The other day in is ing our rescript with reference to the serious charges made st Chang Ju-mei, Governor of Shi tung, by the Hanlin Reader, Ch'én Ping. ho, We stated that, in making them, the memorialist must have had certain proofs in hand to embolden him in presenting such charges, and we therefore, commanded him to give them to us or state case more clearly. Chren_ Pin; therefore, presented his reply which, how. ever, appeus to iv. vay lame one and, under the circumstances, ines) oprehensiinstance, he sues chat Chang is am adept at currying fave with his superiors because when the sud nor of Shania. while oily an expectant Taotai in Kiangsw in char, the x office, he was most inti and had daily intereou: se with Lis (now Vice-President of the Board of Revenue) who was at the time Imperial Commissioner of Silk-looms. Then, again, when the said Chang Ju-mei vincin) Treasurer of Shensi and acting Governor, he held most intimate relations with Jung Lu (new Grand Secretary), at that time holding the post of Tartar General of Hsian, capital of Shensi. These charges are in the face of them both foolish and unaccountable. For when Chang Ju-mei had charge of the salt tax fice he was stationed in Kiangpeh (North (South Riangsu) where the said Li Shan ssu), many bundyed Ni from Soochow
resided as Commissioner of Silk-loon How then could all this intimacy and daily intercourse exist? It would be a physiea impossibility. Then ax to the charge of intimacy and close intercourse with Jung lo this official was Tartar General ian. Now Jung Lu left Hsian for Poking in the autumn of the y while it was not until the earl 1805 that Chang Ju-mei, Judge of Shansi, was promoted Pr Trewurer of Shensi, and not until the same year that he held the acting of the Governorship of that province—long before which Jung Lu had already been appointed a Metropolitan official. These hnarefaced and baseless charges, therefore, fall through of themselves, for even, f the suke of argument, if Chang indeed held otice in the same cities and at the same time as the others, what proof could there be brought forward of undue intimacy and close friendship? The Hanlin memorialist has, therefore, been in-devd reprehensible and should Lo severely. punished according to law, but as an act of extra merey we only command that the said: Hanlin: be-brought before: the Grand.
Council and personally censured for his conduct.
3rd March.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.