[ { "id": 204291, "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-1961", "page_number": 59, "title": "RAS-1961", "content_text": "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch\n\nRASHKB and author\n\nVol. 1 (1961)\n\nISSN 1991-7295\n\n55\n\nlesser degree and the rebinding and repairing which has been done is unskilful in the extreme.\n\nThe City Hall Library flourished in spite of some administrative difficulties and, in the Annual Report for 1880, it was stated that there had been 1917 readers during the year, that subscriptions amounting to $650 had been received from Europeans and $347 from Chinese and that it was 'fairly self supporting'.2 The salary of the Curator was paid by the Government.\n\nThe Library continued to justify its existence and in Twentieth Century Impressions of Hong Kong, published in 1908 it is described as follows:-\n\nThe nucleus of the Public Library was the library received in 1869 from the Morrison Education Society as a free gift for the use of the public, on condition that in consideration of this gift and of the great services of Dr. Morrison to both European and Chinese, the books are to be kept distinct from all other collections in the City Hall, and designated the Morrison Library in perpetuation of the great missionary's memory'. In 1871 the City Hall Library consisted of 8,000 volumes, 3,000 of which were unconditionally presented by the Trustees of the Victoria Library. Since that date it has been added to from time to time, and now contains 3,332 volumes in the Morrison Library, 6,220 including 320 Chinese religious and devotional books, in the City Library, and 3,287 in the lending collection—a total of 12,839 volumes. There are many valuable philological, biographical and other works, including some rare first editions, the department dealing with China and Japan being especially well filled. The Library is freely used, the register bearing the names of nearly 500 borrowers. The visitors to the reading-room, which is well supplied with local, home, and American newspapers and magazines, average about 1,412 non-Chinese and 628 Chinese a month. The library is open from nine to nine.\n\nBut a few years later the usefulness of the Morrison Library to the general public was in doubt and it was thought that it would have more practical value in the newly founded University of Hong Kong. At a meeting of the Senate on 25 September, 1913, the Vice-Chancellor was authorized to approach those concerned as to the feasibility of the University's taking over the Morrison Library. This was agreed to in the following terms: \"Upon the petition of the... Attorney General . . . praying for an Order that the Committee of the City Hall be at liberty to hand over to the University of Hong Kong a collection of books designated the 'Morrison Library' upon conditions IT IS ORDERED that the petition be granted in the terms\n\n2 China Mail, 27 August, 1880.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1961.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/vd6724704", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204379, "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-1962", "page_number": 11, "title": "RAS-1962", "content_text": "Nevertheless the monthly meetings of the Society have been consistently well attended with audiences which often have more than filled this room and have averaged well over one hundred at each meeting. This regularity of attendance proves that there is in the Colony a reliable cross section of the community who appreciate what Professor Drake referred to in his inaugural lecture as the Study of Asia and our heritage.\n\nIn the earlier days of the Society up to 1859 when the Government of the Colony provided a home for the Society and its library it was honoured with the presence on its Council of the Governor, the Commander of the British Forces, the Chief Justice, the Bishop of Victoria, the Colonial Secretary, the Colonial Treasurer and the Attorney General, and it had the active support of the heads of the great merchant houses like Jardine, Matheson and Co. and Dent and Co. Although in these busier days we miss the successors of some of these eminent personages we are still honoured today by the patronage of His Excellency the Governor and the support of leading members of a more cosmopolitan community than in the earlier days. We particularly appreciate the keenness of the Hon. W. C. G. Knowles, who has recently joined the Council, and of the Honourable the Chief Justice whose athletic figure some of us recall striding along the slithery slopes of Lantao on the occasion of our archaeological excursion last year. We hope that this year we may provide a further opportunity for members who do not perhaps know one another as well as it might be desired, to join in a combined social and study expedition either to Lantao or elsewhere in the New Territories.\n\nDuring the year 1961 nine public meetings were held at which unusually interesting lectures were given, most of them illustrated with colour slides-\n\nJanuary 23rd\n\nJames Liu\n\n\"The Knight Errant in Chinese Literature\"\n\n\"Tibet As It Was (1936-1950)”\n\nFebruary 10th\n\nHugh Richardson\n\nApril 10th\n\nMay 13th\n\nMiss Mary Tregear\n\n\"Chinese Paintings in Formosa and America\"\n\nExpedition to Lantao to visit archaeological sites", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205711, "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-1969", "page_number": 17, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF COUNCILS\n\n11\n\nfor nomination by the Governor. The new Council met on 28th February, 1884, and consisted of 6 officials excluding the Governor: the Chief Justice, the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, the Colonial Treasurer, and the Registrar General. There were also 5 unofficials: Mr. T. Jackson (elected by the Chamber of Commerce), Mr. F. D. Sassoon (elected by the Justices of the Peace), Messrs. P. Ryrie, F. B. Johnson and Wong Shing, appointed by the Governor.\n\nThus in 1884 Wong Shing became the second Chinese to serve on the Legislative Council as an unofficial member. He too was a Cantonese from Chung Shan District. In 1841 he entered, with two other Chinese boys, Yung Wing and Wong Foon, the Morrison School in Macao which was later transferred to Hong Kong. In January 1847, Dr. Robbins Brown, an American teacher in the Morrison School, had to leave China on account of ill health. He offered to take a few of his old pupils back to America for further education. Yung Wing, Wong Foon and Wong Shing signified their desire to go and, through Dr. Brown and the Morrison Education Society, expenses for two years for the three boys were arranged. They embarked at Whampoa on the ship \"Huntress\" and proceeded via the Cape of Good Hope, the journey taking more than three months. Upon arrival in the U.S.A. the three boys were admitted to the Monson Academy at Monson, Massachusetts.\n\nAs a result of ill health, Wong Shing did not manage to acquire any academic honours during his sojourn in the United States. On his return to China he was offered an appointment in the Foreign Ministry. He served with Viceroy Li Hung-chang and Marquis Tseng Chi-tze and was a member of the Chinese legation staff in Washington. He resigned later from the Chinese diplomatic service and came to Hong Kong as a merchant. He was also associated with the Anglo-Chinese College and with the London Missionary Society for which he directed its printing establishment under Dr. James Legge. When the Tung Wah Hospital was founded in 1870, he was a founder director. He was naturalized in December 1883 and was appointed to the Legislative Council in February 1884. He was described as a man of property, much-travelled, speaking good English and fully qualified to “look at Chinese affairs with English eyes and at English affairs with Chinese eyes\". His career as a Legislative Councillor was an", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205971, "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": 51, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "46\n\nH. J. LETHBRIDGE\n\nany interpretation that may be going on'.42 On the other hand, the scarcity of cadets in government caused serious problems at the end of the century. No scheme of localisation, except at the clerical level, had been promoted in Hong Kong; and although Government had been forced, as a result of Sir William Robinson's Retrenchment Committee of 1894, to abolish the post of Clerk of the Councils, one Magistrate and the Superintendent of the Jail, and amalgamate the posts of the Colonial Secretary and the Registrar-General, the number of cadets was still far too small for the efficient administration of even a municipality. Alleyne Ireland, after a visit to Hong Kong at the turn of the century, argued that there was a need for more cadets, and reported that 'no one who has spent four months, as I recently did, in the Colony could fail to be impressed, as I was, with the fact that in the service as well as in the junior ranks of the service there are a few men of the highest ability and usefulness, nor could he fail to notice that such men were few and not many'.43 The reports of the Finance Committee for 1901 showed, moreover, that the attendance included an Acting Attorney-General, an Acting Colonial Treasurer, and an Acting Director of Works. The service of the colony, Ireland adduced, 'has suffered greatly from the evil of acting appointments, and a system should be introduced under which it would not be necessary to transfer so many officials from one department to another whenever a senior official goes on leave'.44 He also pointed out the inadequate size of the Government offices, and 'the employment of a large number of junior clerks, Chinese and Portuguese, at salaries little better than those paid to day labourers'. Ireland, however, did not mention that the incorporation of the New Territories had led to a drain of officials from Hong Kong.\n\nA concatenation of these processes of retrenchment, scarcity of cadets, acting appointments, and ill-paid clerical staff led to a major government scandal which brought to an end in 1895 the career of one cadet, N.G. Mitchell-Innes,45 who had joined the service in 1881, and this scandal led not only to a commission of inquiry but a rebuke from the Secretary of State.