Your search

This 1891 diplomatic document, originating from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton and dated 29 June, comprises a despatch enclosing anti-religious placards distributed in Guangdong during June of that year. The text includes translated excerpts of polemical broadsides targeting Christian missionary activity, particularly focused on derogatory depictions of Jesus Christ and foreign religious influence. The placards employ scatological and sacrilegious imagery, alleging abhorrent rituals involving human body parts and framing Christianity as morally corrupt and alien to Confucian values. Accompanying these is an engraved illustration of a crucified pig containing human organs and a child, alongside depictions of decapitated Europeans, underscoring the intensity of local hostility. The document further contains a formal notice issued by Demétrio Cinatti, Portuguese Consul in Canton, warning Portuguese subjects of rising tensions and the potential spread of unrest from the Yangtze Valley to Guangdong and Guangxi. Reference is made to a minor incident involving a Portuguese national that had been exaggerated within Chinese communities, prompting heightened diplomatic vigilance. The material reflects anxieties among foreign residents and consular authorities amid growing anti-missionary sentiment in late Qing China. Endorsed and verified by consulate officials—including Deydón Lizalde and D. Emaldi—this record serves as a primary source on Sino-foreign relations, religious conflict, and colonial-era perceptions in southern China at the end of the nineteenth century.

This is a diplomatic correspondence dated 1 June 1891, authored by Demétrio Cinatti, Portuguese Consul in Canton, and addressed to the Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The document forms part of an official dispatch series from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton during 1891 and includes multiple annexes and indices referencing subsequent pages. It discusses Sino-Portuguese relations with particular focus on Macau’s territorial integrity and Chinese administrative encroachments. Key issues include opposition from Chinese authorities regarding Portuguese jurisdiction in Macau, tensions over Green Island (Ilha Verde), and the activities of local mandarins such as Sse and Chang Chi Tung, identified as the Viceroy of Liangguang. The consul reports that obstacles to diplomatic operations have eased due to interventions by the Governor of Macau, enabling access to interpreters. He expresses concern over growing Chinese influence in Taipa and Coloane, noting the significant disparity between the small European population and approximately 8,000 Chinese residents on these islands, which facilitates covert assertions of jurisdiction. The text highlights fears that Chinese officials may replicate tactics used in northern disputes within southern territories. Administrative practices, including falsified inspection reports by mandarins, are detailed as mechanisms to erode Portuguese sovereignty. Additional matters include the Hainan question, where delayed responses from the Viceroy reflect increasing indifference toward foreign claims, and anti-Christian unrest in northern China, attributed to secret societies and popular rumour. Economic observations note high rice prices in Guangdong and reliance on cheaper Siamese imports. The document also references ecclesiastical disputes over property rights in Hainan, asserting that chapels destroyed in 1884 were built and maintained at mission expense, thereby entitling Portugal to indemnity. Later sections address anti-foreign agitation in Canton, including inflammatory placards and arson attempts against missionary residences, prompting consular advisories and calls for naval reinforcement. The proposed appointment of a Chinese consul in Hong Kong is reported as withdrawn due to colonial opposition. Finally, press reports alleging Portugal’s intention to sell Macau are refuted, with emphasis on treaty prohibitions against alienation and recommendations for economic development instead. The material provides critical insight into late 19th-century colonial diplomacy, jurisdictional conflicts, and cross-cultural tensions in southern China under Qing administration.

This is a formal ecclesiastical dispatch dated 1 June 1891, issued by António, Bishop of Macau, to the Governor of Macau and Timor, in response to an official inquiry concerning the destruction of Catholic chapels in Hainan during the 1884 persecution. The document details the historical presence of Portuguese missionaries in Hainan since their initial establishment in 1630 by Father Bento de Mattos, including the founding of chapels in Kim-tchau-fu and interior settlements. It outlines the expulsion of Jesuits in 1769, the re-establishment of the mission in 1795, and subsequent French involvement until their withdrawal in 1876, after which Portuguese missionaries resumed control. The Bishop refutes claims that Chinese Christians owned or destroyed the chapels, asserting that all properties were constructed and maintained with mission funds—totaling nearly 3,000 taels by 1890—and thus belonged exclusively to the Catholic Church under canonical and treaty-based rights. He rejects the validity of forced apostasy declarations and denounces the Viceroy of the Two Quangs’ evasive responses to diplomatic inquiries, drawing parallels with prior cases involving French, British, and Spanish claims. The text includes detailed expenditures, administrative correspondence, and arguments for indemnity, emphasizing that just reparation is essential for the resumption of missionary activity. Attached documents substantiate financial outlays and diplomatic efforts, positioning the dispute within broader Sino-foreign treaty relations and colonial religious policy in late 19th-century South China.

