender. worn the Hongling Recorder and the Register's Advertiser. In- action followed at public auction, a satisfactory result could I don't mean any reference to Mr Glatz structions were also given that circulars should be issued in Macao | never be arrived at. and Chaton. The tenders were to come in on Saturday the individually, but I refer to a competition entered into upon 19th March. On that day a considerable number of tenders such a principle. I therefore advised His Excellency to accept were sent in to the Government Offices, some came in to my the highest tender, and not to go to public auction." own private residence after 4 P.M., and the next day (Sunday)
By the Chairman-Why did you not accept Mr Glatz's three more tenders came in, the parties stating that they had tender, it being 5 per cent higher than any other offered ? been up to Government Offices and found them shut, and had
Dr Bridges,—Mr Glatz's was not a tende "roperly speaking: been unable to ascertain where my private residence was until
specific then. The tenders were, with one exception, in Chinese. That it could not be accepted therefore. He med no execption was a tender by Mr Glatz, the watchmaker, specify- | sum.
Fixundantion continued,—[ Gazetie, of 20th February handed to witness, and Government Notification pointed out.] I saw the Government Notification, about sending in tenders; but not until about ten days before.iny firm tendered, which I Lelieve they did about three or four days before the expiry of the time for tendering [March 13th.] My partners in this business (the Opium Farm) are Lèong-choi and Lec- tak-chèngg and Lec-chin; Hoey never was a partner. The first bond we signed was torn up, I believe, because the grant was made without proper notice having been given.
Adjourned till 10.39 A.M. on Saturday next.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman.
Saturday 15th May, instant, ot 10.30
Present,-Both the Members.
DR BRIDGES, the Acting Colonial Secretary,-Called in
and examined.
Choirman,—Dr Bridges: will you state to the Committee all you know as to the formal matters connected with the grant of the Opium Monopoly :—such as the names of the tenderers and times of tendering; the dates of advertisement und of the grant; the form of the grant, if any; the execution of the two bonds which the last witness has referred to?
|
|
sio
{
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.