\n\nMitchell-Innes' troubles began when Alfred Lister was appointed Treasurer in 1888. Lister, who was also Postmaster General, served for the first six months of the year, but was", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206613, "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-1972", "page_number": 161, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "H.K.'S CENTRAL MARKET AND THE TARRANT AFFAIR\n\n155\n\nwhich went into his own pocket. The accusations had, of course, been withdrawn because they were impossible to substantiate but doubts still existed on the expenditure of the money which had undoubtedly been collected—Caine's version was that it had been used to run a voluntary hospital for the women but the Hong Kong Register alleged that a sum of about $500 per month was still being collected. To make matters absolutely plain, the Register reported that Afoon had told them that the Compradore's 'squeeze' was known to the Chinese as \"Caine's rent\" or \"tax.\"20\n\nThe finger was pointing at Caine though it is fair to say that Tarrant, whatever his motives, merely recounted the alleged facts. It was the two newspapers which implicated Caine in the dealings of the two compradores, but it was only Tarrant who found himself arraigned, with Afoon, for conspiring to damage the reputation of Caine. He was committed to trial before the Supreme Court by a bench of Justices. As it happened, the three justices were all Government servants (Campbell, Hillier and C. G. Holdforth) and two of them held to be Caine's protégés. It is probably true that the public was taken aback at this and Tarrant had their sympathy. When his case eventually came before the Supreme Court in October, Tarrant being suspended from duty during this period, the Attorney General moved that the trial be postponed because of the absence of a material witness. Lo Een-teen, Caine's Compradore, had disappeared from the Colony. Tarrant was willing for the trial to proceed but the Chief Justice Hulme ruled that it should be postponed and when it came up again, the Attorney General (now Parker, acting) moved before Campbell, now Acting Chief Justice, that there was no case to answer and did not offer any evidence.21 But, although Tarrant was now a free man, he found himself without a job—during his suspension the Government had combined his post with another. He proceeded to petition the Secretary of State, Earl Grey but he was hampered by lack of evidence.22\n\nIt is at this point that we return to the account of transactions in the Central Market. On 23 November 1847, Hwei's interest in the Central Market ceased when it was sold by the Sheriff to Le Kip-tye, an interpreter in the Government's employ, in execution of a writ of fi. fa.23 in the suit McSwyney v. Hwei Afoon.24 His interest was said to amount to 5/13 of the whole and this must have been his interest under the deed of 28 June of the same year.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206757, "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-1973", "page_number": 34, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "YAUMATEI TYPHOON SHELTER, HONG KONG, \n\n1903-1915* \n\nA. J. S. LACK \n\nThere are many things in the port of Hong Kong which are taken for granted. One example which is quite remarkable in its own right is the typhoon shelter at Yaumatei, Kowloon. This shelter has provided refuge for local craft in any number of typhoons since it was completed; but it is not its present use on which I intend to speak to you today, but rather to give an account of the events which led to its construction as these are to be traced in the records of the proceedings of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong†.\n\nThe story goes back to 1900 when a very severe typhoon caused a great deal of damage in the Colony. Following that storm and in the years 1901 and 1902, many demands were made that the Government should do something to afford greater protection to the boat people in Hong Kong during the typhoon season. There were then none of the sophisticated means whereby the course of a typhoon could be accurately plotted several days before striking the Colony. Indeed the nature of these storms was simply not understood at that time, and in the early days of the century and before typhoons would strike without warning and frequently caused extensive damage and loss of life. There were, however, within the harbour some relatively sheltered anchorages and unreclaimed bays in which the fishing people and the boat population in general could take refuge during storms. But there was only one artificial typhoon shelter at that time. This was a small shelter at Causeway Bay, constructed in 1883.\n\n* An Address given to Kowloon Rotary Club on 26th December, 1972. * Mr. Lack is the Principal Marine Officer in the Marine Department, Hong Kong Government, and has lived and worked in Hong Kong since 1953.\n\n† In 1913 when a new edition of the Laws of Hong Kong was published, the Legislative Council of the Colony consisted of the Governor, the Senior Military Officer, the Colonial Secretary, Attorney General and Treasurer, plus up to three other Official Members and up to six Unofficial Members. The work and proceedings of the Council are set out in Instructions (1888) and Additional Instructions (1896) contained in pp. 14-23 of Vol. 3 of the Alabaster Edition of the Laws of Hong Kong, 1913. An up to date account of the work of the Legislative Council and its senior partner, the Executive Council, is given in Hong Kong 1973, Report for the Year 1972, (H.K. Govt. Press, 1973), pp. 200-201. Ed.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207721, "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-1976", "page_number": 109, "title": "RAS-1976", "content_text": "94\n\nTIN-YUKE CHAR\n\nThe 1876 Reciprocity Treaty with the United States increased the demand for labor. The 1876 biennial report of the Hawaiian Minister of Finance furnished some data of government expenditures for its active assistance in importation of Chinese labor. The expenditures for the aid of immigration during that past fiscal period was $8,850; of which $3,850 was to pay the passages for 154 arriving Chinese laborers and $5,000 was advanced to a firm of rice planters, Chulan and Company, who had 210 Chinese laborers on their way from Hong Kong.\n\n3\n\nLetters of credit were also given to Afong and Achuck and to Luke Asiu to assist passages of 400 laborers to come to Hawaii's sugar plantations. The Hawaiian government expected return of the money advanced by an arrangement with the plantations through payroll deductions.\n\nLabor conditions in Hawaii were strongly influenced by Christian missionary presence in Hawaii. In the 1882 report of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association, it was said that missionaries kept vigilant watch on the treatment of laborers. \"A responsibility rests upon the plantations and the Christian public for the moral and spiritual welfare of the Chinese laborers who are not mere chattels but as human beings possessing rational and immortal souls and having the same natural rights as all others.\n\nThe labor supply problem was one of the concerns that led King Kalakaua to make his historic voyage.\n\nWith the affairs of his Kingdom in good order, King Kalakaua started on his world trip on January 20, 1881, on the City of Sydney which was then northbound from Australia to San Francisco. Accompanying him were Attorney General William Armstrong and the Royal Chamberlain, Colonel Charles H. Judd. Armstrong was commissioned as Minister of State, which would place him in the same rank as the Cabinet Ministers of any sovereign and entitle him to the respect and courtesies due to that rank. He was also made Royal Commissioner of Immigration to look for \"cognate\" sources of labor to solve the problem of a depleted native population. Colonel Judd, also from an American missionary family and an 1849 schoolmate of David Kalakaua at the Royal School, joined the Royal party to advise and guide the King on protocol and etiquette. Robert von Oehlhoffen, former German baron and an...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1976.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/hq382988q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208000, "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-1977", "page_number": 39, "title": "RAS-1977", "content_text": "BRUNEI: A HISTORICAL RELIC\n\n23\n\nSpaniards. She worried about the presence of France in Indochina on the opposite side of the South China Sea at mid-century; and later on she suspected imperial Germany of coveting northern Borneo and the Philippines.\n\nThe British sphere was initiated by the private efforts of an English adventurer, James Brooke, a former officer in the Bengal Army. In 1840, he helped bring an end to an insurrection in the Sarawak River, in the southern-most area under the nominal rule of the Sultan of Brunei, and was rewarded by being granted the province. In 1845 Brooke was appointed diplomatic agent to Brunei and supervised the transfer of the island of Labuan to Britain as a colony and a naval station. He also, in 1847, negotiated a consular treaty with the Sultan which effectively gave to Britain control over Brunei's foreign relations. The colony of Labuan languished but the quasi-protectorate over Brunei served as the de facto and legal base for Britain's sphere of influence in Borneo. Such a sphere was proclaimed in 1868 as a warning to all European nations to keep out.\n\nThe real carving-up of the carcass of Brunei began in earnest in 1878 with the founding of another private venture, that of a syndicate of City of London businessmen which later became the British North Borneo (Chartered) Company. The syndicate was under the control of Dent Brothers Company. Alfred and Edward Dent were sons of the owner of the former Hong Kong firm of Dent and Company. Raja Brooke had annexed, by treaty with the Sultan, additional chunks of territory before 1878. In 1853 he purchased northward to and including the large district of the Rajang River. And in 1861 he purchased the five so-called “sago rivers” as far north as Kidurong Point. When that point was reached, the Governor of Labuan objected to any further northward encroachment of Sarawak and Labuan's wishes were supported by Britain.\n\nWhen, however, the British North Borneo Company purchased the large area of Sabah, the whole of the island of Borneo to the northward of Brunei Town, with strong support from the Foreign Office, both Raja Brooke and the Colonial Office protested. It is interesting to note that the permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office who midwifed the company charter through officialdom in Whitehall was Julian Pauncefote, who was a former attorney-general.