Modern Asian Studies,8,3(1974),pp.373-389.Printed in Great Britain. The Arrow'Incident:A Reappraisal J.Y.WONG University of Oxford IN the years 1856-60,Great Britain,France and China were involved in a war,which has been referred to by different names,depending, naturally enough,on the nationality of the historian.Scholars in China, almost without exception,call it the Second Opium War.Historians in England,however,usually prefer to call it the Second Anglo-Chinese War or even the Second China-foreign War.It has been given yet another name,the Arrow War.None of these names is,strictly speaking, entirely appropriate.To begin with,the war was not fought over the question of opium,although in many ways it was a continuation of the Opium War of less than two decades before.In the last analysis,it was a consequence of an ever-expanding Britisheconomy.Secondly,although it is true that Great Britain and China were the chiefcontenders,the title Anglo-Chinese War ignores the part played by France in the campaign. Then the name Second China-foreign War,apart from betraying the English desire to forget that part of their past,is misleading because it focuses attention on China herself rather than on British encroachment on that country.Finally,the Arrow incident was,like the burning of opium by Commissioner Lin,an immediate cause of the quarrel;but once London had decided to resort to arms,little further reference was made to it in British diplomatic documents.The name Arrow War is particularly irrelevant for the period after the scene of confrontation had changed from Canton to Tientsin and then Peking.On balance, however,the names Second Anglo-Chinese War and Arrow War seem preferable because they do not carry overtones of nationalist prejudice. The latter title has the additional merit ofillustrating how,in the age of European expansion,a small diplomatic incident could be magnified to justify the use of force to press home demands unrelated to it.It reflects the fact that the receiving end-in this case China,and in particular This paper began with an invitation by Mr G.R.Storry to speak to the Far East Seminar at St Antony's College,Oxford.It was subsequently read also to the History Seminar at the University of Sheffield,and the Commonwealth Seminar at Oxford. I am grateful to Mr G.F.Hudson,Mr A.J.Nicholls,Miss J.Jacobs,Dr Mark Elvin, Dr Gordon Daniels and Professor R.Robinson for having read and constructively criticized the paper.I wish to thank,above all,Mr Andrew Purkis for his continuous encouragement and valuable suggestions when this article was first drafted. 373 This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri,28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Modern Asian Studies 8, 3 (I974), pp. 373-389. Printed in Great Britain. Tl1e Arrow' Incident: A Reappraisal J. Y. WONG University ofOxford IN the years I856-60, Great Britainn France and China were involved in a war, which has been referred to by different namesS depending, naturally enough, on the nationality of the historian. Scholars in China, almost without exception, call it the Second Opium War. Historians in England, however, usually prefer to call it the Second Anglo-whinese War or even the Second China-foreign War. It has been given yet another name, the Arrow War. None of these names is, strictly speaking, entirely appropriate. To begin with, the war was not fought over the question of opium, although in many ways it was a continuation of the Opium War of less than two decades before. In the last analysis, it was a consequence of an ever-expanding British economy. Secondly, although it is true that Great Britain and China were the chief contenders, the title Anglo-Chinese War ignores the part played by France in the campaign. Then the name Second China-foreign War, apart from betraying the English desire to forget that part of their past, is misleading because it focuses attention on China herself rather than on British encroachment on that country. Finally, the Arrow incident was, like the burning of opium by Commissioner Lin, an immediate cause of the quarrel; but once London had decided to resort to arms, little further reference was made to it in British diplomatic documents. The name Arrow War is particularly irrelevant for the period after the scene of confrontation had changed from Canton to Tientsin and then Peking. On balance, however, the names Second Anglo-Chinese War and Arrow War seem preferable because they do not carry overtones of nationalist prejudice. The latter title has the additional merit of illustrating how, in the age of European expansion, a small diplomatic incident could be magnified to justify the use of force to press home demands unrelated to it. It reflects the fact that the receiving end-in this case China, and in particular This paper began with an invitatioll by Mr G. R. Storry to speak to the Far East Seminar at St Antony's College, Oxford. It was subsequently read also to the History Seminar at the tJniversity of Sheffield) and the Commonwealth Seminar at Oxford. I am grateful to Mr G. F. Hudson) Mr A. J. Nicholls,Miss J. Jacobs, Dr Mark Elvin) Dr Gordon Daniels and Professor R. Robinson for having read and constructively criticized the paper. I wish to thank, above all, Mr Andrew Purkis for his continuous encouragement and valuable suggestions when this article was first drafted. 