This 1891 diplomatic dispatch, originating from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton and addressed to a high-ranking official in Lisbon, constitutes a formal report on political, administrative, and territorial tensions between Portuguese and Chinese authorities concerning Macau and its dependencies. The document details the shifting stance of local Chinese officials following communications from the Portuguese Ministry of the Navy, noting a cessation of objections to consular requests for interpreters. It highlights the influence of Viceroy Chang-chi-ting—a key anti-European figure—and his role in formulating opposition to Portuguese interests, particularly through a memorial submitted during Sino-Portuguese treaty negotiations. The text raises concerns over Chinese encroachment on Macau’s jurisdiction, citing the arrest of bailiffs on Taipa Island and the circulation of administrative notices asserting Chinese authority over local populations. Reference is made to the Green Island (Ilha Verde) dispute as precedent for covert jurisdictional claims. The author warns against potential threats to Coloane and Taipa, where Portuguese military presence remains limited amidst a significantly larger Chinese population. Administrative practices, including falsified inspection reports submitted to the Tsung-li Yamen, are presented as evidence of systematic efforts to erode Portuguese control. Additional matters include unresolved diplomatic notes on Hainan, delays in Sino-Portuguese negotiations, persecution of French Catholic missions in northern China attributed to anti-Manchu secret societies, and observations on rice trade dynamics affecting Macau. The document provides critical insight into colonial diplomacy, jurisdictional contestation, and power asymmetries in late 19th-century South China.

This 1891 diplomatic dispatch, originating from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton and addressed to a high-ranking official in Lisbon, constitutes a formal report on political, administrative, and territorial tensions between Portuguese and Chinese authorities concerning Macau and its dependencies. The document details the shifting stance of local Chinese officials following communications from the Portuguese Ministry of the Navy, noting a cessation of objections to consular requests for interpreters. It highlights the influence of Viceroy Chang-chi-ting—a key anti-European figure—and his role in formulating opposition to Portuguese interests, particularly through a memorial submitted during Sino-Portuguese treaty negotiations. The text raises concerns over Chinese encroachment on Macau’s jurisdiction, citing the arrest of bailiffs on Taipa Island and the circulation of administrative notices asserting Chinese authority over local populations. Reference is made to the Green Island (Ilha Verde) dispute as precedent for covert jurisdictional claims. The author warns against potential threats to Coloane and Taipa, where Portuguese military presence remains limited amidst a significantly larger Chinese population. Administrative practices, including falsified inspection reports submitted to the Tsung-li Yamen, are presented as evidence of systematic efforts to erode Portuguese control. Additional matters include unresolved diplomatic notes on Hainan, delays in Sino-Portuguese negotiations, persecution of French Catholic missions in northern China attributed to anti-Manchu secret societies, and observations on rice trade dynamics affecting Macau. The document provides critical insight into colonial diplomacy, jurisdictional contestation, and power asymmetries in late 19th-century South China.

This official ecclesiastical dispatch, dated 1 June 1891, from António, Bishop of Macau, to the Portuguese Chargé d'Affaires in China, forms part of a formal correspondence initiated in response to inquiries regarding missionary activities and Christian communities in southern China during the mid-to-late nineteenth century. The document, certified by both the General Secretariat of the Government of Macau and the Portuguese Consulate in Canton, provides retrospective information on three key incidents involving Catholic missions under the Diocese of Macau. It references the Jiang-tê incident of 1853–1854, detailing French consular intervention with the Canton Viceroy to resolve damages against Christians, though the source of the $200 compensation remains unclear. The text also outlines the acquisition of land at Hoi-haw for the Hainan mission through Joseph James Poynter, registered at the British consulate, illustrating external financial support from Macau. Additionally, it reports abuses against Christians in Coloane, Ngao-ca, and Siem-tin-san in February 1884, resolved through diplomatic representation by the French consul to the Tao-tai, resulting in restored peace. The document serves as a primary source on ecclesiastical administration, cross-colonial legal jurisdictions, and Sino-foreign relations in late Qing China, reflecting the interplay between religious missions, local resistance, and consular diplomacy in the South China coastal region.

