No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Aubaret Versus Bradley Case At Bangkok 1866–67
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Extract
Gabriel Aubaret came to the China coast as a Lieutenant in the French Marine. A thorough student, he soon mastered Chinese, as he later did some of the languages of Indo-China. His career in Annam and Cochin China has been related in a previous number of this Quarterly. His work there showed him to be of a deeply sympathetic nature, and he was remembered chiefly for his interest in the native peoples. He was said to be deeply religious, with a tendency to mysticism, and seems to have had the courage, stubborness, and narrowness of view that often accompanies deep belief.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1947
References
1 Briggs, Lawrence Palmei, “Aubaret and the treaty o£ July 15, 1867 between France and Siam,” FEQ, 6 (February 1947), 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar–27.
2 Mrs. Leonowens, Anna H., The English governess at the Siamese court (Boston, 1870), p. 239.Google Scholar He is said never to have acquired a proficiency in French.
3 The term “Indo-China” without qualification means the peninsula — sometimes called Farther India. The correct name of the French dependency on that peninsula is “French Indo-China.”
4 Cultru, Prosper(Histoire de la Cochinchine jrancaise lies origines a 188) [Paris, 1910], p. 54)Google Scholar thinks Siam would have accepted a French protectorate at this time.
5 Meyniard, Charles, Le second empire en Indochine (Paris, 1891), pp. 152–227Google Scholar. Flourens (ibid., p. xvi) says that twice France refused a protectorate over Siam.
6 Vial, Paulin, Les premieres anne'es de la Cochinchine, colonie francaise (Paris, 1871), vol. 1, p. 183;Google Scholar Cultru says (pp. 5·1, 55) the Siamese were turned against the French and toward the English by French policy in Cochin China and Cambodia.
7 It is understood, of course, that France was similarly working against Great Britain; but she was not so well organized and lacked the ties of common language, religion, and customs to influence local American opinion.
8 Abstract of the journal of Dr. Dan Beach Bradley, edited by Rev. Feltus, George H. (Cleveland, 1936), p. 279.Google Scholar
9 Thomson, R. Stanley, “Siam and France 1863–1870,” FEQ 5, (Nov. 1945), 31Google Scholar, note 22.
10 MSS. Department of State, National Archives, Bangkok, 1864–69, no. 3 (Hereafter referred to as DSNA), despatch no. 38 of Consul Hood, June 30, 1866. The Department seems to have referred Hood to its Consular Manual (later superseded by Consular Regulations), Section 28, which, he says, circumscribes a Consul's duties to the protection of revenue, commerce, and citizens. See DSNA, despatch no. 1 of Consul Hood, Aug. 20, 1866.
11 Mrs. Leonowens had lived in Singapore before coming to Bangkok.
12 Bradley's Journal, p. 256.
13 Ibid., pp. 269–70.
14 Aubaret has been suspected of favoring, at Paris, Siam's claims to most or all of Cambodia (Cultru, op. cil., p. 110). Thompson says he proposed a joint coronation of the King of Cambodia by representatives of France and Siam (F£Q, Nov. 1945, p. 29). His treaty with Siam, April 15, 1865, is the first French recognition of Siam's right to Battambang and Angkor.
15 Vial. op. cit., vol. 1, p. 269.
16 Ibid., pp. 291–94. The Courrier de Saigon gives a long account of his reception. Vial, who was in Cochin China at this time, devotes several pages to it.
17 Briggs, op. cit., p. 127.
18 It is a misnomer to call these little gunboats, like the Mitraille, men-of-war, as Dr. Bradley docs. Schrciner, Albert (Abrèdgè de I'historir. d'Annam [Saigon, 1906], pp. 161–62)Google Scholar divides the French war vessels in Cochin China at this time into fregates (frigates), corvettes (sloops), avisos (dispatch boats), and cononnieres (gunboats). The Mitraille was one of the smaller gunboats. The Enlrecasteauxwas a dispatcli boat. Luis de Carne (Revue des deux mondes, Feb. 1869, p. 854) speaks of “these little gunboats so appropriate for policing the arroyos.”
