[ { "id": 205999, "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-1970", "page_number": 79, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "74\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\naltogether. Further, their settlement there had been \"perfectly voluntary\" and they had all \"enjoyed the profits of their respective callings without contributing a penny to the expenses of the colony\". If any refused to move, they were to be told that they could \"leave the Colony whenever they like.\" The Committee found that there were 112 authorised lot-holders but a further 24 were, in the eyes of the Committee, disqualified by reason of their houses \"being dedicated to disgraceful purposes\" (but who should nevertheless receive $25 compensation).14\n\nNothing was done to put the Committee's proposals into effect and when Davis arrived to succeed Pottinger, it was clearly a matter of urgency, for the Government had pledged to provide an alternative site and to give up the site to the new owners by 22 July 1844. The lot-holders clearly could not be moved until the new site was prepared and, indeed, they showed every intention of sitting tight where they were. Davis directed the work of drawing up an estimate and a contract for the work as quickly as possible. But 22 July approached still without any progress even on this, and Davis directed that the work of levelling proceed without first obtaining an estimate. The work cost $5,956.40 but Major Aldrich of the Royal Engineers certified that the money had been properly spent.15 In view of the high cost of effecting the removal, Davis decided that no monetary compensation at all should be paid and that the 'rent holiday' should only last for four years and not the five suggested by the Committee.\n\nAt the sale on 22 January, the purchasers had been promised possession of their lots by 22 July 1844 but that date arrived with the lot-holders still in situ. Bruce, the Colonial Secretary, therefore, published a Notification on 25 July to the effect that they should remove by 25 August so that possession could be given to the purchasers by 31 August. If they failed to comply with the direction, they would forfeit the materials on the sites now belonging to Crown lessees. The Notification further informed them that the ground for relocation was being marked out for them at Taipingshan and would be cleared for them free of charge, rent due would be remitted and no rent would be payable for a period of four years.16\n\nThe Press was disturbed: the Friend of China commented that \"though legally Her Majesty's representative could claim", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206003, "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-1970", "page_number": 83, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "78\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\n\"See their petition, reprinted in Friend of China, 4 May 1844, and also below, P. \n\n10 The contents of the petition, Pottinger's reply and the lot-holders' rejoinder were all published in the Friend of China, 4 May 1844. \n\n\"I Lo Hsiang-lin, Hong Kong and its External Communications before 1842, (Hong Kong, Institute of Chinese Culture, English translation, 1963) p. 117, maintains that there had long been a settlement in the area of the present Taipingshan, The name is said to have originated from the pacification of the pirate Cheung Po-chai in 1810 who is known to have had a stronghold there. The mountain now known as Victoria Peak was renamed Taipingshan (the Mountain of Peace) and is so known in Chinese today. The Man Mo temple, standing today in Hollywood Road, is said by Lo to have been built by Cheung in the first decade of the 19th Century. There is considerable documentary evidence as to the existence of such a settlement in the early 1840s. \n\n12 Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon to Pottinger, C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 440. 13 Woosnam to Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon, 17 April 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 442. \n\n14 Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon to Bruce, 21 May 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 444. \n\n15 Aldrich to Bruce, 20 July 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 445. \n\n16 Notification dated 25 July 1844. It appeared in the Hong Kong Register on 30 July 1844 and the gist of it was contained in the Friend of China on 3 August 1844. Only in the former, official, version, does the information about the date of possession for the purchasers appear. \n\n17 10 August 1844. \n\n18 Friend of China, 2 October 1844. The site is still occupied by a branch of the present Western Market, \n\n19 Davis to Stanley, (no. 44 of 1844), 26 July 1844 and Stanley to Davis, 3 January 1845; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 438. Under-Secretary