I confess to be entirely at a loss myself to understand wherein the difficulty lies? The mere resorting to a Treaty Port renders her strictness subject to confiscation by the Chinese Government under the 47th article of the Treaty. Also British vessels unlawfully entering a port and carrying on clandestine trade along the coasts of China are equally liable to this penalty. If a vessel is found in a port not a Treaty Port, the onus of proving that she is there not unlawfully rests upon her, and her hesitation in doing so in this case has led to an inference of unlawful intent.
I have no doubt at all that the infliction of the penalty for a violation of this section is within the competence of the Chinese government; otherwise, the confiscation would not be the act of the Chinese government (as is expressly provided by the Treaty) but the act of the Court of whatever nationality it might be, before which the offence was proved and by which the penalty was decreed. The Consuls were present at the investigation on the part of the Chinese Authorities and in no way necessary to legalize their acts. But even with a willingness to deal fairly with a Chinese Subject when he owned a vessel which had been permitted to fly our Flag by the Governor of...