123
occupied lands. We shall carry out investigation of the case when the barbarians are somewhat pacified. Advice on the proper course of action to be taken will then be sought from the higher authorities.'
Thus far the complaint was against the English barbarians. But two years later, in another petition to the district magistrate dated 28th day of the fifth moon of Tao Kuang 23rd year (25 June 1843) there entered a new aspect, the behaviour of the Tangs' tenants on the land in question. The petitioner wrote,
"It happened that the treacherous barbarians have usurped these lands for building purposes and the crops in the area are destroyed. Following this the dishonest tenant Yip Shin-tak (#) and others made use of this chance and declared their own the field behind the houses at Wong Nei Chung, which was the same piece of land leased to them [by the Tangs], and sold it to the English barbarians. Thus my land was usurped and sold. I have lost this piece of land, together with the rent and grain that I should receive from my tenants. I have reported this case to the former magistrate begging him to defer my payment of taxes, and he had granted permission to investigate my case. I also beg your excellency to order the arrest of the treacherous tenant Yip Shin-tak and help me to recover my land.”56
The authorities were sceptical of this charge against the Tangs' tenants and commented in reply:
"You do not seem to have considered the fact that when these barbarians were making troubles on your land, they would not possibly be willing to pay for it. This is not logical. Moreover, we have checked the various letters you sent to the officials concerned, and in them you have never mentioned this Yip Shin-tak case, but had said only that the English barbarians have usurped your land for building purposes. Now you have added this new plaint, your intention is indeed dubious. This will not be permitted. Enclosed are the deeds and bills you have submitted."57
123
occupied lands. We shall carry out investigation of the case when the barbarians are somewhat pacified. Advice on the proper course of action to be taken will then be sought from the higher authorities.'
Thus far the complaint was against the English barbarians. But two years later, in another petition to the district magistrate dated 28th day of the fifth moon of Tao Kuang 23rd year, (25 June 1843) there entered a new aspect, the behaviour of the Tangs' tenants on the land in question. The petitioner wrote,
"It happened that the treacherous barbarians have usurped these lands for building purposes and the crops in the area are destroyed. Following this the dishonest tenant Yip Shin-tak (#) and others made use of this chance and declared their own the field behind the houses at Wong Nei Chung, which was the same piece of land leased to them [by the Tangs], and sold it to the English barbarians. Thus my land was usurped and sold. I have lost this piece of land, together with the rent and grain that I should receive from my tenants. I have reported this case to the former magistrate begging him to defer my payment of taxes, and he had granted permission to investigate my case I also beg your excellency to order the arrest of the treacherous tenant Yip Shin-tak and help me to recover my land.”56
-
The authorities were sceptical of this charge against the Tangs' tenants and commented in reply:
"You do not seem to have considered the fact that when these barbarians were making troubles on your land, they would not possibly be willing to pay for it. This is not logical. Moreover, we have checked the various letters you sent to the officials concerned, and in them you have never mentioned this Yip Shin-tak case, but had said only that the English barbarians have usurped your land for building purposes. Now you have added this new plaint, your intention is indeed dubious. This will not be permitted. Enclosed are the deeds and bills you have submitted."$7
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.