[ { "id": 217800, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-004 - Public Offices & Admiralty - 1843", "page_number": 81, "title": "CO129-004 - Public Offices & Admiralty - 1843", "content_text": "Bour \n\nAreckland intended \n\nto reduce the salary. \n\nCheaney, \n\nto 30.000.. \n\nin \n\nI have to honor th. \n\nFear li \n\nJouis very faithfully Per. N. Waterfield \n\n1. As to the \n\n1. Suicapore is a \n\nsystem upon free port.. \n\nWhich Seacapore \n\nhe 1834/5, the \n\nis established, following was the Revue \n\nwith reference to of the Settlement. \n\nrevence and \n\nrevenne from Land - \n\nexecutive officeis. Quin Farm. 1.83.90% \n\nSpich \n\nPaw \n\nPork \n\n56.223 \n\n14.774 \n\n15.246 \n\nToddy & Bhag. 2.424 \n\nRupeer \n\n/3.333 \n\nExcise Farms \n\n-2.22.623 \n\nPawnbrokers \n\n2.784 \n\nMacket leaves. \n\n12.968 \n\nFees \n\n1.646 \n\nJudicial Times & Fees - 22.102 \n\nNoh detailed \n\n2.487 \n\n2.77.943 \n\nSincapore forms, \n\nwith Punce of Wales \n\nMann, and Malaces. \n\na \n\ndependency, called the \n\n+", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-004 - Public Offices & Admiralty - 1843.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 223406, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6]", "page_number": 368, "title": "CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6]", "content_text": "30 Holliday Wise C\n\n30 W. Pyke.\n\nI. &. Ballantine\n\nI. M. Hayrs Sir J. Cochrane\n\n&. Waller\n\nofficers of the dot. M. N. I.\n\n5 M Markivick\n\n100 Smith #Brimelove\n\nJaen soni\n\n10 Leut Wood. B. N.\n\nFor 25 pd\n\nJ. St. George. P. Marcussen\n\nfir\n\nfir 25\n\nS. Miller.\n\nfio\n\n10\n\nN. Burns.\n\n20 N. Quus.\n\nC. Smith\n\n10 G. Reope\n\nH. Cochrane.\n\n5 F. Friend\n\n24\n\nJ. Cairns.\n\n10\n\nJ. Parratt.\n\n12\n\nJ. Edwards.\n\nJ. F. Caldwell J. W. Reid.\n\nCast : Bruce. Pract.\n\nCommander Syster H. B3. H. Long.\n\nR.M. McKellar I. Raweterne.\n\nW. S. Parish.\n\nV. Slanter.\n\nC. show.\n\nC. Board.\n\nG. Brayson.\n\n5€. Wadmant.\n\n5 6. Quinland.\n\n20\n\nP. Dudgeon.\n\nst I. L. Mactican.\n\nje 100 Lt Wilson. R.M.\n\npo\n\n20 Bood C. Gutystaff.\n\nfro\n\nHon : M. Gan : Daguilar pd 100 H. B. Commelin. po\n\nA. Aríderacvé\n\nI. L. Fresh.\n\nA. Scott.\n\nR. Strachant\n\n50 L. Routh.\n\nJie 204. S. Carpenter.\n\nI. Funk.\n\n25\n\n10\n\n40\n\n10\n\nJ. W. North.\n\nM. Cooper.\n\nR. Lowrie.\n\nJ. B. Pain.\n\nD. Henne.\n\n1. Conner.\n\nC. 8. Coffin. St. Col: Tripp. Vesey & Co bot : Chesney\n\npo so\n\nFryer Kleme\n\n6. Jamcomb.\n\nBouller.\n\nJ. M Murray,\n\nHon.\n\nJu 10 Mrs Huline.\n\nG. B. Hoga 10 A. Lyce\n\npr 50 C. Aleure\n\nthe 24.\n\nG. M. Stewart\n\n50 R. Diggles.\n\n40\n\n10\n\n150\n\nfor 20\n\npo 100\n\n50\n\n2.0\n\nG. Balls. 10 J. M. Metcalf\n\n$34\n\nfre\n\n10\n\n6. H. Gibbone\n\npid 10\n\n10\n\nH. Mannl\n\nfed 10\n\nI. B. Write\n\nfed 10 fio\n\n10\n\nfd voo\n\n10 Z. Richardson.\n\nfor 50\n\n16\n\nbockerell &\n\n500 C. Moorhouse.\n\nfor 20\n\n200\n\nBell Co\n\n400 €. de Oladui\n\npr 25\n\n20\n\nW. Bell.\n\nG. Strachant\n\nJ. Frise\n\nfed so\n\n& Vindlay\n\nHatcher Larkins & Co po 100 6. Hindley\n\n25 J. A. Gibb.\n\n100\n\nG. F. C. Batemans. pr. 5 A. Shimmer\n\nF\n\n20\n\nJ. S. Gamet.\n\nW. Hutcrrison\n\nAkie Comprador por\n\npr 30 Cast: Frecar, Royserts.\n\n70-\n\nOswald. Disandt t\n\n10 J. Pett\n\n20\n\npr\n\n10 D:Cel: Farquharson\n\n20\n\nCapt. F. M. Edwards gêt 50 A. Boate.\n\nCapt. C. Edwards, 18th\n\nJ.\n\nL. C. Tebles.\n\nCast: Bruce, 18th\n\nJo\n\nR. Wilkinson\n\nFro 100\n\nJ. S. Ford. A. Griend.\n\n6\n\nR. Suglis\n\npo 200\n\npr 100 A. Pennsy\n\n25 A. HC. P. Edwards pe 25\n\nThri Mr Morrisons. fc 316 f. b. B.\n\nC.N. Burgess. p. 10 B.G.\n\nPhillips te leere.\n\nS. R. Cottond.\n\nW. Hay G. W. Frazer, - Jauneey.\n\nJ. Slegers.\n\nPo 10\n\npe 25 B. Butler.\n\n10 G. H. H. Gill,\n\n10 J. Robertson.\n\nfor 20\n\n20 Jamieson How the 50 f. 4. Edger.\n\nfir 50\n\nfor 20\n\nfer | 10\n\nvon How to for 100.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 224760, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-019 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [1-4]", "page_number": 29, "title": "CO129-019 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [1-4]", "content_text": "Witnesses\n\nduring\n\nBrought forward\n\n-Special Disbursements-\n\nHarbour Master.\n\nJuridicial. L. P. M. Cheyney fees and\n\nRevenue Commission for sale at Auction.\n\nFines levied by Marine Magistrates:-\n\nPolice\n\nPurchase of one store.\n\nPublic Works and Buildings\n\n \n 94\n 8\n 18\n 1\n \n \n 26\n \n \n expense\n \n \n 1\n \n \n this converships.\n \n \n i\n k\n 19\n 2\n \n \n ४\n \n 4\n 542\n \n \n b\n \n 14134\n \n \n \n \n 11212\n 6\n \n \n \n 933\n 15\n \n \n \n \n 158\n 9\n \n \n \n \n Brought forward\n 4,844\n \n \n \n\nIncidental Receipts-\n\nMarine\n\nFees on\n\nsailing letters and passes\n\nX\n\n× Surcharge from\n\nsheriff.\n\nContingent\n\nAmounts Recovered-\n\nRefund from sheriff = of Police as per details.\n\nAbstract for\n\nthe quarter.\n\nDeposits available -\n\nPolice Stand.\n\nIncome Tax from Colonial Establishment\n\n£200. 10.4.4.\n\nDiplomatic Debt. 29.15. 7.\n\n339\n\n511\n\n59\n\n2\n\nSuperannuation contributions\n\nDeposits not available –\n\nIntestate Estates.\n\n479\n\n8011212\n\nOn account of H.B.M. Diplomatic and Consulates in China\n\nXXI Sums recovered and received as\n\nper separate account\n\nIn aid of the Revenue of the Colony -\n\nand on\n\nAcct of H.B.M. Diplomatic Report ! & Consulates in China\n\nxxx From the\n\nthe Colonial\n\nChina\n\n25/3 //\n\n£ 26.16.4.12\n\nGovernment office\n\noffices..\n\nErection and repairs of buildings\n\nFormation, repairs of Roads\n\nClearing Ground for Colonial Church.\n\nHer Majesty's\n\nAdvances and other Transactions H. M's Diplomatic Debt. and Consulate\n\nin China as per separate Acco\n\n_ On account of the Accountant General -\n\nof H.M's Navy for distressed Seamen\n\nt Post\n\nPost Office.\n\nDeposits available Repaid ?\n\n_ Income Tax, Colonial\n\nthe Commission\n\nSuperannuation Contribution\n\n_To. Deposits not available\n\nIntestate Estate\n\nEstate in Chancery Kennan & Co\n\nBalance on the 1st January 1847.\n\nthe Strong Room Fault\n\nTreasury Chest\n\n \n X\n 1,603\n 3\n \n \n \n \n 30735\n \n 4304.11\n \n \n \n 86716\n 2\n \n \n \n 4/42\n 3 //\n \n \n \n \n \n 2,496\n \n \n \n \n \n -\n \n \n \n \n \n 16156\n \n \n \n \n \n 25\n \n \n \n \n \n 36\n \n \n \n \n \n 254\n 2\n \n \n \n \n 250\n \n \n \n \n \n 505\n 2\n \n \n \n \n 96133\n \n \n \n \n \n 131\n 2\n \n \n \n \n 6,787\n 10\n 10\n \n \n \n 1569\n 2\n \n \n \n \n 44\n \n 2,356\n \n \n \n 12\n 11'1⁄2\n \n \n \n \n 26.16.4.18", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-019 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 228129, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848", "page_number": 433, "title": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848", "content_text": "426\n\nit is now no\n\nCORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THE RESIGNATION\n\ntion may possess, I stake it on the question raised whether Hong Kong or Chusan ought to be the seat of British power in China. I am supported in the views I have taken by Major-General D'Aguilar, by Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, by Brigadier Chesney, by Commissary-general Coffin, by Colonel Campbell, of Her Majesty's 98th, by the chief medical officer, the principal Military Engineer, and by the frank avowal of the French Admiral, and by the United States special Ambassador, that Hong Kong was valueless as a trading emporium, as a military post, or as a colony of any European nation. That Mr. Davis, first opposed my views as to Hong Kong, and that he has thus expressed himself to Lord Stanley; in this he was supported by the Colonial Secretary and Auditor, connected with Government to prevent the recurrence of their desire.\n\nI believe but since Mr. Davis visited Chusan in September, his views of that place have materially changed, and since the recent illness of Mr. Bruce and Mr. Shelley, their sentiments are much altered. Almost every one here has bought building allotments, or own houses, from which they derive a large rental, and they are therefore very adverse to any diminution of Government expenditure, or to any transfer of the seat of Government to Chusan. My letters to Mr. Trevelyan (which I hope he will show you, as the closing post leaves me no time for detail) will indicate the danger we are in of another war with China.\n\nThe war party are now the cabinet at Pekin; Muchangah, the person most opposed to Europeans, is prime minister; and one of his first measures was the degradation of Keying, on account of his having betrayed the interests of the Chinese Empire to \"Barbarians.\" I have shown, I think, how the possession of Chusan would save the fearful calamity of another war.\n\nIf no effort be made to retain Chusan permanently (although I feel confident it can be done without any breach of treaty), then I respectfully submit there can be no necessity for the British Government expending 100,000l. per annum for mere civil purposes on this barren rock, while the utmost amount of revenue to be raised cannot exceed 10,000l. a year. If any great future object is to be attained, then let the present large expenditure of blood and treasure go on, and I, for one, will submit to be a cheerful victim for my country's welfare. But I am prepared to prove there can be no justifiable grounds for spending here nearly half a million sterling from the resources of the British Exchequer, and if I do not prove this, let the loss of my official position in Her Majesty's service be the penalty.\n\nWith the view of placing before Lord Stanley the information I have obtained, I respectfully solicit from his Lordship leave of absence to proceed overland to England, the leave not to exceed six months, and the journey to be defrayed at my own cost. Should I not demonstrate to his Lordship's complete satisfaction, that I was perfectly justified in soliciting this leave, let me be dismissed from Her Majesty's service. My duties may be performed by the Commissariat during my absence, as they were before my arrival, or Mr. Mercer, the Governor's private secretary, shall receive half my salary as locum tenens.\n\nI am aware of the labour, risk, expense, and above all, the danger I incur of Lord Stanley's displeasure; but confiding in the justness of my views, I will gladly submit to any penalty which may be the forfeiture of my failure. It will add to the obligations you have conferred on me, if the answer to this request be transmitted by the ensuing mail which leaves England for China after your receipt of this letter. General D'Aguilar, and the Attorney-general, are favourable to my being permitted leave of absence for six months, to lay my statements before Lord Stanley; but General D'Aguilar is of opinion that Mr. Davis would not grant me the leave I seek, as I would be enabled then by viva voce, to substantiate my own views; for this reason, I have not applied to Mr. Davis, with whom, however, I am on the most friendly terms.\n\nThe treaty provides for the cession of Chusan to the Chinese Government on 25 December 1845; there is therefore no time to be lost on the subject. But if I receive an answer to this letter in April or in May, I would be able to reach England in time to allow of instructions being sent to Mr. Davis, not to restore Chusan until the final decision of Her Majesty's Government be known.\n\nI have little doubt that Mr. Davis will become convinced that Chusan alone can be the depository of the British power in China.\n\nShould Lord Stanley not be pleased to comply with my request for six months' leave of absence, and that Chusan be restored to the Chinese, then there can be no necessity for retaining a treasurer here, and incurring a charge of several thousand a year, when the whole of my duties may be transferred to the Commissariat Department. The abolition of my office may with public advantage take place.\n\nI say this in perfect sincerity, as I have never permitted my own interests to interfere with what might be conducive to the advantage of the State. I shall therefore have to rely on Lord Stanley's goodness, and entreat his transfer of me to some other position. Here, as a mere cashier of the sums required by the Colonial and Consular services, I could be of no use to Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot conscientiously receive 1,200l. per annum, when I am incapacitated by my position from serving the Crown, or of doing aught which may be creditable to myself.\n\nI remain, &c. (signed) R. M. Martin.\n\nOF MR. M. MARTIN, TREASURER OF HONG KONG.\n\n(No. 44.)\n\nNo. 5.\n\nEXTRACT of a DESPATCH from Governor Sir J. F. Davis, Bart., to Lord Stanley; dated Victoria, Hong Kong, 25 April 1845.\n\nNo. 5.\n\nIN despatch No. 66, of the 17th December, your Lordship desires me to furnish a report as to the points on which I dissent from the views stated by Mr. Martin, in a paper of observations which I forwarded at that gentleman's request.\n\nBy His objections to Hong Kong are founded on an apprehension of its peculiar unhealthiness, the improbability of raising a local revenue, and its inutility as a Colony, or as an entrepôt for trade; I shall endeavour to show that his statements were exaggerated and partial, and I am still of opinion that Mr. Martin wrote under a feeling of strong prejudice, founded in apprehensions for his personal health, regarding which he is remarkably sensitive, and on account of which he has had more leave of absence than any individual in the service. Your Lordship will have observed in that gentleman's paper, that he suggests the expediency of his being provided for in some other colony.\n\n(No. 85.)\n\nNo. 6.\n\nCOPY of a DESPATCH from Governor Sir J. F. Davis, Bart., to Lord Stanley.\n\nVictoria, Hong Kong, 24 June 1845.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nWITH reference to your Lordship's despatch, No. 97, of March 25th, forwarding copy of a letter from Mr. Martin to the Under-secretary of State; I beg to observe, that my despatch No. 44, of April 25th, will have anticipated much that I might have said in answer to that letter, although the nature of some of its statements requires a specific notice.\n\nMr. Martin commences with the climate, observing, however, that \"the mortality has not been so extensive as last year.\" Among the victims to sickness before he wrote, he enumerates myself, whom your Lordship may deem competent to deny the fact; and to add, that I never for a single day was unequal to my work.\n\nIt is singular, that of a list of other official persons whom he enumerates as labouring under attacks that render persons \"utterly unfit for longer residence, if mental or bodily labour be required,\" the whole number are now at their duties. These are, the Chief Justice, the Colonial Secretary, the Auditor, the Surveyor general, and the Clerk of the Works.\n\nMr. Martin, not being able to obtain a sick certificate, addressed to me the enclosed application for leave of absence on other grounds, which by my answer also enclosed, I informed him, did not justify the abandonment of his duties without leave from home.\n\nThe Colonial Regulations are quite clear on this point, as your Lordship is aware.\n\nMr. Martin has altogether misunderstood his position, as I have endeavoured to show him in my reply to his letter enclosed herewith. A steady adherence to his own duties as Treasurer would have prevented that restlessness which has kept him moving perpetually between this and one or other of the points on the coast, with no other result than the accumulation of arrears in his work, and the creation of such crude theories as these scampering visits of a few days could afford.\n\nI have before observed to your Lordship, that a comparison between Chusan and Hong Kong is mere loss of time, unless the former place were still at our disposal. Mr. Martin has not yet explained how it could be retained without a breach of treaty, after all the Chinese indemnity shall have been received.\n\nIt would have been well had Mr. Martin taken less liberty with others' opinions as the alleged supporters of his own. He even states that my views had changed after a visit to Chusan, a place with which I was perfectly well acquainted before. He very improperly observes, that the sentiments of Messrs. Bruce and Shelley on a public question had been altered by \"a recent illness;\"\n\nPage 743\n\nNo. 5.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 250765, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-080 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [1-3]", "page_number": 326, "title": "CO129-080 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [1-3]", "content_text": "Despatch No. 3171861.\n\nEnclosure in\n\nsubject of passing\n\nMaster of Houstong\n\nF\n\nthe\n\nthe Post office\n\nOrdinance for the regulation\n\n7th March 1861.\n\n31\n\nRestrict.\n\nh: 108.\n\nSir,\n\nSemin\n\nVice H. Stovin am\n\nMINUTE M? Save\n\n[1861\n\nNOVR\n\nM'Elliot. Sir Rogers 18 MC Fortescue Duke of Newcastle\n\n1. Rogers!\n\nThis\n\narrears.\n\n20.\n\n2.20 Nov 1961.\n\nWith reference to\n\nmy despatch\n\nNo: 31 of the 12th instant,\n\nI transmit herewith\n\nfor your information\n\nand\n\nguidance copies of\n\nthree Acts which have\n\nrecently been passed in\n\nthe Legislature of\n\nthe Colony by the\n\nLegislative Council,\n\nviz.\n\n1. An Act for the\n\nregulation of\n\nthe Post Office.\n\n...\n\n& Regulation.\n\n...\n\nthe Governor of\n\nJamica, St Vincent & Grenada\n\nrespectively,\n\nMaking certain provision\n\nto be taken for the transfer to\n\nthe local Governments\n\nof the Chesney\n\n...\n\nH", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-080 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 251101, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-081 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [4-7]", "page_number": 111, "title": "CO129-081 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [4-7]", "content_text": "4\n\n109\n\n} \n\n3\n\nbe retained in the Magistracy than that he should return to the Police.