vessel was not a British ship. The governor's contention was that although her registry had expired, she was entitled to protection; besides, the Chinese did not know of the expiry of the registry, and hence that the act was none the less an outrage on the flag. Yeh was obstinate in his refusal, and war followed.
The views of British statesmen and historians differ greatly as to the merits of the war, but there is a general concurrence of sentiment that the affair of the Arrow was not of itself a sufficient justification for hostilities. The matter is well stated by Lord Elgin in his report to his government: "I think I have given to the Arrow case as much prominence as it deserves, when I represent it as the drop which has caused the cup to overflow." But in his private journal he frankly refers to "that wretched question of the Arrow, which is a scandal to us, and is so considered, I have reason to know, by all except the few who are personally compromised. It was merely the culmination of a series of acts on the part of the Chinese which brought on the hostilities, and was not of itself a just cause of war."[1] The origin of the "series of acts" referred to may, in most cases, be found in the extensive system of smuggling of the East India Company's opium.
Although the government of the United States did not think proper to follow the example of Great
- ↑ For official reports relative to Arrow War see various British Parliamentary Blue Books, "China," 1856-60; 3 McCarthy's Hist, chaps, xxx. and xlii.; Boulger's Hist. chap. xix.; Douglas's China, chap. ix.; Williams's Hist. chap. vi.; Martin's Cathay, pt. i. chap. x.; Nevius's China, 301-12; N. A. Review, January, 1860, p. 125; S. Ex. Doc. 22, 35th Cong. 2d Sess. 984.
