20.
81
her entrance
necessary
that of those on board).
to her safety and I
We further add that, if, in
19.
judging
the evidence, the Chinese
Government acts unfairly or improperly
of its judgment it is
it would of course follow that the
confiscation
should be restored;
illegal and the vessels
20.
I apprehend however that it is
too late now and would be most unfair
to raise doubts, which
in the exercise
even
The Consul
competent for diplomatic action to
told
me
12 months ago
he did not feel
supervene as pointed out in detail
by
when the
occurrences and the evidence
was
fresh - double
hinted
at by the Chinese
him, whilst he actually adds that he
with the Attorney General
quite agrees
at length that assuming the facts connected with the "seizure of the Prince Albert,"
"there was
as
detailed by the Master of the
was
no
case for confiscating
"The Ship"." Having this correctly laid
down the law he proceeds to throw doubts
on
the story of the Master,
as
otherwise
the Authorities at the time,
who appear to have taken their law from
the Consul, whose view then
was
that
no
inquiry
was
necessary beyond proof
of the vessel's presence in a not
21.
demonstrably Port. If therefore Sir Rutherford Alcock's
Law be correct, and if neither the Chinese
Authorities
nor
The Consul originally