\n\nThe Acting Superintendent, Mr Jarman, is an Inspector in the Force, and though zealous painstaking subordinate, is not equal to the chief Command.\n\nIn short, there is one here who is fitted post; and I with only Service of me am no the ofor acquainted Officer in the the Crown in other Colonies who possesses all the\n\n5. Police Force coresists of Euroleam. 71. as Anericans. 10. Actians. L'eing alexc Hat Setians. 195. 1. 2. Jout jumericans (P) 1. trations. Malay Sincer here can alone be obtained an efficient constabulary 1. goory other officer to whom I 2. 11. 80. 576. allude is M. William Quin, 1 at present accountant in the Treasury at Antigua. Me Quin was formerly a Sergeant in the Artillery and in that Capacity accompanied Colonel Chesney, R. A., in the lask Euphrates expedition, suring", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-081 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [4-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 268908, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2]", "page_number": 91, "title": "CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2]", "content_text": "89\n\nof His Sunce the Rute of Aewcastle to appoint Chief of Police CongHong\n\nThe Honorable\n\n(Signed) W Quin\n\nW F. Mirar Esquire\n\nColonial Secretary\n\n4.0.\n\n50.\n\nKa:\n\nA.\n\nWoolwich, Nov. 23rd 1839.\n\n● this is to certify that Serjeant William Quin of the Royal Artillery has served in situations of the greatest responsibility and trust, particularly\n\nCPC\n\nduring his Service the Euphrates expedition under Colonel Chesney. He is most active, intelligent, and\n\nAr\n\nevery respect to be depended on, and is highly deserving of a situation in life far superior to his present station, being suitably\n\neducated, and possessing\n\nsuch\n\ncorrectness of deportment, with firmness of Character that I", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 268909, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2]", "page_number": 92, "title": "CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2]", "content_text": "Page 90\n\nconsider him well.\n\nwell qualified either\n\nto fill the Situation of a\n\nHorskeeper,\n\nor to perform duties requiring much energy of body and mind,\n\nas well as judgement and discretion.\n\n(Signed) A. Dickson, Major General Deputy Adjutant General\n\nRoyal Artillery\n\nfor the Euphrates Expedition.\n\nand was chosen for it through his\n\nknown\n\ngood character.\n\nHe continued to serve with the\n\nExpedition to its close in 1857,\n\nand during\n\nthat time was\n\nremarkable for\n\nan\n\nintelligence\n\nB\n\nBowden Turk\n\nSun. 14 1840.\n\nI have been well acquainted with J. Quinn since the beginning of 1835, when he volunteered, as Serjeant in the Royal Artillery,\n\nmuch beyond his station, for\n\ngreat zeal, activity, honour, and\n\ntrustworthiness.\n\nHe\n\nwas employed by Colonel Chesney\n\nthe Commander, in much\n\nconfidential correspondence, Besides other duties of trust, and had the Superintendence of some of the expenses of the party to the extent of many thousand pounds.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 268910, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2]", "page_number": 93, "title": "CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2]", "content_text": "91\n\nSince the close of the Expedition he has been in attendance upon Colonel Chesney, assisting in the preparation of his narrative.\n\nI have seen Sergeant Quin under such various trials that I know him to be an excellent man, honorable and very active and with acquirements beyond his station.\n\nSigned) J. B. Bucknall Estcourt; Lieutenant Colonel 4th Infantry late of the Euphrates Expedition\n\nSergeant William Quin Royal Artillery\n\nThis valuable Non-Commissioned Officer having requested a Certificate from me as to his character I have only to observe that during the period he served under my Command at the end of the Royal Artillery (late Indies) I never met with any one, whose services were more truly valuable than this Non-Commissioned Officer, and I consider him in every respect from Character and superior abilities qualified to hold any situation of importance, and trust; and truly glad should I feel to see him advanced to a higher station in life, which he is so deserving of.\n\nWoolwich,\n\n25 Nov. 1839.\n\n(Signed) C. Crittenden, Lt. Colonel Royal Artillery", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-120 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [1-2].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 270201, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7]", "page_number": 91, "title": "CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7]", "content_text": "Hengking 11321 \n\n8th July, 1867. \n\nGovernor\n\nDir Richards Graves MacDonnell's \n\nHis Grace\n\nThe Duke of Buckingham & Chandos.\n\n\"Prince Albert\" Steamer \n\nCorrespondence with Sir Rutherford Alcock\n\nno \n\nOpinion of Attorney General as to illegality of confiscation. Injustice done to Owner of \"Prince Albert\"\n\n6 Enclosures\n\nIt will sometimes happen that independent Authorities will take opposite views of the same case. But if so, must it not become simply a question which of the two is the authority competent to act in the matter? If the Minister and Consuls are the competent persons in this case, their judgment, sanctioned by the Foreign Secretary at home, seems to be final. Just as Colonial Governor used his powers in a case where a Colony, I apprehend that his judgment, if confirmed by a Secretary of State, must equally be conclusive, even though a Diplomatic Officer might take a different view.\n\nThe crux of the matter is, in a nutshell, the appeal is found in watery complications. The owner is in a difficult case.\n\nIn explanation, as I have been comprehended by Messrs Chesney & Cox, also authorities cited in the limits put forth (No. 40.5028/86 East India Company) that the owner in an extreme case (Robinson) is sufficient.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 290390, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-162 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [1-3]", "page_number": 31, "title": "CO129-162 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [1-3]", "content_text": "DESPATCH\n\n1:187, of 17th December 1892, I 719\n\nhave been reluctantly obliged to relieve him from his post.\n\nMeanwhile, pending the arrival of Dr Young's Successor, I have obtained from Major General Commanding the use of the services of Assistant Surgeon Belcher, R.A., Acting Superintendent of the Hospitals.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nMy Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient humble servant,\n\nCheaney\n\nNeely Governor\n\nHong Kong No 7- No 1624\n\nGovernor No.\n\nReceived\n\nDate\n\n1833\n\nJan 13\n\nLast previous Paper.\n\n9573\n\n20 Feb 21-1873\n\n(Subject.)\n\nAbolition of App. of Paymaster in Police Dept. & increase of 1/2 Clerk's Salary Recommended\n\n(Minutes.)\n\nFor Quinn was in receipt of a salary of £250 per annum.\n\nThere will thus be a saving to the Colony of £150 per annum. This is satisfactory, approve.\n\nI finally affirm the Estimates will be as appended.\n\n20/2/73.\n\nJ. 2012/73\n\n....", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-162 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 299711, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]", "page_number": 41, "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]", "content_text": "life than that of either of the \n\nother two steamers above mentioned, we will feel obliged if you will be good enough to inform \n\nA \n\nhow the former net tonnage per Register of these steamers has materially increased by \n\nbeen so \n\nYour \n\nlate \n\nre-measurement in order \n\nthat we may profit by the instance \n\nof the River Steamers Ordinance coming into force. \n\nWe \n\nare \n\n(Signed) Butterfield & Swires \n\nAgents for China Navigation Co. proprietor\n\n(True Copy) \n\nAligned / W H G Chesney.\n\nBarber Master etc \n\nWongthang, 22nd December, 1876.\n\nW. G. Chesney, Esq.\n\nMarine Master etc \n\nWe beg to acknowledge receipt letter of yesterday's date \n\nand thank you for your courtesy \n\nin granting the requested information about the measurement \n\nof the steamers \"Kinshan\" and \"Kiang\" also for reminding us that the River Steamer Ordinance \n\ncomes into force today \n\nWe are to \n\n(Signed) Butterfield & Swire \n\nAgents for China Navigation Co.\n\n(True Copy) \n\n(2) Chesney \n\nMarine Master", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 327017, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-218 - Administrator Marsh Governor Sir Bowen & Others - 1884 [11-12]", "page_number": 481, "title": "CO129-218 - Administrator Marsh Governor Sir Bowen & Others - 1884 [11-12]", "content_text": "## DOMESTIC.\n**No. 2549**\n\n**RECD 13 FEB**\n**REGD 14 FEB 84**\n\n| Date | 13 Feb. 1884 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Predction L. | J884. b: 13. |\n| Previous Paper | 70- |\n\n**(Subject.)**\n**The Case of 11 Chinese Drivers. About to be surrendered - 85 of the Case – 54 further.**\n\n## (Minutes.)\nMr Braunston frames attention to allegation. It will be enough for the present to send copy of Consul's letter of 8th inst. (No. 1978), and tell Mr Chesson we have done so, adding that the question is under the consideration of that Department.\n\n**Yes** - but Mr. Chesney will have to be told that H.M. Govt cannot break their treaty engagements because they do not afford protection to the Chinese under Criminal law- Bp. Raimondi Fornshire Very lightly on the alleged falseness of the Charge-\n\nTo Procns News 72614 80.14/4 send on 8.7.0.\n\nD. Feb. 15.\n\n8. A Feb-14\n\nFrom \nBerty \nTo \nGovernor \n\nHoything \nEastan \n\" Inform manager Pompinay government will approve junction between \nEastern and Chinese \nat Howloon \n\nCompanies on terms & \nK \ngranted at Shanghai by \nd \n1924 24093 \n0K/D \nTel \n\nChinese government, provided present agreements \nrespected and \nChinese granted use \nEastan office frontier. \nat British \n\nbecomes \n\"Inform manager Pompinay government will approve junction between Eastern and Chinese at Howloon. Companies on terms & K granted at Shanghai by d 1924 24093 0K/D Tel Chinese government, provided present agreements respected and Chinese granted use Eastan office frontier at British.\"", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-218 - Administrator Marsh Governor Sir Bowen & Others - 1884 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 335770, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-235 - Public Offices - 1887", "page_number": 386, "title": "CO129-235 - Public Offices - 1887", "content_text": "## No. 33 OF 1887.\n**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** \n**HOME DEPARTMENT.** \n**PUBLIC.** \n1055 \n\nTO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE \n**VISCOUNT CROSS, G.C.B.,** \nHer Majesty's Secretary of State for India. \n\nMY LORD, \n\nSimla, the 28th May 1887. \n\nWITH reference to the Despatches noted on the margin, we have the honour to transmit a copy of the replies \n| Reference | Description |\n| ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |\n| From Her Majesty's Secretary of State, No. 113. | dated 25th November 1886. |\n| From Her Majesty's Secretary of State, No. 51, | dated 14th April 1887. |\n\nwhich we have received from the several Local Governments and Administrations to our request to be furnished with reports on the working of section 31 of the **European Vagrancy Act, IX of 1874**. \n\n2. It will be seen from these reports that no necessity seems to have arisen for bringing that section into operation anywhere in India. \n\nWe have the honour to be, \nMY LORD, \nYour Lordship's most obedient, humble Servants, \n**DUFFERIN.** \n**F. S. ROBERTS.** \n**T. C. HOPE.** \n**A. COLVIN.** \n**G. CHESNEY.** \n**A. R. SCOBLE.** \n**J. B. PEILE.** \n\n383 \nRECEIVED 2 \n**INDIA OFFICE** 18 JUN.87 \n\nI am eli \n(3) J. Pauncepte. \nCol. Of. \n7.1.1-5./86. \nSo Judia Office", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-235 - Public Offices - 1887.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345753, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 152, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.\n\nfrom the Chamber of Commerce and the leading merchants were certainly not of an encouraging nature. He consulted both the Governors when they were in England, in order to ascertain whether any compromise could be effected, but he regretted to say that he found no compromise was possible. He was distinctly opposed to compulsory legislation on this point—viz., forcing against the views of the unofficial members legislation by an official vote. The case of Australia, which had been referred to, was very different. In the first place, as in other colonies where there was a Custom-house, Sunday labour could be prevented indirectly by closing the Custom-house, but in Hongkong and Singapore, Custom-houses did not exist. He was not aware that in Australia any Act prohibiting Sunday labour was in force. The working men themselves had declined to work on Sunday, and indirectly secured for themselves freedom from work on that day, but he was not aware that there was any direct legislation on the point. He did not think anything could be done in this particular branch of labour unless it could be obtained by the voluntary unanimity upon the subject of the members of the Chamber of Commerce and the leading merchants in the colonies, and of the leading merchants here who had partners or agents in the colonies. In that way pressure might be put on local legislatures, and ultimately some measure might be introduced which would put an end to Sunday labour. But at present he did not think there was that feeling in the colony which would justify compulsory legislation.\n\n## THE EARL OF HARROWBY \nsaid that he did not see why legislation on this subject should be possible in Australia and not in the Crown colonies. He would suggest to his right hon. friend, that he should address inquiries to the Governors of all the colonies, Crown and self-governing, as to the existing practice. The feeling among the seamen was rising very high on the question of Sunday labour.\n\n## LORD KNUTSFORD \nsaid that he should have great pleasure in adopting the suggestion of the noble Earl.\n\nThe subject then dropped.—*\"Times,\" London*.\n\nSent in to Governor, November 9th, 1888.\n\n## To His Excellency Sir WILLIAM DES VEUX, K.C.M.G., Governor and Commander-in-chief of the Colony of Hongkong and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same.\n\nWe, the undersigned, employed in connection with the shipping in the port of Hongkong, ashore or afloat, respectfully beg Your Excellency's consideration to the following facts:- \n1. Hongkong, with the exception of Singapore and Penang, is the only port under the British flag where Sunday labour in the shape of discharging and loading cargo is permitted without any restriction. \n2. The necessity of a seventh day of rest has for centuries been recognised by the laws and customs of our own Country.\n3. Although the absence of restriction on Sunday work in this port presses very hardly upon us, as it deprives us of that which Englishmen have learnt to look upon as their just right, we are, nevertheless, powerless from our position to do otherwise than submit.\n4. Whereas in some cases the Shipping Owners at home do not encourage or absolutely prohibit the working of their ships on Sunday, we are practically compelled to work in this port, on account of the excessive competition.\n5. The Sunday labour shows a tendency to increase. And thus not only are officers on board ship deprived of their day of rest, but also many of us are compelled to work in our offices ashore and elsewhere all the year round.\n\nHaving regard to these facts, and bearing in mind that restriction would be by no means unprecedented,—witness for instance intermediate ports of call in Australia and Coast ports in China,—your petitioners humbly submit that the time has now arrived when some decisive step may be taken, and respectfully solicit that their day of rest may be assured them by legislation or otherwise.\n\n(Over 600 signatures of masters, officers, and clerks engaged in Shipping offices).\n\n# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.\n\n## BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION.\n\n[Reprint from *\"The Hongkong Telegraph\"* of the 8th September, 1890.]\n\n### THE PRESIDENT ON THE SUNDAY Labour QUESTION.\n\nA special meeting of the British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association was held at the Marine Hotel, Praya West, on Saturday evening, the 6th instant, when Captain Samuel Ashton, the President, delivered a very interesting address upon the much-vexed question of Sunday labour. There were present, in addition to local members of the Association, representatives of the Australian and Shanghai Officers' Associations.