373 This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 J.Y.WONG her Imperial Commissioner for Foreign Affairs,Yeh Ming-ch'en-tried throughout to argue the case over the specific casus belli,whereas for the British the whole affair was merely a pretext for wider demands to be made on China.Thus it seems more appropriate to call the conflict the Arrow War;and in order to examine its origins,the first step will be to analyse the documentary evidence related to the Arrow incident.Some papers in the Chinese language have only recently been made available to scholars in the Public Record Office.London,and these provide additional information for a re-investigation of the origins of the war.1 In dealing with historical documents,it is important first of all to study the circumstances in which these documents were written.In the case of the Arrow incident,such a study is still wanting.Consequently,the conclusions accepted in academic circles are,to say the least,biased.It is desirable,therefore,to begin with a brief introduction to the history of the Arrow,and next to examine the conditions in which the Arrow incident was documented,before one can decide how much weight may be attached to each piece of evidence.Then one will be in a better position to assess the realities of an affair that sparked off a second con- flict between Great Britain and China. The Arrow was a lorcha,a kind of western schooner with Chinese rigging.According to one of her sailors,she was built in China in 1854 by a Chinese called Su Ya-ch'eng.2 She was subsequently sold to another Chinese called Fong Ah-ming,3 who had been resident in Hong Kong for about ten years and who conveniently registered her with the colonial government on 27 September 1855.The acting British Consul at Canton,Harry Parkes,maintained that the Arrow,because of her colonial registration,was bona fide a British vessel as much as the brigs; schooners,etc.,that were built or fitted out from Hong Kong.4 This This article aims solely at evaluating the evidence connected with the incident.A full-scale analysis of the origins of the Arrow War is best dealt with in a book,which the author is in the process of writing. 2 F.O.228.213,Parkes-Bowring Desp.158,Incl.,Yeh-Parkes,14 October 1856. The name Su Ya-ch'eng is here romanized according to the Chinese characters given in F.O.682.100.1,Yeh-Seymour,31 October 1856. 3 I have not been able to discover the Chinese characters for Fong Ah-ming. Probably this is the Cantonese version of Fang Ya-ming.Some Chinese local gazet- teers (Nan-hai hsien-chieh 2.60b,P'an-yi hsien-chieh 22.32b and Kuang-chou fu-chich 82.311)recorded that the owner was Hsiao Ch'eng,which probably refers to the same person as Su Ya-ch'eng.If this were the case,then these gazetteers must have mistaken the builder for the owner. 4S.Lane-Poole,The Life of Sir Harry Parkes (London,1894),I.228,quoting one of Parkes'private letters,dated 14 November 1856. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri,28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 J. Y. WONG her Imperial Commissioner for Foreign AfEairs, Yeh Ming-ch'en- tried throughouto argue the case over the specific casus belli whereas for the British the whole affair was merely a pretext for wider demands to be made on China. Thus it seems more appropriate to call the conflict the Arrow War; and in order to examine its origins, the first step will be to analyse the documentary evidence related to the Arrow incident. Some papers in the Chinese language have only recently been made available to scholars in the Public Record Office. London, and these provide additional information for a re-investigation of the origins of the war.t * * * In dealing with historical documents, it is important first of all to study the circumstances in which these documents were written. In the case of the Arrow incident, such a study is still wanting. Consequently, the conclusions accepted in academic circles are, to say the least, biased. It is desirable, therefore, to begin with a brief introduction to the history of the Arrow, and next to examine the conditions in which the Arrow incident was documented, before one can decide how much weight may be attached to each piece of evidence. Then one will be in a better position to assess the realities of an afEair that sparked off a second conflict between Great