This official ecclesiastical dispatch, dated 1 June 1891, from António, Bishop of Macau, to the Portuguese Chargé d'Affaires in China, forms part of a formal correspondence initiated in response to inquiries regarding missionary activities and Christian communities in southern China during the mid-to-late nineteenth century. The document, certified by both the General Secretariat of the Government of Macau and the Portuguese Consulate in Canton, provides retrospective information on three key incidents involving Catholic missions under the Diocese of Macau. It references the Jiang-tê incident of 1853–1854, detailing French consular intervention with the Canton Viceroy to resolve damages against Christians, though the source of the $200 compensation remains unclear. The text also outlines the acquisition of land at Hoi-haw for the Hainan mission through Joseph James Poynter, registered at the British consulate, illustrating external financial support from Macau. Additionally, it reports abuses against Christians in Coloane, Ngao-ca, and Siem-tin-san in February 1884, resolved through diplomatic representation by the French consul to the Tao-tai, resulting in restored peace. The document serves as a primary source on ecclesiastical administration, cross-colonial legal jurisdictions, and Sino-foreign relations in late Qing China, reflecting the interplay between religious missions, local resistance, and consular diplomacy in the South China coastal region.

This 1891 diplomatic dispatch, dated 23–24 June and originating from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton, documents escalating anti-European and anti-missionary unrest in southern China amid a broader wave of hostility spreading from central regions. The Viceroy of Canton, responding to inflammatory placards and public agitation, requested foreign consulates to suspend missionary activities to prevent violence, while an attempted arson attack on a missionary residence heightened tensions. With no warships present for protection, the consular corps coordinated emergency evacuation plans, designating the British consulate as a rallying point. A separate incident involving Agostinho de Jesus, a man of uncertain origin regarded as Portuguese, aboard the steamer *Honan*—in which he allegedly attacked a Chinese passenger—sparked exaggerated rumours of murder, prompting fears of mob retaliation. The situation was defused by preventing the steamer’s landing and dismissing the individual. The document attributes the wider disturbances not to organised political resistance by the Cau-lau-hui secret society, but to bands of disbanded soldiers and brigands exploiting anti-foreign sentiment to justify plunder. Authorities in Canton responded with repression, imprisoning those criticising Europeans. The anonymous correspondent, likely a Portuguese consular official, urges reinforcement of the naval presence in Chinese waters, arguing that existing forces are inadequate to protect Portuguese interests across Shanghai, Canton, Macau, and Hainan, particularly given the fragile security climate and potential for renewed violence linked to compensation claims.

This 1891 diplomatic dispatch, dated 23–24 June and originating from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton, documents escalating anti-European and anti-missionary unrest in southern China amid a broader wave of hostility spreading from central regions. The Viceroy of Canton, responding to inflammatory placards and public agitation, requested foreign consulates to suspend missionary activities to prevent violence, while an attempted arson attack on a missionary residence heightened tensions. With no warships present for protection, the consular corps coordinated emergency evacuation plans, designating the British consulate as a rallying point. A separate incident involving Agostinho de Jesus, a man of uncertain origin regarded as Portuguese, aboard the steamer *Honan*—in which he allegedly attacked a Chinese passenger—sparked exaggerated rumours of murder, prompting fears of mob retaliation. The situation was defused by preventing the steamer’s landing and dismissing the individual. The document attributes the wider disturbances not to organised political resistance by the Cau-lau-hui secret society, but to bands of disbanded soldiers and brigands exploiting anti-foreign sentiment to justify plunder. Authorities in Canton responded with repression, imprisoning those criticising Europeans. The anonymous correspondent, likely a Portuguese consular official, urges reinforcement of the naval presence in Chinese waters, arguing that existing forces are inadequate to protect Portuguese interests across Shanghai, Canton, Macau, and Hainan, particularly given the fragile security climate and potential for renewed violence linked to compensation claims.

This is a collection of official Qing dynasty proclamations and imperial decrees from June to July 1891, translated by the Portuguese Consulate in Canton for diplomatic dissemination. The documents include a proclamation issued on 4 July 1891 by Mang, acting Treasurer of Kwang-tung and First-Class Mandarinate official, and Ngo, Second-Class Mandarinate official and Criminal Commissioner under the Provincial Judge of Kwang-tung, addressing the circulation of anonymous anti-foreign religious placards and pamphlets in urban and rural areas. It reaffirms state-sanctioned tolerance of foreign missionaries, warns against public unrest, and urges local populations to maintain order and avoid complicity in disturbances. Complementing this is an imperial decree dated 23 June 1891, transmitted via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which responds to the arson attacks on Christian churches at M-hu (Fu-hui), Tau-yang (Kiang-su), and M-sue’ (Hu-fei) earlier that year. The decree asserts the government’s obligation under treaty provisions to protect foreign missions, attributes the violence to a coordinated bandit conspiracy exploiting sedition for robbery, and commands provincial authorities across Hu-kwang, Kiang-su, Ku-hui, Hu-peí, and Quiangos to arrest and execute perpetrators, suppress false rumours, and safeguard missionaries. Officials are instructed to expedite unresolved mission-related legal cases and ensure protection of foreign lives and property in treaty ports, with negligence subject to imperial scrutiny. Translations and certifications were carried out by Eduardo Marques, Interpreter, and Edmundo Marques, Consul, at the Portuguese Consulate in Canton between 26 June and 5 July 1891.

Papal bull and associated financial account, dated 13 November 1884 (with administrative notes from 14 March and 14 October 1884), concerning the episcopal appointment of Dom António Joaquim de Medeiros (also referenced as de Noronha) as Bishop of Macau. The document, issued by Pope Leo XIII during his seventh year of pontificate, formally transfers the titular Bishop of Thermopylae to the Diocese of Macau, a see established under Portuguese royal patronage (*Padroado Real*) granted by King Luís I, Most Faithful King of Portugal and the Algarves. It details the Apostolic authority for the translation, including absolution from prior ecclesiastical obligations, delegation of full spiritual and temporal governance, and instructions for oaths of fidelity to be administered by a designated Catholic prelate. The text affirms the legitimacy of the Macau see under various historical patronage designations, including *Patronatus Caritatis* and *Tropaeum Canonissimi*, and commands local clergy, cathedral chapter, university, and laity to render obedience. Accompanying the bull is an itemised account of consistorial expenses totalling 957.57 florins, covering fees paid to Roman Curia officials, scribes, notaries, and other functionaries involved in the episcopal consecration process, attested by Vicente Domati and Christina Duplertum. The documents originate from the Holy See and pertain to ecclesiastical administration in colonial Macau, reflecting the intersection of papal authority and Portuguese imperial patronage in late 19th-century Catholic missions.

This 1882 diplomatic correspondence from the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, transmitted from Lisbon on 29 July, concerns ecclesiastical appointments within the Portuguese colonial context in Asia. The document comprises three interrelated texts: an official dispatch transmitting ecclesiastical materials to a government minister; a royal charter dated 30 December 1881 (with year partially redacted) issued under the authority of the King of Portugal; and a formal petition addressed to the Pope regarding the appointment of António Joaquim de Alpedrinha as coadjutor to the Archbishop of Goa and Superior of the Missions of Timor. Key figures include Dom Luís, styled as ruler of multiple territories including India, the priest António Joaquim de Alpedrinha, Father Espírito da Caparinha, and Medeiros, the Vicar General of Goa. The primary subject matter involves the nomination of Alpedrinha to assist in the spiritual governance of a vast and administratively challenging diocese encompassing Timor, with explicit reference to canonical procedures, the preservation of the Padroado Real (Royal Patronage), and the need for papal confirmation through Apostolic Letters. A stipend (congrua) is requested for the appointee’s sustenance. The documents reflect the intersection of state authority, colonial administration, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the late nineteenth-century Portuguese Empire, offering critical insights into church-state relations and the governance of overseas missions during the period.

Contains transcription of the Papal Bull of Gregory XIII establishing the Catholic Diocese of Macau in 1576

This 1860 diplomatic correspondence, comprising three despatches dated 25 and 26 June and 25 July, originates from the Portuguese Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lynard, to António José d'Ávila J., Viscount of Mite, Minister of Her Majesty’s Government in Rome. The documents confirm receipt of multiple confidential communications from the Legation in Naples (Nos. 19, 21) and the extended series (Nos. 39, 40), along with a reserved despatch (No. 15), all concerning political developments on the Italian Peninsula during a period of significant upheaval. Central to the correspondence is the appointment of Count Alessandro Gallo as Vice-Consul of Portugal in Ancona, with instructions for the Minister to ensure the Count petitions the Ministry for the issuance of his Diplomatic Commission. Additionally, the Secretary of State transmits information relayed by Father Barroso regarding the frontier of Saint Joseph in Papo, forwarding a confidential extract to the Minister of Public Works. The despatches further request urgent clarification on colonial provisions necessary for the proposed renewal of a Commercial Treaty with Naples. These documents offer primary insight into Portugal’s diplomatic protocols, consular administration, and foreign policy considerations in mid-19th century Europe, particularly in relation to the shifting political landscape of the Italian states and colonial trade negotiations.

This 1844 ecclesiastical document, originating in Malacca and dated 10 February, comprises a formal declaration by José, Archbishop Primate of the East, addressed to the Commission representing the local Catholic community. It responds to jurisdictional disputes arising from claims by the Apostolic Vicar of Macau to assert authority over Malacca’s Catholics under the Papal Brief *Multa praeclare* and a 1840 decree of the Sacred Congregation. The Archbishop refutes the validity of these claims within Portuguese ecclesiastical territory, asserting that the Brief is either spurious or null due to existing agreements between the Holy See and the Portuguese Crown. He reaffirms the authority of Reverend Francisco Jones, Administrator of the Diocese, as his legitimate delegate, and instructs missionaries from the Propaganda Fide—Fathers Bergaudetti and Bervel—to withdraw immediately under penalty of disobedience. The text underscores the Archbishop’s full jurisdiction confirmed by Papal Bulls, including *Intr. L. Saldino*, and affirms loyalty to Pope Gregory XVI while rejecting extrajudicial interventions. Endorsed by the State Secretariat for Naval and Overseas Affairs on 15 April 1844 and the State Secretariat for Foreign Affairs on 16 April, this authenticated copy serves as a key record of colonial-era ecclesiastical politics, illustrating tensions between Roman centralisation efforts and entrenched Portuguese patronage rights in Southeast Asia.

This 1844 ecclesiastical letter, addressed to the British Government and copied to parties designated A° B. and the Metropolitan See (Metrópole), originates from João, Archbishop of Goa and Primate of the East, in response to a communication dated 12 December of the previous year. The document concerns a jurisdictional dispute over the Diocese of Malacca, focusing on Mgr. Francisco Jones, its Governor, who has refused to comply with a papal decree of 3 January 1840 issued by the Apostolic Secretary declaring his incapacity. Jones asserts allegiance solely to the Ecclesiastical Authority of Goa, rejecting external directives. The Archbishop invokes the authority conferred by Papal Bulls of Confirmation—equivalent to those granted to his predecessors—to assert full metropolitan jurisdiction, including over Malacca, and explicitly rejects the validity or continued applicability of the Brief *Multa podere*, whether genuine or clandestinely obtained, arguing that it has been superseded by subsequent provisions. Reference is made to an Encyclical Bull affirming the suffragan bishops’ obligation to obey the Archbishop of Goa, further undermining claims based on the earlier Brief. The letter firmly opposes British governmental intervention in the appointment of the Apostolic Vicar of Angapura and ecclesiastical matters in Malacca, demanding withdrawal from such affairs and unimpeded exercise of ecclesiastical authority by the legitimate diocesan governor. Signed by Archbishop João and countersigned by Reverend Fathers Burgandetti and Beverel, the text underscores the Holy See’s jurisdictional claims within a colonial context, reflecting tensions between ecclesiastical authority and imperial administration in mid-19th century Portuguese ecclesiastical provinces in Asia.