The Amoy Riots of 1852 331
The question of motivation was also addressed to Francis Darby
Syme. He was asked to explain why his house had become the target of
the attack. Syme said it was for plunder. He was then questioned how
he would reconcile his claim with the message brought to him by an
American missionary, Rev. John V.N. Talmage, that, if the coolie-broker
was given up to the authorities and no future decoying of men by brokers
were to be practised, the people would be satisβied and the affair would
come to an end. On this occasion, Talmage was deputed by a group of
respectable Amoy residents to call on Syme about the matter. In his
response, Syme did not fully agree with the Court’s view that the placards,
the situation and the exasperation of the people against the coolie-broker
were sufβicient to identify the riots with the recent coolie emigration. He
insisted that the crowd who gathered in front of his Hong were there
merely for plunder. He could not account for the fact that only his Hong
and that of Tait & Co. were named in the hostile placard.
After the inquiry had ended and sufβicient evidence collected, John
Backhouse held a Consular Court on December 18 to try Francis Darby
Syme and his clerk for offences committed on November 21. Syme
continued to be deβiant at the trial and did not plead guilty. Nevertheless,
the Court found that, in contravention to the Treaty existing between
Britain and China, Syme had visited a police court on the subject of a
coolie-broker, with a view to obtaining his release, and that he had been
therefore guilty of a breach of the Treaty. He was βined 200 dollars.
Cornabe was also charged with the same offenses that caused a riot,
in which two British subjects were assaulted. He pleaded guilty. He
was βined the smaller sum of 20 dollars because he had acted upon the
instructions of his employer. A summons had likewise been served on
Connolly, a partner in the βirm of Tait & Co. He was to have been tried
for “misprision” in allowing coolies to be conβined against their will on
board the emigrant depot ship; but, as the coolies who would have been
the witnesses in this case had made their escape from the consular jail,
the Court could only give him a warning as to his future actions to do with
the shipment of coolies.^37
- FO 228/153, Enclosure 7 in no. 14, Harvey to Bowring, 22.12.1852; and
Enclosures 5 and 6 in no.14, minutes of Consular Court at Amoy, 18.12.1852.