Stephen commented on the despatch that, though the expenditure would have to be referred to the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, \"it must, however, ultimately be sanctioned \" \n\n20 Davis to Stanley, 29 October 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 157. The additional expenditure was sanctioned without further comment: Stanley to Davis 1 April 1845; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 161, \n\n21 Inland Lots Nos. 223A, 223B, 223C, 223E, 224, 224A, 224B, 224C, 224E, 225, 226, 226A, 229D, 231A, 233, 233A, 234, 234D, 238B, 239A, 239B, 240A, 241, 242A, 243, 243A, 244, 244B, 245A, 245B, 245C, 245D, 245E, 245F, 245G, 245H, 245I, 246A, 247B, 247C, 248A, 253, 253A, 272. \n\n22 Inland Lots Nos. 213, 224D, 228, 228B, 229, 231, 232, 232A, 232C, 233E, 234B, 234C, 234E, 238, 244A, 252B, 255B, 256B. \n\n23 Inland Lots Nos. 223, 246, 246B, 246C, 247, 247A, 247D, 248B, 248C, 248D, 249C, 252C, 253B, 254, 255D, 255E, 256. \n\n24 Inland Lots Nos. 214, 234A, 223D, 227, 235A, 241A, 246C, 246B, 253B. \n\n25 Inland Lots Nos. 238C, 239C, 240, 241B, 241C, 242B, 245, 250, 255A, 256A,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206055, "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-1970", "page_number": 135, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "130\n\nHENRY D. TALBOT\n\nThe lines of soundings indicate the tracks of ships and we are entitled to assume that, although they were probably not hydrographic survey ships, they are likely to have been annotating their charts to improve the depiction of the coast-line at the same time as plotting the position of the soundings.\n\nMost of the names given are romanized versions of Chinese names, presumably written down by a European sailor from the words spoken by a Chinese person on board. This would explain the b/m confusion in the case of “Botae Island\" (both are bilabials) and the n/l confusion in the case of \"Lammon\" (both are alveolar).5\n\nThe misnaming of \"Peng Chau\" as \"Tay Pak\" and \"Siu Kau Yi\" as \"Sui-pak\" can also be explained if the islands were seen from the east; on having them pointed out to him the Chinese person mistook the places indicated and gave the names of the villages on the coast of Lantao directly behind them.\n\nThe most extraordinary feature of the map is the fact that Hong Kong Island is shown as split in two parts with a waterway apparently running from the present Aldrich Bay (Shau Kei Wan) to Tai Tam Bay. A glance at the topographical and geological maps of the island shows that it is quite impossible that such a waterway could have existed at this time. The only feasible explanation is that at the time the ship was passing north of the island the visibility was so bad that the hills were not visible and that there appeared to be a strait at this place.\n\nThe name \"Fan-Chin-Cheou” is surprising as it does not appear in other sources as a name of Hong Kong Island. The last syllable \"Cheou\" presumably represents the well-known word \"chau\" meaning \"island\", as in \"Cheung Chau\" and \"Peng Chau”. No obvious meaning for the first two syllables is apparent, although it is tempting to suppose that \"Fan\" might mean \"Foreigner\". \"He-Ong-Kong\" is probably a mistaken transcription of \"Heong-Kong\", the equivalent of the modern name.\n\nA close examination of the shape of Lantao on the chart shows that this, too, is very badly distorted, especially on the eastern side. The bays such as Silvermine Bay are completely lacking, while the peninsula north of Chang Cheou Is. (Cheung Chau) is shown as a separate island.\n\nPage 135\n\nPage 136", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206108, "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-1970", "page_number": 188, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n183\n\n24TH MAY, 1969\n\nVISIT TO OLD SHAU KEI WAN\n\nThe programme notes prepared for the visit are reproduced below.\n\nEd.\n\nThis visit is to an area soon to experience redevelopment. Within a few years, extensive reclamation and clearance of squatter structures will transform the district. Dirty and non-descript, nonetheless it has interesting relics and associations that are worthy of attention.\n\nShau Kei Wan, the name means \"Rice Basket Bay\", clearly so named because of its shape, is an old settlement probably dating back to centuries before the British occupation of Hong Kong Island in 1841. Its population was given as 1,200 persons in the first Hong Kong census of May, 1841. Then as now, the population were farmers, shopkeepers, and fishermen, scattered in various settlements round the shores of the bay, named by the British \"Aldrich Bay\" after a military engineer officer who served in Hong Kong in those first years.