Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:55:28.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harry Parkes and the ‘Arrow’ War in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

J. Y. Wong
J. Y. Wong
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In my article entitled ‘The Arrow Incident: A Reappraisal’,1 I recently analysed the existing documentary evidence relating to the Arrow incident. But an investigation of this incident in itself does not reveal the process which transformed a small dispute into a war between Great Britain and China. In this article I shall attempt to study this crucial transformation. Such a study would amount to an examination of the role of Harry Parkes in British diplomacy in Canton immediately after the incident. Before embarking on this project, however, it might be useful to give a brief introduction to Parkes and his background.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 303 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See my article in Modern Asian Studies, 8, 3 (July 1974), 373–89.Google Scholar

2 Daniels, G., ‘Sir Harry Parkes: British Representative in Japan, 1865–83, (unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1967), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

3 Lane-Poole, S., The Life of Sir Harry Parkes (2 vols, London and New York, 1894), I, 143.Google Scholar

4 Daniels, , ‘Parkes’, p. 10.Google Scholar

5 Bartle, G. F., ‘Sir John Bowring and the Chinese and Siamese Commercial Treaties’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, 44, 2 (03 1962), 286–308;Google Scholar

Tarling, N., ‘The Mission of Sir John Bowring to Siam’, The Journal of the Siam Society [J.S.S.], 50, 2 (12 1962), 91–118,Google Scholar

and ‘Harry Parkes' Negotiations in Bangkok in 1856’, J.S.S., 53, 2 (07 1965), 153–80. The Plenipotentiary was concurrently Superintendent of trade and Governor of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

6 Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 195–6, 222–3.Google Scholar

7 Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 229.Google Scholar

8 F.O. 228.213, Parkes-Bowring Desp. 150, 8 October 1856, Incl., Parkes-Yeh, , 8 October 1856. When romanized, Captain Leang should be spelt Liang.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., Parkes-Bowring Desp. 150, 8 October 1856, Incl., Parkes-Elliot, 8 October 1856.

10 Ibid., Parkes-Bowring Desp. 153, 10 October 1856.

11 Ibid., Parkes-Bowring Desp. 155, 11 October 1856.

12 F.O. 17.251, Bowring-Clarendon Desp. 326, 13 October 1856, Incl., Seymour-Elliot, , 11 October 1856.Google Scholar

13 F.O. 228.213, Parkes-Bowring Desp. 158, 14 October 1856, and Desp. 159, 15 October 1856.Google Scholar

14 See my book, Yeh Ming ch'en, Viceroy of Liang Kuang (1807–59) (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar

Cf. also Parkes' remark; ‘It is a significant circumstance that every one of the war junks which during the last few days have been at anchor before the city have now left the neighbourhood…’ (F.O. 228.213, Parkes-Bowring Desp. 158, 14 October 1856).Google Scholar

15 F.O. 228.213, Parkes-Bowring Desp. 158, 14 October 1856.Google Scholar

16 Parkes Papers, Bowring-Parkes, 17 October 1856. It is apparent from this private letter that both Parkes and Bowring conceded that the junk seized was a merchant vessel, although they continued to refer to it in their official correspondence as an imperial war junk.Google Scholar

17 Parliamentary Papers [P.P.] (1857), ‘Papers relating to the Proceedings of H.M. Naval Forces at Canton’, p. 24, Parkes-Bowring, 20 October 1856, which is a memorandum by Parkes on his meeting with Seymour and Bowring at Hong Kong.Google Scholar

18 Parkes Papers, Bowring-Parkes, 19 October 1856.Google Scholar

19 F.O. 228.213, Parkes-Bowring Desp. 150, 8 October 1856, Incl., Parkes-Elliot, , 8 October 1856.Google Scholar

20 Parkes Papers, Bate–Parkes, 18 October 1856. Bate was at this time a naval commander; later he was promoted to the rank of captain. The Admiralty Papers, unlike the Parkes papers, unfortunately do not contain any information which may throw light on the attitude of individual soldiers towards the Arrow incident, but Bate's reaction must have been fairly typical of British officers of the time.Google Scholar