Britain and China. The Arrow was a lorcha, a kind of western schooner with Chinese rigging. According to one of her sailors, she was built in China in I854 by a Chinese called Su Ya-ch'eng.2 She was subsequently sold to another Chinese called Fong Ah-ming,3 who had been resident in Hong Kong for about ten years and who conveniently registered her with the colonial government on 27 September I855. The acting British Consul at Canton, Harry Parkes, maintained that the Arrow, because of her colonial registration, was bona Jide a British vessel as much as the brigs, schooners, etc., that were built or fitted out from Hong Kong.4 This 1 This article aims solely at evaluating the evidence connected with the incident. A full-scale analysis of the origins of the Arrow War is best dealt with in a book, which the author is in the process of writing. 2 F.O. 228.2X3, ParkesBowring Desp. I58, Incl., Yeh-Parkes, I4 October t856. The name Su Ya-ch'eng is here romanized according to the Chinese characters given in F.O. 682. I00.I, Yeh-Seymour, 3 I October I 856. 3 I have not been able to discover the Chinese characters for Fong Ah-ming. Probably this is the Cantonese version of Fang Ya-ming. Some Chinese local gazetteers (;J%an-hai hszen-chieh 2.60b, P'an-yu hsien-chieh X.32b and Kuang-chou f-chich 82.3II) recorded that the owner was Hsiao Ch'eng, which probably refers to the same person as Su Ya-ch'eng. If this were the case) then these gazetteers must have mistaken the builder for the owner. 4 S. Lane-Poole, The Life of Sir Harry Parkes (London, I894), t.228, quoting one of Parkes' private letters, dated I4 November I856. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ARROW'INCIDENT:A REAPPRAISAL 375 statement indeed corroborates the evidence that the Arrow was built in China.By her colonial registration,the Arrow was granted permission to fly the British flag and to claim British protection.s Her crew con- sisted entirely of Chinese sailors,with the exception of the captain,who was an Irishman called Thomas Kennedy from Belfast,and who candidly admitted that he had been put on board only as nominal master of the vessel.6 Thus,here is a vessel built in China,owned by a Chinese subject,7 and manned by a Chinese crew sailing in Chinese waters but claiming British protection.This ambiguity,as might be expected,could give rise to misconceptions as to the nationality of the vessel.If such a ship was at sea and flying her British colours,she could be easily identified as a British vessel.But if she sailed into a port in China,lowered her flags in accordance with British nautical practice, dropped anchor,and her British captain went ashore,she would be no different from a Chinese boat. On 3 October 1856,the Arrow entered the harbour of Canton,s having recruited on 27 September 1856 two assistant navigators, Liang Ming-t'ai and Liang Chien-fu.?These two men had belonged to a gang of pirates who had plundered two Chinese cargo ships on 6 September 1856.These cargo ships were the property of a member of the Chinese gentry called Huang Lien-kai.He was with his ships when the pirates began to close in on them.An exchange of fire ensued,which lasted from 7 a.m.to 4 p.m.He and his men were overcome and four of his sailors were killed.He jumped overboard and escaped.On 8 October 1856,he arrived at Canton and immediately detected Liang Ming-t'ai among the crew of the Arrow.He recognized Liang to be the pirate who,during the battle,had worn a red turban and a red girdle, who was without one or two of his front teeth,and had cheered on his 3 In March 1855,the local legislature of Hong Kong passed an ordinance to this effect (Hansard's Parliamentary Debates,Series 3,144.1160). 6 Cf.F.O.228.213,Parkes-Bowring Desp.153,10 October 1856. 7 The fact that her owner was resident in Hong Kong does not mean that she belonged to a British subject.As pointed out by the Attorney General of the colony, hardly any one of the 6o,ooo Chinese inhabitants there could be legally called a British subject(Hansard,op.cit.,116I ff).Indeed,most of these Chinese inhabitants, apart from the peasant minority,went to Hong Kong on a temporary basis,to make a living,like so many of the mobile merchants and labourers in China herself(cf.F.O. 233/185-188 series,which are Chinese documents concerning the administration of Hong Kong between 1845 and 1906). s F.O.228.213,Parkes-Bowring Desp.153,1o October 1856. Ibid.,Desp.154,Incl.,Yeh-Parkes,to October 1856,containing the deposition of Wu Ya-jen.The names Liang Ming-t'ai,Liang Chien-fu and Wu Ya-jen are here romanized according to the Chinese characters found in F.O.682.1oo.Yeh-Seymour, 31 October 1856. