[
    {
        "id": 209263,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1981",
        "page_number": 166,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "152\n\nWEI PEH-TH\n\n8\n\nThe killing of a Chinese man and wounding of three boys in P'an-yü by a member of the crew of a British vessel, the London, on 27 November 1820, was the first major crisis handled by Juan Yüan involving jurisdiction over foreigners who had committed crimes against Chinese nationals. On 27 November 182o, in broad daylight, a cutter from the London, a ship belonging to the East India Company, sailed “a considerable distance\" beyond Whampoa into a branch stream of the Pearl River, in search of fresh water. On the cutter was the fifth mate of the London, a man by the name of Pigott, and five other crewmen. They had a musket with them. Upon landing at P'an-yü, the men were taunted by a number of boys throwing stones and shouting \"obscenities\" at the foreigners. To frighten away the boys, Pigott fired two volleys, the first one loaded with peas and the second what he thought was \"blank cartridge” but which turned out to be live ammunition. A Chang Shun-ts'un who was hanging up laundry at the stern of a Chinese rice boat nearby, shouted at the boys to disperse. Pigott's second shot entered Chang's chest on the left side, killing him instantly. Meanwhile, three boys all surnamed Ch'en, were wounded on the nose, foot and toes, respectively. While there was pandemonium ashore, the cutter departed, pursued by two Chinese boats, thus it was ascertained that the cutter had come from the London. Later on, despite Pigott's assertion that he had fired what he believed to be blank cartridge, indicating that at least he had known something of the consequences of his shooting at that time, the British spokesman claimed that they had known nothing about the incident until two days later, when Puiqua brought them the news that a warrant had been issued by the Chinese for the arrest of the murderer at P'an-yü.\n\nNormal Chinese procedures under the circumstances would be to stop the offending ship from discharging and loading cargo, while demanding that the criminal be remanded to Chinese justice. After being informed of the incident, Juan Yuan gave instructions to the hong merchants to notify the supercargo of the East Indian Company in the British factory in Canton to bind the murderer over to Chinese authorities. Although the security merchant in this case was Exchin, because of the seriousness of the case, it was Puiqua who went to the British factory to apprise the Select Committee of the existence of the warrant. The Committee then proclaimed that they had known nothing about the incident until that moment. They suggested that Puiqua bribe the Chinese officials, but the hong merchant did not support the idea. Meanwhile, the Committee's primary consideration was “to avoid trouble and embarrassment to the Company's trade\", but Juan Yüan had already placed an embargo on the London.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209265,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1981",
        "page_number": 168,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "154\n\nWEI PEH-T'I\n\nthe Chinese point of view, Juan Yuan reported Barrowcliff as the guilty party in his memorial to the Emperor dated 12 December 1820. It was at this time that he wrote the secret memorial proposing strong measures to control the British, and receiving in return instructions from the Emperor to hold to a more moderate line.**\n\nPerhaps Juan Yuan only displayed the willingness to make the best of a situation in the Barrowcliff case, the kind of co-operative spirit that led the British to refer to him as a “man of singular moderation and wisdom”35 only because no opium was involved. The next major crisis over jurisdiction took place not quite a year later. By then, the new Emperor had proclaimed a policy to strengthen the law prohibiting importation of opium and exportation of silver. In October 1821, Terranova, an Italian seaman serving on an American ship, the Emily, accidentally killed a Chinese boat woman. He was sacrificed to Chinese justice in order to prevent the Canton government from investigating further into the cargo of opium that was on various foreign ships in port at that time. This is a well-known case in the West and is often cited as an example of the barbarity of Chinese justice. Terranova, who had been turned over to Chinese officials, was strangled to death as punishment for having taken a life.\n\nThe incident arose when on 29 September, a boat woman, Kuo-Liang shih (surnamed Kao née Liang), who spoke \"pidgin\", sculled her sampan to the Emily, peddling fruit. Terranova, leaning against the railing of the ship above her, lowered her five copper cash in a basket. Not satisfied with the number of oranges and bananas he had been given by the woman, he negotiated further. Somehow, the argument became heated, ending with Terranova throwing a pottery jar at the woman, hitting her on the head, cracking her skull, causing her to fall into the water, and resulting in her death. This was a serious matter, for, in addition to murder, there were other violations. Terranova, as a foreigner, was buying goods from a Chinese directly without going through the regular channel of the hong merchants. The security merchant of the Emily was Exchin, but, as in other serious cases over jurisdiction, Puiqua, as head of the hong merchants, was also involved.\n\nJuan Yüan's investigations showed that the act of the jar striking Kuo-Liang shih on the head had been witnessed by another woman, Ch'en-Li shih, who had shouted for help. A worker for the Canton customs, Yeh Hsia, in a boat nearby, attempted a rescue, but failed. The body of the dead woman was not pulled out of the water until her husband arrived at the scene of the accident. The injury on the woman's",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209266,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1981",
        "page_number": 169,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "JUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT 01 SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826 155\n\nhead was a cut of 1 ts'un and 4 fen in length, and 3 fen deep. The cut had gone all the way to the bone. The captain and the owner of the American ship both inspected the wound of the dead woman,\n\nand pronounced that \"the woman in reality died from head injury and from drowning\".\n\nThe Americans agreed to submit Terranova to an investigation by Chinese officials, provided that the hearings were conducted on the American ship with Americans present. As a compromise, the \"ceremony\" of charging the prisoner was to be conducted on a Chinese war vessel that was to carry the Chinese official to the American ship. On 6 October, Captain Cowpland cleared all firearms from the deck of the Emily, stationed all hands at the forecastle, had Terranova without handcuffs on deck, and waited for the arrival of Chinese authorities. The Chinese officials were led by the magistrate of P'an-yù who was concurrently serving as prefect of Canton. Eight hong merchants were in attendance. The service of Dr. Morrison, who was then attached to the British factory, as a translator, was refused because Juan Yuan did not want to involve a third nation. After a lengthy debate during which Captain Cowpland argued successfully that no American prisoner was ever in irons during a trial, Terranova was \"surrendered\" to the Chinese with Puiqua pledging his safe return for trial on the Emily. Captain Cowpland accompanied Terranova and the hong merchants to the Chinese war vessel and back to the Emily.\n\nTestimonies of witnesses at the trial were somewhat different from the facts Juan Yüan had ascertained earlier. The Americans objected to the magistrate's allowing the presence of two children who were prompting the witness Ch'en-Li shih, and demanded that she speak in English, as her command of the language was superior to that of the translator or even Puiqua himself. When the woman's testimony deviated from what she had said before, an instrument of torture was brought aboard. The instrument was not used, although the woman insisted upon the later version of her testimony. Altogether, there were one thousand Chinese at the trial on board the Emily, and forty Americans. At the end of the session, the Chinese wanted to take Terranova with them. Captain Cowpland said: \"Come and take him,\" but the Chinese wanted the Americans to \"surrender\" the prisoner officially. While the Americans prepared for armed resistance, the magistrate proceeded to put Exchin, the ship's security merchant, and the Chinese linguist, Cowqua, in chains. Together with the overwhelming number of Chinese on board and other considerations such as opium in the hold, Captain Cowpland changed his mind",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    }
]