21 Parkes Papers, Seymour–Bowring, 18 April 1857.Google Scholar

22 The walled city of Canton was divided into two parts, the Old City (liao-ch'eng) and New City (hsin-ch'eng).Google Scholar

23 Hua, T'ing-chieh, ‘Ch'u-fan shih-mo’, in Chin-tai-shih tzu-liao (Peking, 1956), 2, 101.Google Scholar

24 Parkes, McClatchie, 11 December 1856,Google Scholar

in Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 254.Google Scholar

25 Hua, T'ing-chieh, ‘Ch'u-fan’, 2, 102.Google Scholar

26 Hua, T'ing-chieh, ‘Ch'u-fan’, 2, 102; cf. also P.P. (1857), ‘Naval Forces at Canton’, pp. 94–100, Seymour–Admiralty, 14 November 1856.Google Scholar

27 P.P. (1857), ‘Naval Forces at Canton’, p. 27, Parkes–Bowring, 20 October 1856.Google Scholar

28 Parkes to his sister, 14 November 1856,Google Scholar

in Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 232.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., I, 257.

30 Contrast the opposite view taken by Lane-Poole, ibid., I, 237.

31 MSS Clar. Dep. C57 China, Bowring–Clarendon, 14 November 1856.Google Scholar

32 Ryl. Eng. MSS 1228/169, Bowring–Edgar Bowring, 22 December 1856; ibid., 1228/170, 10 January 1857.

33 Ibid., 1228/176, 28 February 1857.

34 Parkes Papers, Bowring–Parkes, 10 March 1857.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., 11 March 1857.

36 Ibid., 18 April 1857.

37 Ibid., 1 and 4 May 1857; cf. also Ibid., Bate–Mrs. Parkes, Monday (c. 27 April 1857).

38 Costin, W. C., Great Britain and China, 1833–1860 (Oxford, 1937), p. 206.Google Scholar

39 Cf. e.g. F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring Desp. 156, 10 October 1856.Google Scholar

40 Ibid.

41 Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 233–4.Google Scholar

42 F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring Desp. 156, 12 October 1856.Google Scholar

43 Hansard's, Parliamentary Debates, Series 3, 144.1170, Lord Derby's speech.Google Scholar

44 Parkes Papers, Bowring–Parkes, 19 July 1851. This letter was written when Bowring was Consul at Canton, and Parkes was interpreter at Amoy.Google Scholar

45 Parkes–Patteson, , 27 October 1852,Google Scholar

in Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 169–70.Google Scholar

46 F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring Desps 150–55, 8–11 October 1856.Google Scholar

47 F.O. 228.213, Bowring–Parkes Desp. 127, 11 October 1856.Google Scholar

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid., Parkes–Bowring Desp. 156, 12 October 1856.

50 Ibid., Bowring–Parkes Desp. 126, 13 October 1856.

51 Ibid., Desp. 130, 13 October 1856.

52 P.P. (1857), ‘Naval Forces at Canton’, p. 89, Bowring–Yeh, 14 November 1856. There is no evidence that by 14 November 1856 the Arrow had renewed her register. Even if she had, Bowring was still being dishonest in making such a statement because on 8 April 1856, she did not lawfully bear, if at all, the British flag.Google Scholar

53 Such a reply is missing among Parkes' enclosures to Bowring, nor has such a document ever been referred to in the sources available.Google Scholar

54 F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring Desp. 153, 10 October 1856.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., Desp. 155, 11 October 1856.

