"story but on the contrary gravely doubted it?"
Mr Pollard's plain history of the
12.
proceedings is an
ample refutation of these
comments of Sir Rutherford Alcock, which
The
are not borne out by the facts, and seem very unjust to both the Chinese. The Chinese Government never questioned the
story,
nere
and if the whole could be told
themselves
to total confiscation. I have heard this
from
way
reluctant to proceed
reliable
many
constrained to attack credit to the statement.
that I am
Such a feeling may
Enclosure 3. 6th May, 1867.
be said to have been
very
natural because the
Steamer where she
money, cargo,
for ly
Qaw
er
arms
was
such facts
presence of the
found
could
as
only
without
be accounted
those narrated
by her Master. As to the Consul I feel
quite at liberty to state that not several times he informed me that he
and
questioned the explanation given,
fran
but
what I knew of him I cannot
for a moment suppose that he would make
such
a
statement to me and also to Mr
Pollard yet subsequently put forward
13.
different version to Sir Rutherford Alcock. I now do myself the honor to enclose the despatch which I addressed to Sir Rutherford Alcock, on receipt of further
communication from Kwo T'a Cheong, informing me that Consul Robertson had written to him to state he might have
all
his property restored on
payment of a fine of
$21,000. In that despatch I fully
the case