424 Boundaries and Beyond
customs. “To enrich the government revenue and facilitate commercial
intercourse” (yuke tongshang) was among some of the popular phrases
frequently appearing in the edicts and memorials.^35
The composition of the maritime revenue does not adequately
highlight the economic role of the Chinese overseas junk trade. Although
the provincial authorities were concerned with the direct revenue from
maritime trade, including coastal and overseas, native and foreign, they
unquestionably also saw the smooth functioning of overseas junk trade
as a guarantee of a stable social order in Fujian and Guangdong. Hence the
junk trafβic became a barometer of regional socioeconomic conditions.
Junks embarking from Amoy numbered from 21 to 30 in the βirst few
years after the lifting of the ban.^36 By 1751, there were 50 to 70-odd junks
plying between Amoy and the Nanyang annually.^37 Those trading between
Guangdong and the Nanyang numbered 20-odd, 14 and 18 as reported
in the memorials for the years 1731, 1733 and 1752 respectively.^38 In
a memorial in 1733, Governor-General Hao Yulin estimated that each
Fujianese ocean junk carried goods worth from 60,000 to well over
100,000 taels. Each year, the Fujianese junks brought back large quantities
of foreign silver that totaled two to three million dollars.^39
The government policy toward maritime trade was put to the test in
the aftermath of the 1740 massacre of the Chinese residents in Dutch
Batavia. Jennifer Cushman provides an excellent analysis of this event,^40
and therefore a brief summary of it will sufβice here. One early response
to the incident was made by Zeling, Acting Governor-General of Fujian.
His reaction was to impose a total ban on the Nanyang trade to avoid
any further trouble. When it received the news, the Court commanded
its senior ofβicials to make recommendations. Among the respondents,
Censor Li Qingfang was in favor of only a partial ban in retaliation for the
massacre because he believed a total ban would lead to a drastic fall in
revenue and would also adversely affect the people’s livelihood.^41
Most signiβicant is the well-analyzed memorial submitted by Qingfu,
Governor-General of Liang-Guang. His presentation reached the Court
- GCR: QL, no. 3686.
- GZD: YZ, Vol. 12, pp. 75 1‒2; Vol. 21, pp. 353‒5.
- GCR: QL, no. 7414.
- GZD: YZ , Vol. 20, pp. 247‒ 8; Vol. 22, p. 489; GZD: QL, Vol. 3, pp. 771‒2.
- GZD: YZ, Vol. 21, pp. 353‒4.
- Jennifer Cushman, “Duke Ch’in g-fu Deliberates: A Mid-Eighteenth Century
Reassessment of Sino-Nanyang Commercial Relations”, Papers on Far Eastern
History 17 (March 1978), pp. 137‒56. - Shiliao xunkan 史料旬刊 [A weekly of historical documents] (reprint, Taipei,
1963), Vol. 18, 654a.
http://www.ebook3000.com