Search

This abstract describes a Qing dynasty administrative document dated 14 September 1745 (Qianlong 10th year, 9th month), issued by the Office of the Acting Magistrate of Xiangshan County, Left Subprefectural Administrator. The document records the second official response to a memorial submitted by the Macau *Yí mù*—foreign headmen or overseers of foreign residents—including Anluduo and others—on behalf of twenty-seven British subjects (designated in contemporary Qing terminology as *Hóngmáo yí*, or ‘red-haired foreigners’), among them one named Chuimàlāfèi, who had taken refuge in Macau and sought official travel permits (*zhào*) to board merchant vessels bound for Guangzhou (Canton) for repatriation. The directive notes that while the Guangdong Provincial Military and Civil Administration (*Jūnmín Fǔ*) transmitted the petition, it lacked essential particulars: the identity of the vessel’s owner or master, the vessel’s name, and the mercantile firm (*háng*) under which it was registered. Consequently, the Xiangshan office orders the *Yí mù* to investigate and report these details within three days, stipulating that formal travel permits will only be issued upon verification and subsequent provincial approval. The document reflects Qing bureaucratic procedures governing foreign movement, trade logistics, and administrative accountability in the Pearl River Delta during the mid-eighteenth century.

This abstract describes an official placard (pái) issued on the 12th day of the ninth lunar month in the tenth year of the Qianlong reign (1745) by the Office of the Deputy Magistrate (Zuǒtáng) of Xiangshan County, signed by Ji Kūn. The document constitutes the county’s second submission concerning compliance with a multi-tiered imperial administrative chain originating from the Ministry of War (Bīng Bù), Office of Chariots and Horses (Chējià Sī), which reported that Patrol Inspector Xiàng Sùhéng had delivered four Westerners—Jiǎng Jiāorén, Wú Zhífāng, Fù Qǐméng, and Nà Yǒngfú—to the capital for presentation to the relevant ministry and subsequent transfer to the Imperial Household Department (Nèiwù Fǔ). The placard transmits formal instructions down the bureaucratic hierarchy—from the Ministry of War, via the Provincial Administration Commission (Bùzhèng Shǐ Sī), Prefectural Administration, and County Magistrate Jiang Pī—to the designated foreign headman (Yí mù), directing strict observance of orders requiring his compliance. Marginalia indicate archival numbering (381) and registration (Dēngjì Hàomǎ), while seals and annotations reflect contemporary administrative processing. The document exemplifies Qing-era bureaucratic protocol for managing foreign presence at the local level and provides primary evidence of institutional responses to Western individuals within the Guangdong maritime frontier during the mid-eighteenth century.

This archival document is an official Qing dynasty administrative warrant (*pai*) issued in September 1745 (eighth month of the tenth year of the Qianlong reign) by Gu, Acting Magistrate of Xiangshan County, operating from the Left Hall. It concerns the recovery and remittance of 974.063 liang of silver—comprising eighteen sealed packets—embezzled or fraudulently withheld from funds designated for sugar procurement by seven Chinese merchants: Zheng Bida, Zhao Xinyi, Cai Peizi, Deng Fanjiu, Xue Qianzheng, Liao Lanfang, and Guo Songgong. The warrant directs the foreign headman (*Yi Mu*) to instruct the foreign merchant *Rixin* (*Jih-shin*) to prepare two original formal receipts (*lingzhuang*) acknowledging receipt of the sum, to be submitted to the magistrate’s office for audit and verification prior to disbursement. The directive originates from an official dispatch (*xin pai*) issued by the Maritime Defence Prefectural Administration for Military and Civil Affairs (*Haifang Junmin Fu*), underscoring inter-jurisdictional administrative coordination in commercial oversight. The document bears multiple Qing-era red seals—including a circular seal identifying Gu as Acting Magistrate and a rectangular seal dating the issuance—and marginalia indicating registration and an unspecified compliance deadline. As a primary source, it provides direct evidence of fiscal accountability mechanisms, cross-cultural commercial regulation, and bureaucratic procedure in mid-eighteenth-century Guangdong coastal administration.