\n\nThe Secretary, Mr. Chesney Duncan, having read the bye-laws respecting the conduct of meetings, and a list of those who had been appointed, by ballot, members of the General Committee—\n\nCaptain Ashton, who on rising was greeted with hearty applause, said—Gentlemen, to-night I am going to give you my ideas upon the much-vexed question of Sunday labour on board ships in this harbour, a question which the Rev. A. G. Goldsmith has striven so hard to settle in a manner beneficial to all seafaring men. I, myself, believe in the fourth Commandment, and I think that those who rigidly obey it will be healthier, wealthier and wiser in the end. I intend to review this question to-night in all its bearings, in as far as I am able to. The question has become one of great, and I may say burning, importance not only to us out here but also to thousands of our fellows at home. I've already said that the Rev. Mr. Goldsmith has worked very industriously with a view to causing a cessation of needless Sunday labour in this port of Hongkong. He drew up a lengthy petition upon the subject, and obtained the signatures to it of the great majority of captains and officers frequenting this port, as also the autographs of a great number of residents on shore. This petition he presented to our Governor, Sir William Des Voeux, and from what we now learn by recent home advices, it is patent that Sir William has given the matter his earnest consideration. According to these advices, we find that Sir William Des Voeux has been in communication with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, as also with Sir Cecil Smith, the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who, by the way, is well-known to all old residents of this Colony. I am quite sure that these experienced statesmen have thoroughly weighed this important question—But—a question which seriously affects every member of this Association.—notwithstanding all that has been done, we find that their Excellencies have come to the conclusion that it is not wise to introduce compulsory legislation at the present time. This is a great disappointment to us as a body of officers, for we reasonably expected, or rather hoped, that our appeal would result in decisive and much-to-be-desired action by Her Majesty's Government. However, the reverse is the case, and as obedient subjects of Her Majesty we must virtually abide by their decision, although differing from them in our opinions. Now, Mr. Goldsmith having done his utmost, backed by the unanimous approval of British officers, we consider that we have a right to do the best we can for ourselves—joint action having failed—this Association having been formed with the express object of maintaining the proper dignity of the profession and improving the condition of its members, morally, socially and intellectually. I say again, we, as an Association of certificated British officers, have a perfect right to do the best we can for ourselves.\n\n### How to Act.\n\nI counsel you to discuss amongst yourselves the advisability of asking your owners to give you extra (double) pay for extra labour on Sunday. I consider you have a right to do so. Not that you wish thereby to put this extra pay in your...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345756, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 155, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.\n\nharbour shall be permitted on payment, in addition to the ordinary charges at present levied of a fee equal to a day's demurrage, subject to a minimum charge of Rs. 50 and a maximum charge of Rs. 200, for each ship on board of which work is carried on. Demurrage for this purpose to be calculated at the rate of 64 annas per ton of registered tonnage.\"\n\nLegislation can be effected with the assistance of the local Chambers of Commerce. The reply of Lord Knutsford to Lord Meath's question in the House of Lords on July 25th sufficiently indicates this. He said that he did not think it would be possible to put an end to Sunday work generally in the Crown colonies except through an understanding to that effect amongst the Chambers of Commerce.\n\nI send this short statement in response to your Secretary, wishing you success in your movement, which will doubtless gain the sympathy and respect of all fair-minded people,\n\n## SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.\n\n## II\n\n**BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION**, Hongkong, 22nd September, 1890.\n\nTo the Secretary, \n**GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HONGKONG**.\n\nTHE BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION.\n\nA meeting of the above-named Association was held at the Marine Hotel, Praya West, last night, the 19th Sept., when the general discussion upon the Sunday Labour Question closed with the passing of a resolution in connection therewith. The chair was taken by Mr. H. L. Newbam, who called upon Mr. Chesney Duncan, the Secretary, to read any special correspondence which he might be in possession of relative to the question at issue.\n\nIn response, Mr. Duncan said the Rev. Mr. Goldsmith had kindly favoured him with an extract from a letter received by him lately from Mr. Lang, an important Liverpool shipowner, who stated that he never allowed Sunday labour on board his ships and still he had never found himself a loser thereby. Mr. Duncan also said he was in possession of correspondence from the Government of Ceylon which showed that Sunday labour on board ships in Colombo harbour was prohibited, except upon payment of exorbitant special fees. A scale of these extra charges he now held in his hand. One of the leading arguments against the cessation of Sunday labour in Hongkong was, he understood, to the effect that Hongkong not being a terminus, but merely a port of call, it was of the utmost importance that vessels calling here should be despatched as quickly as possible. He was willing to admit that, but contended that owners could so run their ships as to avoid being in Hongkong on Sunday. Colombo was by no means a terminus either, but there laws were enforced not with a view to wringing from owners exorbitant fees but for the purpose of diminishing labour on board ships on Sunday. He did not think it necessary to make owners pay stiff fees for working on Sunday, but he submitted that British officers, who were just as much entitled to their Sunday as any other subjects of the Queen, should be paid well for Sunday extra labour. It was not their duty, strictly speaking, to work in port on Sunday.\n\nI am instructed to hand you, enclosed, copy of a resolution which was carried unanimously at a meeting of this Association last Friday night, and in so doing, have to say that this Association trusts you will be pleased to accede to its desire for a Conference (either public or private, the former preferred), in the hope that some modus vivendi, as the outcome of our joint deliberations, may be happily arrived at in connection with this important question (The Sunday Labour Question).\n\nI am directed to assure you that this Association desires to move in respect to this much-vexed question in concert with shipowners, and not—as some may conjecture or aver—in antagonism to employers generally.\n\nTrusting your honourable Chamber will favour this request for a Conference with its kind consideration, and assuring you of our deep esteem,\n\nI have the honour to be, \nSir, Yours respectfully, \n**CHESNEY DUNCAN**, \nHon. Secretary.\n\nN.B.—Personally delivered by me on the 22nd of September, 1890.—C.D.\n\nThe Chairman said it was clear from the remarks of Lord Knutsford in the House of Lords, that at present there was no hope for legislation on the subject, and the only way to obtain their Sunday was to induce the Chamber of Commerce to press for legislation upon the matter, so that no foreign ships would be allowed to work on Sunday any more than British vessels. The Association had no desire to do anything which would be detrimental to the interests of owners.\n\nThe object of the resolution, which he was about to move the adoption of, was to cause the cessation of Sunday labour while acting in concert with shipowners as much as possible. He proposed \"That in view of the fact that the sum and substance of official and public opinion generally was to the effect that the cessation of labour on board ships on Sunday, in Hongkong, could only be effected by moving the Chamber of Commerce, this Association decides that special representations should be made to the Chamber of Commerce with a view to the holding of a conference between delegates of this Association and the Chairman of the said Chamber.\"\n\nMr. Stainton seconded, and the resolution was carried unanimously. Mr. Chapman then proposed that \"the Chamber of Commerce consenting to the Conference, this Association be represented by the President, Captain Ashton, and two or three members to be selected by the Committee.\"\n\nMr. Gale and Mr. Bowker seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously. The regular business of the Association having been disposed of, the meeting closed with a cordial vote of thanks to the Chairman.—*Hongkong Telegraph*.\n\n**HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE**, Hongkong, 11th October 1890.\n\n**BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION**.\n\nSir,\n\nIn answer to your favour of 22nd ultimo, which I have not had the opportunity of replying to earlier, I am directed to state that the Committee of the Chamber will be happy to receive a deputation from the British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association to consider the Sunday Labour Question on Friday the 17th instant, at 4 p.m., which hour it is hoped will prove convenient.\n\nI am, \nSir, \nYour obedient servant, \n**F. HENDERSON**, \nSecretary.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345757, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 156, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# THE CONFERENCE.\n\n## THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION.\n\nHeld at City Hall at 4.30 pm. on Friday the 17th October, 1890.\n\n### DELEGATES.\n\n- CAPTAIN SAMUEL ASHTON, A. I. N. A.\n- H. BATHURST (Chief of s.s. \"Haitan\")\n- J. W. GALE (not on Service)\n- A. C. H. CHAPMAN (not on Service)\n- J. DOUGLAS (Chief of \"Thales\")\n- H. L. NEWHAM (not on Service)\n- J. MADDOX (Second of \"Tongshan\")\n- J. A. BURKE (Second of \"Chowfa\")\n- W. WINCH (not on Service)\n\n**President:** \nCHESNEY DUNCAN, Honorary Secretary.\n\n\"The Chamber\" was represented by:\n- MR. E. MACKINTOSH (Chairman)\n- HON. J. J. KESWICK\n- HON. P. RYRIE\n\n\"The Press\" by:\n- MR. H. HOPPIUS\n- MR. W. H. FORBES\n- MR. Thos. JACKSON\n- MR. L. Cox (Daily Press)\n- MR. D. Macdonald (China Mail)\n- MR. G. W. Ward (Telegraph)\n- Editor of War Sun Yat Po (Chinese)\n\nThe deputation numbered about twelve including Captain Ashton, the President of the Association.\n\nCaptain ASHTON having introduced the deputation, said: Mr. Mackintosh and gentlemen of the Chamber of Commerce, we should have liked to have had a larger number of our body here to-day but many of our members are away from the port on their official duties. We come before you to-day, to ask you to assist us in doing away with a very old custom of this port, a custom which we know you are not answerable for, a custom which has been handed down to you by your predecessors, a custom which we as a body of mercantile marine officers consider a very great injustice to us. The custom I refer to, is that of receiving and discharging cargo on board vessels on Sunday. We believe it to be not only an old custom but a bad custom, and one that brings no profit or good to any man, woman or child in the Colony.\n\nWe as a body of officers, visit all the commercial ports of the world, and we find in nine-tenths of the ports we visit, there is some law restricting the discharging or receiving of cargo on board ship on a Sunday. Having visited these ports, we also notice the condition of the communities there, and we see that those communities who do not work on Sunday are just as rich and just as prosperous, and, as we think, just as happy as that of Hongkong, where Sunday labour is permitted.\n\nWe do not see why as a body of officers we should be compelled to work on a Sunday. You must bear in mind that an officer is compelled to be on board ship for days, and sometimes weeks, together. He is cooped up when he is on board, and he is subjected to a certain amount of discipline and restraint. He has to be ready to take his place on watch when the bell strikes, and he has to obey every order of his superior officer. He does that willingly, but he does like occasionally to get away from this restraint; and when he does get into a port where these prohibitive laws are in force and he is allowed to leave the ship and get away from this discipline and restraint, he enjoys himself as much as a boy taking his holidays from school, and he comes back in twelve or twenty-four hours, or whatever the time may be, to his work refreshed in body and in mind.\n\nBut, on the contrary, when he arrives in the port of Hongkong on a Sunday—and mind you Sunday is about the only day a British officer has to go ashore, whether to go to church or to see his friends or amuse himself in whatever way he wishes—if he goes to the Captain and says: \"This being Sunday, can I go ashore?\" the Captain very properly says No, you cannot, it is the custom of this port to work on Sunday, and your services are required on board this ship to superintend discharging and taking in of cargo.\" And although the Captain may feel in his own mind that it would be a good thing for the man to get away from the ship, he cannot give him leave; he dare not do so; for the simple reason, that if any cargo boats come alongside to receive or discharge and there is no officer to superintend, the Captain gets himself into a row with his owners. We believe there is neither profit nor advantage in Sunday work.\n\nI myself have been in command of men for a number of years, and I have always noticed that when you tell a man to do something which his nature revolts against and which the early teaching of his childhood is against, he naturally rebels against you, and although you can force him to do what you say, he does it in a half-hearted, sullen, discontented manner. So when he asks on a Sunday for liberty to go ashore, and his Captain tells him he cannot go, and orders him to the hatchway to superintend cargo, he does his work in a half-hearted way, and I believe that claims for lost property and damaged property, which the shipowners have to pay, are almost entirely due to this forced labour—labour which a man considers as moral slavery. I myself have never seen any profit come of Sunday labour.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Goldsmith, as I am sure you all know, interested himself in this matter some time ago, and he got up a petition which was signed very numerously by the Mercantile Marine community in this port. This petition, which I believe had some 600 signatures to it, was handed to our Governor here. Our Governor, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, appears to have given considerable attention to it, and we are led to believe from what our Governor said, that legislation to stop Sunday labour in this Harbour could only be arrived at by the advocacy of this honorable body, yourself, Sir, and the members of this Chamber of Commerce. I believe he intimated as much.\n\nSuch being the case, we make bold to approach you, and to ask and beg of you to use your influence to the utmost with the Government of this Colony to bring in some law against working cargo in this port on Sunday. That is the purpose for which we are here. We ask you to exert yourselves with the Government to induce them to bring in some measure to stop this moral slavery. I am quite sure the officers of this Association do not wish to quarrel with their owners, but they do think it is a great injustice that they should be forced to work cargo on Sunday in this port. We consider it an injustice to ourselves and to every Mercantile Marine officer, and we consider it somewhat of a blot and a slur on the fair name of this Colony.\n\nThese are the main points in our case, and I think I need not say any more. It is our wish to carry our point without any friction, to have no quarrel between owners and officers. Gentlemen of the Chamber of Commerce, whether your answer is in our favour or not—and we trust it will be—we shall receive it with the greatest respect, because, if we get the opinion of this Chamber we shall have a reliable opinion to go upon, coming as it does from the most influential and powerful body in this Colony. In giving your opinion therefore, whatever it may be, you will be doing the Association a kindness. It is an old saying, and no doubt a true one, that it is a good thing for any man or any body of men to see themselves as others see them. We have had plenty of opinions already, opinions from Brown, Jones and Robinson,—irresponsible opinions,—but we come before you to-day to get a reliable opinion.\n\nThe CHAIRMAN—Mr. Ashton and Gentlemen of the deputation, we are very possibly pleased to see you here to-day, and I can assure you we shall do all we can to arrive at a friendly satisfactory conclusion. This matter is one that has long stirred the Chamber, and on which they tried to come to a conclusion as early as 1888. The first mention of it in our records is a letter from the Rev. A. G.\n\nPage 13 \nPage 153", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345760, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 159, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR\n\n## THE CHAMBERS' DECISION\n\nSUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR,\n\nthat the Government drafted a Sunday Observance Bill several months ago with the intention of forcing it upon the colony, but it was shelved owing to the opposition of a few capitalists. Political affairs, too, doubtless weighed with the Government, the Colonial Federation Scheme being, at the time referred to, a more or less burning question in the Australian colonies.\n\nThanking you in anticipation for affording me the opportunity of thus removing possible false impressions, which might prove very misleading.\n\nYours, &c.,\n\n**CHESNEY DUNCAN**, Hon. Secretary,\n**British M. M. O. Association**.\n\n**CAPTAIN S. ASHTON**,\nPresident,\n**BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, HONGKONG**.\n\n## HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE\nHongkong, 31st October, 1890.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The Committee of the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce have given most careful consideration to the subject of Sunday Labour in this harbour, which your deputation brought so forcibly to their notice at the interview held on 17th inst. To assist them in coming to a conclusion, based on the widest views, the principal Members of the Chamber interested in the Shipping of the Colony, were invited to meet the Committee to discuss the subject.