晚清咸同年间“还堂案”研究

发布时间：2019-04-25 19:12

【摘要】：近代以来，列强改变了中国一个半世纪的禁教政策，将天主教传教士在中国的活动合法化，使得天主教的影响迅速扩大，强化了中国各阶层同传教士之间的矛盾，教案纷纭迭起，遍及全国。其中有一类是传教士要求清政府给还禁教时期没收“教会旧产”，这些“旧产”包括天主堂、学堂、坟茔、田土、房廊等，而引发的诸多交涉事件，即为“还堂案”或称还堂交涉。此类案件开始于1845年索还上海旧堂案，以1895年南阳还堂结束告终，集中发生是在《北京条约》签订后的咸丰末和同治朝中。本文将研究的中心放在案件比较集中的咸丰末年和同治朝这一时期。这一时期在全国共发生35起还堂案，遍及全国14个省份，，有分别以1861年和1865—1866年两个案件频发时段。从不同角度看，还堂案有着不同的特点，这些特点的形又与交涉双方的态度密切相关。法国在当时是天主教的保教国，还堂案交涉中传教士通过法国驻华公使、领事同清政府进行交涉。因此传教士、法国驻华相关官员对于还堂案的态度和策略直接影响还堂案的结果。清政府这一方，负责交涉的主体机构是总理衙门，直接办理具体给还事宜的是各级地方官员，绅士作为各个地方的代表人物也参与到旧教产的给还的的交涉中。总理衙门的对于还堂案的基本态度是“按约办事，力求公平，适当羁縻，暗中节制”。各地方官员对此尽管表面认同，但由于具体情况不同，对于案件又有着不同的态度。绅士对于给还教堂，基本持反对态度，但若地方官员按照总理衙门指示办理，绅士在还堂案中的影响力就很难发挥。由于传教士和法国政府有着相同利益，他们的在索还教堂中的态度也是相同的，“借约保护，抓紧机会，坚持目标，不达不休”的态度贯穿所有交涉始终。为达目的，他们根据不同案件，采用不同策略，大体归结为：声东击西，明敲暗诈；冒用他名，哄骗吓唬；武力相迫，虚声恫吓；不问证据，强硬索要；借口事端，妄索赔款。因此尽管给还教堂是由清朝政府进行的，应该掌握给还的主动权和决定权，但由于传教士和列强是以武力为后盾的，在强大的武力面前，清政府政府没有说不的资本，传教士和法国成为最后结果的真正的决定者。在传教士的坚持下除极少数情况外，无论是否有确据证明真有教堂存在，都能从索还教堂的过程中获取利益。
[Abstract]:Since modern times, the great powers have changed the policy of banning religion in China for a century and a half, legalized the activities of Catholic missionaries in China, made the influence of Catholicism expand rapidly, and strengthened the contradiction between various classes and missionaries in China. There are many teaching plans all over the country. One of them is that missionaries demanded that the Qing government confiscate "church old property" during the forbidden period. These "old products" include the Catholic Hall, the school, the tombs, the soil, the house porch, and so on, which caused many cases of negotiation. That is the "return to the court case" or referred to as the court negotiation. The case began in 1845 and ended in Nanyang in 1895, in the late Xianfeng and Tongzhi dynasties after the signing of the Beijing Treaty. This paper will focus on the case concentrated in the late Xianfeng and Tongzhi Dynasty this period. During this period, 35 cases occurred throughout the country, covering 14 provinces, with two frequent periods in 1861 and 1865-1866, respectively. From different perspectives, there are different characteristics of the case, and the form of these characteristics is closely related to the attitude of the parties involved. France was the Catholic state at that time, and the missionaries engaged in negotiations with the Qing government through the French Minister in China and the Consul. Therefore, the attitude and tactics of the missionaries and French officials in China directly affect the outcome of the case. On the part of the Qing government, the main body in charge of the negotiations is the Prime Minister's Yamen, and it is the local officials at all levels who directly handle the matter of return. The gentleman, as the representative figure of each place, is also involved in the negotiation of the return of the old teaching property. The basic attitude of the Prime Minister's Yamen to the case of returning the court is "to act according to the contract, to strive for fairness, proper impersonation, and covert temperance". Local officials agree with this on the surface, but have different attitudes to the case because of the different circumstances. Gentlemen are basically opposed to giving back to the church, but if local officials follow the instructions of the Prime Minister's Yamen, it will be difficult to exert the gentleman's influence in the court return case. Because the missionaries and the French government share the same interests, their attitude in the church of Sorbonne is the same: "protect by contract, seize the opportunity, adhere to the goal, do not reach the goal" throughout all negotiations. In order to achieve their purpose, they adopt different strategies according to different cases, which can be summarized in general as follows: making a sound attack on the west and blackmailing; using his name to cajole and intimidate; using force to force each other and bluffing; making a firm claim without asking for evidence; and claiming compensation on the pretext of the matter. Therefore, although the return of the church was carried out by the Qing government and should be given the initiative and decision-making power, because the missionaries and the powers were backed by force, in the face of strong force, the Qing government had no capital to say no. The missionaries and France became the real decision-makers of the final result. At the insistence of the missionaries, except in a few cases, whether there is a certain proof that there is a church or not, it is possible to obtain benefits from the process of returning the church to the church.
【学位授予单位】：河北师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：K252

【相似文献】