442 Boundaries and Beyond
investment. In return for these “investment costs”, restrictive regulations
would be bypassed. A tacit understanding was then reached between the
ofβicials and the seafarers as to how maritime affairs should actually be
conducted. This modus operandi provided the seafarers with a more or
less “predictable” trade environment. Despite all its long-term detrimental
effects on the development of trade, it was seen by the seafarers as the
lesser of two evils and it served their immediate interests well. This was
the situation that Chen Yilao and other seafarers had conβidently believed
they could manipulate.
This leads to the question: Was there a reversal of the Qing policy
during Chen Yilao’s case in which the local authorities and the Court
seemed to have re-activated all the prohibitive rulings? In fact, there was
no such development during the latter part of the 1740s, except that the
security concerns and over-sensitiveness on the part of the government
temporarily underwent a sort of storm surge and had gone overboard.
Therefore, one can say for certain that, unlike the case of the 1717 ban,
there was no renewal of maritime prohibition at the time of Chen’s case.
Moreover, Chen Yilao was punished not exactly because of his capacity
as a sea merchant. He had been made a scapegoat by the local and
provincial ofβicials to cover up their own incompetence to maintain law
and order in an emergency situation. Often, whenever there were signs
of restiveness on the local scene, the ofβicials would retreat to protect
themselves by adhering strictly to the anachronistic regulations. Fearing
reprimands from the Emperor or feeling an urgent necessity to show their
vigilance and ability to control the situation, they might even propose
additional measures to the Court to deal with the irregularities. This was
precisely the situation in Fujian at the time of Chen Yilao’s return. A victim
of circumstance, he was a “big βish” whom the ofβicials were just waiting
to catch for presentation to the Court. In short, the incident occurred not
as a result of any change in the Court’s perception of maritime trade or of
a shift to a more restrictive trade policy.
The Chen Yilao incident reveals the limitations of Chinese maritime
trade and the plight of its seafarers. Obviously the government’s self-
restraint and the marginal adjustments in policy had not brought about
any institutional change. Control and restrictions remained the main
pillars of the maritime policy. Few initiatives had been taken by the
government to promote trade or reward entrepreneurship. The trade
expansion that occurred in the period in question cannot be seen as the
outcome of an active and purposeful policy. Instead, it had been made
possible by the dynamic spirit of the maritime population, despite all the
constraints imposed by the government. Unquestionably, although the
Court could see the beneβits of the enterprise, it also harbored fears about
http://www.ebook3000.com