Hou
Com
12.
with all provisions of the Ordinance - Yeh has no complaint against the bessel nor does he impeach her character or occupation, but as M. Consul Parkes truly says, "himself "Yeh bears testimony through the mouth of "his witness Woo a- jeu) to the regularity of the "trade in which she was engaged 'here mention that the Arrow is well known
as a trader to the legal ports, She entered " from
Macar with Rice on the 320 Instant October 1856) reported her arrival at the "Consulate and deposited her papers which " have remained to this time in my possession
It is time that the Register should. have been renewed on
on the 27th September 1856 but from the deposition of Nor a ja (Yeh'sthitness) it appears that the Vessel was at sea on the 200t be stember, and from the Captain's statement he has not him in the waters of Hong Kong since the first of September; and in that have no blame can be attached to the Captain, nor can it be said that she had at that time been without paper, since Section 10 Ordinance Ve 4 of 1855 provides that in such a case (being at Sea) the Register is to be renewed on her return to the Waters of the Colony, to which place the Arrow was to have: son in Ballast the very day on which her.
seized. She
duly entered at the Custom House, and was anchored near to it, her papers.
were deposited with the Consul
Crew-vas
was
legally
case
according to Article 17th of the supplementar traty and consequently the was fixing the British flag
protection.
British flag and entitled to its
"By granting the "Arrow" permission to discharge her
cargo, which is
which is required by the just regulations, the Chinese Covernment. though the Custom House, near to which the "Arrow" was anchored, have at once comitte that she was a British bessel, and this was not the first time that the "Arrow" had come to the notice of the Custom House as a a regulas
trades.
Yeh in his letter to Mr Consul. Parkes clater the 10* October 185/
I find that the Pres
Register for her
Zoo-a-ching, who obtained a
was built bu
13
535
through Po-lo. ( ? M. Block) to whom he pais 1000 Dollars,. She is not a Foreign Lorcha and it is useless therefore to enter, into any discusion " respecting her " In the same letter he
goes on to say
"The following deposition was "made
4
$
Nov
- OL-
Ju
"This Lorcha the "Arrow" belongs to
"Loo a ching, who began to build it on the August 1854 on the very day that the "Loncha was completed he obtained a a Register for her through the Foreign firm Pole &
The Register is in the name of one
Eend if she obtained a Register the same day she was, finished, she must
Frong-a ming, land
ہیں
have built in Hong Kong, as otherwise it would have been impossible to have her survejes and the necessary papers Bonds &c &c prepares
the same
day.
In all his letters Yeh admits that
the "Arrow" had a British flag, but maintains
that being built by a Chinese she was not
Foreign vessel,
For the same reasons Yes might if he liked, seize the Crews of some square rigged vessel, Bray she is not a Foreign Vessel because she is buits by
built by a Chinese workman at Whampoa or Hong Kong, But in his letter to Rear Admiral Ser M. Geymour
Yeh says:
she
tras
It was not known at the time that executive went to seize /
persons on board. her that the Lorcha was a Foreign bessie
anchored in the neightong hood of the Dutch Frost, she was built by the Chiper Loo-a-ching.
-ching. Arto the question of the Flag. has been the invariable rule with Lorchar of your 6xcellency's Country, to Laul down their ensign when they drop anchor and to hout it
when they art under way when the again Forcha boarded in order that the prisoners might be seize it has been satisfactorily prove
flag
flying
howthem conto a flag
it
no
was
that have been hauler hour. &
توبر
think that yet in this paragrap
just quoted admits the vessel to be English and
the only pretends not having known fo, at time his executive went on hears to seize the
ot his Crews, and in support argument
brings forward his fairits quotation viz