2125
"of the tot+ July last as ultra vires, because 1. they made no distinction between Native and Foreign vessels whether bound to Porto or not. b. It is moreover to be remembered that there are Several Vice Rays in different parts of the Chinese coast and that each might make different arrangements equally ultra vires, and aggressive.
It seems however that the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade were satisfied, not by the withdrawal of admittedly illegal proclamation, but by private explanations of the Vice Roy as to what he meant.
7. Those explanations however were made to Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, and have only just reached me through London: Vide Governor to Secretary of State No 553, Paras 9 to 12. 10442/68. 7. Co. 12487/68.
whilst the Public Proclamation complained of has been left, and at this moment remains unaltered, nor so far as I can scan gather from the correspondence, which I have been permitted to peruse, does there appear to be any intention of requiring the Vice Roy to correct for Public information the misapprehension, which it is admitted that he had created.
8. In the Foreign Office letter of the 22 November last Lord Stanley states that the questions which I had raised seem to be founded on a misapprehension of the terms of the Proclamation and that my construction of the latter appears to Lord Stanley inadmissible after the explanations made by the Vice Roy himself to Consul Robertson."