[ { "id": 209270, "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": 173, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "28.48\n\nJUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826\n\n159\n\nThe Topaze crisis, lasting from late 1821 into 1822, was the most serious confrontation between the Chinese and the British to that day, especially since the controversy involving all the significant issues of the day, including naval presence, jurisdiction over foreigners, and opium smuggling, came so close on the heels of the Terranova crisis. British trade at Canton was stopped for several months. The British factory, fearful that they would be held responsible for the misdeeds of sailors from the frigate Topaze, fled to their ships at Chuenpi on 11 February 1822. At the end of the crisis Juan Yüan made a compromise by not insisting on the surrender of the already departed criminals, but the British capitulated by abandoning the policy of using \"threat of force as a means of protecting or forwarding British interests in China\" at least for the time being. The Court of Directors of the East India Company \"advised the First Lord of the Admiralty to stop all peace-time visits of His Majesty's ships to the China coast unless assistance was urgently requested by the Governor-General of India\". An Order in Council was subsequently issued to this effect in 1823,\n\n1\n\n$\n\nIn December 1821, rancour from the Terranova case had hardly died down. Foreign traders realized that they could not escape completely the newly reinstituted stringent anti-opium laws even by sacrificing Terranova. The Emily, Terranova's ship, as well as three British ships, all with opium on board, were sent away from their Whampoa anchorage to Lintin, where they remained for three years without discharging or taking on cargo. During this period, two British warships, HMS Curlew and HMS Topaze, had sailed into the Pearl Estuary to \"protect\" these commercial vessels. Sailors had gone ashore \"to fetch fresh water\" from time to time. On 14 December 1821, a group of sailors from frigate Topaze came ashore. Only this time they brought along their pet goat. Unfortunately, the goat dug up potatoes, eating a number of them, and damaging the potato patch. A Chinese peasant, Huang I-ming, owner of the patch, then called upon his wife, brothers and neighbours to trample upon the sailors with sticks and stones, and in the fracas two urns of wine on the side of the hut were broken. When the sailors were driven aboard their ship, they discharged the cannon to disperse the pursuing and cursing villagers. During the skirmish among the potatoes a number of British sailors were injured, but none died. The next morning, the sailors, reinforced, went ashore again to revenge their mates. They chopped down the door of the hut of Huang I-ming, and fired a musket, killing him instantly. His son-in-law, also injured by the fusillade, died a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209271, "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": 174, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "160\n\nWEI PER-TI\n\nfew days later from his wounds. Upon being told of the news, Juan Yuan \"suspended the Company's trade and required the surrender of the man whom he termed the 'Foreign Murderers'\"*\n\n+\n\n63\n\nTo Juan Yuan, the Select Committee's reaction to his demand was in contravention to Chinese regulations. He was told by the Committee to communicate directly with Captain Richardson of the Topaze instead of going through the hong merchants and the Select Committee. Had Juan Yuan done as he was asked, he would have implicitly consented to change the Canton system. This he refused to do. He continued to hold to the principle that the supercargo of the British factory be responsible for the conduct of all British nationals in China. While the hong merchants, British traders at Canton, and Captain Richardson debated various possible courses to take, Juan Yuan suspended all British trade and held steadfast to his principles. On February 3, 1822, a Chinese official was permitted to board the Topaze and was understood to have said that he would make a report to the Governor-General. On 8 February, using as the excuse that as he had not heard from Chinese officials everything must be satisfactory, Captain Richardson took the Topaze to sea.\n\nIt was at this point the crisis really became serious. The British factory left Canton within three days. The language used by both sides in their communications was inflexible and threatening. The Committee insisted upon disclaiming responsibilities for the British navy. Another two weeks passed without any sign of solution. The Committee then explained to Juan that Captain Richardson had returned to Britain to \"report to his sovereign\" and that \"copies of all the papers would be sent to the Court of Directors [of the Company]\". Juan Yuan, noting that since the Topaze had already left Chinese waters, so that it was impossible for the supercargo to surrender the criminals even if he had been willing, and as the entire account was being sent back to both the sovereign and the Company, permitted the resumption of British trade at Canton. This compromise in order to resolve a difficult case reflected Juan Yuan's willingness to make the best of a bad situation.\n\nJuan Yuan did not negotiate with the British except through the intermediary of the hong merchants, and, it was the Company that was to be held responsible for finding the criminals to be remitted to Chinese justice, although no such promise had actually been made.55 And, most important of all, the British navy was removed from the China seas. On the surface at least, the principles of the Canton system were preserved.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209274, "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": 177, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "JUAN YÜAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826 163\n\ncommercial vessels.\n\nStill, the legacy of the Chia-ch'ing Emperor in offering kindness to foreigners was continued even at this time. In the midst of the Topaze crisis, there was the famous fire of Canton. On 1 November, the fire began in a cake shop outside the city wall, when the baker was careless with the pieces of brushwood he was using as fuel for melting sugar. \"The streets were narrow and the houses crowded together\", wrote Juan Yuan to the Emperor. \"Fanned by strong north winds, despite concerted efforts by soldiers and civilians, the fire could not be contained.\" It burned through the night and all of the next day, destroying \"more than 2,423 shops and extended to the foreign factories.\"64 A number of warehouses belonging to the hong merchants were destroyed. Puiqua and Mowqua especially suffered great losses. Sailors from the foreign ships managed to salvage some of the cargo in storage at the factories, but the factory buildings were burned. In the stampede of refugees from the fire and the looters, twenty-two people died. Puiqua petitioned to Juan Yüan on behalf of the hong merchants and foreign traders for remission of taxes owed. 140,243 taels of taxes due to the Canton Customs by the foreign traders were completely remitted. The hong merchants were excused from half of their taxes of 524,156 taels. They did not have to pay anything in 1823. In 1824, however, the other half of the taxes owed had to be paid, with each hong merchant's burden in proportion to the damages he had sustained. Chinese local shopkeepers who considered themselves well-to-do refused compensation from the government, but small shopkeepers as well as the Tanka boat people accepted money from welfare funds released by the province. The foreigners considered these measures fair play indeed.\n\n65\n\nWith the removal of British naval vessels from Chinese waters, threats to the Canton system were relaxed. Opium smuggling remained a major problem, but by 1823 the network of smugglers was well established, trans-shipping the contraband from foreign ships onto small local crafts outside the Bogue, so it was no longer a source of conflict between the foreign traders and Chinese authorities at Canton. Illegal payment in silver to the suppliers meant its exportation, which was forbidden by imperial decree. By the time Juan Yüan left Canton in the summer of 1826, the shortage of silver was already becoming evident. His successor became a part of the opium smuggling network as each patrol boat was paid a bribe of 36,000 taels a month to overlook the illicit trade.97\n\n64\n\nIn the summer of 1826 Juan Yüan was transferred to the post of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 } ]