2
brought about the crisis which no man acquainted with Chinese affairs will, I believe, hold was other than inevitable.
Fifthly, the expiry of the license, the failure of the owners to seek its renewal, placed the ship under Colonial jurisdiction, and she became responsible to the Government for the penalties she might have incurred. The Chinese had no title whatever to interfere with her except through the Consulate. Their plea that she was a Chinese, and had never been a British vessel, was altogether without foundation. This was the locus standi on which his Excellency Yeh chose to base his argument: this was the question between him and me. I hold that he was altogether wrong, and his wrong warranted my assertion of our rights.
I repeat, then, that whether the "Arrow" was entitled to protection or not, the Chinese had no jurisdiction; and their proceedings were unwarrantable, and to be resented. The expiry of the license did not make the lorcha a Chinese vessel, and gave the Chinese no right to interfere, except through the Consul. She could only be a foreign vessel in their eyes. The papers, whether in order or not, were deposited at the Consulate, and if they had acted in accordance with the conditions of Treaty, and had put themselves in communication with the Consul, there would have been no collision. The papers granted were, I contend, of undoubted validity against any but British authority-the authority which alone granted, and which alone was entitled to withdraw, protection.
If, then, the fact of the expiry of the license, of the right of the lorcha to its renewal, did in no respect concern the Chinese, but the British alone, my action was a necessity—at all events as far as placing the question in the hands of the naval authorities when I could obtain no redress.
The after-proceedings of Sir Michael Seymour need no defence from me.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BOWRING.
