[
    {
        "id": 207019,
        "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-1974",
        "page_number": 90,
        "title": "RAS-1974",
        "content_text": "84\n\nROBIN MCLACHLAN\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Nottingham County Record Office, Bristowe Papers - DDBB 113, items 31-39. The dates and places of writing of the seven letters relevant to this paper are: No. 33, Hong Kong, February 12, 1843; No. 34, H.M.S. Melville on the Yangtze off Nanking, August 16(?), 1842; No. 35, Chusan, October 11, 1842; No. 36, Hong Kong, November 25, 1842; No. 37, Hong Kong, December 18, 1842; No. 38, Hong Kong, May 6, 1843; and No. 39, Hong Kong, October 29, 1843. (Further footnote reference will be by item number, i.e. 33-39).\n\n2 H. G. Hart, The New Annual Army Lists for 1842 to 1847 (London: John Murray, 1842-1847), p. 250 (98th Regiment) and p. 137 (11th Hussars); and, Sir Bernard Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire (London: Hurst & Blacket, 1857), p. 110 (Bradford).\n\nThe original Orlando Bridgeman lived in the seventeenth century and among other accomplishments was the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. See the Concise Dictionary of National Biography, I (to 1900), p. 143.\n\n4 No. 34.\n\n5 No. 35.\n\n6 No. 34.\n\n7 No. 37.\n\n8 No. 35.\n\n9 No. 36.\n\n10 No. 36.\n\n11 No. 37.\n\n12 No. 37.\n\n13 No. 37, Postscript on inside of envelope, dated December 28, 1842.\n\n14 No. 33.\n\n15 No. 38.\n\n16 No. 37.\n\n17 No. 39.\n\n18 No. 39.\n\n19 No. 35.\n\n20 No. 34.\n\n21 No. 35.\n\n22 No. 38.\n\n23 No. 39.\n\n24 Hart, 1846, p. 137. Bridgeman now rated the distinction of a footnote detailing his experiences in war. It read \"Lt. Bridgeman served in the 98th with the Expedition to the North of China in 1842, and was present at the attack and capture of Chin Kiang Foo, and at the landing before Nankin.\"\n\n25 Ibid., 1847 and 1848, p. 137.\n\n26 Burke, 1914, p. 286 (Bradford). I have not been able to locate a newspaper obituary for Bridgeman. As he spent his last years in Shrewsbury (11 Berwick Road to be exact) there may be an obituary in the press of that district.\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209262,
        "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": 165,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "JUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826 151\n\nplundering a foreign vessel in Chinese waters, resulting in loss of life, but that the plundered goods consisted of a contraband commodity, Juan Yuan offered a reward of 3,000 dollars for the apprehension of the perpetrators of the crime. He refused, on the other hand, to compensate for the plundered property. The sycee silver would also be contraband had it been exported from China, but, as the ship had not yet entered a Chinese port, he could not argue this point. After two weeks of negotiations, the captain of the ship received from the Chinese authorities 824.50 dollars which had been recovered from the culprits, 2,000 dollars from Puiqua, and another 4,000 dollars from Juan Yuan's own funds, in compensation for the specie taken. Nothing was paid for the opium, but no immediate action was taken against the ship's having contraband goods on board in Chinese waters either. Immediately thereafter, Puiqua adroitly arranged for the ship to leave Taipa in order to avoid further complications on the opium issue.\n\nMeanwhile, the Chinese concerned faced the full force of the law. Five men were arrested for looting the Wabash and for murdering the American. They were beheaded or put to death by the slow process of slicing off the limbs before being decapitated. This was the traditional Chinese punishment meted out to captured pirates who had raided ships. For his failure in ensuring that foreign ships desist from bringing in opium, Juan Yuan directed Puiqua to subscribe to certain public service projects to the tune of 160,000 taels. Punkhequa had wanted other hong merchants to contribute 5,000 taels each towards this amount, but Conseequa bargained for 4,000. As a result, Puiqua had to pay the amount himself, while three other hong merchants were directed to contribute to other projects. Thus, Juan Yuan made it clear to the hong merchants how their purses were to suffer should they continue to condone the importation of opium, and, even more so, should they choose to haggle over the amount of the fine decided by the authorities. As a result, the hong merchants announced to the foreign traders that they would no longer \"secure any ship whose commander has not signed a Bond, engaging that he will not smuggle Opium....\" The hong merchants also relayed to the foreigners Juan Yuan's message that Chinese authorities would search the ships for possible cargoes of opium. While various elements of the foreign community debated, the intended search was dropped by Juan Yuan. Perhaps one reason for his decision not to insist upon the search was the presence of an armed British frigate, H.M.S. Orlando, at Chuenpi. He was not to take a strong stand on the opium issue until 1821.26\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    }
]