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209217, "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-1981", "page_number": 120, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "106\n\nCARL T SMITH\n\nHis trusted allies had turned against him.\n\nIn his communications with the Colonial Office he was strangely silent about the support for the Bill by the Anti Mui Tsai Society and the labour unions. It seemed to be on the opinion that the only views of Chinese to be taken seriously were those of his long-time advisers, and now they were deserting him. One of the Colonial Office administrations minuted a letter from Governor Stubbs:\n\nIt seems to me the advice we have received on the general question of mui tsai has been throughout faulty and incorrect and in certain respects misleading. It seems also the Hong Kong Government does not desire to press the Secretary of State's reform on the Chinese.12\n\nOn December 23, 1922 the Mui Tsai Bill was gazetted, and on December 28 it received its first reading in the Legislative Council as \"An Ordinance to regulate certain forms of domestic service\".\n\nThe Editor of the Daily Press, a strong advocate of abolition, felt the remarks of the Attorney General in introducing the Bill reflected the reluctance of the Hong Kong Government to implement the instructions of the Colonial Office:\n\nThe Attorney General in introducing the Mui Tsai Bill can hardly be said to have shown... fully sympathy with the object of the Bill... The attitude of the local Government to agitation for abolition has been hostile all along,13\n\n13\n\nChinese Chamber of Commerce Meeting – January 1923\n\nThe members of the Protection Society had second thoughts about the approval given by four of their representatives on the joint committee to assist in drafting a bill (three did not sign the agreement). An extraordinary meeting of the Chamber of Commerce was held early in January to air reservations about the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Li Po-kwai (1871-1963), a wealthy property owner, presided. Among the members in attendance the following were named:\n\nThe two Chinese Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr. Chow Shou-son and the Hon. Mr. Ng Hon-tsz\n\nMr. Ho Fook, a former member of the Legislative Council\n\nLo Chueng-shiu, a compradore of Jardines and brother-in-law of Ho Fook\n\nHis son Mr. M. K. Lo (later Sir Man-kam Lo), a solicitor and\n\nPage 120\n\nPage 121", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209401, "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": 58, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "36 \n\nJ. H. HAAN \n\nThe assertion of selfgovernment \n\nIn some Western countries, especially Great Britain, the 19th century was the heyday of progress in parliamentary government. In Britain the 1832 Reform Act had substantially increased the number of voters, as well as redistributed them in favour of commerce and industry; the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act provided for the first time a uniform basis upon which local government was to be run, that is, through councils elected by ratepayers. By later acts (1865, 1884, 1918 and 1928) the parliamentary franchise was gradually widened, till the principle of taxation as a basis for voting rights disappeared. \n\nThe foreigners mainly British and Americans \n\n+ \n\n+ \n\n44 \n\n+ \n\n· \n\n- who came \n\nto Shanghai in the very early years were self-conscious of the fact that they ought to govern themselves, without in any way being subjected to a higher authority like their compatriots in Hong Kong. Although the 1845 Land Regulations provided for this self-government through article XII (about the building of roads and other public works: \"The Consul (i.e. the British consul — JH) will be requested by the various renters to urge the propriety of assembling together and publicly consulting about and contributing towards the necessary expenses incurred therein, .\") and through article XX (about taxation: \"the several contributors will request the Consul to appoint three upright merchants to deliberate upon and determine the amounts to be subscribed by them .\"), it was nevertheless thought advisable by some residents to express very clearly that local government rested upon a consensus of the foreign merchants themselves. The motive for these strong words was the fear of interference from Hong Kong with regard to the right to vote. At a Public Meeting of May 29, 1852, a resolution was moved which in its original form read: \"That this meeting consider the legal opinion of the Attorney General of Hong Kong respecting the qualifications of voters at this Meeting unnecessary, as the action of the body of landrenters is not governed by Law but by mutual agreement\", but after some discussion it was passed in the following form: \"That this meeting consider the action of the body of Landrenters with reference to Roads and Jetties is only governed by mutual agreement\",13", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209407, "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": 64, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "42\n\nJ. H. HAAN\n\nThis limited franchise might be called the first characteristic of the voting structure in Shanghai. The second was the existence of proxy voting, that is voting by people present at a Public Meeting acting as agents of and voting for persons not present.\n\nNeither in the 1845 Land Regulations nor in those of 1854 had any provision for proxy voting been made, yet even before 1854 it was widely used, so we might put the question as to when it was introduced.\n\nThe first time the matter was considered at a Public Meeting was on June 14, 1851, when the problem was raised as \"to whether persons holding special powers of Attorney to deal with the land of parties absent could claim a vote on their behalf at a Public Meeting in addition to their own\" 27 It was then argued that \"such a system... had never been adopted at Public Meetings of this nature at Shanghai\" and consul Alcock was not inclined \"to admit the principle on the present occasion”.\n\nHowever, there were apparently some difficulties of a legal nature involved and Alcock thought it wise to consult the Attorney General at Hong Kong, whose advice was negative. Earlier I have drawn attention to the fact that the merchants at Shanghai were very self-conscious as to their self-government and the resolution against the interference from Hong Kong has already been referred to. At the same Public Meeting of May 25, 1852, it was decided, by resolution no. 2, \"That all holders of Land within the British limits may specially appoint an Attorney to act for them in their absence; and further that one person may act as Attorney for several renters, and be entitled to vote for each proprietor he may be duly empowered to represent\".28\n\nAs from that date proxy voting became the established practice at Shanghai and it was incorporated in article XIX of the 1869 Land Regulations.\n\nThere were evident dangers in this mode of voting. The already rather oligarchical procedure at a Public Meeting might be still more monopolized if a great number of votes were collected by some persons who might then be able to corner the meeting. Moreover, less scrupulous voters might be willing to sell their own vote to the highest bidder. It should be stressed", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209434, "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": 91, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "69\n\nance, where the former French consul at Shanghai, M. Lemaire, on his way to become Resident in Hue, was in residence, waiters refused to serve him. Moreover, the crew of the hotel launch also refused to take him to his ship, and he had to be taken by a government launch instead.1\n\nWhen the strike first became general, there was a consensus in the English newspapers that the fines imposed were the cause. There were doubts as to the legality of the fines, the Daily Press reported,18 and it expressed sympathy for boatmen who had been blackmailed into staging a strike against the French, and then had been fined by the local government for this.19 The strikers themselves protested against the fines. A proclamation posted at Queen's Road by boat people made this clear. It explained that the strike was in consequence of their having been fined by the British authorities for refusing to convey cargo for the French. It went on to implore \"eminent and intelligent gentlemen of your firms [to] be good enough to assist us with the strength of one arm in order that we may not be laughed at by the French.\"20\n\n21\n\nThe Government must also have realized the fatal part the fines played. The Attorney-General himself expressed doubts about their legality. Section XVII of Ordinance 8 of 1858 under which the cargo boats were fined applied only to workers who refused to work unless they were paid more than the stated scale, and not to workers who refused to work at all.22 It is not difficult to see why the Attorney-General should have had doubts.\n\nThe Government, however, chose not to do anything about the fines. At an Executive Council meeting on the 1st October, this issue was discussed, but it resolved not to interfere with the magistrate's decision to fine. The reason given was that, while the strike lasted, the Government should not give the impression that it was yielding to pressure.23\n\nThe English newspapers' attitude to the strike hardened from about this same stage. Withdrawing whatever earlier sympathy it had had for the strikers, the Daily Press suggested on the 3rd that they should be replaced by workers hired from other places even if only to alert the boat people to the possibility that their livelihood was threatened. It sounded the alarm that the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209450, "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": 107, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "85\n\nChinese leaders seemed determined to use this occasion to make their presence felt, though they had already been told in no uncertain terms that the Government did not want this impression to be given.\n\nBefore the strike ended, cargo boatmen and others had been anxious about those rioters who had been arrested and detained. They had not been sentenced on the 3rd because of insufficient evidence against them. They were tried on the 10th. On that day, the court was packed, and significantly, among the crowd was a \"certain past director of the Tung Wah Hospital.\"76 Significant also was Ho Kai's appearance as defence attorney. Some of the men he defended were reported to be unaware of the fact that they were being represented by a barrister.