378 J.Y.WONG esting to note his description of the episode.To Bowring he simply reported that the Chinese marines refused to accede to his demand, adding that they intimated very distinctly that they would oppose with force any attempt on my part to take the men under my charge'.18 These few words,though much subdued in tone,indicate that more must have been involved.If Parkes did not make clear that he was going to take away the men by force,one wonders why it was necessary for the Chin- ese marines to make it equally clear that they would resist such an action by force.His despatch to Yeh gave more details.He required' the Chinese officer in charge of the naval vessel to bring his prisoners to the British Consulate,there to await examination;but this he refused to do,and upon my claiming them and insisting upon their being delivered to me,he made a display of force,and threatened me with violence if I attempted to take them with me'.19 This was as much of the episode as Parkes would have liked to be known officially.How- ever,one can hardly imagine that this was the end of the story,and indeed it was not.Parkes disclosed the remaining details in a private letter: They refused to do so [give up the sailors],laughed at me...threatened me with violence,and I was actually struck one blow,though to this circum- stance I have never made official allusion,as I wished to keep every personal feature out of view....20 The picture is now clear.Although the Chinese had expressed their determination to resist the Consul's militant threats,Parkes apparently proceeded to free the sailors with his own hands.A scuffle ensued, and consequently Parkes had the substantial grievance of having been physically assaulted. Parkes had demanded in his communication to Yeh that 'an insult so publicly committed must be equally publicly atoned.'The insult referred to here has so far been taken by historians to mean the insult to the Union Jack.If one reads Parkes'communication carefully,one will find that the demand was preceded by a brief account of his version of the episode on board the Chinese naval vessel,and immediately followed by a specific description of how this insult should be publicly atoned:'I therefore request your Excellency to direct that the men who have been carried away from the Arrow be returned by the Captain, Leang-kwo-ting [Liang Kuo-ting],to that vessel in my presence.'21 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Lane-Poole,Parkes,I.229,quoting one of Parkes'private letters dated 14Novem- ber 1856. 21 F.O.228.213,Parkes-Bowring Desp.150,Incl.,Parkes-Yeh,8 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
378 J. Y. WONG esting to note his description of the episode. To Bowring he simply reported that the Chinese marines refused to accede to his demand, adding that they intimated 'very distinctly that they would oppose with force any attempt on my part to take the men under my charge'.l8 These few words, though much subdued in tone, indicate that more must have been involved. If Parkes did not make clear that he was going to take away the men by force, one wonders why it was necessary for the Chinese marines to make it equally clear that they would resist such an action by force. His despatch to Yeh gave more details. He 'required' the Chinese officer in charge of the naval vessel 'to bring his prisoners to the British Consulate, there to await examination; but this he refused to do, and upon my claiming them and insisting upon their being delivered to me, he made a display of force, and threatened me with violence if I attempted to take them with me'.l9 This was as much of the episode as Parkes would have liked to be known officially. However, one can hardly imagine that this was the end of the story, and indeed it was not. Parkes disclosed the remaining details in a private letter: They refused to do so [give up the sailors] laughed at me . . . threatened me with violence, and I was actually struck one blow, though to this circumstance I have never made official allusionn as I wished to keep every personal feature out of view....20 The picture is now clear. Although the Chinese had expressed their determination to resist the Consul's militant threats, Parkes apparently proceeded to free the sailors with his own hands. A scuffle ensued, and consequently Parkes had the substantial grievance of having been physically assaulted. Parkes had demanded in his communication to Yeh that 'an insult so publicly committed must be equally publicly atoned.' The insult referred to here has so far been taken by historians to mean the insult to the Union Jack. If one reads Parkes' communication carefully, one will Snd that the demand was preceded by a brief account of his version of the episode on board the Chinese naval vessel, and immediately followed by a specific description of how this insult should be publicly atoned: 'I therefore request your Excellency to direct that the men who have been carried away from the Arrow be returned by the Captain, Leang-kwo-ting [Liang Kuo-ting], to that vessel in my presence.' 18 Ibid. 1§ Ibid. 20 Lane-Poole, Parkes, I.22g, quoting one of Parkes' private letters dated I4 November I856. 