56 Ibid., Bowring–Parkes, Desp. 127, 11 October 1856.

57 Ibid., Parkes–Bowring, Desp. 156, 12 October 1856.

58 Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 237.Google Scholar

59 Ibid., I, v.

60 Ibid., I, 244.

61 See my article on the Arrow incident, in Modern Asian Studies, 8, 3 (July 1974).Google Scholar

62 Admiralty 125/103, Bingham–Hope, 27 November 1861, Incl., notes on the conversation of Kan Wang. I am indebted to Philip Dallard for this reference and the one in the next note.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., Corbeth–Hope, 2 November 1856.

64 F.O. 228.213, Parkes-Bowring Desp. 153, 10 October 1856, Incl., Yeh-Parkes, 10 October 1856.Google Scholar

65 F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring Desp. 153, 10 October 1856.Google Scholar

66 Ibid., Desp. 155, 11 October 1856.

67 Ibid., Bowring–Parkes Desp. 127, 11 October 1856.

68 Ibid., Parkes–Bowring Desp. 156, 12 October 1856.

69 Ibid., Bowring–Parkes Desp. 130, 13 October 1856.

70 F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring Desp. 158, 14 October 1856, Incl., Yeh-Parkes, 14 October 1856.Google Scholar

71 P.P. (1857), ‘Naval Forces at Canton’, p. 27, Parkes-Yeh, 21 October 1856.Google Scholar

72 Ibid., p. 32, Parkes-Seymour, 22 October 1856.

73 See my article on the Arrow incident, in Modern Asian Studies, 8, 3 (July 1974).Google Scholar

74 P.P. (1857), ‘Naval Forces at Canton’, pp. 24–5, Parkes-Bowring, 20 October 1856.Google Scholar

75 F.O. 228.213, Parkes–Bowring, passim.Google Scholar

76 Ibid., Desp. 158, 12 October 1856.

77 It will be remembered that Parkes initially did not require an apology from Yeh, and it was not until 10 October, when he had received an ‘unsatisfactory’ reply from Yeh, that he suggested to Bowring that such a demand should be included.Google Scholar

78 Parkes Papers, Bowring–Parkes, 21 January 1856.Google Scholar

79 Ibid., Seymour–Bowring, 18 April 1856.

80 Ibid., Bowring–Parkes, October–– 1856, passim.

81 Ibid., 27 October 1856.

82 Parkes Papers, Bowring–Parkes, 12 November 1856 (cf. F.O. 17.271, Bowring–Clarendon Desp. 173, 10 November 1854).Google Scholar

83 Ibid., 14 November 1856.

84 P.P. (1857), ‘Naval Forces at Canton’, p. 17, Parkes–Yeh, 15 October 1856.Google Scholar

85 Ibid., 21 October 1856.

86 P.P. (1857), 22 October 1856.Google Scholar

87 Parkes Papers, Bowring–Parkes, October–November 1856, passim.Google Scholar

88 Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 248.Google Scholar

89 Parkes–Patteson, 27 October 1852, in Ibid., I, 166.

90 Parkes–Mrs. Lockhart, 18 October 1854, in Ibid., I, 189.

91 Ibid., I, 249.

92 Parkes Papers, Bate–Parkes, 23 February 1856.Google Scholar

93 MSS Clar. Dep. C85, Elgin–Clarendon, 14 January 1858.Google Scholar

94 Ryl. Eng. MSS 1230/67, The Daily Express, 6 January 1858.Google Scholar

95 I am grateful to Dr. Mark Elvin for drawing my attention to these incidents with which the Arrow case might be compared.Google Scholar

96 This word is borrowed from Lane-Poole, , Parkes, I, 223.Google Scholar

97 See my article entitled ‘Sir John Bowring and the Canton City Question’, in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 56, I (Autumn 1973), 219–45.Google Scholar

98 Parkes Papers, Bowring–Parkes, 16 October 1856.Google Scholar

99 Some useful information about the inspectorship system and the arrears duties may be found in Fairbank, J. K., Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast (Cambridge, Mass., 1953) and Bartle's article on Bowring and the Chinese and Siamese commercial treaties.Google Scholar