\" Who instructed Ho Kai? One possibility is that Chinese leaders had hired him to defend rioters as part of the deal to induce boatmen and coolies to resume work. Another possibility is that Ho had done so on his own, out of a mixture of the patriotic fervour which he was to demonstrate so freely in his later reformist writings, and self-interest in establishing himself as a Chinese leader. Whatever the case, we see attempts by Chinese to defend Chinese, and reverse what many believed to be patent injustice. And again, we see the possible combination of high principles and material interests within the Chinese leadership.\n\nThe fines were, therefore, repaid and work was resumed. For all practical purposes, the riot was over by the afternoon of the 3rd and the general strike was terminated by the 5th. In quantitative terms, the general strike lasted only five days and the riot a matter of hours. A month and a half later, Governor Bowen summed up the events by saying, \"It is now generally acknowledged on all sides that the riot of October 3rd had little, if any, permanent or political significance.”78 His attitude seems to be shared by historians of Hong Kong, including G. B. Endacott and Lin Yu-lan79 who have not devoted special attention to it in their works.\n\nIronically, the few historians who have focussed upon these events have done so beyond the context of Hong Kong history. Fang Han-ch'i wrote of them in 1957 in terms of an", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209648, "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": 305, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n283\n\nand also complained about a recent ordinance, passed in April, which had prohibited the use of Chinese copper coins as legal tender in Hong Kong, which he claimed was an interference with the new republican government in Guangdong. After he had made this statement, he was committed for trial at the Criminal Sessions two weeks later.\n\nThe case was heard there before the Chief Justice, Sir Rees Davies. Li was charged with firing a revolver with the intent to kill and murder His Excellency the Governor. There was an alternative charge of intent to do the Governor grievous bodily harm. Li promptly pleaded guilty to both charges. The Attorney General briefly outlined the facts of the case, and the statement Li had made in the magistrate's court was repeated. No evidence was offered as to Li's background or his state of mind. In passing sentence, the Chief Justice said: 'You have pleaded guilty to a most dastardly crime. The motives which you put forward at the police court relate to conditions which have no foundation whatsoever in fact, and they do not in the least palliate your crime'. Li was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour.7\n\nMay reported the outcome of the trial to London, enclosing a medical certificate by a prison doctor that Li was of sound mind. He added the suggestion that the prisoner's statement had been mistranslated and that he was complaining about the compulsory repatriation of Chinese labourers from South Africa (Fei Chau) and not about mistreatment of Chinese in Fiji. He concluded: 'It seems quite clear that the attempt upon me was not connected with any political plot. It seems to have been the act of a man who, if not mad, must be of weak intellect'.8\n\nOn the day after the trial, an editorial in the South China Morning Post expressed the hope that this sentence would prove a salutary lesson and deterrent to other criminals. Too much leniency had been shown by the courts, said the editor, and this sentence should put a stop to the recent wave of crime and disorder. Similar views were expressed by the other English-language newspapers. The China Mail thought that the only redeeming feature of the regrettable affair was 'the genuine", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209654, "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": 311, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n289\n\nThe conclusion of the matter is shown in F.O.228, v.654, p.146-152. In a letter to Sir Thomas Wade, written from Hong Kong on 28th Aug. 1880, Byron Brenan describes how he went to Canton \"in obedience to your instructions\", and finding the Governor General would not be available for two weeks owing to a death in the family, argued the case with the Superintendent of Customs. This did not go straightforwardly, and involved Brenan in a trip to Hoihow to obtain the receipts required as evidence that the sums had been paid as claimed. Eventually, however, he was able to obtain payment of $787.12 as the amount of tax in excess of what would have been due under the transit pass system, plus interest of $118.06, being 5% for three years, $905.18 in all. The last paper on the matter is a receipt for the refund, signed by Louis Jüdell, who is mentioned in Mr. Herton's letter to Mr. Keswick, in the capacity of his duly authorized attorney. It also appears from the covering letter of Acting Consul Scott that Mr. Ebell had severed his connection with the firm in August 1879.\n\nThe other letter to Mr. Keswick is less interesting, as it does not lead one into such a long paper chase (albeit on microfilm) through Foreign Office records. Nevertheless, it adds to the picture of problems faced by foreign merchants in China at that time. It reads as follows:\n\nHong Kong 12th March 1879\n\nDear Mr. Keswick,\n\nIn compliance with your request that I should give you a statement of the position of the Transit Pass Question at Pakhoi when I was at that port a month ago I beg to submit the following remarks.\n\nI was informed that a proclamation was to be issued on the day I left the 21st Feb. authorizing the issue of passes for cloth, specifying linen and camlets, but the Commissioner stated that the word cloth would be construed liberally as to", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210210, "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-1984", "page_number": 181, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "160\n\nR.J. MINERS\n\n15 Knutsford to Des Voeux, 12 Dec. 1890 and Des Voeux to Knutsford, 13 April 1891 in Parliamentary Papers 1894 LVII pp. 26-27, nos. 5 and 6.\n\n16 See for example CO129/218 p. 487, letter to the Secretary of State from the National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, 28 March 1884.\n\n17 Ripon to Robinson, 17 March 1893 in Parliamentary Papers 1894 LVII p. 39, no. 13.\n\n18 Robinson to Ripon, 17 June 1893 with enclosures in Parliamentary Papers 1894 LVII pp. 46-52, no. 17.\n\n19 See the tabulated returns for Straits Settlements and Hong Kong in CO129/286 pp. 86-87.\n\n20 See CO882/6 Confidential Print Eastern no. 69 Correspondence regarding the Measures to be Adopted for Checking the Spread of Venereal Disease 1894-1899; Minute by Sir Edward Wingfield at CO129/276 p. 132.\n\n21 J. Chamberlain to Governor Sir H.A. Blake, 11 May 1899 in CO882/6 p. 117.\n\n22 Minute by J. Chamberlain, 25 Jan. 1898 in CO129/276 p. 132.\n\n23 This possibility had been mentioned earlier in an unpublished letter from the Attorney General; see minute in CO129/286 p. 75 dated 18 March 1899.\n\n24 Memorandum by Secretary for Chinese Affairs, 4 June 1923 in CO129/480 pp. 254-259.\n\n25 The following paragraphs are based on the S.C.A. memorandum; a long description by Dr. Wellington, Director of Medical and Sanitary Services, not dated item 5 in CO129/533/10 of 1931; and note by the Chief Justice, J.H. Kemp dated 16 May 1931, item 3 in CO129/533/10.\n\n26 Macfarlane and Aubrey: Journal of the Hong Kong University Medical Society, Vol. 1 April 1922, quoted in CO129/480 p. 260.\n\n27 In CO129/472 pp. 356-382, April 1921.\n\n28 See CO129/474 pp. 338-358; CO129/484, pp. 257-8; CO129/485 pp. 2-18 and 122-6.\n\n29 See CO129/472 pp. 603-5; CO129/475 pp. 326-331; CO129/483 pp. 66-75 and pp. 156-170.\n\n30 Straits Settlements Legislative Council Sessional Papers 1923: Report of the Venereal Diseases Committee, 17 December 1923, pp. C286-327; CO882/11 Confidential Print Eastern no. 147 Correspondence 1923-1925 Relating to Social Hygiene in Singapore.\n\n31 First Report of the Advisory Committee on Social Hygiene, August 1925 Cmd 2501. See also Report of a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to examine and report on Straits Settlements Ordinance no. 15 of 1927, March 1929, Cmd 3294.\n\n32 CO129/522/3.\n\n33 Unpublished memoir by Sir William Peel deposited at Rhodes House, Oxford. House of Commons Debates, 27 June 1930 p. 1500, speech by Dr. D. Shiels.\n\n34 Peel to Passfield, 22 August 1930 in CO129/522/3.\n\n35 Peel to Passfield, 9 June 1931 in CO129/533/10.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210436, "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-1985", "page_number": 43, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "24\n\nCARL T. SMITH\n\nprofessing the Christian religion could be buried and that such sections be consecrated. An area in an isolated part of the cemetery would be designated for the burial of non-Christians. The Ordinance set apart certain Crown Land to be used as a burial ground for persons professing the Christian religion and had its first reading in Legislative Council in November 1909.\n\nThere was some ambiguity between the title and the memorandum which accompanied the proposed bill. One spoke of the Colonial Cemetery, the other of the Protestant Cemetery. The original draft of the bill also excluded the burial of Roman Catholics. The Attorney General explained that they had been excluded because \"The Church of Rome had been in possession for years of a portion of the English Cemetery.\" A separate piece of ground under the administration of the Catholic Church was immediately to the north of the Colonial Cemetery.