19 Brebion, Antoine, Dictionnaire de bio-bibliographie générale ancienne et moderne de I'lndochine francaise (Paris, 1935).Google Scholar
20 Probably on the Mitraille, April 9. See Briggs, op. cit., p. 130.
21 Briggs (op. cit., pp. 130–32) gives the text of the treaty, translated from the French of Bernard. A clipping of an unauthorized version of the treaty, as published in the Siamese recorder in English, was forwarded to the Department of State. DSNA, despatch no. 5 of Vice-Consul in charge, Ceorge W. Virgin, May 19, 1865.
22 Except the Kralnhom, who apparently thought that by wearing the French out and playing on the dissensions at Paris, they would abandon Indo-China,
23 DSNA,despatch no. 1 of Vice-Consul Virgin, April 18. 1865.
24 Briggs, op. cit., p. 133.
25 Bradley's Journal, p. 245.
26 Ibid., p. 247.
27 Leonowens, op. cit., p. 258.
28 Landon, Kenneth P., “Thailand's quarrel with France in perspective,” FEQ, 1 (Nov. 1941), 42.Google Scholar
29 Landon, Margaret, Anna and the king of Siam (New York, 1944), p. 245Google Scholar, or p. 265 of the 7th impression, copyright 1943, 1944.
30 K. P. Landon, op. cit., pp. 41–42
31 Aubaret began negotiations for a new treaty in the summer of 1866. Early in 1867 the Siamese asked to have the negotiations transferred to Paris, where the party opposed to expansion in Indo-China was strong (Briggs, op. cit., p. 136). Vial, who became Director of the Interior of Cochin China in 1867, says much condemning the opposition of the English and Americans to Aubaret and the campaign of vituperation and misrepresentation against him by the newspapers in Bangkok and Singapore. At one time this was so bad and so beyond the control of the Siamese government that, at its suggestion, a note was inserted in the Saigon press stating that the best of relations existed between the two governments. Vial praises Aubaret's fight to keep the Siamese government from giving assistance to pretenders to the throne of Cambodia (Vial, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 106–07).
31a Bradley's Journal, p. 247.
32 Beginning in 1858, Bradley published an annual calendar of events of the preceding year. It usually appeared in January (Journal, p. 205).
33 Bradley's Journal, p. 251.
34 Ibid., p. 254.
35 DSNA, despatch no. 52 of Consul Hood, Feb. 6, 1867 and enclosures.
36 The facts of the trial, when not otherwise stated, are from DSNA despatch no. 52 of Consul Hood, Feb. 6, 1867, and its enclosures.
37 Bradley's Journal, p. 257.
38 This appears to have been simply the expression of Dr. Bradley's normal anti-French feelings. He had made critical entries in his Journal about Aubaret's predecessor on his arrival and was to do the same about his successors (Bradley's Journal, pp. 232, 264, 289).
39 The italics are mine. Margaret Landon, op. cit., p. 347 or p. 374 of the 7th impression.
40 Bradley's Journal, p. 257.
41 Ibid., p. 255.
42 Ibid., p. 262.
43 Ibid., pp. 245, 251, 255.
44 Ibid., p. 255.
45 Ibid., p. 256.
46 Ibid., p. 254.
47 Ibid., p. 255.
48 When The recorder, speaking of Aubaret, says “Such a man could not get along any place” (Margaret Landon, op. tit., p. 266), the writer apparently did not know that Aubaret had had a wonderful record in Cochin China and was known there especially for his interestin and sympathy with the native peoples and that at that very time he was also Chargfi in Annam and was very popular there (Briggs, FEQ, Feb., 1947, p. 127). The recorder could not, of course, know that Aubarel was to have a satisfactory later career and to rise to a high post in the French diplomatic service (see Bribion, op. cit., Aubaret).