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri,28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ARROW' INCIDENT: A REAPPRAISAL 375 statement indeed corroborates the evidence that the Arrow was built in China. By her colonial r-egistration, the Arrow was granted permission to fly the British flag and to claim British protection.5 Her crew consisted entirely of Chinese sailors, with the exception of the captain, who was an Irishman called Thomas Kennedy from Belfast, and who candidly admitted that he had been put on board only as nominal master of the rressel.6 Thus, here is a vessel built in China, owned by a Chinese subject,7 and manned by a Chinese crew sailing in Chinese waters but claiming British protection. This ambiguity, as might be expected, could give rise to misconceptions as to the nationality of the vessel. If such a ship was at sea and flying her British colours, she could be easily identified as a British rressel. But if she sailed into a port in China, lowered her flags in accordance with British nautical practice, dropped anchor, and her British captain went ashore, she would be no diffierent from a Chinese boat. On 3 October I856, the Arrow entered the harbour of Canton,8 harring recruited on 2 7 September I 856 two assistant navigators, Liang Ming-t'ai and Liang Chien-fu.s These two men had belonged to a gang of pirates who had plundered two Chinese cargo ships on 6 September I856. These cargo ships were the property of a member of the Chinese gentry called Huang Lien-kai. He was with his ships when the pirates began to close in on them. An exchange of fire ensued, which lasted from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. He and his men were overcome and four of his sailors were killed. He jumped overboard and escaped. On 8 October I856, he arrived at Canton and immediately detected Liang Ming-t'ai among the crew of the Arrow. He recognized Liang to be the pirate who, during the battle, had worn a red turban and a red girdle, who was without one or two of his front teeth, and had cheered on his 5 In March I855, the local legislature of Hong Kong passed an ordinance to this effect (Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Series 3, I44. I I60) 6 Cf. F.O. 228.2I3, Parkes-Bowring Desp. I53, I0 October I856. 7 The fact that her owner was resident in Hong Kong does not mean that she belonged to a British subject. As pointed out by the Attorney General of the colony, hardly any one of the 60,ooo Chinese inhabitants there could be legally called a British subject (Hansard, op. Cit., I I6I f5). Indeed, most of these Chinese inhabitants, apart from the peasant minority, went to Hong Kong on a temporary basis, to make a living, like so many of the mobile merchants and labourers in China herself (cf. F.O. 233/I85-I88 series, which are Chinese documents concerning the administration of Hong Kong between I845 and I906). 8 F.O. 228.2I3n Parkes-Bowring Desp. I53 I0 October I856. 9 Ibid., Desp. I54, Incl., Yeh-Parkes, I0 October I856, containing the deposition of Wu Yajen. The names Liang Ming-t'ai, Liang Chien-fu and Wu Yajen are here romanized according to the Chinese characters found in F.O. 682. I00. Yeh-Seyrnour, 3 I October I 856. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 J.Y.WONG fellow pirates to keep up their fire.Immediately he reported to the harbour authorities at Canton.10 A squad of marines was despatched to the Arrow.The officers commanding these marines claimed that when they arrived at the ship,they did not see any flag on the masts,or any foreigner on board,but only Chinese sailors,whereupon they proceeded to take the entire crew into custody as they would have done with the sailors of any suspect Chinese vessel.11 The above is a brief history of the Arrow,and the background of the Chinese evidence.At this stage,it may be useful to verify the claims of the Chinese officers.Even English documents support their assertion that no foreigner was on board the Arrow when they reached the vessel. The captain,Thomas Kennedy,admitted that he was at the time breakfasting in another vessel called the Dart.12 His friends,namely,the captain of the Dart,John Leach,and the captain of the Chusan,Charles Earl,who were eating with him,also testified to the same effect.13 The other claim of the Chinese officers,that no flags were flying,was chal- lenged by Kennedy and his breakfasting friends,who professed to have watched the incident from a distance.14 The testimonies of these three men were supported by those of the two Chinese sailors whom Kennedy, hurrying to the scene from his breakfast table,requested the Chinese officers to leave behind to guard the Arrow while they took the rest of the crew away.This discrepancy between the evidence of the two sides leads to another aspect of the study of the Arrowe incident,namely,an examination of the circumstances in which the depositions on the British side were made. After twelve members of his crew of fourteen were led away by the Chinese,Kennedy lost no time in reporting his version of the incident to the acting British Consul,Harry Parkes.His story consisted of two main points:the Chinese had arrested the sailors of a British vessel under his charge,and had hauled down the Union Jack,which he claimed had been flying on the mizen-mast.Parkes'immediate reaction, as he told the British Plenipotentiary,Sir John Bowring,15 and Com- missioner Yeh afterwards,was hesitation 'to rely solely on the master's account of so gross an outrage'.He at once despatched people'to make inquiries,the result of which led him,so he implied,to conclude 10 Ibid.,Deposition of Huang Lien-kai. 11 Ibid.,Desp.158,Incl.,Yeh-Parkes,14 October 1856. 