\n\nAs an explanation for the introduction of the Bill, the Governor told the Council, “I think everybody is aware of the fact that there has been a good deal of discussion at the Sanitary Board and elsewhere on the subject of Chinese interment in the Colonial Cemetery. The Colonial Cemetery, so far as I can ascertain from a study of the archives, has always been open to any person irrespective of race or creed. It has now been desired that there should be a certain portion set aside for Christian interment. The Bishop presented to me a joint request from the representatives of the Church of England and various denominations of the Colony that a portion of the Colonial Cemetery should be dedicated for Christian burial”. A member of the Council asked if Christians other than Protestants would be excluded, such as Nestorian and Armenian Christians. The Governor replied that this was an ecclesiastical problem which should be left to the ecclesiastical authorities. At a subsequent meeting of the Legislative Council the Governor stated that he had been approached privately regarding the situation of Roman Catholic who were Freemasons and who were not allowed to be buried in the Roman Catholic Cemetery. He consulted the Anglican Bishop who assured him there would be no difficulties regarding their burial in the proposed consecrated section of the cemetery. A question was asked if in the separation of sections", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210685, "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-1986", "page_number": 36, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "19\n\nHis admission was moved by the Attorney General, Julian Pauncefote, before the Chief Justice, J.J. Smale, who in addressing Francis said \"As you have not been in England I may as well tell you that, though in this court you attain to rights and privileges equal to those enjoyed at home, you will hold yourself bound by all the practices of the court and look upon it as your first duty to aid in the administration of justice, subject to which is your other great duty of protecting your client in every way. From what I have seen of you I have no doubt your career will be a prosperous one”. Smale also observed that a good feeling prevailed among the attorneys of Hong Kong and that they did not seek to take advantage of each other. Gaskell's death no doubt worked both ways for Francis who appears to have practised from the same office. One of his first clients was John D. MacDonald, the executor of Robert Henry Grant, a clerk in the Naval Yard. Francis advertised the fact for so long in the Gazette that I suspect it was a way of advertising that he was in practice. According to the Hong Kong Telegraph Francis soon came to the front as a solicitor and built up a remunerative practice. He brought out from England M.J.D. Stephens to act as his managing clerk. Stephens was admitted to practise in 1874. He also had working for him H.L. Dennys who was admitted in 1874, clerks called Smithers and Guttierrez and an interpreter called Mun Choy. The Chinese name for his firm was Fa Lan Shea Shi Chong Sz. In 1873 Francis decided to give up practice as a solicitor and study to be called to the Bar. He sold his practice to Stephens and in December 1873 had himself taken off the Roll. It was no doubt a courageous thing for him to do, but he had an example in the person of E.H. Pollard who was admitted as a Solicitor in 1850 and as a barrister in 1859 and elected to act as a barrister only in 1865 (in conformity with Ordinance No. 13 of 1862). No doubt also he was able to weigh the likely competition with a fair degree of accuracy; and the hazards to health in Hong Kong ensured that only the fittest survived the pressures of work.\n\nIn January 1874 Francis was admitted as a student of Gray's Inn. His witnesses were Wellington Cowper of the Inner Temple and C.W. Bardswell of Lincoln's Inn. He gave his addresses as 27, Belsize Park Gardens, South Hampstead and 14, Serle Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and described himself as late of Victoria in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210686, "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-1986", "page_number": 37, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "20\n\nWALTER GREENWOOD\n\nthe British Colony of Hong Kong. He matriculated at London University in 1875, and in 1876 he passed the Intermediate Examination in Laws obtaining first place of those candidates who achieved second class at honours. Also in 1876 he won the Lee Essay Prize at Gray's Inn, the subject being \"The Judicature Act 1873, stating its object and provisions generally and its probable effect on the administration of the law in England”. He was called to the Bar in November 1876. I have no information as to how he otherwise spent his time during 1874-6. The last glimpse of him in England I know of is an entry in Foster's Men at the Bar 2nd ed. 1885 in which his addresses are given as Hong Kong and the Junior Conservative Club.\n\nFrancis was admitted to practise at the Hong Kong Bar in March 1877, being the 27th on the Roll and the first barrister of Gray's Inn to be so admitted. His admission was moved by the Attorney General George Phillippo before Smale who was still Chief Justice. Phillippo said that his call certificate had been filed and an affidavit of identity sworn before Mr. Justice Huddleston was before the Court. However Huddleston had not given any indication of his office and the question was raised whether it was in order to receive the affidavit. Phillippo said that Francis was well known in Hong Kong and Smale said that he was prepared to act on his personal knowledge of him. Just to resolve any remaining doubts there might be it was noted that the affidavit was dated from “Judge's Chambers\" and that was deemed sufficient. Perhaps Francis heaved a sigh of relief. It would have been somewhat tedious for him to have to return to England to obtain a further and better affidavit of identity. E.J. Eitel in his book Europe in China wrote \"the admission to the Bar of Mr. Francis added new zest to the local displays of forensic eloquence”. Shortly after his own admission Francis signed an affidavit in support of the application of Ng Choy the first Chinese to be admitted to practise in Hong Kong. I like to think that it was an indication of his sympathy towards the Chinese.\n\nIn 1877 the leading practitioner at the Bar in Hong Kong was T.C. Hayllar who was admitted to practise in 1868 and at first Francis practised in his shadow. Another obstacle to getting work was that at that time the Attorney General was allowed to engage", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210687, "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-1986", "page_number": 38, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "21\n\nin private practice. However he quickly became established and when Hayllar left Hong Kong in 1882 he was ready to step into his shoes. The Hong Kong Telegraph in its obituary observed “In the early part of his career he had an uphill fight but his eloquence and thorough grasp of the law quickly placed him in the leading ranks of the Bar and after the retirement of Hayllar he had no rival. No important case could come before the court without Francis being retained\". The China Mail said “As a lawyer he had limitations but they were due to lack of early legal training rather than lack of ability. He had a ready grasp of the main points of a case and was unequalled as a reader of character, particularly Chinese character, and an expert cross-examiner\". The speed with which he prospered may be judged from the fact that he took silk in 1886, being only the third member of the Hong Kong Bar to do so. In his letter to the Colonial Secretary requesting the Governor to recommend him to the Secretary of State for appointment Francis wrote \"His Excellency is well aware that this is an honour which according to the recognised custom and etiquette of the profession is always asked for and when properly applied for is seldom refused”. The Chief Justice (now Phillippo) wrote \"Mr. Francis is fully deserving the honour he seeks. On the retirement of Mr. Hayllar Q.C. he obtained the position of leading counsel at the Bar in conjunction with the Attorney General. In nearly every case he holds a brief on one side or the other, and as leading counsel when more than one counsel is employed”. Governor Bowen wrote \"he has risen into leading and lucrative practice at the local Bar where he is making, as I am informed, some £4,000 annually. I have no hesitation in recommending that his application be granted\". The newspaper reports of cases bear out the above observations. Only towards the end of his life when his health began to fail did anyone else challenge his supremacy. He died before the start of the Hong Kong Law Reports but one of his cases is reprinted from a newspaper: Tang Kai Shang v. Ng Pak To H.K.L.R. Vol. 6 for 1911 p.90.\n\nReading the newspaper reports of his cases Francis comes across as a forceful, and often pugnacious and outspoken, advocate who took every possible point for his clients and never gave up. He had many clashes with the bench, other counsel and witnesses. He admitted that he was \"at all times very hot tempered\" and more than once apologised for “the unjustifiable warmth” of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210690, "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-1986", "page_number": 41, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "24 \n\nWALTER GREENWOOD \n\nHe was himself once a party when he made a complaint against one Wong Ayow who he found cutting grass in his garden. The defendant said he supplied milk to Francis and thought he could take the grass. However he was convicted and fined twenty-five cents. His views about the organisation of the legal profession appear from a letter he wrote to the Daily Press in 1878 in reply to an editorial critical of barristers' fees. Hong Kong originally had a single profession but later adopted a divided one and he wrote \"Now as everybody knows barristers are paid as a rule at a higher rate than attorneys and properly so, as they profess to give and as a rule do give a higher quality of advice and advocacy. Mind, I do not say that all barristers are better advisers and advocates than any attorney. There are attorneys who as advisers and advocates are more skilful and experienced than many barristers. The fact is there ought not to exist in a colony like this a division between the two branches of the profession. It was so here once and ought to be again. The retrograde step was taken through the efforts of a clique as most things are done here”. In 1892 he expressed opposition to making the Attorney General a full time salaried official, saying that there would be a loss of independence and that “no amount of study, no amount of theory will make a lawyer. Nothing but the actual work of the Courts will enable a man to conduct cases. \n\nFrancis held a number of acting judicial appointments from 1878 to 1880. Because of long absences of officials on leave, or through illness, it was necessary to have a system of acting appointments and from time to time civilians were used. His first appointment was as Police Magistrate in September 1878. The reports of his cases indicate that he was positive and in charge of the proceedings but inclined to be impatient. There was a letter of complaint to the press about him for telling a defendant to stop making signs to witnesses and disbelieving him when he said he had St. Vitus's dance. Another letter urged that non-legally qualified magistrates be brought back. However when he sat again as a magistrate in 1880 his sentences were compared favourably with those of Ng Choy who was more lenient, and there was complaint of the termination of his appointment. In April 1879 he was appointed Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court (stigmatised by The Times of 1863 as the greatest nuisance in the East) and in February 1880 he presided over the Criminal Sessions. In one case he sentenced...