432 Boundaries and Beyond
Chen Yilao’s case had drawn the special attention of the locals and
ofβicials because he was a wealthy man and a former Chinese headman
abroad. Therefore it tended to overshadow other actions taken by the
local authorities against illegal returnees at this time. For instance,
another seafarer named Lin Ti of Pinghe District was also detained. Lin
had likewise just returned from Batavia, had brought several foreign
servants with him and had sneaked into his native district.^61 His fate
indicates that, at this particular time, local ofβicials had tightened up the
maritime control and were strictly adhering to the regulations.
The rigidity of the rules must have stirred up a great many grievances
among the seafarers. This situation might have been what prompted
Fujian Governor Chen Hongmou to appeal to the Court for rationalization
on May 19, 1754. The fall-out from Chen Yilao’s case was evident to the
Fujian Governor. He was aware that the harsh verdict on Chen Yilao had
already discouraged the Nanyang sojourners from returning. Included
among them were those pre-ban seafarers who could have legally applied
to come back under the new ruling of 1736, but now hesitated to do so.
Understandably, Governor Chen did not challenge the appropriateness
of Chen Yilao’s sentence. As he put it, “Chen Yilao willingly offered his
services to a foreign government and, hence, could not possibly be a
legitimate trader of good character. Sooner or later he would have become
a troublemaker. His punishment was justiβied and necessary to prevent
future disasters (presumably referring to the 1740 incident in Batavia)
from happening.”^62
However, he argued that, after the ban was lifted in 1727, it was legal
to trade in the Nanyang. If the Court were to persist in not allowing all
the post-1717 sojourners to return, this would be tantamount to a legal
departure but an illegal re-entry for many of them. This situation was not
logical, either from a humanitarian or a legal point of view. Those who
had remained in the Nanyang since 1717 were numerous and those who
continued to travel there might have been held up for business reasons.
These people were prevented by the law from coming back. The problem
was that foreign merchants were allowed to trade in China and these
differences in treatment could not be justiβied. The present policy would
also not help alleviate any potential trouble that might be caused by the
returning overseas Chinese.
On these grounds, Chen Hongmou suggested that since the ban had
been lifted for more than 20 years, the Court should allow both the pre-
and post-ban sojourners, including their families, to return, provided they
- GCR: QL, no. 4927.
- GZD: QL, Vol. 8, p. 138.
http://www.ebook3000.com