\n\nShau Kei Wan has for long been known locally as the 'Bay of Hungry Men'. Writing as long ago as 1858, the Rev. W. Lobscheid noted:\n\n\"This village is called by the natives Ngo-yan-wan (the harbour of the starving men). They relate that, about 150 years ago, a few junks were driven into this harbour by a hurricane. The weather continuing very rough for several days, and being in want of provisions, they went on shore in order to purchase some rice and other necessaries. But nothing could be obtained, and the unfortunate men had to leave almost in a starving condition. From that time, they called the place the harbour of the starving men', which appellation it bears up to this moment.\"\n\n[From A Few Notices on the Extent of Chinese Education and the Government Schools of Hong Kong, etc. Hong Kong, Printed at the \"China Mail\" Office, MDCCCLIX p. 38.]\n\nIn another version of the same story, given in a Chinese publication in 1947, the name is ascribed to the fact that Shau Kei Wan was a base for lawless pirates, the \"hungry people\". This account said that because of the geographical advantages", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214750, "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": 165, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "129\n\nnot be ignored by those who follow the steps of experts in military studies; people such as J.A. English and Gudmundsson (1994), Ponting (1995) or van Creveld (1982).\n\nAcknowledgements\n\nThe author wishes to thank Rev. Fr. Anthony Farren SJ for his comments on the draft of this manuscript. The author is also indebted to Rev. Fr. John Coghlan SJ for providing him access to the publications of Ricci Hall, University of Hong Kong. All faults are the author's.\n\nREFERENCES\n\n*Aldrich, Richard J. The Key to the South: Britain, the United States and Thailand during the Approach of the Pacific War, 1929-1942, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993.\n\n*Arbeitskreis für Wehrforschung. Decisive Battles of World War II-The German View, Chinese translation by Star Light Publishing, Taipei 1994. (Chinese publication)\n\nCameron, N. Hong Kong: the Cultural Pearl, Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, 1978.\n\nBell, C.M., “‘Our Most Exposed Outpost': Hong Kong and British Far Eastern Strategy, 1921-1941,” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, Issue I (January, 1996): 61-88.\n\nBlackburn, A.D., \"Hong Kong: December 1941 - July 1942,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 29, 1989, pp.77-93.\n\nBirch, A. and Cole, M. Captive Christmas: the Battle of Hong Kong, December 1941, Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia, 1979.\n\nBruce, P. Second to None: the Story of the Hong Kong Volunteers, Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, 1991.\n\nBruce, P. \"Hong Kong Military History Notes,\" Nos. 1 (May 1985) to 7 (October 1987), unpublished mimeographs.\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214756, "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": 171, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "135\n\nSupplement, 29 January 1948; A Record of the Actions of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps in the Battle of Hong Kong December, 1941 (1953). For the official Hong Kong account of the surrender, see Hong Kong Government (1948).\n\n3 The literature referred to in this section is not exhaustive and focuses on books and reports only. English and Chinese newspapers and periodicals from time to time carry articles on the Battle. Post-war annals of universities, university halls and secondary schools in Hong Kong are also a good source of materials about the Battle. There are also a number of novels on war events,\n\n+ The emphasis is placed on attacking the enemies' \"line of least resistance\" or \"line of least expectation\".\n\n5 As quoted in Ko and Wordie (1996), p.18.\n\n\"They were influenced by the views of Air Chief Sir Robert Brooke-Popham, the British Commander-in-Chief in the Far East.\n\n7 During the initial stage of the Battle, BBC broadcasts (Orwell, 1987) placed high hopes on the availability of Chinese forces in the vicinity of Hong Kong. Such forces were never to come.\n\nLiddell Hart (1999): footnote at 219.\n\n\"Colonel Hewitt is the author of a number of books on the Battle and Japanese occupation of the Colony.\n\n10 The title of the book is a misnomer as the police force obtained the royal title only in the late 1960s.\n\nBlackburn gave an account of the anarchic situation of Hong Kong shortly before the surrender (Blackburn 1989).\n\n12 On 23 October 1937, the Joint Overseas and Home Defence Committee considered re-fortification or demilitarisation of Hong Kong, assuming that it took 90 days for the British fleet to relieve Hong Kong. Rollo (1992): 113. According to Aldrich, the British Chiefs of Staff considered the abandonment of Shanghai and demilitarisation of Hong Kong to avoid confrontation with Japan. Aldrich (1993): 261.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 } ]