in
you
one
of the local Journals.
In that communication
I notice
a mistake of the
Chairman of the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce who is reported to have said I had
been successful in convincing you
of
at last
that the
seizure
of the Prince Albert Steamer
was
illegal. It certainly
I
have to
say
was not correct
that I had convinced
you of the illegality of the
seizure.
The
seizure
in the
first instance was necessarily
quite legal though the confiscation of the vessel subsequently, on proof
of
the innocent character of her
may
have been illegal.
presence
at a Non-
Treaty Fort
may
...
It would have been
equally
incorrect to
say
that I had
convinced you of anything
in
favor of the Prince Albert or her unlucky
owner
not be incorrect to
though it might
say
that the
alteration of the penalty of total
forfeiture to a fine was in all probability originated by my appeal to Her Majesty's Government in
copy of which appeal I transmitted to Your Excellency
at the time. As the Consul had closed the case