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210691, "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-1986", "page_number": 42, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "25\n\ntenced two soldiers to seven years penal servitude for robbing a man of ten dollars. However in a report to the Governor (Hennessy) he wrote \"if after the circumstances shall be forgotten, say a year after the Regiment shall have left the Colony, you should think it fit to remit any portion of the sentence it might be done”. In another case of robbery in which two defendants were convicted by a majority of the jury of four to three he wrote “I know the Chief Justice has expressed dissatisfaction at verdicts by majorities but the judges have found themselves bound to accept them as conclusive and the practice has been to act on such verdicts. I felt myself obliged to follow such precedents\". He recommended that they be pardoned because a co-defendant who pleaded guilty asserted that they were innocent. In September 1881 the Governor discharged them, and the two soldiers, from prison and was abused by the press for his \"capricious leniency”. (In 1894 an Ordinance provided that a majority of five to two was required in criminal cases). When criticised for hearing proceedings in camera he said \"I mean as long as I sit on this bench to continue to exercise the discretion vested in me by law to hear a case in camera when the ends of justice appear to me to require it, in entire disregard of all obloquy to which it may expose me”. When he ceased to act as Puisne Judge the Chief Justice wrote to the Governor to say that he entirely agreed with the Daily Press that Francis had earned for himself a high reputation for ability and clear-headedness. In addition he was appointed to the Commission of the Peace in 1878, and a member of the Commission to Revise the Laws and Ordinances of Hong Kong in 1887. He was also an examiner of candidates for admission as attorneys both when he was a solicitor and after his call to the Bar. He was never appointed acting Attorney General or Chief Justice, which appointments carried a seat in the Legislative Council (the latter until 1889) and that according to his obituary in the China Mail was a matter of regret to him. The system of acting appointments could have disadvantages as Francis pointed out. In 1885 there was a rumour that the Puisne Judge was going on leave for twelve months and that E.J. Ackroyd the Registrar of the Supreme Court would be appointed to act in his place. Francis wrote to the government expressing the view that officers of the Supreme Court should not be appointed to the bench and that the Registrar was a far more important official than the Puisne Judge. He pointed out that Ackroyd had been", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210693, "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-1986", "page_number": 44, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "27\n\nsaid that no man loved Ireland more dearly, and there was no warmer heart in Ireland than his. He asked why Irishmen loved their country more than the English, who were daily getting more cosmopolitan, and the Scots who were daily getting more English, loved theirs. He suggested that the reason was that the Irish were a little less selfish and a little more generous, and gave preference to strangers over their own. They loved Ireland as their mother because over the last thousand years they had suffered and laboured much. That had made them patient, enduring, witty, generous, self-reliant, hospitable, brave and reckless. They had great learning to be proud of. Before St. Patrick came, and their Saxon friends were still going about painted, Ireland had laws and a recognised society. St. Patrick had little to do but introduce the spirit of Christianity. Irish immigrants were the backbone of countries where they lived and had succeeded everywhere. One fault that the Irish were gravely charged with was that they drank too much and were too fond of whiskey. He exhorted all present to resolve not to bring discredit on their country by excessive drinking, and to give up drink for six months to help the Duchess of Marlborough's Famine Relief Fund. After that he recited a poem entitled “Dear Ireland\".\n\nAs to Queen Victoria, in 1893 speaking at a meeting of the General Chamber of Commerce called to discuss the coining of a British dollar, he expressed opposition to anything bearing the Queen's head being made in a foreign country. At a meeting of the judiciary and legal profession in 1901 to pay respects to her memory he began his speech, which was twice as long as those of the Chief Justice and Attorney General combined, by describing himself as \"the senior member and actual, although not official, leader of the local Bar, and the solitary representative among the higher members of the profession of the Irish race and Roman Catholic community.\" He said “Loyalty to the throne is a duty most strenuously enforced on every member of the Catholic Church. The personal loyalty of Irishmen to the sovereign has always been conspicuous, the few contemptible exceptions only making the loyalty of the vast majority the more conspicuous\".\n\nHe was a public person, interested in most things that went on and ever ready to express his view about them. His talent for oratory ensured that his views were often heard. He was connected with many societies and clubs and because of his legal training was much in demand to sit in committees. He was ambitious and a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210702, "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-1986", "page_number": 53, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "36\n\nWALTER GREENWOOD\n\nmember, being re-elected in 1891 and 1894, until his resignation in 1895. It was a substantial commitment, involving fortnightly meetings and reading papers in-between meetings. Considerations of space allow reference only to certain events in 1894 and 1895 for which Francis is best known. Suffice it to say that he appeared to try to dominate the proceedings of the Board but at the same time had an ambivalent attitude to it because he considered that it did not have sufficient powers and independence to make it an effective body. For example, in March 1894 he seconded a proposal that it be reconstructed on a popular basis but also argued that that was premature until its powers had been enlarged. Prior to the election in June 1891 the Daily Press said that he had rendered good service and that his keen and ever-ready criticism, sometimes perhaps degenerating into captiousness, had exercised a wholesome influence both on the Board and its officers. The China Mail in its obituary said that he was not an unqualified success and his performance as a member of the Board might have deprived him of support for a place on the Legislative Council.\n\nIn May 1894 plague struck Hong Kong, and a Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board, comprising three members with Francis as Chairman, was set up to cope with the emergency. It met daily at his chambers at 4 p.m. Its actions were not universally popular. It was in conflict with the Government on occasion, and at one stage was said to be daggers drawn with the Governor. The business community complained that its activities had an adverse effect on commerce, and its relations with the Chinese community were not assisted by wild rumours such as that pregnant women were cut open and children's eyes were gouged out to make medicines for the treatment of the plague. There were recriminations as to whose fault had led to the outbreak and whether the right steps were taken to combat it. Francis bluntly laid the blame on gross mismanagement by the Public Works Department. Whatever the rights and wrongs of particular matters, there were many tributes to his work. The Governor in a dispatch to the Secretary of State, Lord Ripon, in June said that the Permanent Committee acted with extraordinary energy and efficiency and that the Government was indebted to him and others. The acting Attorney General paid tribute to his great assistance, at enormous sacrifice of time, and his wonderful and rapid grasp of any subject and great", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210877, "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-1986", "page_number": 228, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "211\n\nsome 500 interested people and twice as many had been turned away for lack of room.\n\nIt was time to act. After an impromptu huddle of the dignitaries on the platform during a momentary lull in the proceedings, Mr. Poore announced that a second meeting would be held in a larger building at which the two Chinese would be designated for their work. Mr. Poore later observed that he had been careful not to alarm the Episcopalians with any suggestion of an act implying ordination to a particular ecclesiastical office. He used the term Scripture reader or lay agent to refer to the two young men.\n\nThere were some sour notes struck in the general community. One newspaper sneered at attempts to convert Chinese. Another tried to discredit the qualifications of the young men. In reporting these matters, Mr. Poore noted that the criticisms backfired. They attracted the attention of the community to the meeting and provoked curiosity and interest.\n\nThe Attorney General volunteered to be the main speaker. In his address he reassured his hearers that he had examined and cross-examined the candidates. For Mr. Poore there could have been no better confirmation of his efforts: \"It was a triumphant vindication, and, coming from such a quarter, admitted of no cavil.\"\n\nTo top it all, the committee had been able to secure the services of a missionary from China to accompany and supervise the newly appointed Scripture readers. Mr. Young, the missionary, had been stationed at Amoy. He was able to talk with the Hokien-speaking Chinese and the two young men with the Cantonese.