510
The CA. Kaut
latter that the for: considered the Proclamation as contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Tientsin & and yet
in
The final answer
1
the 13th of July
no explanation is given, and no attempt
makes to remove this misapprehension on the part of the for
I conceive that if the official daily
had thought it
necessary
Anyone the 10th
to communicate to the for the
Explanation of the Viceroy contained in his
letter
W: AVG & the
view of Sir R. Alcock intimated in
dispatch.
his letter of the 20th July at all
events he should have made such communications in the letter to the
Colonial Secretary,
#f. If the 13th July.
I think the tone of the foregoing
letter is much to be deprecated, but I should be much inclined to inform
the
copy of the
despatch that when the Proclamation was sent to Sir R Macdonnell
furnished
he was not at the same time informed
of the despatch of the Viceroy of the 20th & of Sir R Alcock's letter of
the 9th July. If this had been done, much
misapprehension might have been avoided. Nor can I help remarking that though
the letter of the Colonial Secretary of the 10th July
1
did not in terms request any
information, yet on
the latter
part
that
it was clear
the for Governor thought that the Proclamation was an infringement of the Treaty & Convention, it would have been better if Colonial Secretary had even then furnished Sir R Macdonnell with copies of the despatch of the Viceroy & Sir R. Alcock, instead of simply