of delay did not possess any force either, for the man could have been
arrested just as well by the English consul as by the mandarins, but it
would have involved a damaging admission of European authority in the
matter of a Chinese subject, and the mandarins thought there was no
necessity to curtail their claim to jurisdiction. Commissioner Yeh did not
attempt any excuses, and he even declared that "the 'Arrow' is not a
foreign lorcha, and, therefore," he said, "there is no use to enter into
any discussion about her."
The question of the nationality of the "Arrow" was complicated by the fact
that its registry had expired ten days before its seizure. The master
explained that this omission was due to the vessel having been at sea, and
that it was to have been rectified as soon as he returned to Hongkong. As
Lord Clarendon pointed out, this fact was not merely unknown to the
Chinese, but it was also "a matter of British regulation which would not
justify seizure by the Chinese. No British lorcha would be safe if her
crew were liable to seizure on these grounds." The history of the lorcha
"Arrow" was officially proved to be as follows: "The 'Arrow' was
heretofore employed in trading on the coast, and while so employed was
taken by pirates. By them she was fitted out and employed on the Canton
River during the disturbances between the imperialists and the insurgents.
While on this service she was captured by the braves of one of the
loyalist associations organized by the mandarins for the support of the
government. By this association she was publicly sold, and was purchased
by a Chin-chew Hong, a respectable firm at Canton, which also laid out a
considerable sum in repairing her and otherwise fitting her out. She
arrived at Hongkong about the month of June, 1855, at which time a treaty
was on foot (which ended in a bargain) between Fong Aming, Messrs. T. Burd
& Co.'s comprador, and Lei-yeong-heen, one of the partners in the Chin-
chew Hong, for the purchase of the lorcha by the former. Shortly after the
arrival of the vessel at Hongkong she was claimed by one Quantai, of
Macao, who asserted that she had been his property before she was seized
by the pirates. Of course, the then owner disputed his claim; upon which
he commenced a suit in the Vice-Admiralty Court. After a short time, by
consent of the parties, the question was referred to arbitration, but the
arbitrators could not agree and an umpire was appointed, who awarded that
the ownership of the lorcha should continue undisturbed. The ownership of
the vessel was then transferred to Fong Aming, and in his name she is
registered. These are the simple facts connected with the purchase of the
lorcha by a resident of the colony at Hongkong and her registry as a
British vessel, and it is from these facts that the Imperial Commissioner
Yeh has arrived at an erroneous conclusion as to the ownership of the
boat." As the first step toward obtaining the necessary reparation, a
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account