The
any further discussion.
to place them above any
same occurs with.
respect to the
discovered of signed by the
China on
by
·Treaty
yet
signed by the Plen. of Portugal of August 13, 1862, which has not,
order or consent
me to point
Macao
was in
been ratified. It was be easy for us, not only different acts to be accomplished, whether
of the Chinese Authority, but also documents coming from the highest functionaries of the Celestial Empire, action of implicitly undoubtedly the right of Sovereignty of Portugal as regards The Territory of Macao. They are frequently found in the "Correspondence" that took place in year 1860, chiefly between the fort of Macao of the Viceroy of Canton, and it is only for the sake of brevity that I do not recapitulate it. The fact, to which Lord Derby incidentally makes reference as a proof of the difference existing between the two Colonies, is on the contrary, the very proof of their identity. The Sec. of State for For. Affairs states also as a fact that Hongkong
as Custom Duties are concerned, it
is regarded by China as being a foreign Port. The Port of Macao, as
the very same statement, confirmed by the fact regards Macao,
that the Chinese Posts of Control of Custom House Branches are not established nearer to Macao
than they are to the British Colony. According
to the above, Ld Derby was certainly involuntarily in error when he stated that the Chinese Govt recognised Macao as a Portuguese possession. However, the recognition, whether it be a supposition or a fact, as to the Sovereignty of Portugal
over Macao, as well as the difference,
whether supposed or really existing, between the two aforesaid Colonies, are caused we have nothing at all to do with the subject of my despatch of July last. The proposition for a combined action which H. M. Govt
desired does not arise from any acts performed by the Chinese Govt
Page 353