\n\nThe unanimous opinion of those present was, that it would be impolitic to ask the Government, as you desired, to legislate specially to stop Sunday work in this harbour—the restriction being applied to vessels of all nationalities.\n\nThe Committee are of opinion that the Government could not legislate for the complete suppression of Sunday labour in this Harbour, as the questions involved are very serious, and would affect injuriously all the shipping interests of the Colony, and particularly the large Chinese population connected therewith. Indeed, if such a recommendation was formulated by the Chamber of Commerce, the Committee are of opinion the Government would not legislate in the direction sought by your body.\n\nThe Committee look upon the question as one that rests solely between employers and employed. But they are pleased to state that during the discussion which ensued at the meeting a strong opinion was evinced that all European supervision for the loading and discharging of cargo during Sundays, by vessels engaged in the local coast trades, could be dispensed with if the officers elected. It therefore rests with individual officers in the Coast trades to seek that privilege from their respective employers.\n\nWith regard to Ocean steamers, as distinguished from Coast, the matter appears to the Committee to be somewhat different. The incidence of Sunday work on officers in those services is less frequent than with the Coast. They may, and no doubt frequently do, escape Sunday in this port. While on the average duration of an Ocean voyage, say 1 month, an occasional Sunday's work in Hongkong does not appear to the Committee to present an intolerable burden to officers. With Ocean vessels touching at Hongkong, the working of cargo in port on all days must be considered one of the incidents of the voyage, Hongkong presents some peculiarities: It is not a terminus, the bulk of its Ocean traffic ends at Shanghai, where \"bar\" obstacles are met, and the loss of a day in Hongkong might lead to most serious pecuniary sacrifice to shipowners.\n\nThe question therefore appears to the Committee to be reduced to the smallest proportions.\n\nThe Coast trade officers can obtain, without doubt, on individual application to their respective employers, freedom from supervising cargo work on Sundays, while officers of Ocean steamers' remedy rests also with their employers. The latter, while considering the officers' application for relief, will doubtless bear in mind the infrequency of the incidence of Sunday work occurring in this port, and the probable great loss they incur from delays in prosecuting their voyages if they concede the Sunday in this Harbour to their employees.\n\nThe Committee desire me to thank you for having brought the matter to their notice, and hope their efforts will result in the settlement of a question that has for some time troubled a section of the Community.\n\nI remain, Dear Sir,\n\n## THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION\n\nAt a meeting of the **British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association**, held last night, the 9th November, at the Marine Hotel, Captain Ashton presiding, the following letter as a reply to the Chamber of Commerce's despatch of the 31st ultimo was drafted after a good deal of discussion :--\n\n**E. MACKINTOSH**, Esq.,\nChairman,\n**GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HONGKONG**.\n\n**BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION**\n\nHongkong, 10th November, 1890.\n\nSir,—In acknowledging receipt of, and thanking you for, your letter of the 31st ultimo, I have to say that this body considers your proposal impracticable, for the following reasons:-\n\nIn the first place no individual officer is sufficiently independent to make individual application to his owners for exemption from duty on Sunday. We consider that in so doing he would be running a personal risk to himself which is undesirable.\n\nSecondly, some shipowners might graciously grant such request where others would object. For instance, owners of foreign steamers, or, say British Chinese-owned steamers in the Straits or other trade might, we think, be very likely to object. In the event of such objection we can only view with alarm difficulties between individual officers and owners which we, as an association, studiously wish to avoid.\n\nIn conclusion we may add, that the British Mercantile Marine officer is not a man who would stand by disinterestedly whilst foreign interests were, in any way, gaining advantages over those of his employer. We take pride in our ships and our work and would rather work on Sunday, or any other day, than see our employers suffer. But it is not necessarily admitted that either public or private interests would be prejudiced were labour totally suspended on board ships in this port on Sunday.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\n(Signed)\n**E. MACKINTOSH**,\nChairman.\n\nI am, Sir,\nYours faithfully,\n**SAMUEL ASHTON**,\nPresident.\n\n## To THE EDITOR OF THE \"HONGKONG TELEGRAPH\"\n\nHongkong, 18th October 1890.\n\nSIR—I shall esteem it a favour if you will kindly grant me space for the correction of a slight error which appears in your report of yesterday's Conference, for which I am, I feel, chiefly responsible,\n\nWhat I desire to rectify is a possible supposition by the general public that the Hon. J. J. Keswick said: \"he thought the Government would not pass a law to prevent the working of cargo on board ships on Sunday.\" Mr. Keswick did not, as far as I know, say that. It was to the remarks that fell from the lips of Mr. Mackintosh, the Chairman, that I replied: \"I am informed, reliably informed,\n\n## \"THE DAILY PRESS,\" Hongkong, October 21st, 1890.\n\nThe Conference on the question of Sunday labour held on Friday last between representatives of the Mercantile Marine Officers' Association and the Chamber of Commerce resulted in a very useful and interesting discussion. Captain ASHTON on behalf of the Association urged the cause of Sunday rest with considerable force, and in the subsequent discussion fairly faced the difficulties suggested on the other side. He admits that if the observance of a weekly day of rest is made compulsory all classes of shipping must be subjected to the same law—Chinese as well as ...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345764, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 163, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR \n\n## FRAGRANT WATERS' MURMURS. \n\nThat the gallant skipper and his merry men who addressed the Chamber of Commerce have at least the courage of their opinions. That they have no faith in half measures, and believe that only a hard-and-fast law will meet the case. That I summed up yesterday's discussion very succinctly and very aptly as follows:- Government says it will do what Chamber decides - Chamber says can do nothing - Government says that settles it - Sammy then says, pass law - Mackintosh says 'how can ye, that is for the Government!' Sammy says all right, get Government to do it! Sammy scores.\n\nThat on the whole I approve of the officers' attitude, but I think it was a pity Captain Ashton did not draw a broad distinction between the general enforcement of Sunday rest and the special law for the cessation of Sunday work in the harbour, the sole object of which is to put Hongkong in the same position as ports in India, Ceylon, and China.\n\nThat nevertheless Captain Ashton did not allow the Chairman and his friends to bamboozle him. That I do not think anyone will contend that England and her self-governing colonies suffer by the observance of Sunday as a day of rest.\n\nThat, if put in a crude way, shipowners may not be ready to admit the force of Captain Ashton's argument that a cessation of labour on Sunday would be their gain.\n\nThat nevertheless, if they consider the distant as well as the near results, they will find that he is not far wrong.\n\nThat where there is a will, there is a way, and I cannot help thinking, do what I can, that the will on the part of the Chamber representatives is not very strong.\n\nThat I frankly admit the question has many ramifications, and the solution in such a place as Hongkong is not a very easy matter, but the real difficulties are not those raised by the Committee.\n\nThat if I am inclined to blame the Committee of the Chamber, I cannot admire the pusillanimous attitude of the Home and local Governments, who threw the responsibility of a final decision on the Chamber of Commerce.\n\nThat, in the interests of all, it is to be hoped an amicable settlement will be arrived at.\n\nThat the Officers' Association has got a good Chairman in Captain Ashton, who is a strong advocate of a conciliatory policy.\n\nThat if the shipowners and agents are animated by the same spirit, we shall be saved such conflicts as are working havoc in the Southern Continent.\n\nThat the quarrel between labour and capital may be likened to a quarrel between the hands and the mouth.\n\n## SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.\n\nregulation does in their own treaty ports, against which there has never been any complaint. It is very difficult to believe how a man of common sense like Mr. Keswick could talk such nonsense as this - In the first place, in this Colony, there are very few Europeans as compared with the large number of Chinese, and that causes it to be very difficult to stop Sunday labour on board steamers, because if you stop it there, you must stop it in every other calling. There is no 'must' about it. Mr. Ryrie was even worse - he showed his hand. No man who was animated by a desire to stop Sunday labour in the harbour would have made the silly remarks he uttered about stopping the work of servants and about cold dinners on Sunday. Captain Ashton, in spite of the way-leading questions, stood his ground very well. He believes in the general enforcement of Sunday rest, and unfortunately, his replies were influenced to some extent by that belief. But the officers do not wish such a general law, and very few would have dreamt of such a thing had not the opponents of the anti-Sunday-labour movement raised it up as a bogey. The difficulties as to the enforcement of the law are also an invention for the purpose of obstruction. If there was a harbour regulation according to which vessels must not be discharged on Sunday without a permit, no captains or agents would ever dream of breaking the law any more than they attempt to do so in such ports as Colombo, Bombay, or Shanghai. It is almost impossible to discharge cargo surreptitiously, even from junks. Our own opinion is that junks ought to be exempt from the operation of the law. They enter very little into competition with steamers, and when it is remembered that the Chinese take about a month's holidays at the beginning of their year, it will be seen that, even leaving out all physical and moral considerations, they have little gain. Doubtless, the best course to adopt would be to put them on the same footing as native craft in customs ports.\n\n| Page | \n| --- | \n| 160 | \n\nThere is scarcely one difficulty raised by the Committee that will stand a moment's consideration. Officers on board Home steamers, whether they are affiliated to the Association or not, are equally desirous of relief from the irksome Sunday labour.\n\nAll that is wanted to obtain the boon is the co-operation of the Chamber. The Government of Hongkong is so weak-kneed and timid that it cannot tackle the question; it throws the burden on the Chamber. If the Committee of that body persist in their obstructive course, trouble may arise between the shipowners and officers, and on such an issue, the latter could not fail to win. The result then would be that labour would be stopped on Sunday on board British ships, while on board German vessels (unless German officers co-operated) it would still go on - a far greater anomaly than any of those conjured up in the fertile brains of the members of the Chamber of Commerce who were present at yesterday's meeting.\n\n## THE “CHINA MAIL,” Hongkong, Saturday, October 18th, 1890.\n\nIt is very difficult to believe, after reading the report of the conference between the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and delegates from the Marine Officers' Association, that the desire of the former to obtain a cessation of Sunday labour in the harbour is genuine. Their whole attitude may be summarised in one word - 'shuffle.' Their great object in the conference held yesterday was to divert the discussion from the main point at issue, to evolve obstacles out of their imagination, and to get the delegates to commit themselves to some impracticable scheme. 'We are burning with zeal to get you Sunday rest, but there is this difficulty and that difficulty, and consequently, nothing can be done.' This is a very dangerous and exasperating policy to pursue, a policy which has led to far more troubles between employers and employés than downright manly opposition. Surely Messrs. Keswick and Mackintosh know that Sunday work on board steamers is practically prohibited in the ports of China by the fact that a permit has to be paid for. What difficulty can there be in making a harbour regulation in Hongkong similar to the customs regulation in Shanghai and the other Treaty ports? None whatever. And the making of such a regulation no more involves the stoppage of all Sunday labour on shore than the requirement of night passes from the Chinese involves night passes for Europeans. We have legislated for Chinese, let us legislate for Europeans, to protect them from the tyranny of Chinese customs. We don't want to force Chinese to observe Sunday. All that is asked is that they shall not compel us to break it and to make it a workday as other days. The law would affect them to a very slight degree - not more than the customs. No injustice would be done to them.\n\n## Copy \n\n**YOUR EXCELLENCY,**\n\nDeputation to the Government.\n\nI am directed to ask you to be graciously pleased to allow a deputation from this body to wait upon you in respect to compulsory labour on board ships in this harbour on Sunday, which British Officers consider a great hardship and an invasion of their rights as subjects of Her Majesty the Queen-Empress. The deputation - which will consist of one or two officers on active service, the President, and Secretary - will be happy to wait upon Your Excellency at such time as may be intimated as consistent with your convenience.\n\nThe Hon. FRANCIS FLEMING, C.M.G.\n\nActing Governor of Hongkong.\n\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\n\nYour obedient Servant,\n\nCHESNEY DUNCAN,\n\nHon. Secretary.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345765, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 164, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR\n\n## Colonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 15th November, 1890\n\nSin-In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, I have the honour by direction of the Officer Administering the Government to inform you that His Excellency will be happy to receive the deputation mentioned therein at Government House on Tuesday the 18th at noon, if convenient to them.\n\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour most obedient Servant,\n**W. M. DEANE**,\nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\n**CHESSEY DUNCAN, Esq.,**\nHon. Secretary,\n**BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION.**\n\n## Reply to His Excellency the Governor, Hongkong, 17th November, 1890\n\nSir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th inst. conveying to this body the gratifying news that His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government of the Colony will be pleased to receive a deputation—which is necessarily small owing to many of our members being absent from this Association at the time—at Government House to-morrow, at noon.\n\nPermit me to tender to you most sincere apologies for the delay (as it may appear to you) in answering your kind letter, which is owing to the fact that through some carelessness on our part your kind letter did not come into our Secretary's hands until this afternoon.\n\nI must also express my regrets that, inadvertently, we took a wrong course in addressing the Chief of Police in respect to the alleged danger from the Chinese community were labour stopped on board ships in this port on the Sabbath.\n\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\n(Signed)\n**SAM'L ASHTON**, President.\n\nP.S.—May I ask if it is intended that the \"Press\" will be admitted to the audience, or would His Excellency prefer it to be private?\n\n(Signed)\n**SAM'L ASHTON**, President.\n\nN.B.—Reply received graciously granting admission to Press.\n\n## THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION\n\n### Deputation to H.E. the Acting Governor\n\nA deputation from the **British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association** waited yesterday (the 18th November, 1890) on H.E. The Officer Administering the Governor, with reference to the question of prohibiting Sunday labour in the harbour. The deputation consisted of Captain Samuel Ashton, A.I.N.A. (President), Messrs. L. James, T. W. Gale, W. Winch, J. W. Pearce, and Chesney Duncan (Secretary).