No. 98 of 1849.
Inclosure No. 8 in Desp:
Correspondence transmitting further correspondence between H. E. Mr. Bonham, Commissioner Council of Macao to them and the Chinese
3rd October, 1849.
En 10,003/44
230
Seu's Reply to the Council's Letter of 25th September. Seu, Viceroy of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, &c, &c.
I acknowledge the receipt of the Despatch from the Noble Council, and in reply to that part of it which says that on the trial and sentence of Sen-chi-liang, who had been apprehended, the proper formalities were not observed, &c, I have now to state to you, that after the Mandarin of Heung-shan (or Chung-shan, also known as Xiangshan), who apprehended the criminal, and interrogated him and taken down the depositions, the criminal was conveyed to the Tribunal of the Town, from thence to that of the City, afterwards to that of the Gut-cha-si (Criminal Judge), and finally to that of the Fu-yen (Lieutenant-Governor). I, in conjunction with the Fu-yen, tried and sentenced him. This was witnessed and heard by all—how can it then be said that the proper formalities were not observed?
Chinese Criminals are tried by the Chinese Laws, and foreigners by those of their own country. This is laid down in the Treaty equally for all nations—how is it then that the Portuguese, not acting in conformity with the Treaty, wish the criminal to be sent to Macao?
The head of Sen-chi-liang was ordered to be exposed to the public at Macao, because the criminal, in reality, was carrying on business there, and was known to many; and therefore, by this proceeding, it is shown that he was the male assassin, as appears from the trial; respect is instilled, and all doubts are removed: this is the strict rule in China.
With regard to the other criminals, orders have been given to the Mandarins of the towns and cities, that they conjointly proceed with rigour to their apprehension. But as long as the criminals are at large, so many vain words are useless. After they have been apprehended, the manner in which they are tried and the case dealt with will be made known to you. This is not treating the matter with indifference.
Now, where injury is done, it must have a principal originator, and one also to come forward against him. Here, the real aggressor who caused the evil to the Noble Governor has been already apprehended and executed by the Chinese Government. But as to the three Chinese who are detained at Macao and who have nothing to do with the present question, the Noble Council have failed to answer. Let me know then to which side reason inclines.
Sen-chi-liang, recognized as the real criminal, was, in accordance with the true circumstances of his crime, strangled, and yet it is said that the execution was proceeded with inconsiderately—where is conscience manifest here? Arguments are conducted according to reason, and not after the wishes of every one, unreasonably giving rise to disputes.
This is all I have to answer.
Taukwang. 29th year, 8th moon, 12th day, (28th September, 1849.)