[
    {
        "id": 209261,
        "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": 164,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "150\n\nWEI PEH-T'I\n\nSince the case of the Lady Hughes in 1784, foreigners had been decrying the barbarity of Chinese justice. On 24 November that year, a British vessel, the Lady Hughes, carrying cargo for the country merchants (individual merchants permitted by the East India Company to trade between India and points east), fired a salute to Chinese officials on shore at Canton. Unfortunately, the gun was loaded with live ammunition instead of blanks. The gunfire injured three minor Chinese officials, two of whom subsequently died from their wounds. By Chinese reckoning, the gunner of the Lady Hughes, in firing the salute, had committed murder, therefore he was subject to Chinese justice. After the British refused to surrender the gunner, Chinese authorities at Canton seized the supercargo of the British factory, isolated the factory itself, and stopped British trade. As a result, the British yielded and the gunner was surrendered to the Chinese. He met the fate of apprehended Chinese murderers, that of being put to death swiftly by strangulation. This incident brought to the fore foreign resentment against the Canton system and their having to submit to Chinese justice which they could neither understand nor condone. Subsequently, foreigners, the British in particular, were reluctant to hand over their nationals who had committed crimes against the Chinese to Chinese authorities. The Chinese meanwhile insisted on their right to dispense justice within their own land, thus leading to periodic impasses.\n\nJuan Yüan's first criminal case involving foreigners and local residents was a straightforward one, for the offenders were Chinese, and their offense was comparable to those committed by coastal pirates Juan Yuan had known on the Chekiang coast earlier. An American ship, the Wabash, secured by Puiqua, was docked at the anchorage at Taipa Island off the Port of Macau. Apparently, a group of Chinese on shore hurled insults at the seamen on 19 June, 1818, then proceeded to board the vessel, and plundered it. The raiding party left three Americans wounded, one of whom later died. Among the spoils taken were sycee silver and a quantity of opium. The presence of opium, a contraband, complicated the case considerably. It also provided Juan Yuan with the ammunition to deal harshly with the hong merchants.\n\nMacau was within the administrative jurisdiction of the district of Hsiang-shan, in Kwangtung. The Select Committee and a representative of the American merchants in Canton, referred to by Morse as \"the American consul\", brought the American complaint against the Chinese to Juan Yuan through Puiqua. Cognizant fully of the reality and implications of the circumstances, that the Chinese were wrong in boarding and",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "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
    },
    {
        "id": 209264,
        "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": 167,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "JUAN YUAN'S MANAGING OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826 153\n\nThree days later, on 2 December, when official communications arrived, the British announced that Pigott had \"absconded\" during the early morning hours on the day before.32 Chinese officials were permitted to search the London (in contravention to the Company's stand in the case involving the Wabash two years before) as well as the Duke of York, another Company ship at Whampoa, secured by Chunqua. After Chinese officials left, Barrowcliff, the butcher on board the Duke of York, who had no visible connection with the case or with Pigott, suddenly went berserk and slashed his own throat. It was under these circumstances that the British seized upon the idea of selling to Juan Yüan the story that Barrowcliff had been the murderer at P'an-yü, and that his suicide had taken place because he was fearful of Chinese justice. The hong merchants, enthusiastic towards this suggestion, went together at once to the factory. By this switch, much trouble could be saved for all parties concerned.\n\nThe plan was thus communicated through the hong merchants to Juan Yuan, who, while preferring a live culprit to a dead one, \"privately\" was willing to accept Barrowcliff instead of allowing the incident to develop into a major crisis.3 Dr. Morrison had been sent for from Macau, indicating the seriousness with which foreign merchants were viewing this case. In actuality, from the Chinese point of view, the substitution of a criminal by another person was acceptable under the concept of collective responsibility. This was a case of paying for one life with another. On the other hand, Juan Yüan was not willing to let the hong merchants and foreign traders get away so easily. On 4 December, communications went out to the hong merchants for them to inform the supercargo of the Company that \"he must immediately deliver the foreign murderer, if not, then not only Cameron's ship [the Duke of York], but every English ship shall have her port clearance stopped\". This communication already indicated Juan Yuan's willingness to accept the plan of making use of the dead Barrowcliff as he had changed the name of the offending ship from the London to the Duke of York in his communication.\n\nThereupon, Chinese officials were permitted to board the Duke of York to hold an inquest of the death of Barrowcliff in the presence of the ship's captain, Cameron. Meanwhile, families and friends of the dead and the injured at P'an-yü \"were carefully instructed so that they testified to the truth and nothing but the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth\". That Barrowcliff had indeed taken his own life in a fit of remorse after murdering the Chinese at P'an-yü was accepted by the investigating officials at the inquest. Based on their verdict, legally arrived at from",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    }
]