CO129-136 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [1-3] — Page 216

H

2125

"

of the tot+ July last as ultra vires. because 1. they made no distinction between Native aust Storeign veselo whether bound to ¡Porto or not. b. It

is moreover

Treaty

to be remembered that

there are Several Vice Rays in different parts

of the Chinese coast and that each might

#

vires,

are

a

matte different anangemento equally ultra vireo, and aggrefive.

It

seems however that the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade satisfied, not by the withdrawal of admittedly illegal proclamation, but by private explanations of the Vice Khay as to

what he meant.

7.

an

Those explanations however were made to ober Marijesty's Consul at banten, and have only just reached me

through London:

Vide Governor to Seey of State No 553. Pars 9 to 12.

10442/68.

7. Co.

12487/68.

whilst the Public

aggrefaive Choclamation complained,

of has been left, and at this moment

remains unaltered, nor so far

as I can Scan

gather from the corespondence, which I have been purmitted to peruse, dois there

intention of requiring the

appear to be any

any int

Alice Pay to correct for Public information

the misapprehension, which it is admitted.

that he had created.

8.

In the Foreign Office letter of the

M2 November last MC2 Equiton states that the questions which I had raised Seem

on a-

founded.

misapprehension of the termno of the Proclamation and that.

my

construction

of the latter appears to Lord Stanley inadmisible after the explanations made by the Vice Ray himself to bonsul Robertson."

NDE