12 Ibid.,Desp.155,Incl.,Kennedy's deposition,9 October 1856. 13 Ibid.,Desp.155,Incl.,Leach's deposition,9 October 1856;ibid..Desp.160, Incl.,Earl's deposition,16 October 1856. 14 Ibid.The distance was estimated by Kennedy to be between 50 and Ioo yards. 1s He was also Governor of Hong Kong and Superintendent of Trade. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri,28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 J. Y. WONG fellow pirates to keep up their fire. Immediately he reported to the harbour authorities at Canton.l° A'squad of marines was despatched to the Arrow. The officers commanding these marines claimed that when they arrived at the ship, they did not see any flag on the masts, or any foreigner on board, but only Chinese sailors, whereupon they proceeded to take the entire crew into custody as they would have done with the sailors of any suspect Chinese vessel.ll The above is a brief history of the Arrow, and the background of the Chinese evidence. At this stage, it may be useful to verify the claims of the Chinese officers. Even English documents support their assertion that no foreigner was on board the Arrow when they reached the vessel. The captain, Thomas Kennedy, admitted that he was at the time breakfasting in another vessel called the Dart.l2 His friends, namely, the captain of the Dart, John Leach, and the captain of the CAhusan, Charles Earl, who were eating with him, also testified to the same effect.l3 The other claim of the Chinese officers, that no flags were flying, was challenged by Kennedy and his breakfasting friends, who professed to have watched the incident from a distance.l4 The testimonies of these three men were supported by those of the two Chinese sailors whom Kennedy, hurrying to the scene from his breakfastable, requested the Chinese officers to leave behind to guard the Arrow while they took the rest of the crew away. This discrepancy between the evidence of the two sides leads to another aspect of the study of the Arrow incident, namely, an examination of the circumstances in which the depositions on the British side were made. After twelve members of his crew of fourteen were led away by the Chinese, Kennedy lost no time in reporting his version of the incident to the acting British Consul, Harry Parkes. His story consisted of two main points: the Chinese had arrested the sailors of a British vessel under his charge, and had hauled down the Union Jack, which he claimed had been flying on the mizen-mast. Parkes' immediate reaction, as he told the British Plenipotentiary, Sir John Bowring,l5 and Commissioner Yeh afterwards, was hesitation 'to rely solely on the master's account of so gross an outrage'. He at once despatched 'people' to make inquiries, the result of which led himf so he implied, to conclude lo Ibid., Deposition of Huang Lien-kai. Ibid., Desp. I58, Incl., Yeh-Parkes, I4 October I856. 2 Ibid., Desp. I55, Incl., Kennedy's deposition, g October I856. 13 Ibid., Desp. I55, Incl., Leach's deposition, g October I856; ibid.. Desp. I60, Incl., Earl's deposition, I 6 October I 856. 4 Ibid. The distance was estimated by Kennedy to be between 50 and I00 yards. 5 He was also Governor of Hong Kong and Superintendent of Trade. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ARROW'INCIDENT:A REAPPRAISAL 377 that 'the British lorcha Arrow,while lying with her colours flying in the river near the Dutch Folly',had been boarded by Chinese officers,who carried away nearly the whole of her crew,and added to this act of violence,the significant insult of hauling down the national ensign'.16 These statements give rise to a number of questions which deserve serious attention.Firstly,Parkes had a reputation for impatience and swift action;does his hesitation to believe Kennedy's story mean that he had doubts about the sincerity of the captain?Secondly,who were the people'whom Parkes sent to make inquiries-were they his Chinese employees or junior consular officials?Thirdly,whom did Parkes' agents question-Chinese bystanders if there were any,or British captains like John Leach?This third query is directly related to the second because a serious problem of language and communication is involved.None of Parkes'papers,official or private,throws any light on these