\n\n## SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR\n\nCaptain ASHTON—Your Excellency, we come before you as a deputation from the Mercantile Marine Officers' Association to ask you if you can pass a law to do away with what we consider a great hardship—with the unnecessary labour on board ships in this harbour on Sundays, that is to say, the loading and discharging of cargo. I think, your Excellency, we may say that some movement in this direction has been made before, of which I have no doubt you are fully aware. The first movement in this matter was originated by the Rev. Mr. Goldsmith, who got up a petition which was signed by the majority of the Mercantile Marine Officers and also by a number of persons on shore. I think it contained 600 signatures. This petition was presented to our Governor, Sir William Des Voeux, and we have reason to believe that he put it very prominently forward when at Home, and we believe the matter was very fully considered by Lord Knutsford, our Secretary of State, and Sir Cecil C. Smith. They came to the conclusion that legislative action was not advisable unless it was recommended by the Chamber of Commerce.\n\nWe, Sir, as an Association and as a body of British Mercantile Officers wish to better our condition, that is to do away with Sunday work. In Hongkong, we find that we are obliged to work on Sundays, morally obliged to do it. Our owners expect it from us. Instead of being able to go on shore on Sundays as we can do in nine-tenths of the ports of the world, we find on coming to Hongkong that we are debarred. The Governor having expressed an opinion to the effect that the stoppage of what we consider unnecessary work could only be done through the Chamber of Commerce, we asked for a conference with the Chamber, which was graciously granted, and we there stated our case. I need not read the report of the proceedings, as I suppose your Excellency has seen it. We then received a reply from the Chamber of Commerce which we consider impracticable in the highest degree.\n\nIn the first place, they say to us—'The Committee are of opinion that the Government could not legislate for the complete suppression of Sunday labour in this Harbour, as the questions involved are very serious and would affect injuriously all the shipping interests of the Colony, and particularly the large Chinese population connected therewith.' We do not believe, and we cannot believe what the Chamber of Commerce tells us. As loyal British subjects, we believe that the Government of this Colony, your Excellency, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, can legislate for us. That is our answer.\n\nThey say that the suppression of Sunday labour will seriously affect the shipping interests. Undoubtedly so; but although the shipping interests of this Colony are very large, they bear no comparison to the shipping interests of other ports in Her Majesty's dominions, such as London, Glasgow, Liverpool, or many others. We find in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions that Sunday is respected and that we have an opportunity of attending to our religious duties and also of taking recreation which we think is necessary to the well-being of every person, and more especially do we think it necessary to a body of seamen who are necessarily confined on board their ships for a number of days or weeks as the case may be. When they arrive in port, it is to them a great relief to be able to go on shore and be able to put their feet on land. We are not afraid of our work on board ship, but we like to go on shore when we happen to be in port on Sundays. Many of our body are deeply religious. According to the custom in this port—a custom that ought to be done away with—we are prevented from attending to our religious duties. We cannot rebel against this, because we might be turned out of our ships. Clearly, we are kept, as a body of officers, in a sort of moral slavery.\n\nWe consider as British subjects that our first duty is to our Queen and country, to our flag. I trust your Excellency will be able to convey to Her Most Gracious Majesty the assurance that she does not possess anywhere more loyal subjects than in her mercantile marine. We are willing to do our duty by our flag, and we are resolved also to do our duty to our employers and also to ourselves. Our first duty is to our flag and our country; our second is loyalty to our employers, and our third duty is loyalty to ourselves as men. We think it is an injustice that we should be deprived here of the religious privileges enjoyed in every other part of Her Majesty's dominions. We do not think it should exist much longer, and we come before you now to ask you, Sir, to do your best to pass some law, some prohibitive law to do away with this Sunday work, which necessarily entails moral slavery on every mercantile marine officer that is in your port on Sundays.\n\nIn the reply we received from the Chamber of Commerce, it is further stated that the Committee look upon the question as one that rests solely between employers and employed. But they are pleased to state that during the discussion which ensued at the meeting, a strong opinion was evinced that all European supervision for the loading and discharging...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345768, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 167, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "# SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR\n\n## THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION, AN APPEAL TO GOVERNMENT\n\nHIS EXCELLENCY the Acting Governor received a deputation at Government House on the 18th Nov., 1890, from the British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association on the question of unnecessary Sunday labour on board ships in this port. The deputation, which was received, in the first instance, by Lieut. Thorburn, A.D.C., and which was subsequently introduced to His EXCELLENCY, the Hon. F. FLEMING, C.M.G., by the Hon. W. M. DEANE, C.M.G., Acting Colonial Secretary, consisted of Captain S. ASHTON, A.L.N.A. (President), Mr. CHESNEY DENGAN (Hon. Secretary), and Messrs. L. R. JAMES, T. W. GALE, JAMES PEARCE, and W. WINCH (officers).\n\nCaptain ASHTON said that the deputation felt most deeply grateful to His Excellency for granting it the honour of an interview, which was sought owing to the strong feeling amongst British officers that there should be a cessation of labour on board ship in this port on Sunday. Having studied Lord Knutsford's speech on the subject, made in the House of Lords on the 25th of July last, the Association came to the conclusion that the best way of causing much-needed legislation on the subject was to move the Chamber of Commerce to recommend Government to introduce a Bill which would cause the cessation of unnecessary Sunday labour. With that object in view, the Association discussed the question at length with the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce at a public conference held at the City Hall on the 17th ultimo. Full reports of the arguments used on that occasion, together with the Chamber's written decision, dated the 31st of October, had doubtless come within His Excellency's cognizance.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY.-Yes, and your reply to the Chamber's letter has also been read by me.\n\nCAPTAIN ASHTON, continuing, said he was very glad to think that His Excellency had taken notice of the movement, which, he submitted, was a righteous and justifiable movement, and a protest against moral slavery. He could well understand that the Committee of the Chamber was temporarily mesmerized by its surroundings, which were heathenish, and that therefore they looked at the situation through somewhat dim glasses. But whether that were so or not, he contended that the reply of the Chamber was unjustifiable in the circumstances, and it was an insult to officers. It was perfectly well known to shipowners here that no individual officer was independent enough to take the consequences of making personal (individual) application for exemption from duty on the Sabbath. The proposition of the Chamber was impracticable in the extreme, and by no means amounted to a modus vivendi. The Chamber wrote: \"The Committee are of opinion that the Government could not legislate for the complete suppression of Sunday labour in this harbour, as the questions involved are very serious and would affect injuriously all the shipping interests of the Colony, and particularly the large Chinese population connected therewith.\" The Government, he was convinced, could legislate for the suppression of Sunday labour; it would not \"injuriously affect all, or any, of the shipping interests of the Colony.\" As to the Chinese, he was aware that they always objected to any new law—innovations were detested by them, no matter what their nature. A Sunday observance law would not injuriously affect the Chinese, and it was preposterous for the Chamber to make such an assertion. He was convinced the Chinese would warmly appreciate their Sunday's rest.\n\nIt was regrettable that the Chamber should have seen fit to question, to virtually impeach the motives of Lord Knutsford. That important servant of Her Majesty had said, in as many words, that he would legislate were the Chamber of Commerce to recommend it; and now the Chamber committed itself to the statement: \"Indeed if such a recommendation was formulated, the Committee are of opinion that Government would not legislate.\" That was a very bold assertion, and it was the first time in the annals of colonial history that a Chamber of Commerce had taken upon itself to answer for the Government on a question which affected the masses. The Association was persuaded that Lord Knutsford meant what he said, and that the Committee's reply was utterly unjustifiable.\n\nAs to the distinction drawn by the Chamber between ocean-going and coast steamers, it was equally without reasonable basis, for ocean steamers became coasters, almost without exception, as soon as they touched Hongkong; for they usually called in at Swatow, Amoy, and Foochow en route to Shanghai, and often called at Foochow and Swatow on their way home from the Far East. It was palpably an insult for the Chamber to instruct British Officers that they must consider Sunday labour on board ships in this port as a mere incident of a voyage of four months' duration! They did not, and never would, consider it \"a mere incident,\" but they did consider, and continued to do so, that the incidence was a scandal and disgrace, and a blot upon our boasted civilization. Hongkong, instead of being a centre of light and civilization to our heathen neighbours, was absolutely the reverse.\n\nThat was the \"incident\" which was firmly implanted in the minds of British officers who were so unfortunate as to be in Hongkong on a Sunday—they were better off in the ports of China where owners had to pay heavy fees for permission from the Chinese Customs Authorities to work on the Sabbath. But this was not the worst phase of the Committee's dictum: Officers were told, \"officers may, and frequently do, escape Sunday in this port.\" Instead of Hongkong, a British possession, dearly bought with British blood and money, being a place of safety and protection for the storm-tossed British mariner, he was instructed to consider himself fortunate if he \"escape\" being in Hongkong on Sunday. Escape! He spurned the idea, and was confident that no Briton could be convinced that it was right for him to consider it a lucky escape were he never, once in a twelve-month, in Hongkong on Sunday.\n\nHe trusted His Excellency would urge Her Majesty's Government to take steps to relieve the British Mercantile Marine Officer, whose practice it was to follow three principles of loyalty, which were: - First, loyalty to their Sovereign, Defender of their Faith. Secondly, loyalty to their employers. Thirdly, loyalty to themselves. They had in years gone by proved their loyalty to their Sovereign and to their owners, and how they came before his Excellency with all humility and in deep earnestness to implore and beseech him to protect them from the continuance of an obnoxious custom (it was merely a custom, a relic of an evil past) which they felt to be a great hardship, and an invasion of their rights as loyal subjects of the Queen.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY, in reply, said he was very glad to receive the deputation and to hear the views expressed by them on a question which was, admittedly, one of much importance. It was, he believed, admitted on all sides that it would be desirable to diminish Sunday labour as carried on in this colony if such could possibly be done. The question then arose whether it should be interfered with, and if so, by what means such interference should be brought about. There were only two ways by which this could be done, one being by having recourse to compulsory legislation, the other by the voluntary co-operation of those who were concerned in the shipping interests of the colony.\n\nAs regards the question of compulsory legislation, the views of the Governor of Hongkong and the Governor of the Straits Settlements, as well as the conclusions which had been expressed by the Secretary of State, and which were stated by him in the House of Lords when answering a question in connection with this matter in July last, must necessarily be known to the members of the deputation. If, even, therefore, he (His Excellency) entertained views different from those expressed by the Governors of Hongkong and the Straits Settlements, which he did not, it would not be for him to enter into that question.\n\nHe admitted that he did not altogether agree with all the arguments which had been brought forward as proof that it was impossible to diminish Sunday labour in this colony. It was true that the Chinese did not regard the Sunday in the same light as we did, and they would, not unnaturally, be disposed to work on that day, if encouragement were given to them to do so. But this could scarcely be said to be peculiar to the Chinese, inasmuch as in some other countries, where Sunday labour did not exist to the same extent that it did here, there would doubtless be found many who would be ready to work on the seventh day in addition to the other six days of the week, if sufficient inducement were offered to them to do so.\n\nPage 34\nPage 35", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 345774, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "page_number": 173, "title": "CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8]", "content_text": "## SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR\n\nCapt. Ashton headed the deputation on the 18th of November, and he appealed, in eloquent language, to Government to relieve officers of a great hardship and an invasion of their rights as subjects of the Queen. His Excellency kindly replied at length, and did much to allay the storm, which the ripple on the surface gave warning of, and showed how the depths were surging below. His Excellency (the Hon. F. Fleming, C.M.G.) said, inter alia, that the officers need not consider the reply of the Chamber as final. As on previous occasions when the Association had important work on hand, the Press was represented, and kindly published full reports of the proceedings.\n\nFull particulars of all that has been said and done in Hongkong with a view to the abolition of this obnoxious custom are now in the press, and will very soon be issued in pamphlet form for general information.\n\nIn the foregoing, I have, in my capacity as Honorary Secretary, merely outlined the work performed by this young Association during the past year. From a small beginning of ten members, the body numbered over a hundred in less than six months. From that, it has increased until fully 7/8ths of the officers sailing out of this port are enrolled as members. Irrespective of this, a world-wide union of certificated British officers is all but *un fait accompli*, for by our alliance with the Liverpool Association, our members stood at over 3,000 in October, and subsequently, through our connection with that body which took the lead in forming the federation of shipmasters and officers in London, it rose to close upon 15,000. Our alliance with Australia and Shanghai cannot long be deferred, so we understand, and when that is accomplished, we shall see what can be done in India. We therefore hope that ere 1891 draws to a close, the world-wide union of British officers will become an indisputable fact. That we should be so united, no sensible man will deny, for without it, a thorough revision of the laws governing the Mercantile Marine of Great Britain, which are so notoriously unsuited to the times, cannot be regarded as within measurable distance.\n\nLet us all bear in mind that it is through her mercantile marine that Britain's commerce has become the greatest the world has yet known; it is by means chiefly of her mercantile marine that such commerce can be maintained; it is by the use and efficiency of her mercantile marine that this vast amount of commerce (this unfathomable source of wealth to the Empire) will be even further developed, and by which England will maintain her proud position as the first commercial Power of the world. Bearing all these facts in mind, let us strain every nerve to maintain the dignity of what should ever be a highly respected profession, and never forget that \"UNITY IS STRENGTH.\"\n\nHongkong, 1st January, 1891.\n\n**CHESNEY DUNCAN**, \nHon. Secretary.\n\n## SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR\n\n(). That when Officers are required for Sunday work, they should be directed, upon application of the Agent (which application should be made on the day previous) to be in attendance and not to leave the town during the following day, and that after this notice has been given, should the officers' services not be required, they will be entitled to payment for the day—having been unnecessarily detained in Port.\n\n(Signed) \n**Colonial Secretary's Office**, \nColombo, 5th January, 1870. \n**H. T. IRVING**, \nColonial Secretary.