[
    {
        "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
    },
    {
        "id": 209267,
        "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": 170,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "156\n\nWEI PEH-T'I\n\nand handed Terranova to the Chinese magistrate.36\n\nThe facts that emerged during the trial, different from the earlier version that the foreigners had already accepted, left Juan Yulan somewhat \"puzzled\".37 This later version, as reported by Morse, is as follows:\n\nThe jar which is said to be the instrument that caused the death of the woman was safely delivered by the accused (Terranova) into her hand, and that she fell overboard at the distance of thirty feet and upwards from the ship Emily, that she was seen from on board of the Hero of Malown, an English ship laying near the Emily, and fell overboard while in the act of sculling her Boat, that no Jar or any such instrument was thrown at her, or caused her falling into the Water, that from the relative situation of the boat and the ship it was impossible to strike the woman on the side of the head in which the wound was inflicted,\n\n38\n\nThe British thought that the Americans should not have yielded. The Americans had \"abandoned a man serving under their flag to the sanguinary laws of this Empire without an endeavour to obtain common justice for him\".39 Perhaps the eventual surrender of Terranova to the Chinese gave further credence to the Chinese version of the facts as far as Juan Yuan was concerned. Nevertheless, the underlying reason for this surrender remained the fear that unless the seaman was given up, the Chinese authorities might search the ship and discover opium.\n\nBy the time Juan Yuan arrived at Canton, the Chinese had already known opium for more than a thousand years, and, for nearly a century, an official policy had been adopted prohibiting its domestic sale and use. The first opium-producing poppy was brought into China by Arab and Turkish traders some time during the seventh or eighth century, to be used as medicine.40 In the 1660s, the smoking of opium, mixed with tobacco, was introduced into the coastal provinces of Fukien and Kwangtung from Taiwan. By the eighteenth century, the Chinese had devised their own method of opium consumption, by having the smoker reclining on a couch, burning the opium extract over a lamp, and inhaling it through a pipe. The use of this definitely addictive substance became so widespread that as early as 1729 domestic sale and consumption of opium was forbidden by an imperial edict. In 1796, the Chia-ch'ing Emperor prohibited the importation and domestic cultivation of the poppy as well. Since then, all opium used in China was brought in through illicit smuggling. Whereas American ships brought",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209268,
        "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": 171,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "JUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826\n\n157\n\nopium grown in Turkey, the British cultivated poppy in India and brought opium into China. Selling this commodity for cash only, the British hoped to reverse the balance of trade at China's expense. In 1821, to put an end to this smuggling of opium into China and silver in the reverse direction, the Tao-kuang Emperor reiterated the court's anti-opium policy. As a result, Juan Yuan adopted strict measures against opium importation through the port of Canton. This thinking was behind his taking action against the hong merchants later on that year, in the wake of the Terranova case, especially when he removed the button from Puiqua's hat.\n\nIt was in the memorial requesting the removal of Puiqua's button that Juan Yüan's attitude on opium was revealed. He was concerned with the harmful effects of opium addiction. “Opium is grown overseas, but its harmful effects are most keenly felt in interior China. Its most serious damage lies in the moral degradation of the populace”.* The memorial also showed that Juan Yüan had known the sources of opium. He concluded that there were three major groups of foreign traders who carried opium in their cargo from West Asia and India.\n\n41\n\nThree major groups of foreign traders are the sources for our opium. Among these traders there are a number of merchants who come from across the Atlantic Ocean. They pick up cargoes of opium on their way to China. Moreover, the British merchants, in their private capacities, also bring with them this contraband commodity when they come to Macau. The Company, franchised by the British sovereign, does not officially engage in the opium trade itself. The American ship owners and captains constitute the last group of opium smugglers. They, not having any king to restrain them, bring in the commodity themselves in the holds of their ships.*2\n\n42\n\nThese foreign traders worked with the Chinese merchants in Canton and Macau who provided them with the marketing machinery to distribute opium. For this reason, Juan Yuan blamed the Chinese merchants, especially the hong merchants, for the thriving illicit opium trade.\n\nThe hong merchants are so close to the foreign traders that, although their smuggling activities could be kept dark from the officials, it is impossible for the hong merchants not to be aware of them. How can foreign ships bring contraband commodities for thousands of miles without being assured of a market here first? They, therefore, must work hand-in-glove with the hong merchants. The hong merchants appear to consider only their",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "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
    }
]