The Case of Chen Yilao 427
their neighbors in their native district. A system of mutual responsibility
was to be imposed on every three junks. Local ofβicials were to prepare
a register containing the particulars and thumbprints of all seafaring
people. Only when these were done would they be issued licenses. To
facilitate control, junks leaving Fujian for the Nanyang were to take Amoy
as their port of embarkation and re-entry. For those leaving Guangdong,
Humen was the designated checkpoint. Any person breaking the law was
to be severely punished.
Quest ioned about these long-term sojourners in the Nanyang, the
licensed Ocean Firms (yanghang) put their numbers in Batavia and
Luzon at “tens of thousands”. Some had been appointed Chinese captains
by these foreign governments so as to take over responsibility for
local Chinese affairs. To verify this information, the provincial ofβicials
suggested that investigators be sent overseas. However, they deemed it
inappropriate to dispatch ofβicials for this task openly. They preferred to
send capable personnel in the guise of merchants. Or, they even toyed
with the idea of selecting some trustworthy merchants. It would be the
duty of these people to collect information on the accurate number of
overstayers in these two places, what they did there and why the foreign
authorities were willing to take them in. Only with such intelligence could
the provincial authorities tackle the problem of overseas sojourners and
work out ways to lure or instruct them to come back.
In his comments, the Yongzheng Emperor agreed with these ofβicials
that no formal ofβicial missions should be dispatched as this would only
arouse unnecessary suspicion among the foreign governments. Even
when other personnel or merchants were assigned to perform these
duties, their suitability should be thoroughly scrutinized. The Emperor
also reprimanded the memorialists for misreading his mind. He said he
in fact had no wish to allow the “long-term sojourners” to return. His
great fear was that these “treacherous people” would one day sneak back
and cause trouble.^49
The memorialists again failed to understand what the Emperor meant
by “long-term sojourners”. In their response to the imperial comments on
February 17, 1728, they explained the complication caused by attempting
to distinguish between the “long-term sojourners” and “recent emigrants”.
This would only create confusion because returnees could claim to have
been abroad only in recent years. Even the long-term sojourners would
say they had traveled to the Nanyang before the imposition of the 1717
ban and, on these grounds, beg for clemency. To simplify the matter, the
memorialists proposed that all sojourners, regardless of the length of the
- GZD: YZ, Vol. 8, pp. 836‒8.