\n\n## MINUTE\n\n**HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR** is pleased to direct that the following Scale of Allowances shall be paid to the Officers of the Customs Department at Colombo by parties requiring the performance of duties by them on Sundays and Holidays, and beyond the regular legal hours, viz.:\n\n| Position | Rate for Sundays and Holidays | Rate per hour beyond legal hours |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Landing Surveyor | Rs. 10 the day | Rs. 3 per hour |\n| Landing Waiters and Clerks | Rs. 5.0 do. | Rs. 1.50 per hour |\n| Lockers, Tide Surveyors, Tide Waiters | Rs. 0.75 do. | Rs. 0.50 do. |\n| | Rs. 0.26 do. (Tide Waiters only) | Rs. 0.25 do. (Tide Waiters only) |\n\n3. For superintending within the legal hours the trans-shipment of Goods from one vessel to another.\n\n## SPECIAL PORT (SUNDAY) REGULATIONS AT CEYLON\n\n**HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR** in virtue of the power vested in him by the 79th clause of Ordinance No. 17 of 1869, has ordered and hereby orders that the following special Regulations relating to the entry inwards and outwards of the Landing, Shipping, and Trans-shipping of Goods and of all business connected with steamers, be published for general information and have force of Law.\n\n(a). That all Mail Steamers or Steamers for which Agents have given a special Bond shall, on timely notice being given to the Collector of the Port, be permitted to work after office hours and during the night and on Sundays, and the said notice shall give a guarantee for the payment of the several officers the Collector may think necessary to appoint for the required service.\n\n| Position | Rate for Sundays and Holidays |\n| --- | --- |\n| Landing Waiters | Rs. 2.50 the day |\n| Lockers, Tide Surveyors | Rs. 1.25 do. |\n| Tide Waiters | Rs. 0.75 do. |\n\nAnd for periods beyond the legal hours, the regular rates per hour.\n\n4. When application is made for such services, the Collector, if he sees fit to sanction the same, should require a deposit to be made, sufficient to cover the expenses likely to be incurred.\n\n5. When more than one vessel may be so working, the expenses for extra attendance of Officers shall be divided amongst all the parties availing themselves of their services.\n\n**Colonial Secretary's Office**, \nColombo, 11th September, 1872. \nBy His Excellency's Command, \n**HENRY T. IRVING**, \nColonial Secretary.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-250 - Acting Governor Barker - 1891 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 347830, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-253 - Public Offices & Others - 1891", "page_number": 272, "title": "CO129-253 - Public Offices & Others - 1891", "content_text": "# The Mercantile Marine Service Association\n\n## Hong Kong Telegraph 19/11/90\n\n### A National Disgrace!\n\n#### THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION. AN APPEAL TO GOVERNMENT.\n\nHis Excellency the Acting Governor received a deputation from the British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association at Government House yesterday. The deputation, which was received in the first instance by Lieut. Thorburn, A.D.C., and subsequently introduced to His Excellency by the Hon. Secretary, consisted of Captain S. Ashton, Mr. J. W. James, Mr. Chesney Duncan (Hon. Secretary), Messrs. J. W. Gale, N.A. (President), Mr. Pearce, W. Winch (officers), and James Edwards (Hon. Treasurer).\n\nThe Mercantile Marine Service Association was incorporated by Special Act of Parliament for conserving the interests of the British Merchant Service, promoting the general improvement of nautical men by education, wholesome laws, obtaining redress of wrongs, procuring employment, and caring for the helpless and aged.\n\nCaptain Ashton said that the deputation felt most deeply grateful to His Excellency for granting them an interview. They sought to address the strong feeling amongst British officers that there should be a cessation of labour on board ships in this port on Sundays. Having studied Lord Knutsford's speech on the subject, made in the House of Lords on the 25th of July last, the Association came to the conclusion that the best way of causing much-needed legislation on the subject was to move the Chamber of Commerce to recommend Government to introduce a Bill which would cause the cessation of unnecessary Sunday labour.\n\n| **Position** | **Name** |\n| --- | --- |\n| President | J. W. Gale, N.A. |\n| Hon. Secretary | Chesney Duncan |\n| Hon. Treasurer | James Edwards |\n\nThe Association discussed the question at length with the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce at a public conference held at the City Hall on the 7th ultimo. Full reports of the arguments occasioned, together with the Chamber's written decision, dated the 31st of October, had doubtless come within His Excellency's cognizance.\n\nCaptain Ashton continuing said, \"We are very glad to think that His Excellency has taken notice of the movement which, we submit, is a righteous and justifiable movement, and a protest against moral slavery.\" He contended that the reply of the Chamber was unjustifiable in the circumstances and was an insult to officers. The Chamber's proposition was impracticable in the extreme and amounted to a modus vivendi.\n\nThe Chamber wrote, \"The Committee are of opinion that the Government could not legislate for the complete suppression of Sunday labour in this harbour, as the questions involved are very serious and would affect injuriously all the shipping interests of the Colony, and particularly the large Chinese population connected therewith.\" Captain Ashton argued that the Government could legislate for the suppression of Sunday labour without injuriously affecting the shipping interests or the Chinese population.\n\nHis Excellency, in reply, said he was very glad to receive the deputation and to hear their views on a question which was admittedly one of much importance. He believed it was admitted on all sides that it would be desirable to diminish Sunday labour if such could possibly be done. The question then arose whether it should be interfered with, and if so, by what means such interference should be brought about.\n\nThere were only two ways by which this could be done: one being by having recourse to compulsory legislation, and the other by the voluntary co-operation of those concerned in the shipping interests of the colony. His Excellency admitted that he did not altogether agree with all the arguments brought forward as proof that it was impossible to diminish Sunday labour in the colony.\n\n### Honorary Members\n\n* ADMIRAL HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH, K.G., K.T., G.C.B.\n* LORD CLAUD J. HAMILTON\n* LORD BRASSEY, K.C.B.\n* HON. W. A. CROSS, M.P.\n* M. W. MATTINSON, ESQ., M.P.\n* CAPTAIN SIR JAMES ANDERSON\n* SIR E. BATES, BART., M.P.\n* PROFESSOR SIR WILLIAM THOMSON, LL.D., F.R.S.\n* WM. RATURONR, ESQ., M.P.\n* DAVID MACIVER, ESQ.\n* EDWARD WHITLEY, ESQ., M.P.\n* SAMUEL SMITH, ESQ., M.P.\n* RALPH NEVILLE, ESQ., Q.C., M.P.\n* T.B. ROYDEŃ, ESQ., M.P.\n* BARON H. DE WORMS, M.P.\n* W. F. LAWRENCE, ESQ., M.P.\n* SIR G. BADEN-POWELL, ESQ., M.P.\n* T. P. O'CONNOR, ESQ., M.P.\n* RALPH BROCKLEBANK, ESQ.\n* JAMES BEAZLEY, ESQ., J.P.\n* J. J. MAY, ESQ., J.P.\n\n### Honorary Council\n\n* African Steam Ship Company\n* Aspinal, J, Son & Brooke\n* Balfour, Williamson & Co.\n* Baring Brothers\n* Batea, Stokes & Co.\n* Bibby, James J., Esq.\n* Brocklebank, Sir Thomas\n* Brocklebank, Ralph, Jun., Esq.\n* Bushell Bros. & Co.\n* Cearns & Brown\n* Cary, John, Esq., J.P.\n* Cory, Alderman J., Cardiff\n* Coteaworth, Ingue & Co.\n* Cross, J. T., Esq.\n* Dixon, W. H., Esq.\n* Dixon, W. T., & Sons\n* Eusington & Co.\n* Farnworth and Jardine\n* Gibbs, Bright & Co.\n* Graham, Rows & Co.\n* Gruning & Co.\n\n### Executive Council\n\n* Captain T. VINCENT, President\n* CLARKE ASPINALL, ESQ., Treasurer\n* Littledale, T. & J., & Co.\n* Lyon, Comper & Co.\n* Lockett, John, Esq.\n* Mackie & Sons\n* Melones, John, Esq.\n* Maciver, Charles, Esq.\n* Maciver, Henry, Esq.\n* Morland, Sir Henry, Bombay\n* Moss, Charles, & Co.\n* Myers, W. J. Sons, & Co.\n* Muck, W. D., Esq.\n* National Steam Ship Co., Ltd.\n* Nixon & Thew\n* Nickels, J. T., & Co.\n* North, Colonel J. T.\n\n### Council Members (To serve Three Years)\n\n| **Name** | **Position** |\n| --- | --- |\n| Brooks, Capt. | Captain |\n| Burton, G., Capt. | Captain |\n| Campbell, H., Capt. | Captain |\n| Clarke, Janno, Capt. | Captain |\n| Gales, James, Capt. | Captain |\n| Hill, William, Capt. | Captain |\n| Hamil, Martin f., Capt. | Captain |\n| Hatfield, B., Capt. | Captain |\n| Hayes, H. W., Capt. | Captain |\n| Killy, C. J., Capt. | Captain |\n| Lewis, A. W., Capt. | Captain |\n| Murray, G. S., Capt. | Captain |\n| McBay, Horatio, Capt. | Captain |\n| Nowell, S., Capt. | Captain |\n| Ritchie, Joseph, Capt. | Captain |\n| Royden, T. B., Esq., M.P. | |\n| Suumier, Janges, Capt. | Captain |\n| Watt, H. F., Capt. | Captain |\n| Webster, J. K., Capt. | Captain |\n| Williamson, John, Esq. | |\n\nPage 363\n\nC. O. \n2340\nRECE(REG 2 FEB 91)", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-253 - Public Offices & Others - 1891.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 354577, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8]", "page_number": 311, "title": "CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8]", "content_text": "com Powell.\n\nMohd Sewart.\n\nHoury Humphreys. G. H. Potcs.\n\nH.A. S. Thompson.\n\nF.6.Cox.\n\nD. Wortes Smitt.\n\nJas: Spruce.\n\nChas: Graut. My.u. Jeffries. R. B. Joyce. Geo: B. Godwell. J. P. Dorolung.\n\nGeo: H. Medhurst.\n\nF Jas: East.\n\nA. M. Botellis,\n\nJ.M.B. Botelho. Paul Jordan.\n\nH. J. Dowler,\n\n8.6. Ray.\n\nH. Burton.\n\nRoss Housou. Awv. Robertson. Edw. F. Maskay\n\nHarry Wicking. Ed Robuison.\n\nW. Parfitt.\n\nH.C.A. Harris. A. W. Hall.\n\n4. Huster.\n\nJ. W. Fritti.\n\nJ. C. Peter.\n\nJ. Brown.\n\n7. 7. Raper\n\nA. Sharp.\n\nG.S. Brady. W.KK. Low. J. Stapier.\n\nWalter H. Brewer,\n\nJ.H.Chesney.\n\nI. cúchain.\n\n307\n\n6. 7. Robrison.\n\nC.cluray Adancóov.. Chas A. Thompson. P.C. Settina.\n\nD. Fr Jumboby.\n\nM. P. Falati,\n\nH. E. Banji. Dinshaw Moroso jer. Rol.oluchta. It Dotabice Llisty. H. G. Gotta.\n\nJoll. Vajifdar. E.D. Kotewal.\n\nJ. Fr. Jalati. S.B. Bhabha\n\nD. D. Guzdar.\n\nC.B. Mowrawalla.\n\nOlias: N. Co. Kew.\n\nDotabjer tousto-cl. J. Pestorjee.\n\nAlear Simming. W. G. Darby.\n\nAlear Gouald\n\nZ.-W. Lammert. G.C. Fullerton. M.P. Dipple. f. Grimble.\n\nW. St. John Hancock. H.S. Kavajaux,\n\nB.M. silenta.\n\ncr.d. Mance.\n\nA 6. Vania.\n\nIP varania. R.oh. Shalia.\n\nJolur Hastings.\n\nY. 6. Greiq.\n\nGB. Jumbolze.\n\nRelo. Thitt.\n\n7. Jaunsetje.\n\nJ.is. How.\n\nH Rutto jec\n\nJ & Sausou.\n\nJ.J. Blake.\n\n4.6.S.cilammes.\n\nAuctiony Babington. Regs Fuckm.\n\nAlfred, W. Dyer.\n\nFresjor.\n\noll & Polishwalla.\n\nChamatha.\n\nIt Grimble.\n\nCosu Ramsay", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 354578, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8]", "page_number": 312, "title": "CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8]", "content_text": "M. N. Vandrawalls. W. Stuart Harrison, A.Ft willson.\n\nBank W. Watts,\n\nBell. Nooroodin.\n\nof, deuisou.\n\nHell. S. H. Eomail.\n\nI. Jamasjer.\n\nJ. B. Patel.\n\nWilliam Hartigan. Kaw Song Jake IP W. Ponder cucLean. Wong Shiring .. Chow long J.P. Ho Fook IP Lau wai chuen 2.P. Chen Zusan & IP Young &z Hai DP. To Fung 2.P.\n\nChoa Chee Bee J.P.\n\ncom wood.\n\nEA. cucasor\n\nW. J. Gaskell. Smith Alliston, R.Chatterton Wilcox. 2. Darby. diaset Ofiwie. The Howard. Tos & Rose.\n\nJ. F. Comfort. Wow Mathisen.\n\nE.J. Grist.\n\nBllacdonald. Frank Collins.\n\nJ.G. Roach.\n\nW. Kewton, Folaitland,\n\n4.04. Hickham,\n\nJ. B. L. Bowley. James Francis. Granville Sharp.\n\nThos H. Reid.\n\nJ. Cowen. S. Rustomjee.\n\nHart Brick\n\nME. dos Remedios Geo: C Tomlin. John Brownhill. Mormujee Rustomjer.\n\nL'ollallory. A. J. Remedios. M.E.S.Periera.\n\nSidney B.I. Kortelly.\n\nVarain Chunder drett,\n\nI. Barnes.\n\nW. H. Freeman.\n\nI. W. Stavers.\n\nNF. Carmichael,\n\nBhuwan Medum Bauerc. R. Marten.\n\nCO. 8. Blement.\n\nS.S. Benjamin. J.S. Hogen. Jas: Cottaur. J. clladehose. John W. Bowell.\n\n6.S. Kelly. Duo B. Scott. John a Jupps.\n\nIR Capell. H.&. Allen. AH. Maucell. Robe Lang. Acteur Thurt.\n\nEd ollcbabe Geo: G.weller,\n\nAndrews Johnston\n\nA. G. Gordon.\n\nA. Stopani. R. Fraser Smilti.\n\nChas: Khuck.\n\nChesney Innoan.\n\nF.D. Goddard. Jas: Eawasas.\n\nI. Wheeley. D. K. Griffitte. 7.8. Deusou, A. H. Helton. Teo: Leo: Duncan.\n\noil,n,bastro. Howry w Row.. G.C. Hayward.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 355470, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12]", "page_number": 455, "title": "CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12]", "content_text": "450\n\nLent. Boys, R.E., we are specially indebted to the first officer (applause) for he was the one who volunteered, and from the 17th May to the end of the epidemic he gave up all his time (after the completion of his military duties), all his afternoons and Sundays, in assisting Mr. Crook in the disagreeable work of cleansing and disinfecting the houses. He worked unremittingly at this and also in superintending the detachment of Royal Engineers employed on that work. All who have seen him at work, as well as the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board, bear high testimony to his services and conduct. I would also mention Capt. Stewart, Lieut. Molesworth, and Lieut. Kelsall, also of the R.E., who did good work. Capt. Murray gave valuable assistance in the most necessary and useful work of removing those poor creatures from the filthy hovels in Taipingshan to better quarters elsewhere; and in connection with these services I would mention the name of Mr. Mitchell-Innes, who helped a great deal in overcoming many of the difficulties of removal. (Applause.) From the Navy we received eight or ten men, who did very good service. I have left myself very little time to speak of the special services rendered by Mr. May and the police. Mr. May, I think, has especially distinguished himself. (Loud applause.) It might be said that in the position which he held he could hardly have kept back, but from the very first, when he began the work with his own men, up to the end, he was unremitting in his efforts.\n\nHe had the task to organise the work of all the men, superintend the house-to-house visitation, attend to the removal of the sick from Taipingshan, and all the cleansing and disinfecting work, with a great deal of physical labour about it; and the exertion he went through and zeal he displayed are beyond all praise. (Applause.) His perseverance and courage did not for a moment desert him, even when he saw his fellow worker, Capt. Vouy, stricken down. I know myself that the first tram brought him down in the morning, and it was not until late at night that he reached his home again. I am quite sure you will agree with me that he behaved right well. To the members of the force who worked under him we are indebted for very valuable services. To the other volunteers—there were about twenty of them—who responded to the call of the Permanent Committee we are also indebted; they all more or less lent help according to their abilities and the time at their disposal. I would mention especially Mr. H. C. Nicolle, Mr. W. Blaynay, and Mr. Chesney Duncan.\n\nFrom the medical profession we always expect that where there is danger or any human suffering to be alleviated, they will be to the front. That profession has a glorious record of heroic deeds and devotedness to duty, and the members of the profession in Hongkong will not allow that reputation to be in any way lowered or sullied. Surgeon-Major James and Dr. Pauny volunteered at once, and, with Dr. Ayres and Dr. Lowson, left no stone unturned to afford every assistance science could give for the benefit of those who were combatting the disease or to those who had fallen victims to it. I must not forget to mention the Permanent Committee. They had a heavy task. They had to organise the carrying out of a great many of those measures, and they did their work well. Mr. Francis, I know, devoted a great part of his time for several months to this work, and his fellow committee men assure me of the assistance they have received from him. (Applause). I should not like to forget Mr. Crook, who had very disagreeable work to do. He worked hard and earnestly throughout the whole of the epidemic. (Applause) Nor would you wish me to pass over Capt. Hastings. (Applause.) You will no doubt remember that at one time a very serious difficulty arose with respect to the disposal of the dead.\n\nIt taxed the resources of the Sanitary Board for some time, but gruesome as was the task and repulsive as were the details, Captain Hastings stepped into the breach, and, with the assistance of some military and some seamen, he soon overcame all obstacles. Gentlemen, I have just been reminded that I have been very negligent; instead of giving the first place to the ladies I have left them to the last. It is not, however, on this occasion the least nor the lowest. They were also volunteers. This work could not have been required of them, not in the least. Anything outside the hospital was outside their contract, and not only this, but it was extra work, for their hospital duties went on all the time as usual. Yet the services of the Sisters at the Government Civil Hospital were given without a murmur; they obediently volunteered their services to nurse the sick and went forth upon their self-imposed task of mercy in the alacrity and good will and, with the greatest kindness and devotion, day after day nursed those stricken down by the plague. Do you recognise what this meant—tending the sick in the plague hospitals with all its repulsive symptoms and dangers—and yet not for one moment did one of those Sisters flinch; no risk or fear of contagion dismayed them. From first to last they performed their duty admirably. (Applause). They once more proved the truth of the great poet's words, who wrote:-\n\nWhen pain and anguish wring the brow\nA ministering angel thou.