to Kwok-a-Cheong's story, and that the latter had failed to produce additional evidence, when required to do so. On the contrary the Consul himself told me he had nothing to say against the account given by Ruck-a-Cheong, but proceeded solely on what, as afterwards appeared, was the mistaken notion that the fact of the ship's entry non-treaty port was sufficient justification for confiscation. The time for declaring Ruck-a-Cheong's evidence insufficient, if that reason was to be offered in justification of confiscation, was when the case was heard. To turn on him several months subsequently and say you should have satisfied us with additional evidence of certain facts, as for example the existence of a junk waterlogged and dismasted 18 months ago, is contrary to equity.
H. Avertheles the commentary which ridicules all evidence and discredits every statement made on behalf of the "Prince Albert," might not in itself perhaps, if merely embodied in a despatch, call for any special notice. It could be read without a perception of its inadequacy, if embodied in a despatch to Her Majesty's Government, but rises into more serious importance, nevertheless, when paraded before the Public in a newspaper by Her Majesty's Minister.
13