This archival document is a Qing-dynasty official warrant (*yìn xìn pái*) issued on the ninth day of the seventh lunar month in the tenth year of the Qianlong reign (1745) by the *Hǎifáng Jūnmín Fǔ* (Maritime Defence Prefecture for Military and Civil Affairs), directing the *Yí Mù*—the Portuguese *capitão-mor* of Macau acting as the Qing-appointed ‘Foreign Headman’—to investigate matters concerning Dutch and British maritime activity in the Pearl River Delta. The warrant responds to a memorial from the Assistant Magistrate (*xiàn chéng*) of Xiangshan County, reporting that five individuals, including *Wèi Zhā Nān Ài*, claimed to have been seized by British ships en route from Guangzhou to Batavia in the preceding year and taken to Britain (*Bā Guó*), yet were now travelling again aboard a British vessel to Macau; it further notes the unexplained continued residence in Macau of Dutch chief merchant (*dà bān*) *Wù Lóu Lǐ*, who had petitioned for a travel permit to Macau but failed to repatriate to the Netherlands (*Fú Lán Xī*). The directive requires verification of the five men’s Dutch nationality, the factual accuracy of their seizure narrative, the circumstances of their re-embarkation with British merchant *Hā Kā*, and the reasons for *Wù Lóu Lǐ*’s prolonged stay. The document originates from Xiangshan County, concerns Macau and Guangdong-Fujian maritime routes, and reflects Qing administrative protocols under the Canton System, including inter-imperial commercial surveillance and jurisdictional oversight of foreign merchants.

This archival document is an imperial mandate issued on 5 July 1745 (seventh day of the seventh lunar month of the Qianlong 10th year) by the Acting Governor-General of Guangdong and Guangxi, Cè Huì, transmitted through the Provincial Administration Commissioner’s Office to Jiang, Magistrate of Xiangshan County, Guangzhou Prefecture. It concerns the arrival in Macau of a Dutch merchant vessel under Captain Harro (‘Hāluō’) and an accompanying Dutch warship commanded by ‘Gan’aihu’, both operating under the authority of the Dutch East India Company (VOC). The document records reports from Lu Zhifang, Deputy Commander of the Xiangshan Coastal Defence Command, and Wu Zhu, Acting Chief Military Officer of the Guangdong Naval Command, detailing the presence of five *Fólóshěn* (Western European, specifically Dutch VOC) merchants—Wèidá Nán, Wèidá Nǎ, Wèilàohǎn, and two unnamed servants—who claimed to have been seized by a Dutch vessel near the Karimata Strait (rendered as ‘Karaba’ or ‘Kariba’) in December 1744 and taken to Batavia (*Bāguó*/*Àowō*), before being conveyed to Guangzhou aboard Harro’s ship to locate their chief factor (*Dàbān*), identified as *Láodānglǐ* (likely Jan Albertszoon Laatdang), reportedly resident in Macau. The mandate directs urgent investigation into the identities, credibility of testimony, and motives of all involved parties, surveillance of Dutch vessels anchored near the Jiujiao Islands and Macau, verification of *Láodānglǐ*’s residence and conduct, and immediate reporting to provincial and viceregal authorities.

This official placard (pai), issued on the 17th day of the 5th lunar month in the 7th year of the Qianlong reign (1742) by the Office of the Assistant Magistrate (Zuotang) of Xiangshan County, Guangzhou Prefecture, records administrative directives arising from a judicial case involving Zhang Dayou—a man of unknown origin delivered to Hepu County authorities by the local garrison alongside foreign-language documents (fan shu) and silver coinage—and two other individuals, Huang Hanchen and Zhang Zonggu. The document details hierarchical administrative review by the Provincial Judicial Commissioner (Anchasi), the Left Censor-in-Chief and Governor-General of Guangdong, Wang, and the Acting Magistrate of Xiangshan County, Feng Can, culminating in orders for the repatriation and strict surveillance of all three men to their native counties—Shixing and elsewhere—and prohibiting their travel to Macau under penalty of severe punishment. It further mandates formal admonition of foreign residents (Yi), prohibition of Chinese subjects in Guangdong from carrying correspondence for foreigners or travelling abroad at foreign behest, and the public destruction in open court of seized foreign-language documents and associated materials, including those linked to the Hunan native ‘Chiluoduo’—a transliterated Portuguese or Macanese name—and other foreign parties. The placard is formally addressed to the foreign headman (Yi mu) for immediate enforcement.

