Considered apart from the misdemeanors of foreigners, the measures of the Chinese authorities justified the appeal to arms by the nation, whose interests were chiefly concerned in commercial dealings with that empire. The supremacy claimed by the Chinese over all countries occasioned frequent altercations between the mandarins at Canton and the English officers who were in charge of the East India Company's factory in that city. Hostile collisions were, however, comparatively unfrequent, owing to the authority exercised over all British subjects by the East India Company, that body having authority to deport any of their countrymen who acted disorderly. Their proceedings in that way gave a tone to the entire foreign community, and as intercourse was restricted to a single port, where the people were jealous, and mandarins vigilant, murderous affrays did not often take place; yet, when they did occur, the Chinese were resolute in claiming jurisdiction in each instance. In cases of assault, pecuniary recompense always satisfied the complainant; and in business transactions mutual confidence in each other's integrity rendered official intervention unnecessary. Thus, except in cases of homicide, the foreign claim of exemption from local jurisdiction was tacitly admitted, and no inconvenience followed. But where life was lost, even when both the murderer and his victim were foreigners, the right to try and execute the guilty was contended for, and in some cases admitted. Kienlung's demand of 'life for life' was always made, an innocent victim being not less acceptable than the real culprit. On one occasion (1772), when a Chinaman was killed in the Portuguese settlement of Macao, an Englishman, demanded by the Chinese, whom the Portuguese admitted to be guiltless, was by them given up, and by the Chinese strangled, to meet the claim of life for life. No regard was had for those who by accident caused loss of life. In 1780 a native was killed by the firing of a salute from an English vessel. The mandarins decoyed the supercargo and held him as a hostage until the gunner was delivered up. The innocent cause of the calamity was given up under a promise from the mandarins that he should have a fair trial, and that his life should not be endangered. He was immediately strangled. In 1821 an Italian sailor, in the service of an American merchantman, was the indirect cause of the death of a China boatwoman, who was by the side of his vessel. Trade was stopped until the poor man was delivered up; the committee of American merchants, in the examination of the sailor, protested against its irregularity. In sending the prisoner to be strangled, they said, 'We are bound to submit to your laws, while in your waters; be they ever so unjust, we will not resist them.' A plausible reason for a culpable act. They should have allowed the trade to stop, and quit the Chinese waters, rather than become parties to the murder of the Italian.