given to understand that a subscription has been set on foot to provide counsel and supply means of defence. I must, of course, believe that such a subscription cannot be made from a feeling that it is a lawful undertaking for private individuals to fit out vessels to capture Chinese pirates, without sanction or authority from either Government; and a venial offence if they happened to make a mistake and kill innocent men.
Nevertheless, so general an impression has, I think, existed for some time, here and elsewhere, that a foreign ship feels right, without illegality, to convoy for their protection, the parties employed necessarily accepting the responsibility of attacking vessels rightly or otherwise pointed out to them as dangerous to the junks sailing under this foreign escort.
The first result of this assumed liberty of acting without commission from either Government, has been a transgression of the Navigation Laws as to equipment, &c., and secondly, a series of piratical offences by foreigners against the Law of Nations. Here the ostensible object is specious, no question can be entertained as to its being laudable and unexceptionable, as well as its evil consequences such conduct entails.
But the definition of Piracy supplied by the Law of civilised Nations must set at rest all doubt as to the illegality, as well as inexpediency of enterprises of this nature, taken upon the responsibility of private individuals: Nor can the fact that Chinese merchants and junk owners interested in a legitimate trade may themselves have been the parties to seek this irregular and doubtful kind of protection from foreign vessels, by offering large sums for their convey, in any way affect the question at issue.
Piracy is defined to be robbery and depredation upon the High Seas, without authority from any prince or state, and it is even held...
Page 143
JIMA Meu ... (rest of text not corrected as it appears to be cut off or not fully provided)
TO