JUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826 149
ably developed. Only rarely, if ever, were foreign merchants involved in such a criminal case. Sailors from foreign vessels, both merchant ships and war ships, therefore, were the chief offenders in these instances. "The most undesirable consequences may result from the rash and improper conduct of seamen",21 the Chinese Repository was to pronounce more than a decade later. Since the 1810's, there had been a standing order from the British that "no boat's crew are to stop overnight at Canton".22 thus cutting down the number of such incidents considerably. A spokesman for the British East India Company at Canton had implied that by bribing Chinese officials at the scene, matters could be silenced at the onset, but, once higher authorities in Canton became aware of the situation, there would be serious consequences, especially when loss of life was involved.23 Perhaps this explains why only a handful of such cases were recorded in history. When a case involving foreigners did occur, the Governor-General, the Governor of Kwangtung, the security merchant, the supercargo (headman) of the particular country whose national had committed the crime, and the Select Committee, as spokesmen for the foreign community, would all become embroiled in the crisis.
Before the Treaty of Nanking (1842) established the practice of extraterritoriality in China, and in the absence of any consular agreement, the Chinese policy had been that foreigners who committed crimes in China or Chinese waters were to be handed over to Chinese authorities and punished in accordance with the Chinese concept of law and justice. This would have been a universally accepted policy except for the fact that the Chinese concept of justice was quite alien, and therefore, absolutely unacceptable to those of the Anglo-American tradition. The traditional Chinese doctrine of responsibility made the governor-general in the province answerable to the Emperor for all activities, including crimes within his jurisdiction. There was also the doctrine of collective responsibility upon which the pao-chia system was based. If the lawbreaker had managed to evade justice before he could be apprehended, another person of his pao-chia unit could take the punishment in his place. Although it is doubtful that temporary foreign residents in their factories at Canton or on their vessels moored offshore had been incorporated into a pao-chia system of their own, the doctrine of collective responsibility would still apply. On the other hand, in theory at least, in the tradition of Anglo-American law and justice, punishment could be meted out only to the actual offender in person, and only after his guilt had been established by a jury of his peers in open trial at a court of law. These two systems of justice clashed at Canton.
JUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826 149
ably developed. Only rarely, if ever, were foreign merchants involved in such a criminal case. Sailors from foreign vessels, both merchant ships and war ships, therefore, were the chief offenders in these instances. "The most undesirable consequences may result from the rash and improper conduct of seamen",21 the Chinese Repository was to pronounce more than a decade later. Since the 1810's, there had been a standing order from the British that "no boat's crew are to stop overnight at Canton"." 22 thus cutting down the number of such incidents considerably. Aspokes- man for the British East India Company at Canton had implied that by bribing Chinese officials at the scene, matters could be silenced at the onset, but, once higher authorities in Canton became aware of the situation, there would be serious consequences, especially when loss of life was involved.2* Perhaps this explains why only a handful of such cases were recorded in history. When a case involving foreigners did occur, the Governor-General, the Governor of Kwangtung, the security merchant.. the supercargo (headman) of the particular country whose national had committed the crime, and the Select Committee, as spokesmen for the foreign community, would all become embroiled in the crisis.
Before the Treaty of Nanking (1842) established the practice of ex- traterritoriality in China, and in the absence of any consular agreement, the Chinese policy had been that foreigners who committed crimes in China or Chinese waters were to be handed over to Chinese authorities and punished in accordance with the Chinese concept of law and justice. This would have been a universally accepted policy except for the fact that the Chinese concept of justice was quite alien, and therefore, abso- lutely unacceptable to those of the Anglo-American tradition. The tradi- tional Chinese doctrine of responsibility made the governor-general in the province answerable to the Emperor for all activities, including crimes within his jurisdiction. There was also the doctrine of collective responsi bility upon which the pao-chia ststem was based. If the law breaker had managed to evade justice before he could be apprehended, another person of his pao-chia unit could take the punishment in his place. Although it is doubtful that temporary foreign residents in their factories at Canton or on their vessels moored off shore had been incorporated into a pao-chia system of their own, the doctrine of collective responsibility would still apply. On the other hand, in theory at least, in the tradition of Anglo- American law and justice, punishment could be meted out only to the actual offender in person, and only after his guilt had been established by a jury of his peers in open trial at a court of law. These two systems of justice clashed at Canton.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.