49 Bradley's Journal, pp. 255–56.
50 Margaret Landon, op. cit., p. 347 or pp. 373–74 of (he 7th impression.
51 Moore, John Bassett, Digest of international law (Washington, 1906), vol. 2, p. 615Google Scholar; Consular regulations (Washington, 1896), pp. 269–70.Google Scholar
52 Consular regulations, p. 270.
53 Prosser, William L., Handbook of the law of torts (Hornbook series. St. Paul, Minn.), p. 777.Google Scholar
54 Salmond's law of torts by Stallybrass, W. T. S. (92d ed., London, 1936), p. 50Google Scholar; Prosser, op. cit., p. 789.
55 Newell, Martin L., The law of libel and slander (Chicago, 1924), p. 316Google Scholar; Prosser, op. cit., pp. 815–16.
56 Prosser, op. cit., p. 797.
57 Salmond, op. cit., p. 416.
58 Ibid., pp. 396–97.
59 Bradley's Journal, p. 254.
60 Ibid., p. 256.
61 DSNA, despatch no. 52 of Consul Hood, dated Feb. 6, 1867 and enclosures.
62 Bradley's Journal, p. 256.
63 Margaret Lanilon, op. cit., p. 344 or p. 373 of the 7th impression.
64 DSNA, ibid.
65 Wlmrton's criminal law (12th ed.. Rochester, 1932), vol. 3, sec. 2236; Burdick, William L., The law of crime (Albany, 1946), vol. 1, p. 52.Google Scholar
66 DSNA, despatch no. 52 of Consul Hood, dated Feb. 6, 1867. Up to the time of the trial, the relations between Consul Hood and Dr. Bradley appear to have been friendly. In a despatch to the Department, the Consul had joined in the current criticisms of Aubaret and had defended the Recorder as being “temperate” and “moderate” (DSNA, Hood's despatch no. 30, of March 31. 18G6). On his part, Dr. Bradley praised one of Consul Hood's decisions as ”just” (DSNA, Hood's despatch no. 22, of December 24, 1865), and he had joined some other Americans of Bangkok in asking that Hood be raised to the rank of Consul General there (DSNA, Applications and recommendations for office: James M. Hood, 1864–68, letter of June 10, 1866).
67 Prosser, op. cit., pp. 815–16.
68 Bradley's Journal, p. 255.
69 In a letter to Mr. Burdon of Brooklyn, Dr. House praises Consul Hood as “just” and speaks of the vindictiveness of his enemies — mentioning Dr. Bradley — and says no other decision was possible in the Aubaret vs. Bradley case. DSNA, despatch no. 65 of Consul Hood, dated Sept. 30, 1867 and enclosure.
70 The Department of State once made Hood apologize to the Siamese government for language he used in addressing them in a case against officials of that government, particularly the case of former Vice-Consul George W. Virgin, who afterwards became one of Hood's chief accusers (DSNA, Despatches [instructions] to Consuls no. 46, despatch no. 39 to Consul Hood, June 25, 1867).
71 DSNA, Despatch no. 60 of Consul Hood, dated June 12, 1867.
72 DSNA, Despatches to Consuls no. 46, despatch no. 40 to Consul Hood, dated Sept. 4, 1867.
73 Bradley's Journal, p. 267.
74 DSNA, Despatches to Consuls no. 52, despatch to Hood, dated Feb. 26, 1869.
75 DSNA, Resignations and declinations 1868–78, despatch of Consul Hood, March 4, 1869.
76 DSNA, Applications and recommendations for office: James M. Hood, 1864–1868, letter dated Jan. 16, 1864.
77 Bradley's Journal, p. 259; Leonowens, op. cit., p. 285.
78 Leonowens, op. cit., pp. 281–82. The date is obviously wrong.
79 Ibid., p. 277.
80 Ibid., pp. 277–82.
81 Bribion, op. oil., Aubaret.