\n\nI hope that I have not forgotten anyone, but if I have the Committee you are about to appoint will certainly make up the deficiency. But long as I have detained you I will ask you for two or three minutes' indulgence in order that I may pay tribute to the memory of one who died in your service. Capt. Vesey was justly popular in his regiment. He had, I believe, everything that could make life worth living and enjoyable, and he had intended, I understand, soon to retire to live in his own country and among his old friends. It has been otherwise ordained. He obeyed the call of duty and gave a bright example to his men by the zeal and unflinching energy which he threw into this work. He stopped at the work after he should have retired from it; he was seized by the disease and he died of it. Surely that was not a soldier's death; not the one I think that we or he would have chosen. He no doubt would have preferred to have met his death at the head of his men amid the din of battle, with the shout of victory ringing in his ears to cheer him even in the throes of death itself; instead of that he died on a bed of sickness among strangers in a strange land. Let us hope that ere his gallant spirit passed away the pang of separation was mitigated, the grief of dying among strangers was softened, and he was comforted in his last moments by the thought that he had laid down his life in the service of others. He will live in our memories. We shall require no storied urn or animated bust to remind us of him, for he has erected his own monument in one year's work. But I am sure that you would wish that his services and death should remain recorded here long after we have passed away. Gentlemen, I have done. We honour ourselves in recognising such services as have been rendered to us, and in seeking to honour those to whom our gratitude is due. I know I have interpreted the feelings of this community in saying that we are most anxious to recognise those services and to show by some outward mark our great appreciation of them. I have much pleasure in proposing: That this meeting do resolve that the services rendered to this community during the recent plague by those who assisted are worthy of recognition. (Loud applause.)\n\nMr. E. MACKINTOSH—After the very able and eloquent speech we have heard from the Acting Chief Justice I am sure that there is no necessity for me to detain you at all. The resolution which has been proposed by him I am sure must appeal to the hearts of every one of us, who have of necessity been passing through this great emergency. I think there will be one responsive vote to the motion just proposed. I beg to second it.\n\nThe motion was carried with loud applause.\n\nMr. T. JACKSON—Your Excellency and gentlemen, I am sure we all fully appreciate the very eloquent speech of the mover of the first resolution just made. I am sure there is not one of us who does not thoroughly appreciate the noble band of men who first combatted the plague, for it was then a very serious matter indeed. Speaking for myself I can only remember that the lay volunteers who went into the native town to clear out those pest places were really going into the jaws of death. We have great reason to be thankful that only one—the noble Vesey—died. I am sure that the services of the Naval and Military and of the Public Works Department were...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 358146, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-268 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [7-11]", "page_number": 311, "title": "CO129-268 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [7-11]", "content_text": "## OPINIONS OF THE SHANGHAI PRESS\n\n### The China Gazette, August 3rd\n\nWe hope the British and American Governments are pleased with the result of their policy in China. If they had made up their minds to definitely abandon their wretched and deserted nationals to the tender mercies of the Chinese mandarins and the murderous mobs at their command, they could scarcely have gone a better way about attaining that desirable object than they have followed. The inscrutable and cold-blooded apathy with which the two governments named (British and American) have looked upon the unparalleled series of outrages in Szechuen province is already bearing fruit in other parts of China, as we foretold at the time it would.\n\nAlready, in the case of the Kucheng outrages, an effort is being made by the apologists of Chinese ferocity to put the blame upon a secret society—a Vegetarian Society above all others—the Vegetarian being one of the strictest sects which objects to the shedding of all blood! But we lay all the blame for the Kucheng outrages upon the emasculated Diplomatic and Consular services by whom Great Britain and the United States choose to be represented in China. The cup, however, is now about full. We do not think that the great world in Europe and America, which goes into hysterics over the assaults by the Turks upon the wretched Armenians, can longer stand aside and see English ladies butchered by these fiends, whom we have been taught to worship and to treat as the Israelites did the great Molok.\n\nThe time has come when the relations between foreigners and Chinese will have to be put upon a different basis, that at the mouth of the cannon. We think that the time has come when justice shall be no longer asked for, but when vengeance must be exacted. It is no longer a case for diplomacy; it is a case for the gatling gun, the rifle, and the bayonet. All the promises of protection which the Emperor of China and his lying mandarins have made have been broken. The tongue in the cheek, as these promises were given, is exposed, and the ever-present devil of Chinese hatred is encouraged by the attitude of those who are supposed to lend foreigners in China protection. That protection is, like Chinese promises and treaty obligations, a criminal fraud.\n\nThe time has come when the appeal for vengeance for the blood of those murdered women must be carried beyond the deadening walls of Peking, and addressed direct to the great world outside; We think that from the blood of the murdered English women of Kucheng a new race will arise, and the hopeless Incubus which weighs down our present relations with China will be broken for ever. To do this a different policy is needed, the policy which had long since been abandoned in the delusive belief that China is a civilized country. She is more savage to-day than the Barbary States fifty years ago, and her mandarins are to the Bashi Bazouk what the vulture is to the cooing dove.\n\nThe fiendish officials who organized these murders and outrages are wise in their generation; and over again they have shown us that they will only burn and destroy the property of French missionaries, because they know the French Government would exact vengeance for the lives of her children, but they wisely reserve their atrocities and murders for the British and Americans, whose governments stand calmly by and see such crimes committed before their eyes as long as trade flourishes. The ledgers of the mills of Manchester and Massachusetts are of more account than the lives of English and American men and women in China.\n\n### North China Daily News, August 5th\n\nIt is hard to say that the massacre at Wha sang is a direct consequence of the indifference of the foreign Ministers at Peking, but we may well believe that the officials would have prevented such a tragedy had they known that it would be followed by swift punishment. We do not envy Sir Nicholas O'Conor his feelings when he heard the sad news—or the Foreign Office in London, if it is on the Foreign Office and not on the Minister that the blame should be laid.... But whoever organised this massacre knew that the officials would not interfere. A mob dare not collect in China unless with the connivance of the officials; and as the officials see that none of them are ever punished for an anti-Christian outrage, why should they try and prevent it? If our Ministers, who have fleets at their disposal, had insisted on the punishment of the Chêngtu officials, the good of it would have been felt all over the Empire; but instead they consent to one of them being put on the Commission of Enquiry!\n\n### Shangkat Mercury, August 3rd\n\nThis (massacre at Kucheng) is an answer to our Ministers' action jeeringly traced with fingers of blood, and what have our Ministers to say to this? If prompt and decisive steps are not taken to repress murder and lawlessness against foreigners by the native authorities; and the foreign Ministers at Peking, in whose power it is to render present and future protection and bring the perpetrators to justice, decline to fittingly exert themselves, to whom is the foreign citizen in China to appeal for help? For how long is this system of weak-kneed scraping to a number of lying, cowardly Chinese officials at Peking—known as the Tsungli Yamen—who completely gull and convince our Ministerial Representatives to continue?\n\nWe do not usually indulge in invective; we usually avoid doing so, but in face of the Peking demonstration and the murderous reply from Kucheng, where five harmless and good women, living noble lives for the benefit of those who killed them, is a reply which makes the blood of every foreigner boil and his fingers itch to be at the throats of the murderers—and in Heaven's name how long are Europeans in China to submit to it?\n\n## DESCRIPTION OF KUCHENG\n\nKa-Cheng, or \"the ancient field,\" is finely situated in a plain surrounded by mountains. It is an important city in the province of Fukien, with a large population; but not more than two-thirds of the space enclosed within the walls, which are four miles and a half in circumference, is occupied by the habitations of the living. \"It is,\" observes Archdeacon Wolf, \"a necropolis, a city of the dead. Thousands of coffins occupy the spare ground inside the walls, and there are numbers of sheds built to protect them from the rain and from the heat of the sun. The laws of China forbid burial within the city walls, but they do not prohibit this practice of keeping the coffins exposed in the city to public gaze.\"\n\nNo manufactures are carried on, the inhabitants being all engaged in agricultural pursuits; and the city is described as \"a quiet old place, the very people having a sleepy look\" partly, no doubt, owing to their being inveterate opium smokers, which gives \"a cadaverous appearance.\"\n\nThe stream which, in its lower course, becomes a foaming torrent, is, in this upland plain, a peaceful and pretty river, and almost encircles the city. Within the walls is a pagoda dedicated to its honour, and designed to propitiate its wrath. Bishop Alford mentions that it is crossed by “a very lofty bridge of five well-spanned arches, with a covered roof.\" It is utilised for the irrigation of the fields by means of large water-wheels, twenty feet in diameter, which raise the water and discharge it into troughs laid to convey it over the country.\n\nKucheng was, according to the Shanghai Mercury, occupied as a Church of England mission station at the end of 1865. Two catechists went first as pioneers, and hired a room for a preaching chapel. Then Mr. Wolfe visited the city, preached to large and attentive audiences, and left one of the catechists to carry on the good work.\n\nPRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY CHESNEY DUNCAN, AT THE OFFICE OF \"THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH,\" PEDDER'S HILL, VICTORIA, IN THE COLONY OF HONGKONG.\n\n305", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-268 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [7-11].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 359803, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895", "page_number": 574, "title": "CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895", "content_text": "# List of Names\n\nALFRED W. DYER. \nREGD. TUCKER. \nJ. H. CHESNEY. \nJ. McBAIN. \nC. T. ROBINSON. \nC. MURRAY ADAMSON, \nCHAS. H. THOMPSON. \nP. C. SETHNA. \nD. F. TUMBOLY. \nM. P. TALATI. \nH. E. BAMJI. \nDINSHAW NOWROJEE. \nR. M. MEHTA. \nF. DORABJEE MISTRY. \nH. C. GOTLA. \nJ. M. VAJIFDAR. \nE. D. KOTEWAL. \nI. F. TALATI. \nS. B. BHABHA. \nD. D. GUZDAR. \nC. B. MOWRAWALLA. \nDORABJEE NOWROJEE. \nJ. PESTONJEE, \nH. S. KAVARANA. \nN. J. ARJANEE, \nJ. P. VARANIA. \nR. N. DHALLA. \nJ. B. TUMBOLY. \nF. JAMSETJEE. \n\n-14- \n\nH. RUTTONJEE. \nF. VICAJEE. \nM. B. POLISH WALLA. \nP. E. KHAMBATTA. \nM. N. VANDRAWALLO. \nB. M. NOOROODIN. \nH. M. S. H. ESMAIL. \nJOHN ANDREW. \nJ. JAMASJEE, \nJ. B. PATEL. \nWILLIAM HARTIGAN. \nKAW HONG TAKE, J.P. \nW. PENDER MCLEAN. \nWONG SHING, J.P. CHOW PENG, J.P. \nHO FOOK, J.P. \nLAU WAI CHUEN, J.P. \nCHEN QUAN EË, J.P. TOUNG SZ KAI, J.P. HỌ TUNG, J.P. \nCHOA CHEE BEE, J.P. \nWM. WOOD. \nE. A. MEASOR. \nW. H. GASKELL. \nSMITH ALLISTON. \nR. CHATTERTON WILCOX. \nS. L. DARBY. \nHERBERT OGILVIE. \nTHOS. HOWARD. \nTHOS. I. HOSE. \nJ. G. COMFORT. \nWM. MATHISEN. \nE. J. GRIST. \nA. B. MACDONALD. \nFRANK COLLINS. \nW. STUART HARRISON. \nA. DENISON. \nJ. G. ROACH. \nW. NEWTON. \nF. MAITLAND. \nW. H. WICKHAM. \nF. B. L. BOWLEY. \nJAMES FRANCIS. \nN. J. SAUNDERS. GRANVILLE SHARP. THOS. H. REID. \nT. COWEN. \nS. RUSTOMJEE. \n\n-15- \n\nSIDNEY B. J. SKERTCHLY, NARAIN CHUNDER DUTT. BHUVAN M. BANERJEE. \nA. E. SKEELS. \nW. E. CLEMENT. \nS. S. BENJAMIN. \nJ. S. HAGEN. \nJAS. P. COTTAM. \nJ. MACLEHOSE. \nJOHN W. POWELL. \nE. S. KELLY. \nJNO. B. SCOTT. \nJOHN A. JUPP. \nJ. R. CAPELL. \nH. E. ALLEN. \nA. H. MANCELL. \nROBT. LANG. \nARTHUR HUNT. \nED. McCABE. \nGEO. G. WELLER. \nA. F. WILLSON. \nFRANK W. WATTS. \nHART BUCK. \nM. E. DOS REMEDIOS. \nP. H. ROLFE. \nFRED. W. STAPLETON, \nF. RAPP. \nGEO. L. TOMLIN. JOHN BROWNHILL. HORMUJEE RUSTOMJEE. \nL. MALLORY. \nA. J. REMEDIOS. \nM. E. S. PEREIRA. \nJ. BARNES. \nW. H. FREEMAN. \nJ. W. STAVERS. \nH. F. CARMICHAEL. \nR. MARTEN. ANDREW JOHNSTON.\n\n568", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 359804, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895", "page_number": 575, "title": "CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895", "content_text": "## List of Names\n\n* A. G. GORDON\n* A. STOPANI\n* R. FRASER-SMITH\n* CHAS. KLINCK\n* CHESNEY DUNCAN\n* F. D. GODDARD\n* JAS. EDWARDS\n* A. PARKER\n* THOS. J. PARKY\n* T. ROWIN\n* W. H. WATSON\n* B. B. PIGOT\n* JAS. FOWLER\n* J. THOM\n* B. UNSWORTH\n* J. WHEELEY\n* D. K. GRIFFITH\n* H. E. DENSON\n* A. H. SKELTON\n* GEO. LEO. DUNCAN\n* M. M. CASTRO\n* HENRY W. ROW\n* G. C. HAYWARD\n* W. BEVANN\n* H. J. COX\n* G. T. RIVERS\n* S. W. GOGGIN\n* E. L. STAINFIELD\n* R. G. HOPKINS\n* J. P. MADAR\n* DORABJI NOWKOJEE\n* FRANK LAMMERT\n* FERDINAND KORN\n* H. SCHONFELDER\n\n569 EM Eur", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 366777, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-283 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [5-6]", "page_number": 186, "title": "CO129-283 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [5-6]", "content_text": "## Lecture \n\n| Name |\n|------|\n| H. F. Plottaus |\n| Richard Ellis |\n| J. W. Z. Houghtrie |\n| Ghalaze ades |\n| Herbert Price |\n| Ellis Allen |\n| Tu. Meyer |\n| MS Cooho |\n| Ches: J. Hartow |\n| B&Shary Jatherley |\n| Colin MD Smart |\n| 10 W. Ray Willett |\n| Cromti Sich H. Denga Versert |\n| Could D. Thomsen |\n| John Harting |\n| Thor H. Reid |\n| Edward & Ram r. Munford |\n| walt. Kachaon |\n| Herbert & Gadge |\n| Henry Humphreys |\n| Barrington Deaco N |\n| 19 Chattuctin Wilson |\n| Chris Rose |\n| Geo a lacomer |\n| G. T. Grook |\n| G. C. Cot Retour Smitt |\n| Chesney Duncan |\n| J. Stafford Northcote |\n| JKMicha Willichar Jubband | \n## BE 182", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-283 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415264, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-349 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [10-12]", "page_number": 553, "title": "CO129-349 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [10-12]", "content_text": "## Government House, Hongkong, 24th December, 1908.\n\nIn continuation of my secret despatch of the 25th ultimo, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordship's telegram of the same date stating that a telegram from Mr. Chesney Duncan to Members of Parliament had been received respecting the banishment of Ch'an Lo-ch'un, Chiu Shiu-pok, and P'un Lan-sz, and asking what were the facts.\n\n2. To this inquiry I replied by telegram on the 27th idem as follows:-\n\n\"In consequence of riot broken out 2nd November, proclamation has been issued under Section 6, Ordinance No. 10, 1886. Ch'an Lo-ch'un, Chiu Shiu-pok, not being British subjects, banished under Section 13: P'un Lan-sz, not being British subject, banished under Ordinance No. 1, 1882; after careful enquiry in accordance with advice of Executive Council.\"\n\nI added the following confidential postscript:-\n\n\"They are leaders of movement against Japanese boycott: culminated in local disturbances and other outrages.\"\n\n## RIGHT HONOURABLE \n## THE EARL OF CREWE, &C., &C.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-349 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418381, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-354 - Public Offices & Others - 1908", "page_number": 331, "title": "CO129-354 - Public Offices & Others - 1908", "content_text": "condition and was removed to hospital.\n\nOn the 26th of March Dr Bell, the Superintendent of the Government Civil Hospital, reported that In Lofthouse was then suffering but that he suffered loss of memory from which was not likely to improve and which, among other things, would prevent him from earning a livelihood.\n\nThe Hongkong Government accordingly arranged for him to be sent home in charge of an attendant.\n\nCOL\n\nOffice or Individual.\n\ngeslaw 1908\n\n28 hor\n\nLast previous Paper.\n\nFor cons Alex privately\n\n1 see 43435\n\nHONG KONG\n\nNo. 3044\n\n328 DOMESTIC.\n\n(Subject.) C. O.\n\n43047 ....24 NOV OS\n\nBanishment of Churace here haut & Editor Chunda bhun, bhu su Pok, Pur-love-Bye.