Loe raamatut: «A Voyage Round the World, from 1806 to 1812», lehekülg 8
APPENDIX, No. V.
NOTES
NOTES
NOTE A
The author kept a journal in the early part of the voyage; but it was lost in the events which succeeded, and he was afterwards placed in circumstances where it was not in his power to keep one. He has in his possession, however, several documents which serve to ascertain many of the dates. These are,
1st. His letters to his mother, written whenever an opportunity presented itself, and which she preserved.
2d. A certificate from the East-India Company of the time when he quitted their service.
3d. The statement of his case by the Russian surgeon, a translation of which will be found in the Appendix No. II.
The other dates are given from memory, and are either such as a sailor would naturally remember, or circumstances of so remarkable a nature that they could not fail of fixing themselves in a memory much less retentive than that of our author.
Whenever the editor has had it in his power to verify them by collateral authorities, he has not failed to do so; and the result of the inquiry has been, even where corrections were necessary, to show the general accuracy of the narrative: For example, his written account of the first part of the voyage is literally, “The convoy sailed from the Motherbank on 12th May, 1806, and cleared the Channel on the 18th; was twelve weeks on our passage to the Cape of Good Hope; lay at the Cape fourteen or fifteen days; sailed from the Cape about the 19th August, and on the 19th September made the island of St. Paul’s; arrived at Pulo Penang about the middle of October, and sailed on the 24th November; left Admiral Trowbridge’s flag-ship, the Blenheim; arrived at China the eighteenth January, 1807.”
He added, that the convoy left the Cape upon a Friday, and on the three following Saturdays they had each day a gale of wind; that on the third of these Saturdays they passed St. Paul’s.
Some difficulties arose, however; for, upon consulting the Almanack, the editor found that the 19th August, 1806, was not a Friday, but a Tuesday. Upon asking the reason of his fixing on these particular dates, he showed a letter to his mother, dated Portsmouth, 11th May, saying, the fleet was to sail next day; from whence he concluded the convoy sailed on the 12th; and counting twelve weeks, would fix their arrival at the Cape on Monday, the 4th of August; and fifteen days would make Tuesday, the 19th, as the day they left.
Upon consulting the newspapers of the time, it appears that the fleet did not sail till the 14th of May, and arrived at the Cape on the 7th of August, being just twelve weeks and one day; and fifteen days more fixes the day of sailing on Friday, the 22d. The editor has not discovered whether the other dates in this part of the voyage are correct to a day; but the author says, that the loading of the ships was stopped about six weeks after their arrival, in consequence of the dispute with the Chinese. Counting six weeks after the 18th of January, would fix it about the 1st of March. By the accounts from Canton, in Note B, it appears that this actually took place upon the 4th; which renders it probable that the date is correct, or at least pretty nearly so.
In addition to these original documents, the editor has in his possession a number of accounts, in the author’s hand, of particular parts of the voyage, and the printed account of his adventures, in metre, referred to in the preface.
Immediately after his return, in 1812, a gentleman in Paisley undertook to get an account of his adventures published, provided he drew it up himself. He accordingly made some preparations; but the death of the gentleman prevented the publication.
The Vocabulary was written by the author as he recollected the words, and transmitted to the editor, who arranged them, and afterwards read them over to him, correcting the spelling from his pronunciation, according to the rules which are prefixed to it.
NOTE B, p. 17
DISPUTE WITH THE CHINESE AT CANTON, IN 1807
Extract from the Morning Chronicle, 26th August, 1807
“Canton, March 4.– The English Company are involved in considerable trouble, in consequence of some one of the crew of their ship Neptune having killed a Chinese, for whose life this government have required one of the crew to be delivered up, which had been positively refused. This refusal has produced the stoppage of all the chops for that ship; and Mouqua, (second of the Hong,) by whom she is secured, has been with the linguist for the ship, carried in chains inside of the city. I have conversed with Cheongqua and Conseequa, who have assured me no inconvenience will attend the Americans; but they assert positively a man must be given up.
“The sailors have behaved most infamously: They hauled down and danced on the Spanish flag, and then destroyed it. Their captain apologized, and next day compelled them to hoist a new one. Some few of the scoundrels showed a disposition to pull down the American colours; and a part of them were in the act of lowering the Swedish, but were prevented. They have burnt one of the mandarin’s houses in front of the factories. This shameful conduct has induced the Chinese to determine, that no more sailors shall be permitted to come up on liberty. It is generally thought the English business, except the country, will all be stopped in a day or two. The English including the Lion man of war, at Bocca Tigris, amount to 1600 men. A few days will decide the unfortunate business.”
“March 6.– We are every hour afraid of a rupture between the English and Chinese, in consequence of the death of a Chinese, from the accidental stroke of a club by an English sailor.
“The Chinese demanded an Englishman to die, conformable to the laws of their country; and the English have refused, being unable to find out the person who gave the blow. In consequence, the viceroy of this province gave orders yesterday to stop their trade; and in all probability the next step will be to intercept their supplies, and seize on some person of the factory; a circumstance which must produce the most serious consequences.
“I understand the English have no objection to give up a man, provided they could find out the guilty person; and surely they cannot be blamed for spurning the idea of making an innocent man suffer. God only knows how it will end. They are allowed three days more to decide; and if they do not comply, it is thought the Chinese will endeavour to compel them. Should they be foolish enough to attempt the latter plan, I think they will get a sound drubbing, as the English have now a force at Wampooa and Bocca Tigris of 2000 able-bodied men, all eager for attack.”
