[
    {
        "id": 211622,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1989",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "12\n\nHong Kong had been named for the first time as a potential British acquisition only on 11 January 1841.33 Lord Palmerston wrote a letter to the minister of the Emperor of China on 20 February 1840 instructing him that 'the British Government demands that one or more sufficiently large properly situated Islands on the Coast of China, to be fixed upon by the British plenipotentiaries [Admiral G. Elliot and Captain C. Elliot], shall be permanently given up to the British Government'.34 The two Elliots were left to choose the island or islands, and when the Rear-Admiral returned home, the choice was left entirely to Charles Elliot. However the British Government had been expecting the acquisition of the island of Chusan off the northern coast of China. As neither Chusan nor Shachiao were acceptable to the Chinese, Hong Kong was suggested as an alternative. Ch'i-shan wrote to Charles Elliot on 15 January offering him either Hong Kong or Kowloon but not both, and Elliot replied accepting Hong Kong on 16 January 1841. On 15 January James Matheson wrote to his partner that Elliot had arrived in Macao the night before: 'I learn from him very confidentially that Ki Shen has agreed to the British having a possession of their own outside, but objects to ceding Chuenpee; in lieu of which Captain Elliot has proposed Hong Kong'. Consequently there had not been much time for reconnoitre between the suggestion of Hong Kong and the reality of its possession, either on the part of the expeditionary forces or on the part of those members of the merchant community of the Pearl Delta who were conversant with the diplomatic negotiations. James Matheson's curiosity about the island, as evinced by his circumnavigation of it, which was surely not done for show, was matched by that of the Protestant missionaries, eight of whom chartered a lorcha in Macao on 8 February and went to Hong Kong on an exploratory outing.\" Their verdict that 'Hong Kong will, if retained by the British, rise in importance and influence until it becomes the first insular emporium in these Eastern waters'38 could provide a key to later references to the flag-hoisting\n\n36\n\nceremony,\n\nFor although twentieth-century and contemporary historians of Hong Kong have continued in the tradition of downplaying or ignoring the event, there was a period between the late 1870s and the early 1890s when at least two people contended for the honour of having been the person who hoisted the flag on 26 January 1841. That such claims were being made is indicative of the fact that Hong Kong had become a more stable community with a developing sense of identity. The differences between the contenders illustrate the wide-ranging appeal of this honour.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214844,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1999",
        "page_number": 259,
        "title": "RAS-1999",
        "content_text": "226\n\nconcerning the Opium Question and have come to the conclusion that we have no right to date the present eruption to that cause, as we have been insulted, our Trade interfered with, and British subjects have been maltreated long before Opium was mentioned and we have only been too tardy in seeking redress.” Letter of August 21st 1840 from Chusan, from “An Artillery Officer in China, 1840-1842”, Blackwood's, 1964, p. 80.\n\n\"The Cree Journals, The Voyages of Edward H. Cree, Surgeon R.N., as Related in his Private Journals, 1837-1856 Edited and with an Introduction by Michael Levien. (Exeter, Webb & Bower, 1981), p. 117.\n\n12\n\nAs, e.g. in Bingham, op.cit., Vol.I, p. 187: \"Captain Elliot assured the Chinese, by proclamations in their language, that no harm was intended to the peaceable inhabitants by the present expedition; that it was caused by Lin's bad treatment of the English; and that the force would only act against the mandarins, officers, and soldiers of the government.\"\n\n13 Bingham, Vol.II, p.171, and Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium Wars (Hutchinson of London, 1975), p.129.\n\n14 Beeching, p.149. They had done the same in Lower Burma in 1824-26 (George Bruce, The Burma Wars 1824-1886 (London, Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, 1973) pp.33-35.\n\n15 See Michael Howard, George J. Andreopoulos and Mark R. Sheridan (Eds), The Laws of War, Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1994), chapter 6, \"The Age of Napoleon”, in which Gunther Rothenberg wrote (p.97) that \"Professional soldiers were well aware of the laws and customs of war between civilized states, and by and large observed them,” and that despite atrocities and violations, their \"basic existence and validity” were never challenged.\n\n16 The most notable example being the firing of a salute of minute guns by the flagship, HMS Blenheim, when Admiral Kuan's body was recovered by his family after the battle of the Bogue in January 1841: see Bingham, Vol.II, p. 151, and Beeching, p. 128.\n\n18\n\nBeeching, pp. 147, 151. Wyndham Baker in Blackwood's p.79. By way of comment he added, “The",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x",
        "rank": 0
    }
]