\n\nLeeds the protecting against action of for: aching for intervention regarding formation of rumour with Registrar's sexi\n\nInt Fiddes appanutly\n\n(Minutes.)\n\nA. & A. W.-17022/24-\n\n2500-10-09 subsequent Paper 3433\n\nMr Chesney Dinam too much to adjectives to enable him to say why these three men were banished, but presumably it is in connection with the anti-Japanese boycott rist.\n\nI understand from Vernon that Tol Seely proposes telegram to be sent. I submit\n\nFragt a.) 03/24/11 But", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-354 - Public Offices & Others - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418383, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-354 - Public Offices & Others - 1908", "page_number": 333, "title": "CO129-354 - Public Offices & Others - 1908", "content_text": "Governor\n\nJasowy Kong\n\n43047\n\nCopy\n\nDent-12.30ferr\n\nDRAFT Hongkong\n\nMr.\n\nMINUTE.\n\nAstarding 241,\n\nMr. 728des 25\n\nMr. Just.\n\nMr. Antrobus,\n\nMr. Cox.\n\nSir C. Lucas.\n\nSir F. Hopwood.\n\nCol. Seely.\n\nThe Earl of Crewe.\n\nFor conson\n\n3\n\nFico\n\n270508\n\nbe\n\n2. Na 1908\n\nstäffine Telegram from\n\nChesney\n\nДесан\n\nmelärabin\n\n[member of\n\nParliament \"How\n\n앗\n\n330\n\nbrandewd respecting.\n\nbanishment\n\nChunlochun af\n\ntothes Chusupok\n\nPuu lantze\n\nfabioribus\n\nwhat are\n\nthe fact\n\nCofy 70.9 bee\n\n70\n\n40209", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-354 - Public Offices & Others - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 421263, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-360 - Public Offices - 1909", "page_number": 52, "title": "CO129-360 - Public Offices - 1909", "content_text": "# 51 \n\nThis Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government\n\n## Inclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\n### Acting Consul-General Willis to Sir J. Jordan.\n\n**(No. 67. Confidential.)**\n\nSir,\n\nMukden, October 8, 1908.\n\nHIS Excellency M. T. Liang, the Senior Secretary to the Manchurian Government, called on me yesterday, and in the course of conversation mentioned the following incident, which seems to me worth reporting as illustrative of the policy of the Chinese Eastern Railway, and of the criticism I advanced on their methods in my despatch No. 63, Confidential, of the 1st instant.\n\nIt appears that the Chinese Government send a considerable quantity of salt, mainly produced in the neighbourhood of Newchwang, but partly imported from Shanghae, into the Hei Lung Chiang Province. The salt has hitherto been conveyed to its destination by cart in the winter season, but Mr. Liang informed me that the Chinese Eastern Railway had offered the Manchurian Government very favourable terms if they would ship the salt to Vladivostock and forward it thence by train to its destination. The natural railway route for salt from Yingkou to Tsitsihar would be viâ Ta Shih Chiao or Mukden and Kuanchengtzu, but the Chinese Eastern Railway declined absolutely to come to any reasonable arrangement for the transport over their lines if the salt were first handled by the South Manchurian Railway.\n\nMr. Liang expressed himself as sceptical of the reported success of Baron Goto's recent mission to St. Petersburgh, and gave it as his opinion that both the South Manchurian and Chinese Eastern Companies would continue as far as possible to use their lines as instruments for the advancement of the political aims of their respective Governments and to the consequent detriment of the \"development of the resources of the country and general commercial opportunity.\"\n\nIn support of Mr. Liang's contention I would state that the linking up of the two systems at Changchun seems postponed, at any rate until next spring, and the journey from Kuanchengtzu to Harbin, a distance of 140 miles, still takes about eleven hours, four of which at least are consumed in waiting at unimportant wayside stations. The interchange of goods between the two systems is at present insignificant.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n**(Signed)**\n\nR. WILLIS.\n\nP.S.-In connection with this despatch I would mention that the \"Peking and Tien-tsin Times\" of the 6th instant states that it is reported that the journey between Shanghae and Moscow via Vladivostock can now be made in fourteen days.\n\nR. W.\n\n## CHINA TRADE.\n\n**(CONFIDENTIAL.)**\n\n1189\n\n[December 10.\n\n## SECTION 1.\n\n[43110]\n\n### No. 1.\n\n#### Colonial Office to Foreign Office.--(Received December 10.)\n\nSir,\n\nDowning Street, December 9, 1908.\n\nI AM directed by the Earl of Crewe to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant respecting the boycott of Japanese goods at Hong Kong.\n\nA copy of your letter and its inclosure will be forwarded to the Government, and in the meantime Lord Crewe has addressed to Sir F. Lugard the telegram of which a copy is inclosed.\n\nThe accompanying copies of telegraphic correspondence will show that the Governor has recently taken strong action in the matter, which has led to a representation being made to a Member of Parliament who has asked a question upon it in the House of Commons.\n\n**(Telegraphic.)**\n\nI am, &c.\n\n**(Signed)**\n\nFRANCIS J. S. HOPWOOD.\n\n#### Inclosure I in No. 1.\n\n##### Earl of Crewe to Governor Sir F. Lugard.\n\nDowning Street, December 8, 1908.\n\nJAPANESE Government have asked that Governor of Hong Kong will institute more rigid control of boycott, to prevent this being effected by means of intimidation organized by societies. I gather from your telegram of the 27th November that you are taking active steps in this direction, but shall be glad if you will do all that you properly can to meet wishes of Japanese Government. You will, of course, inform me beforehand if you consider any exceptional measures necessary. Report fully by despatch. Despatch follows by mail.\n\n#### Inclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\n##### Earl of Crewe to the Governor of Hong Kong.\n\n**(Telegraphic.)**\n\nDowning Street, November 25, 1908.\n\nTELEGRAM from Chesney Duncan to Member of Parliament has been received respecting banishment of Chanlochun, Chinshinpok, Punlansz. What are the facts?\n\n#### Inclosure 3 in No. 1.\n\n##### Governor of Hong Kong to the Earl of Crewe.\n\n**(Telegraphic.)**\n\n[Received November 27, 1908.]\n\nWITH reference to your telegram of the 25th November, in consequence of riots broken out the 2nd November, proclaimed section 6, Ordinance No. 10, 1886. Chanlochun, Chinshinpok, not being British subjects, banished under section 13; Punlansz, not being British subject, banished under Ordinance No. 1, 1882, after careful inquiry, in accordance with advice of Executive Council.\n\n**(Confidential.)**\n\nThey are leaders of movement, Japanese boycott, culminating in local disturbances and other outrages.\n\n[2050 k-1]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-360 - Public Offices - 1909.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 421808, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-360 - Public Offices - 1909", "page_number": 597, "title": "CO129-360 - Public Offices - 1909", "content_text": "# Inclosure 2 in No. 1\n## Governor Sir F. Lugard to the Earl of Crewe\n\n**Government House, Hong Kong, December 24, 1908**\n\nIN continuation of my Secret despatch of the 25th ultimo I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's telegram of the same date, stating that a telegram from Mr. Chesney Duncan to Members of Parliament had been received respecting the banishment of Ch'an Lo-ch'un, Chiu Shiu-pok, and P'un Lan-sz, and asking what were the facts.\n\n2. To this inquiry I replied by telegram on the 27th idem, as follows:--\n\n\"In consequence of riot broken out 2nd November Proclamation has been issued under section 6, Ordinance No. 10, 1886. Ch'an Lo-chun, Chiu Shiu-pok, not being British subjects, banished under section 13; P'un Lan-sz, not being British subject, banished under `Ordinance No. 1, 1882`; after careful inquiry in accordance with advice of Executive Council.\"\n\nI added the following **Confidential** postscript: -\n\n\"They are leaders of movement Japanese boycott; culminated in local disturbances and other outrages.\"\n\n3. On the 8th instant, I received a further telegram from your Lordship to the effect that the Government of Japan had asked that Hong Kong should institute more rigid control over boycott, to prevent intimidation by organized Societies; and stating that your Lordship would be glad if I would do all that I properly could to meet the wishes of Japan, informing you beforehand, if I considered that any exceptional measures were necessary and reporting fully by despatch. To this message I replied by telegram on the 11th instant, that active steps were being taken to control the boycott.\n\n4. In point of fact no steps, except those already reported to your Lordship in my Secret despatches of the 12th and 25th ultimo, were taken, until at meeting of Executive Council held on the 23rd instant, it was advised (the General Officer Commanding and Mr. E. A. Hewett being absent, and the Colonial Secretary dissenting) that the Proclamation issued under section 6, of `Ordinance 10, of 1886`, should be rescinded. Mr. Hewett, though not present at the meeting, had intimated that he had agreed to the rescission of the Proclamation, but would have liked to hear the discussion in Council.\n\n5. The circumstances which led me to take this step were these.\n\nOf the persons whose names are mentioned in my despatch of the 25th ultimo some were in the Colony and some happened to be absent at the date the banishment orders were issued. As soon as those who were in the Colony learned that banishment warrants had been issued against them, they left the Colony, before the police communicated with them, with the exception of three men, Chan Hang-kiu, Ng Hin-tsz (also called Ng Hin-om), and Nip Kun-man. The first of these went to the Registrar-General and protested that he had taken no part either in the boycott or in the riots, and that he was willing to publish a statement in the local press to that effect. I considered his case in Executive Council on the 1st instant, and the Council unanimously advised that if Chan Hang-kiu published such a statement the banishment warrant issued against him should be cancelled. The statement, copy of which I inclose, was made before the Registrar-General on the 3rd instant, and published in the native press on the 4th and 5th instant. A similar statement, copy of which I also inclose, was voluntarily published in the native press by Yik Chi-kin, a prominent member of the Commerce Investigation Society, as the Boycott organization styles itself.\n\n6. On the 27th ultimo, Ng Hin-tsz and Nip Kun-man forwarded to me, through their solicitor Mr. Otto Kong Sing, the Petitions of which I inclose copies. These Petitions I also considered in Executive Council on the 1st instant when Council advised that, as neither of the petitioners were willing to publish a statement dissociating himself from the boycott, the banishment orders against them should be carried into effect, and that they should be referred to the terms of the banishment order for an explanation of the grounds upon which they were banished. Accordingly, on the same day, Ng Hin-tsz was arrested by the police.\n\n7. On the following day his solicitor gave notice of application for a writ of habeas corpus; and on the evening of the same day the Crown Solicitor intimated to me that, in his opinion, the banishment warrants issued under section 13, of `Ordinance 10, of 1886`, were bad inasmuch as seven days had been named in the orders, in accordance with a decision of the Executive Council on the 23rd ultimo, as the period which the persons banished should leave the Colony, whereas, under section 13, of the Ordinance, the period should have been one of not less than seven days; and that, if the case came for trial before the Chief Justice, Ng Hin-tsz would certainly be released. I referred the point for the considered opinion of the Attorney-General and Crown Solicitor who reported that the warrants were bad and that they could not be amended, In view of their opinion (copy inclosed), I directed that Ng Hin-tsz should be released from custody, and he was accordingly set at liberty on the 3rd instant. I further directed that Nip Kun-man should not be arrested.\n\n8. On the same day the China Association initiated the correspondence, noted in the schedule, of which I inclose copies; and on the 5th instant the Chamber of Commerce joined in the correspondence. I have reason to believe that both the China Association and the Chamber of Commerce feared that the Japanese boycott might, as the result of the action taken by the Government, be converted into a boycott of British trade. I am glad, however, to report that no such movement has taken place.\n\n9. On the 10th instant I reconsidered the whole question in Executive Council, in view of the fact that in all of the cases except three the banishment orders had not been used, and that in the case of one person (Chiu Shiu-pok) additional facts implicating him in the organization and furtherance of the boycott had come to light since the issue of the Banishment Order.\n\nThe Council advised that the Attorney-General should consider the point whether any further steps could be taken, and Mr. Rees Davies, in consultation with the Crown Solicitor and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., who (with Sir H. Berkeley) had been retained to assist the Crown in the event of proceedings subsequent to the Ng Hin Tsz case, reported that he and the gentleman named concurred in the view expressed in his Opinion of the 3rd instant. As the facts referred to as having come to light since the date of the banishment order against Chiu Shiu-pok had occurred before the date of the order, it was evident that no further proceedings in banishment could be taken. Meanwhile I was advised by the Captain Superintendent of Police and the Registrar-General that all intimidation by organized Societies of the kind referred to in your Lordship's telegram had ceased, and that the situation no longer demanded exceptional measures. The boycott of Japanese trade continues, but the Registrar-General reports that there is an appreciable increase in the trade in certain Japanese articles, and the methods of those who still continue the movement are in no way contrary to law. It therefore appeared to me that there was no longer any justification for retaining the Proclamation in force, and I had cause to believe that the exceptional powers which it authorizes were keeping alive the unrest and apprehension among the Chinese merchants which have been noticeable for some time past. I accordingly again considered the matter in Executive Council, with the result stated in paragraph 4 of this despatch, and I inclose a copy of the notice which has now been issued rescinding the Proclamation made under the **Peace Preservation Ordinance**.\n\n10. In conclusion, with reference to paragraph 3 of my Secret despatch of the 12th ultimo, I have the honour to inclose copies of a despatch from the Acting British Consul-General at Canton dated the 14th ultimo, and of a despatch from Sir John Jordan dated the 27th ultimo. I have received no communication from His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkiô, but the Japanese Consul at this port has expressed his dissatisfaction at the failure of the Government to enforce the banishment warrants. I am, however, of opinion that the object which I had in view in issuing these warrants has already been effected; peace and good order have been restored, and all overt acts in promotion of the boycott of Japanese trade have ceased.\n\nIt is manifestly impossible for this or any other civilized Government to compel Chinese residents to sell or to purchase Japanese goods if they do not desire to do so. Mr. Taft, at the time of the American boycott, clearly laid down the limitations beyond which the American Government could not go in its efforts to put an end to that boycott, and the Japanese Government cannot, I think, fail to recognize that this Colony has (perhaps at some risk to British trade, and certainly at the cost of considerable apprehension among the commercial population) acted up to the full extent of those limitations.\n\nI have, &c.\n(Signed) **F. D. LUGARD**", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-360 - Public Offices - 1909.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 513107, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-507-9 Chinese Telegraph Office- Hong Kong- transfer to Cantonese control 4-1-1928 - 20-7-1928", "page_number": 23, "title": "CO129-507-9 Chinese Telegraph Office- Hong Kong- transfer to Cantonese control 4-1-1928 - 20-7-1928", "content_text": "Copies to:-\n\nCanton No.173.\n\nPeking No. 53.\n\nSir,\n\nGOVERNMENT HOUSE,\n\nHONGKONG.\n\n20th July, 1928.\n\n(F. 8203/26.)\n\nCheaney\n\nIn continuation of Sir Cecil Clementi's secret despatch of 4th May, 1926, on the subject of the Chinese Telegraph Office in Hong Kong, and with reference to the proposal in my telegram of (42) 16th June, 1928, approved by you in your telegram (45) of 22nd June, 1928, to accept the substitution of an approved Canton nominee for the Superintendent of the Chinese Telegraph Office in Hong Kong then holding office, I have the honour to enclose for your information a copy of my letter of 27th June, 1928, to the Consul-General, Canton, on the subject.\n\n2.\n\nThe Canton Government instructed Mr. Kong Siu Lou (Chiang Hsiao Lu) to take up his post as Superintendent of the Chinese Telegraph Office, Hong Kong, and Mr. Kong duly reported his arrival on June 29th.\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nLIEUTENANT COLONEL L.C.M.S. AMERY, M.P.,\n\n&c.,\n\n&c.,\n\n&c.\n\nExtension", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-507-9 Chinese Telegraph Office- Hong Kong- transfer to Cantonese control 4-1-1928 - 20-7-1928.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]