This archival document is an official Qing dynasty judicial memorandum issued by the Acting Magistrate of Xiangshan County, Guangzhou Prefecture, on 12 April 1742 (15th day of the third lunar month, Qianlong 7), received on 7 April 1742. It concerns the urgent resolution of a burglary case at the residence of Jiabide—a Portuguese resident in Macau—under investigation by the county’s *Lishiguan*, the Qing-appointed Portuguese ‘Western Affairs Officer’ responsible for liaison with Chinese authorities. The memorandum, transmitted under authority of Wang, Left Censor-in-Chief of the Censorate and concurrently Governor of Guangdong Province, directs immediate verification of the stolen property’s value and accuracy of the initial report submitted by informant Chen Yaqiu, requiring formal examination (*xunming*) of the complainant and submission of a verified statement (*quegong*) alongside an itemised inventory valued according to *medium-grade* (*zhongwu*) market standards as stipulated in the *Da Qing Lüli*. The document underscores statutory time limits for case adjudication, cites prior non-compliance, and mandates completion within one day of receipt to avoid administrative sanction. Archival references T03/474 and T3/1442 locate the original in the Xiangshan County yamen records; the text reflects formal Qing judicial protocol, inter-imperial administrative practice, and Sino-Portuguese legal interaction in the Pearl River Delta during the early Qianlong reign.

This abstract describes a papal bull, dated 1 February 1585 and issued from St Peter’s in Rome during the fourth year of the pontificate of Pope Gregory XIII, concerning the formal erection of the Cathedral Church of Macau—designated *Ecclesia Cathedralis B. Mariae Machaonensis* and the seat of the newly established Diocese of Machaon (*Dioecesis Machaonensis*). The document responds to a petition by King Sebastian I of Portugal and the Algarves, and records the papal confirmation of Macau’s elevation to episcopal status, its designation as *Civitas Machaonensis*, and the assignment of jurisdiction over the Province of China, Japan, associated islands—including the ‘Macao Islands’ (*Insulae Machaonenses*)—and adjacent territories under Portuguese dominion. It specifies the subjection of ecclesiastical and civil persons within the diocese to the Bishop of Machaon and the Archbishop of Goa in their respective jurisdictions, establishes the episcopal mensa with an annual dower of five hundred cruzados, confirms royal patronage (*jus patronatus*) exclusively vested in the Portuguese Crown, and reserves rights of presentation to benefices while reserving higher ecclesiastical appointments to the monarch. Marginal annotations clarify administrative dependencies, including subordination to the General Chapter of Daman and the applicability of canonical privileges. The text is part of Volume IV of the *Codex Diplomaticus Lusitaniae*, edited by Emmanuel Pereyra Sampayo, Abbot of Ponte de Lima, and originates from the Vatican Archives.

This essay is to illustrate the inter-cultural features involved in the Chinese Rites Controversy, which had a devastating impact on the Chinese missionary endeavor. The 1659 instruction by Propaganda Fide, also known as the Magna Charta of the Congregation, obliged apostolic vicars and all missionaries in eastern Asia, including China, to carry out the missionary practice of adaptation. Missionaries were prohibited from combating local customs and traditions, except when they were in obvious contradiction to faith or morals. The directives also included the invitation for the promotion of indigenous clergy. The instructions were quite innovative, just as innovative was the missionary method envisaged by Francesco Ingoli, Propaganda Fide’s first director. Sadly enough, the ground-breaking directives were not put into practice, quite paradoxically, exactly by Apostolic Vicars and missionaries sent by Propaganda Fide. Subsequent pronouncements by Propaganda Fide and by the same Pontifices contradicted early openness. Proposals coming from China for the promotion of Chinese clergy and liturgical adaptation were disapproved. At the end of the Rites Controversy, Chinese Christians were forced to discontinue the practice of the traditional rites in honour of the ancestors. The Rites Controversy was initiated in Fujian province in mid-1635. Dominican and Franciscan missionaries objected to the evangelization method introduced to China by Matteo Ricci and Giulio Aleni. Propaganda Fide and the Holy See were called in to declare whether the Christians were allowed to participate in the ancestral rituals. In contradiction with 1659’s Instruction, Rome was unable to make a coherent decision, and the controversy dragged on. Pope Clement XI was determined to disapprove the Rites hoping, at the same time, to save China Mission from destruction. Sadly, the two objectives could not be achieved together. In 1742, Benedict XIV condemned the Rites in the most solemn fashion, putting to a definitive end China Mission as envisaged by Matteo Ricci.