\n\nThe team was sent off to the goldfields at Castlemaine. Here the Christian community had just built the first church in the town. After the arrival of the Rev. Mr. Young and the two Scripture readers, a meeting was held. Mr. Poore, who was present, reported: \"Meeting admirable, speeches good, great pressure of people, many could not get in... The whole Christian community seems to be pervaded with a tender concern for their salvation.”", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211174, "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-1987", "page_number": 235, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "210\n\nloving wife, as a devoted mother, and as an excellent grandmother to her children's children.\n\nHer Majesty's life was a model for all, for \"in her private life she has been almost irreproachable and her conduct has been such as to draw forth the admiration of nearly the whole world (applause).\"\n\nThe meeting began with sentiments no loyal son of the Empire could deny. After the chairman's stirring tribute there was no doubt that the meeting would be of one mind on the resolution he proposed: “That the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen should be celebrated by her loyal subjects in Hongkong.”\n\nAbout halfway through the meeting the Acting Attorney-General, Mr. E. J. Ackroyd, again expounded patriotic reasons for the proposed celebrations. He extended the sentiments expressed in the chairman's introductory speech.\n\nThough he had arisen to second a resolution made by Mr. Chater that the permanent memorial in Hongkong to the celebration be in the form of a park in the Wongneichong Valley, he seized the occasion for a bit of oratory which was only indirectly related to the resolution.\n\nHe began: \"This is a special occasion which ought to call forth the loyal sentiments of all Her Majesty's subjects, for on June 20 next we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the throne of the British Empire.\"\n\nIt was an occasion for reflection on the achievements of a glorious half century of Britain's history: \"If we look back on the years that have passed since that event, I think we must do so with feelings of great pride in view of the immense progress made on all sides during this period.\"\n\nThe speaker then enumerated various areas in which progress was particularly notable: \"If we consider the expansion of the empire itself, we shall find it has been wonderful, both as regards the extent of territory and of population. During these years trade", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211186, "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-1987", "page_number": 247, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "222\n\nerect bridges at the crossing of the brook, for these purposes the surplus funds of the meeting will probably suffice.”\n\nFrom the beginning Hongkong races were a paying proposition.\n\nSome forty years later at the time of the Queen's Jubilee there seemed an excellent chance that again marked improvements would take place in the Valley, enhancing the setting for the annual race meeting.\n\nFailure to take into account the interests of the whole community, particularly the Chinese, however, defeated the effort.\n\nWHY THE CHINESE OPPOSED VICTORIA PARK\n\nWhen Mr. Chater rose at a public meeting in March 1887, to propose that as a permanent memorial of the Queen's Golden Jubilee a park be formed at Happy Valley, he spoke confidently of its advantages. Nonetheless, he may have had some qualms about its popularity as it had already provoked strong opposition since he first mentioned it at a Legislative Council meeting in February.\n\nIn affirming his confidence in the proposal, he said: “I feel sure if this park be carried out and completed it will be a source of great pleasure to the European community of Hongkong; it will be a very agreeable drive and a pleasant lounge in the afternoon.”\n\nUnfortunately those of the community who owned horses or carriages for a drive or had the leisure to \"lounge\" in the afternoon were a small proportion of the total population. These were activities seldom indulged in by the Chinese.\n\nMr. Chater admitted they might not view the project in the same way as Europeans. But in justification he said: “I am equally sure the Chinese community will also approve of and appreciate it in the course of time.”\n\nFollowing Mr. Chater's remarks on his resolution and the seconding speech by the acting Attorney General, Dr. Ho Kai rose to speak. His views may be regarded as those of the Chinese community.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211354, "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-1988", "page_number": 70, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "46\n\nwithout being confronted at every turn by Acts of Parliament, and systems of espionage, that seem especially designed to restrict individual enterprise and frustrate industrial endeavour.\n\nLetter of 1900 - Hong Kong Telegraph\n\n▬▬\n\nThe effects of this \"freedom\" of the individual to sell his labour but occasionally pricked the conscience of the Hong Kong resident only occasionally. A letter writer using the pen-name \"Balthasar\" observed in the Hong Kong Telegraph, 18 May 1900, that,\n\nAmong the labourers carrying bricks and lime up the Glenealy may be noticed several children whose physique is quite unequal to the toil. These poor young children gasp under their burden. One of them, on being spoken to, answered that his father had died of plague, and if he worked not had no rice. He was thirteen years of age, and yet carried two baskets of lime, usually borne by adults, and which he had to lay down several times along the way.\n\nAfter describing these conditions, the writer asked, \"Is there no law in Hong Kong to regulate the employment of minors?\" The answer, as he well knew, was \"No\".\n\nIt was not that there was no money in Hong Kong for charitable purposes. He reminded the community that a Colony \"that can exceed all expectations in its contribution to the War Fund [the Boer War] may well look to the relief of its own stricken poor\".\n\nBowley's Articles on \"The Children's Charter\"\n\nMr. Francis Bulmer Lyon Bowley, a solicitor practising in Hong Kong since 1893, published a series of articles in a Hong Kong newspaper in 1911 on \"The Children's Charter\", that is, the British Children's Act of 1908. He contrasted its provisions with the situation in Hong Kong. The Attorney General took the matter up and two provisions were subsequently introduced into the laws of the Colony.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211374, "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-1988", "page_number": 90, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "66\n\nthe Legislative Council.\n\nThe Attorney General introduced the Bill on 21 September 1922. He sounded a cautionary warning, saying that while action was needed, we must attack a problem of this kind very carefully and slowly”, because too much interference with the existing system would cause great hardship.\n\n1\n\nAt the second reading of the bill a week later the Governor stated that the Commission on Child Labour recognised it was inevitable that the regulations on the labour of children would impose hardship on the lowest economic group in Hong Kong, but this was the lesser of two evils, for if nothing were done the harm done to children would continue. He hoped that a general improvement in industry in Hong Kong would assist in alleviating any hardship caused by the new legislation; he noted that already adults were receiving higher wages.\n\nHe assured the Legislature that the Government was committed to expanding educational facilities and was investigating provision of better accommodation for the poor, thus cutting down their housing costs.\n\nHe particularly acknowledged the contribution of Miss Pitts and the Rev. Wells to the Commission's Report. He expected that the passing of the Ordinance would put a seal, as it were, on their work here in connection with the Chinese”.\n\nHe viewed the Bill as the beginning of a proper recognition of the *rights of both women and children in the industrial life of the Colony which has so long been considered desirable but which has not hitherto been very noticeable”.\n\nSeveral Unofficial Members spoke. The Senior Chinese member, the Honourable Mr. Chow Shouson spoke first. He said that he and his Chinese colleagues were in sympathy with the Bill, nevertheless they felt it should be noted that in their opinion if the Bill were passed as it then stood some poor families would be deprived of a part of other earning power. There was the possibility of an increase in juvenile criminals if children, who had formerly been working, were allowed to run wild in the streets.\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211689, "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": 104, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "79\n\nCommandant of the near-by Gendarmerie post promised us protection, he took no steps to implement his promise, and we had a number of invasions from parties of Japanese soldiers, on and off duty, sometimes searching for arms, sometimes frankly looting watches, jewellery and other small valuables. My wife had a polite but firm way of dealing with these intruders, and in the end they got nothing from us but some cigarettes.\n\nOn January 3rd Mr. Gimson (the Colonial Secretary) and Mr. Alabaster (the Attorney-General) came up the hill to find out what had happened to us. They told me that they had spoken to Mr. Yano (who had come back to Hongkong temporarily as Consul-General) and the Gendarmerie people about us and the other Embassy and Consular personnel who were in Hongkong (Mr. and Mrs. Martin, Mr. and Mrs. Rich, Evans, Herrett and Miss Howkins) and we were to be given special consideration. This was comforting but in the event did not mean very much as there was the usual confusion between the different Japanese authorities, none of whom seemed to pay the slightest attention to the others.\n\nThen on January 5th notices were posted up in different places instructing all enemy aliens to report at the Murray Parade Ground between 10 a.m. and noon for internment. The notice said they could take what luggage they could carry in their hands and that they must leave the rest of their property in charge of some responsible person. This notice only came to our knowledge on the Peak at 9 a.m. People didn't know what on earth to do. If they started off immediately, walking down the Peak, they could get to the Murray Parade Ground in time. But there were old people, babies and invalids. Most people thought it would be dangerous to disobey a peremptory order like that, and they struggled down the hill as best they could, taking a suitcase or pushing a pram and abandoning everything else to the looters.