CO129-030 - Bonham - 1849 [8-12] — Page 236

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Seu's Reply to the Council's Letter of 28th September. Seu, Viceroy of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, &c. In reply to the Despatch from the Noble Council dated the 12th day of the 8th moon (28th September,) stating that, after the 11th of the moon and 5 o'clock in the morning had been fixed for the reception of the head and hand at the Barrier Gate, they [the Mandarins] subsequently wished that the three men should be previously surrendered, in order that they might afterwards deliver the head; and that this caused confusion, &c. I have now to state that head and hand being objects of great regard to the Portuguese, as the aggressor is an object of aversion to them, it is for this that China took steps to enter into the case in detail, and still continues them, ordering that strict inquiry for the apprehension of the other accomplices should be proceeded with; from which it may be said that humanity and much justice have been shewn. Nevertheless the three Chinese detained at Macao, and who have nothing to do with this question, have not yet been given up. What is the reason of this? If it be said that in the Despatch of the 30th day of the 7th moon their delivery was not anticipated, it was clearly stated therein that the head and hand were to be delivered, so that the three soldiers who are at Macao should also be returned to their post. Why has no answer been given about this? I now ask by whom was the confusion caused? Assassination was committed, satisfaction also has been afforded, - which is to pay life for life. To wish for further satisfaction is altogether unreasonable. This is all I have to answer.

Taekwang, 29th year, 8th moon, 14th day, 30th September, 1849.

231

NOV

Edit History

2026-05-17 12:27:48 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Seu's Reply to the Council's Letter of 28th September. Seu, Viceroy of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, &c. In reply to the Despatch from the Noble Council dated the 12th day of the 8th moon (28th September,) stating that, after the 11th of the moon and 5 o'clock in the morning had been fixed for the reception of the head and hand at the Barrier Gate, they [the Mandarins] subsequently wished that the three men should be previously surrendered, in order that they might afterwards deliver the head; and that this caused confusion, &c. I have now to state that head and hand being objects of great regard to the Portuguese, as the aggressor is an object of aversion to them, it is for this that China took steps to enter into the case in detail, and still continues them, ordering that strict inquiry for the apprehension of the other accomplices should be proceeded with; from which it may be said that humanity and much justice have been shewn. Nevertheless the three Chinese detained at Macao, and who have nothing to do with this question, have not yet been given up. What is the reason of this? If it be said that in the Despatch of the 30th day of the 7th moon their delivery was not anticipated, it was clearly stated therein that the head and hand were to be delivered, so that the three soldiers who are at Macao should also be returned to their post. Why has no answer been given about this? I now ask by whom was the confusion caused? Assassination was committed, satisfaction also has been afforded, - which is to pay life for life. To wish for further satisfaction is altogether unreasonable. This is all I have to answer. Taekwang, 29th year, 8th moon, 14th day, 30th September, 1849. 231 NOV
Baseline (Original)
Seu's Reply to the Council's Letter of 28th September. Seu, Viceroy of Kwangtung and Kwangal, &c. In reply to the Despatch from the Noble Council dated the 12th day of the 8th moon (28th September,) stating that, after the 11th of the moon and 5 o'clock in the morning had been. fixed for the reception of the head and hand at the Barrier Gate, they [the Mandarins] subsequently wished that the three men should be previously surrendered, in order that they might afterwards deliver the head; and that this caused confusion, &c. I have now to state that head and hand being objects of great regard to the Portuguese, as the ag- gressor is an object of aversion to them, it is for this that China took steps to enter into the case in detail, and still continues them, ordering that strict inquiry for the appre- hension of the other accomplices should be proceeded with; from which it may be said that humanity and much justice have been shewn. Nevertheless the three Chinese detained at Macao, and who have nothing to do with this question, have not yet been given up. What is the reason of thin? If it be said that in the Despatel of the 30th day of the 7th moon their delivery was not anticipated, it was clearly stated therein that the head and hand were to be delivered, su that the three soldiers who are at Maras should also be reat red to their post. Why has no answer been given abort this? I now ask by whom was the confusion caused? A8- sassination was committed, satisfaction also has been afforded, -which is to pay life for life To wish for further satisfaction is altogether unreasonable.-This is all I have to allswer. Tankwang, 29th year, 8th moon, 14th day, 90th Sep- tember, 1849.} 231 NOV
2026-05-17 12:27:48 · Baseline
View content

Seu's Reply to the Council's Letter of 28th September. Seu, Viceroy of Kwangtung and Kwangal, &c. In reply to the Despatch from the Noble Council dated the 12th day of the 8th moon (28th September,) stating that, after the 11th of the moon and 5 o'clock in the morning had been. fixed for the reception of the head and hand at the Barrier Gate, they [the Mandarins] subsequently wished that the three men should be previously surrendered, in order that they might afterwards deliver the head; and that this caused confusion, &c. I have now to state that head and hand being objects of great regard to the Portuguese, as the ag- gressor is an object of aversion to them, it is for this that China took steps to enter into the case in detail, and still continues them, ordering that strict inquiry for the appre- hension of the other accomplices should be proceeded with; from which it may be said that humanity and much justice have been shewn. Nevertheless the three Chinese detained at Macao, and who have nothing to do with this question, have not yet been given up. What is the reason of thin? If it be said that in the Despatel of the 30th day of the 7th moon their delivery was not anticipated, it was clearly stated therein that the head and hand were to be delivered, su that the three soldiers who are at Maras should also be reat red to their post. Why has no answer been given abort this? I now ask by whom was the confusion caused? A8- sassination was committed, satisfaction also has been afforded, -which is to pay life for life To wish for further satisfaction is altogether unreasonable.-This is all I have to allswer.

Tankwang, 29th year, 8th moon, 14th day, 90th Sep- tember, 1849.}

231

NOV

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.