problems.Furthermore,Parkes never managed to bring any of the'witnesses'whom his agents were supposed to have questioned,to make testimonies.Nor did Parkes ever produce a written report from his agents as to the nature and result of their investigation.Therefore, the above statements by Parkes were based on no more than verbal messages from people'who were not eye-witnesses but who obtained their information second-hand from an unspecified source. Just as Parkes'assertions were not documented,so also the language he used in his communication to Yeh on the subject was highly emo- tional.His letter began with 'I hasten to bring to your Excellency's notice an insult of a very grave character,which calls for immediate reparation...,confident that your superior judgment will lead you at once to admit that an insult so publicly committed must be equally publicly atoned.'17 The letter ended with a blatant threat to use force to obtain satisfaction.Kennedy's story and the subsequent report of Parkes'agents could hardly have accounted for this agitated state of mind.Parkes'anger and his dubious statement about the flag are the two key factors in the exploration into the background of the evidence on the British side,because it was Parkes who took the depositions on the following day (9 October).It is therefore of importance to discover why the acting Consul was in such an explosive mood. Shortly after Parkes had heard from his own agents,and had been told that the twelve sailors of the Arrow were detained in a Chinese naval vessel nearby,he repaired on board to claim the men.It is inter- 16 F.O.228.213,Parkes-Bowring Desp.150,8 October 1856,and Incl.,Parkes-Yeh, 8 October 1856.The Dutch Folly (Hai-chu)is an island in the middle of the Pearl River at Canton. 17 Ibid. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri,28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ARROW INCIDENT: A REAPPRAISAL 377 that 'the British lorcha Arrow, while lying with her colours flying in the river near the Dutch Folly', had been boarded by Chinese officers, who carried away nearly the whole of her crew, 'and added to this act of violence, the significant insult of hauling down the national ensign'.l6 These statements give rise to a number of questions which deserve serious attention. Firstly, Parkes had a reputation for impatience and swift action; does his hesitation to believe Kennedy's story mean that he had doubts about the sincerity of the captain ? Secondly, who were the 'people' whom Parkes sent to make inquiries were they his Chinese employees or junior consular officials? Thirdly, whom did Parkes' agents question -Chinese bystanders if there were any, or British captains like John Leach? This third query is directly related to the second because a serious problem of language and communication is involved. None of Parkes' papers, official or private, throws any light on these problems. Furthermore, Parkes never managed to bring any of the 'witnesses' whom his agents were supposed to have questioned, to make testimonies. Nor did Parkes ever produce a written report from his agents as to the nature and result of their investigation. Therefore, the above statements by Parkes were based on no more than verbal messages from 'people' who were not eye-witnesses but who obtained their information second-hand from an unspecified source. Just as Parkes' assertions were not documented, so also the language he used in his communication to Yeh on the subject was highly emotional. His letter began with 'I hasten to bring to your Excellency's notice an insult of a very grave character, which calls for immediate reparation .. ., confident that your superior judgment will lead you at once to admit that an insult so publicly committed must be equally publicly atoned.'l7 The letter ended with a blatant threat to use force to obtain satisfaction. Kennedy's story and the subsequent report of Parkes' agents could hardly have accounted for this agitated state of mind. Parkes' anger and his dubious statement about the flag are the two key factors in the exploration into the background of the evidence on the British side, because it was Parkes who took the depositions on the following day (g October). It is therefore of importance to discover why the acting Consul was in such an explosive mood. Shortly after Parkes had heard from his own agents, and had been told that the twelve sailors of the Arrow were detained in a Chinese naval vessel nearby, he repaired on board to claim the men. It is inter- 16 F.O. 228.2I3, Parkes-BowringDesp. I50,8 October I8s6,and Incl., Parkes-Yeh, 8 October I856. The Dutch Folly (tIai-chu) is an island in the middle of the Pearl River at Canton. 17 Ibid. This content downloaded from 202.120.60.150 on Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:35:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions