Angell to Denny, October 12, 1880

Mr. Angell to Mr. Denny.

Sir: A Mr. Francis Parry has issued, in London, a circular, dated July, 1880, concerning alleged inhuman proceedings in the mixed court at Shanghai. The State Department has directed my attention to the subject, and informed me that the circular has called out a considerable amount of unfavorable comment from the English press upon the action of the mixed court. If I rightly understand Mr. Parry, he aims to convey the idea more or less clearly that inhuman practices are sanctioned by the foreign assessors who sit with the Chinese magistrate, and that at any rate the foreign consuls or ministers might do more than they have done to mitigate the punishments or improve the penal code of China.

I quote the important part of his circular:

* * * “As to the sentences of the court; those in excess of 100 blows are, according to the Chinese code, illegal, the punishment of the cangue or huge wooden collar is a torture; beating on the face is a mutilation; the most severe is the remission of persons convicted of capital and heinous crimes to be judged, tortured during examination, and imprisoned by the higher court of the district magistrate in the native city. This remission is not the ordinary “extradition” provided for in the treaty of Tientsin, Article XXI; the criminal is not demanded by the city authorities, the rendition is a matter of convenience.

“These matters demand rectification. The association of the foreign consul with the Chinese mandarin is a point of contact capable of being made the inlet for that regard for humanity common to civilization, the base of all the humanities.

“Japan has abolished judicial torture. Turkey no longer legalizes the mutilation of offenders. China has yet to gain a good name by repressing the cruelty which is the marked characteristic of her judicial system.” * * *

Of course it is well understood here that the mixed court is a Chinese court, administering Chinese law, and also that, any attempts to reform the penal code of China can be rewarded with only slow progress. But all the consular and diplomatic representatives of western nations certainly desire to do what they may to improve the judicial proceedings, especially in a court in which foreign assessors sit, and to set forth the facts to their own governments with such distinctness as to relieve themselves from the suspicion of encouraging inhumanity, or even of tolerating it when they can prevent it.

As the mixed court at Shanghai necessarily falls under your personal observation, I think it my duty to invite from you any statements or suggestions, which the above extract from Mr. Parry’s circular may prompt you to make. I would especially ask you—

• Whether punishment in excess of 100 blows is, according to the Chinese code, illegal. Mr. Parry names eleven cases in which, during 1879—the United States assessor sitting—more than 100 blows were given.
• Is beating to extort confession ordered by the court. Mr. Parry cites a case, March 20, Dr. Macgowan, assessor, in which it is stated that 50 blows were given for this purpose, and that these failing of the result, 50 more. It is called the Shun-che sze abduction case.

I have, &c.,