[
    {
        "id": 209436,
        "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-1982",
        "page_number": 93,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "71\n\nriot, the Council passed several resolutions. Among them were the following:\n\n(1) That an order be given to the police to bring up the rioters arrested by them, that afternoon if possible, and that the Police Magistrate be requested to deal with them at once,\n\n(2) That the sentences passed on the rioters be placarded\n\nin Taipingshan and the Chinese parts of town, and,\n\n(3) That His Excellency the Major-General Commanding the Forces be requested to send a picket of one hundred men to be available for the assistance of the police, and to remain until the police reported that they were no longer required.2\n\nIt is obvious that the Government felt itself under siege.\n\nIn accordance with the resolutions, twenty-eight rioters were brought before the Magistrate at 4 that afternoon. Of these, eight were immediately found guilty. The sentences were harsh, even by the standards of the day. Six were given 12 months' prison, and two, who were boys of 15, were given six months each. There is little doubt that these sentences were imposed for their deterrent effect.29\n\nThe \"Buffs\" were called out and were given permission by the Committee of the Tung Wah Hospital to be picketed in the Hospital's hall.30\n\nYet, although order was apparently restored, the strike continued, and, indeed, intensified. The cargo boats did not return to work, and rice pounders, coolies, artisans and workmen of all descriptions joined the strike. Rumours that the city would be set on fire at night undermined confidence. Admiral Sir William Dowell even undertook to land a party of men from the Audacious in the event of a fire.31\n\nThe fact that it was the night of the mid-Autumn festival, and that a lantern procession previously planned had to be called off, added to the already tense atmosphere. In the end, a rather low-key procession did take place, without incident.\n\n1",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211624,
        "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": 39,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "14\n\n48\n\nto have been a more junior soldier such as a drill or colour havildar who would have been ordered to hoist the flag. At the moment it is not possible therefore to say whether Mohammed Arab hoisted the Union Jack on Hong Kong or not, but what is undeniable is that by his death in 1878 Hong Kong had prospered and grown in importance to such an extent that he and the wider community in the colony considered that whoever had hoisted the flag that day had done something of interest to posterity. If it had been Mohammed Arab, it would have been a foretaste of the multiracial legacies that colonialism would leave to the island.\n\n49\n\n50\n\nThe other candidate for the honour of hoisting the flag is a far more conventional one. In his guide to Hong Kong of 1893, William Legge wrote: 'In January [1841] . . . the British Ensign was hoisted on Possession Point . . . by midshipman Dowell (now Admiral Sir William Dowell KCB)'. William Montagu Dowell was born on 2 August 1825 and was made a lieutenant in the Royal Navy in 1847, rising to be vice-admiral in 1880 and admiral in 1885. In January 1841 he would have been fifteen, so it is possible that he could have been a midshipman at that date and could have been among the group landing on Hong Kong to hoist the flag. More important than whether Dowell raised the flag or not is the fact that the author wished to associate a famous person with the act. William Dowell had been involved in the Second China War of 1857, he was at Shimoneseki in Japan in 1864 and he returned to the Far East as commander-in-chief of the navy in China between January 1884 and September 1885; his naval career had also included spells at the Cape of Good Hope, on the West coast of Africa and on the Egyptian expedition of 1882. By claiming an admiral and a knight as the perpetrator of the deed, the author may have been expressing a desire that Hong Kong's rise in importance should be seen to be mirroring that of Dowell.\n\n51\n\n52\n\nIt is extraordinary that historians have paid so little attention to the acquisition of Hong Kong and that so little effort has been expended in trying to establish the manner in which Hong Kong came to be possessed by the British, and contemporary reactions to that possession. Such omissions might perhaps have been more understandable had Hong Kong at this stage only been thought of as a temporary possession. But by the 1870s it was clear that Hong Kong had become a permanent and financially successful part of the Empire, and certainly by the twentieth century it could have been expected that there would have been considerable interest in constructing a colonial history. That such a history",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    }
]