21 F.O. 228.2X3, Parkes-Bowring Desp. I50a Incl., Parkes-Yeh, 8 October 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 379 It should be noted that before the scuffle,Parkes requested the return of the Chinese sailors 'to the British Consulate';after the scuffle,he wanted the Chinese captain to return them to the Arrow in his presence. If the public insult Parkes had in his mind had been the alleged hauling down of the Union Jack from the mast of the Arrow,the reparation he demanded should have been the re-hoisting reverently of the flag by the Chinese marines,instead of a public humiliation of their senior officer.It seems that Parkes'decision to keep personal features out of the quarrel applied only to the writing of his official despatches.His overwhelming desire to avenge his humbling physical defeat was never abated,and was apparent in every communication he subsequently addressed to the Imperial Commissioner.Even when Yeh eventually returned all the twelve sailors to the British Consulate,Parkes refused to receive them because they were not delivered 'in the manner required in my letter of the 8th'.22 The humiliating experience Parkes brought upon himself by the scuffle appears to have had a profound effect on him.It produced the emotional tumult described above,and it probably prompted him to make those dubious statements about the flag.More important,it changed his attitude towards the Arrow affair.As has been mentioned, he was doubtful about the truth of Kennedy's story when he first heard it on the morning of 8 October.By the end of the day,he was writing to Bowring as if he were absolutely certain that the Union Jack had been flying over the Arrow and had been outrageously pulled down.The next day he busied himself with taking depositions con- firmatory of the facts set forth in my letter of yesterday'.23 If the Consul set out to take testimonies to confirm his assertions,it is unlikely that he would take,or include in his official despatches,any statement that he did not wish to hear.Furthermore,he could shape the depositions to his satisfaction when he took them.His role was particularly important when he took the testimonies of the two Chinese sailors left to guard the Arrow.The Chinese sailors spoke little English,and Parkes had to interrogate them closely in Chinese,then translate their answers into English and finally put them together as formal statements.In so doing, Parkes could choose his questions,select his words in the translation, and compose the depositions in the manner he desired.This is a time- consuming task,and probably explains why the Consul was unable to send the depositions to Hong Kong until two days later,on II October, Parliamentary Papers (1857),Papers relating to the Proceedings of H.M.Naval Forces at Canton',p.32,Parkes-Seymour,22 October 1856. 23 F.O.228.213,Parkes-Bowring Desp.151,9 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 iEtEAPPRAISAL 379 It should be noted that before the scuffle, Parkes requested the return of the Chinese sailors 'to the British Consulate'; after the scuffle, he wanted the Chinese captain to return them to the Arrow in his presence. If the public insult Parkes had in his mind had been the alleged hauling down of the Union Jack from the mast of the Arrowj the reparation he demanded should have been the re-hoisting reverently of the flag by the Chinese marines, instead of a public humiliation of their senior officer. It seems that Parkes' decision to keep personal features out of the quarrel applied only to the writing of his official despatches. His overwhelming desire to avenge his humbling physical defeat was never abated, and was apparent in every communication he subsequently addressed to the Imperial Commissioner. Even when Yeh eventually returned all the twelve sailors to the British Consulate, Parkes refused to receive them because they were not delivered 'in the manner required in my letter of the 8th'.22 The humiliating experience Parkes brought upon himself by the scuffle appears to have had a profound effect on him. It produced the emotional tumult described above, and it probably prompted him to make those dubious statements about the flag. More important, it changed his attitude towards the Arrow aSair. As has been mentioned, he was doubtful about the truth of Kennedy's story when he first heard it on the morning of 8 October. By the end of the day, he was writing to Bowring as if he were absolutely certain that the Union Jack had been flying over the Arrow and had been outrageously pulled down. The next day he busied himself with taking 'depositions confirmatory of the facts set forth in my letter of yesterday'.23 Ifthe Consul set out to take testimonies to confirm his assertions, it is unlikely that he would take, or include in his official despatches) any statement that he did not wish to hear. Furthermore) he could shape the depositions to his satisfaction when he took them. His role was particularly important when he took the testimonies of the two Chinese sailors left to guard the Arrow. The Chinese sailors spoke little English, and Parkes had to interrogate them closely in Chinese, then translate their answers into English and finally put them together as formal statements. In so doing, Parkes could choose his questions, select his words in the translation, and compose the depositions in the manner he desired. This is a timeconsuming task, and probably explains why the Consul was unable to send the depositions to Hong Kong until two days later, on I I October, 22 Parliamentary Papers (I857), 'Papers relating to the Proceedings of H.M. Naval Forces at Canton', p. 32, Parkes-Seymour, 22 October I856. 23 F.O. 228.2I3, Parkes-Bowring Desp. I5I, 9 October 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