20
Ministers and Consuls of the United States in China. In this Act it was declared that power was given to their public functionaries to arraign and try all citizens of the United States charged with offences against law which should be committed "in the dominions of China, including Macao;" but, on the 20th September, 1850, another Act of Congress was passed to repeal so much of the Act of 1848 as State Papers, vol. xxxviii, p. 1073. extended its provisions to Macao.
1849.
August 29, 1849.
On the 22nd August, 1849, the Portuguese Sir J. Bonham, No. 121; Governor at Macao was assassinated by a body of Chinese.
Shortly before this event occurred, a British subject (Mr. Summers) was cast into prison by the Portuguese Governor at Macao for alleged contempt in not taking off his hat on meeting the procession of Corpus Christi in the street. Negotiations ensued for his release, but proving ineffectual Captain Keppel, of Her Majesty's ship "Leander," landed a party of marines, who attacked the prison and liberated Mr. Summers, one man being killed and others wounded in making the attack.
This led to a long correspondence between the British and Portuguese Governments, the latter demanding an apology for the insult offered to the Portuguese nation as well as compensation to be paid to the sufferers.
Confidential Memorandum, No. 3279, p. 2.
To Viscount Moncorvo; September 29, 1849. In answer to the official complaint made through Viscount Moncorvo, Lord Palmerston replied as follows:-
"Viscount Moncorvo's representation is founded upon two assumptions, neither of which seems to rest upon sufficient grounds. The first is, that Macao is a territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown of Portugal; the second is, that Mr. Summers had violated some Portuguese Law, and that, being legally subject at Macao to Portuguese jurisdiction, he had been legally committed for trial for his offence.
"Now with respect to the first assumption, namely, that Macao is a territory forming part of the dominions of the Portuguese Crown, the Undersigned has to observe that Macao has not been so considered by the Portuguese Government in its dealings with the Chinese, and that on occasions in which British subjects have claimed from the Portuguese authorities at Macao protection against the hostility of the Chinese, those Portuguese authorities have either made themselves the instruments of Chinese hostility, or have remained passive spectators of acts of violence on the part of the Chinese against British subjects, and have pleaded as their excuse for so doing that Macao is part of the dominions of the Emperor of China, and that the Portuguese authorities at Macao were therefore bound on those occasions to obey the orders of the superior Chinese officers."
21
Lord Palmerston reminded the Portuguese Minister of the conduct pursued by the Portuguese authorities at Macao in the years 1802, 1809, and 1839, to which reference was made in the early part of this Memorandum, and his Lordship then proceeded as follows:-
"It seems, therefore, that when British subjects are to be refused admittance into Macao or to be summarily expelled therefrom, Macao is declared by the Portuguese authorities to be part of the dominions of the Emperor of China, and within the scope of the orders and laws of the Chinese Government, but that when British subjects are to be thrown arbitrarily into prison at Macao, Macao is then declared by the Portuguese authorities to be part of the dominions of the Crown of Portugal, and within the scope of the laws of Portugal, and of the orders of the Portuguese Commandant.
These opposite assertions are irreconcilable, and the Portuguese Government must either acknowledge that on the former occasions above mentioned their officers at Macao put forward a false pretence as a pretext for aiding and abetting the Chinese in hostile proceedings against British subjects; or they must admit that on the present occasion an unfounded claim has been advanced as a justification for an arbitrary and oppressive proceeding against a British subject. It is, however, manifest that the Portuguese Government in its transactions with the Chinese Government never has claimed a right of sovereignty over Macao, and the Portuguese Government cannot assert in its communications with the British Government rights in regard to
[50]
G
148
20
Ministers and Consuls of the United States in China. In this Act it was declared that power was given to their public functionaries to arraige and try all citizens of the United States charged with offences against law which should be committed "in the dominions of China, including Macao;" but, on the 20th September, 1850, another Act of Congress
was passed to repeal so much of the Act of 1848 as State Papers, vol. xxxviii, p. 1073. extended its provisions to Macao.
1849.
August 29, 1849.
On the 22nd August, 1849, the Portuguese Sir J. Bonhamn, No. 121; Governor at Macao was assassinated by a body of Chinese.
Shortly before this event occurred, a British sub- ject (Mr. Summers) was cast into prison by the Portuguese Governor at Macao for alleged contempt in not taking off his hat on meeting the procession of Corpus Christi in the street. Negotiations en- sued for his release, but proving ineffectual Captain Keppel, of Her Majesty's ship "Leander,” landed a party of marines, who attacked the prison and liberated Mr. Summers, one man being killed and others wounded in making the attack.
This led to British and
a long correspondence between the Portuguese Governments, the latter demanding an apology for the insult offered to the Portuguese nation as well as compensation to be paid to the sufferers.
Confidential Memorandum,
No. 3279, p. 2.
In answer to the official complaint made through To Viscount Moncorvo ;
Soptember 29, 1849. Viscount Moncorvo, Lord Palmerston replied as follows:-
"Viscount Moncorvo's representation is founded upon two assumptions, neither of which seems to rest upon sufficient grounds. The first is, that Macao is a territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown of Portugal; the second is, that Mr. Summers had violated some Portuguese Law, and that, being legally subject at Macao to Portu- guese jurisdiction, he had been legally committed for trial for his offence.
"Now with respect to the first assumption, namely, that Macao is a territory forming part of the dominions of the Portuguese Crown, the Under- signed has to observe that Macao has not been so considered by the Portuguese Government in its
21
dealings with the Chinese, and that on occasions in which British subjects have claimed from the Portu- guese authorities at Macao protection against the hostility of the Chinese, those Portuguese authori- ties have either made themselves the instruments of Chinese hostility, or have remained passive specta- tors of acts of violence on the part of the Chinese against British subjects, and have pleaded as their excuse for so doing that Macao is part of the dominions of the Emperor of China, and that the Portuguese authorities at Macao were therefore bound on those occasions to obey the orders of the superior Chinese officers."
Lord Palmerston reminded the Portuguese Minis- ter of the conduct pursued by the Portuguese authorities at Macao in the years 1802, 1809, and 1839, to which reference was made in the early part of this Memorandum, and his Lordship then proceeded as follows:-
"It seems, therefore, that when British subjects are to be refused admittance into Macao or to be summarily expelled therefrom, Macao is declared by the Portuguese authorities to be part of the dominions of the Emperor of China, and within the scope of the orders and laws of the Chinese Govern. ment, but that when British subjects are to be thrown arbitrarily into prison at Macao, Macao is then declared by the Portuguese authorities to be part of the dominions of the Crown of Portugal, and within the scope of the laws of Portagal, and of the orders of the Portuguese Commandant.
These opposite assertions are irreconcilable, and
the Portuguese Government must either acknow- ledge that on the former occasions above mentioned their officers at Macao put forward a false pretence as a pretext for aiding and abetting the Chinese in hostile proceedings against British subjects; or they must admit that on the present occasion an un- founded claim has been advanced as a justification for an arbitrary and oppressive proceeding against a British subject. It is, however, manifest that the Portuguese Government in its transactions with the Chinese Government never has claimed a right of sovereignty over Macao, and the Portuguese Government cannot assert in its communications with the British Government rights in regard to
[50]
G
148
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.