MORNING CHRONICLE, DECEMBER 4
Extract of a letter from a gentleman lately resident in China, dated Canton, April 18
“The affair between the English Company and the Chinese is at length adjusted. After many meetings, chin chinnings, &c. &c. the Chinese government ordered up for trial the fifty-two sailors belonging to the Neptune, that were on liberty when the fray happened. This order was complied with on the part of the Company; and about the 25th of March the sailors arrived in Canton, under the protection of a company of marines from the Lion ship of war. After they had reached Canton, the mandarins intimated that they must be taken into the city for examination. This was resolutely opposed; and it was finally agreed, that the trial should be held in the Company’s old factory, the lower part of which was accordingly fitted up in great style, with yellow and crimson silk carpets, cushions, tables, chairs, &c. &c. the whole intended to represent the emperor’s court. The business now appeared favourable, but was soon shaded by another serious occurrence. The mandarin who was to sit in awful judgment, required that the chief of the Company, the captain of the Lion, and the commodore of the Company’s ships, should not be permitted to sit in his presence during the trial. This was not acceded to, and threats were uttered on the part of the British. The mandarin was equally obstinate, and the business assumed a very serious aspect. As the mandarin could not come himself, or send one of high order, he sent one who was willing that the British should sit at their ease in good elbow chairs. Thus arranged, about the 6th instant the trial commenced; and of fifty-two sailors, eleven were selected as the most guilty, and laid over for farther proof. On the 9th, the eleven were again brought up for trial, and two were selected as the guilty persons, who were again laid over for farther investigation. On the 11th, the two were again brought forward, and one of them adjudged guilty, and ordered to be kept in possession of the Company, till the pleasure of the emperor should be known. The British ships are now loading, and will sail in about a fortnight. What fate awaits the sailor retained is uncertain; but it is probable that the mandarins would rather touch a few of the security merchants’ dollars, and keep the affair from the emperor, than retaliate the outrage against their countrymen. In this case, not less than one hundred thousand dollars will be necessary to patch up the affair.”
In the appendix to Sir George Staunton’s account of the Penal Code of China, there is a detailed statement of the proceedings of the Chinese court in this case. The editor has had no opportunity of seeing the work; but the following abstract, taken from the Quarterly Review, Vol. III. p. 315, will show how the cause terminated.
“The British factory was fitted up as a court of justice; the great officers of state, and the judges attended; and the result was, the singling out of eleven men, as having been the most active in the affray. On a re-examination of these men, they endeavoured to prevail on some one to plead guilty, under an implied promise that he should not be punished. This failing, it was suggested that the affair might be got over, if the officers of the Neptune would depose that they had seen a sailor carrying a bamboo stick over his shoulder, against which, in the hurry and confusion, a Chinese had accidentally run his head. The proposal of so ridiculous and pitiful expedient met with the contempt it deserved. The next suggestion was, that some one of the sailors should be prevailed on to state, that finding an attempt made on his pocket, he had struck behind him, and might thus have wounded the deceased. This expedient meeting with no better success, they proceeded in their examination, and dismissed all except two, Julius Cæsar, and Edward Sheen. It appeared that Julius Cæsar had a small cane in his hand on the day of the riot, but was not outside of the factory; and that Edward Sheen was outside of the factory, but did not carry a stick; he confessed, however, that he had a Chinese tobacco pipe in his hand, the tube of which was of bamboo, the court, therefore, decided that he carried a stick, and, consequently, that he was the culprit. Having got thus far over the ground, a long negotiation took place as to the disposal of Edward Sheen, until the final decision of the case should be received from Pekin; and it was at length agreed that he should be left behind in charge of the supercargoes.
“Having thus briefly stated the leading facts, we shall now see in what manner the case was represented to the supreme court at Pekin, and its decision thereupon. It is contained at full length in No. II. of the appendix, p. 521.
“The viceroy of Canton states, for the information of the supreme court, that Edward Sheen, an Englishman, being in the upper story of a warehouse which overlooked the street, and in which there was a window opening with wooden shutters, did, on the 18th day of the first moon, employ a wooden stick, in an oblique direction, to keep open the shutter; and that, in doing this, the wooden stick slipped and fell downwards; that Leao-a-teng, a Chinese, passing at the moment, was struck and wounded by the falling of the said stick upon his left temple, and that on the evening of the following day he died in consequence of the wound. That repeated orders had been given to the chief of the English factory to deliver up the man to justice; that, in reply, it was alleged the said criminal was sick of an ague and fever, and under medical treatment; that on his recovery, he was confronted with the relations of the deceased; that after repeated examinations, the said criminal, Edward Sheen, had acknowledged the truth of all the facts here stated, without reservation; that he had, consequently, been proved guilty of accidental homicide, and ought, therefore, to be sentenced to pay the usual fine, to redeem himself from the punishment of death by strangulation.
“Upon this report the supreme court observes, that the case appears to be one of those acts, of the consequences of which, neither sight, hearing, or reflection, could have given a previous warning; that the said Edward Sheen should, therefore, be allowed to redeem himself from the punishment of death by strangulation, by the payment of a fine (amounting to about 4l. 3s. sterling) to the relations of the deceased, to defray the expenses of the burial, and then be dismissed to be governed in an orderly manner in his own country.”
It appears that the bribe necessary to procure acquiescence of the parties interested, to this mockery of justice, did not cost the security merchants less than £50,000.