\n\nFor my wife and myself there was no problem as we couldn't walk, so we decided to stay and hope for the best, and a good number of others followed our example. As it happened, things turned out all right, as Sir Arthur Macgregor called later in the day to say that he had arranged with the Gendarmerie that the people still on the Peak might remain temporarily but must be ready to move at a minute's notice. However, the Police post had gone, we were in difficulties about food and water (we had eaten the last crust of three-weeks-old bread that morning), and we had had an unpleasant visit from a party of Japanese soldiers at 2 a.m. We were completely alone in the flat, other flats in the building had already been looted, and generally the situation was unpromising. So we asked Sir Atholl to try", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211702, "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": 117, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "92\n\nrecent concession) to the limited extent of replying to a message which must originate with a neutral. No communication with the various prisoners-of-war camps or hospitals in other parts of Hongkong was permitted, so that wives in the camp could neither send messages to, nor receive them from, their prisoner-of-war husbands. Some were unable to find out whether their husbands were prisoners or not. This seems a quite unnecessary cruelty.\n\nDr. Selwyn-Clarke. I have made a passing reference to Dr. Selwyn-Clarke (Director of Medical Services in the Hongkong Government), but he deserves more than that. The Japanese found it worth their while to allow him and his wife and a small group of British relief workers under him to remain outside the camp and they were primarily engaged on relief work in the Colony. But he had secured the confidence of the Japanese Military Authorities and was allowed to visit the camp frequently on the strict understanding that he gave no news and discussed nothing but medical and relief matters. He visited the camp once or twice a week, talked to the doctors and the Welfare Committee's representative, found out what wanted doing and then in Hongkong tried to get it done. Everyone in the camp knew that almost all the improvements in diet and other matters were the result of untiring efforts on his part, but not so many knew that he had been equally untiring in his efforts to relieve distress among the Chinese population of Hongkong whose plight was immeasurably worse than anything the Stanley internees had to endure.\n\nL\n\nCamp management, discipline, etc. When the camp was first opened, the Japanese put in a number of English-speaking Chinese as block supervisors. Their duties were never clearly defined, but they formed the only channel of communication between the Japanese and the internees. Then the internees elected Communal Councils (one for each of the three communities British, American and Dutch) and these Councils, working in cooperation, ran the camp and were recognised by the Japanese as the spokesmen of their national groups. Later a Japanese Superintendent was appointed (Mr. Nakazawa). He lived in a separate house in the camp and had two or three Japanese satellites. About the same time Mr. Gimson (Colonial Secretary) and Mr. Alabaster (Attorney General), who had hitherto been allowed to remain outside and to act as liaison officers with the Japanese, came into the camp. This brought to a head a conflict which had been going on subterraneously between the Hongkong Government officials and the rest of the community. For reasons which I need not go into here, the community", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213440, "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-1995", "page_number": 36, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "The terms of the Order-in-Council were echoed and further implemented in the New Territories (Exemption from Laws) Ordinance, 1899 (No 6 of 1899). The position, therefore, as regards proceedings other than land cases is that such of the laws of England as existed when the Colony obtained a local legislature, that is to say, on 5th April 1843 are the governing laws subject to two provisions,\n\nFirstly \"except so far as the said laws are inapplicable to the local circumstances of the Colony or its inhabitants;” Secondly \"and except so far as they have been modified by laws passed by the said legislative.”\n\nThe first provision has always been construed to let in Chinese customary law when a necessity arises of preventing injustice or oppression. The passages already quoted from the Secretary of State's despatch and from the Governor's proclamation bear out that construction in regard to the application of section 5 of the Supreme Court Ordinance to the New Territories.\n\nAs to the date for the recognition of customary law to be applied in such cases, opinions differ. One opinion is to be found appended to the Report of the Committee appointed in 1948. The choice there offered is between custom existing in 1841, when Captain Elliot took over Hongkong, that existing in 1898, when the New Territories were leased to the United Kingdom, or that existing in 1905, when the New Territories Land Ordinance, 1905, was enacted. The anonymous author of that opinion inclined to select the latter year, but the Committee expressed no opinion on the matter. The New Territories Administration, on the other hand, has interpreted “Chinese Law and custom” to mean the law and custom of Manchu China as it existed on April 20th, 1899. For reasons given in my previous article, it is submitted that as in the Colony of Hongkong, so in the New Territories, a court should apply the Chinese customary law existing at the time that court is called upon to determine any issue. Particular support can be found for that submission in respect of the New Territories in the opinion of the Attorney General in 1898 that it was \"hardly necessary...to enter into the question as to whether any and, if so, which of the laws of England in force on 5th April, 1843... should be specially included in an exempting Ordinance, because such laws were only brought into force in Hong Kong “so far as they were not inapplicable to the local circumstances of the Colony or its inhabitants.” The Government was\n\nPage 17\n\n \n...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213441, "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-1995", "page_number": 37, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "then considering whether the New Territories should be exempted from the application of any legislation in force in Hong Kong in 1898. The Attorney General apparently took the view that as regards any English law in force in the Colony such an exemption would not arise, since it would be exempted from application to the New Territories by the first provision of section 7 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, 1873, even though that particular law might not be inapplicable to the circumstances and the inhabitants of the Colony of Hong Kong. In other words, he does not appear to have been looking at the theoretical needs of the inhabitants of the area along the south bank of the Shum Chun River in 1843, which area later became the New Territories in 1898, but at their requirements at the time he considered the matter in December 1898.\n\nA former Solicitor General of Hong Kong has drawn attention to the distinction between the provisions of what is now section 17 of the New Territories Ordinance and of what is now section 5 of the Supreme Court Ordinance. To this matter, it will be necessary to revert later when we consider the customary law on particular subjects. It is, however, fitting to observe at this point that the legislature in enacting section 17 of the New Territories Ordinance did not specify the date for the recognition of \"Chinese custom or customary right affecting such land.” The plain meaning of the words, it is submitted, leads one to the conclusion that the Chinese customary law to be so recognised and enforced is that which affects the land at the time of the hearing of the proceedings. The legislature must be presumed to have been logical; it would be unlikely to select modern Chinese customary law for application in land cases and the Law of the Manchu Ts'ing Dynasty obtaining in the Province of Kwangtung in 1843 or in 1899 for application in other proceedings arising in the New Territories. Here again, it is submitted, is an additional argument in support of the view that in all types of proceedings, both those involving land and otherwise, the Chinese customary law applicable, if it is to be applied, is modern Chinese customary law obtaining in the New Territories.\n\nHaving so defined the date for recognition of Chinese customary law, the question then arises as to what that Chinese customary law comprises. In 1911, that question was difficult to answer, and we may with advantage digress a moment to consider the words of the Chief Justice delivering the judgment of the Full Court in the case of LI", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213442, "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-1995", "page_number": 38, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "CHOK HUNG vs. LI FUI CHOI\n\n\"No enquiry has ever been made to ascertain what Chinese law is. It is an extraordinary fact that the Court of this Colony, in which the Chinese live and trade as freely as Englishmen and citizens of other countries, should do with regard to the Chinese what it would never dream of doing with regard to Frenchmen or Germans or Americans; and not only that, but that it should be entirely in ignorance of Chinese law on any subject which concerns the family life and family law of those who form the bulk of its inhabitants, which is so often before the Courts—its marriage law, and the rights of property it gives; its law applicable to children. We are in the dark as to the law of majority, as to the customary law of China generally, and above all as to its law of succession. The attitude of the Court has been to let the troublesome question wait until it is definitely raised by the parties. I myself have been guilty of this, though I have rebelled more than once or twice.\n\nPage 20\n\nDuring the last half century, there have been three such enquiries, of which the results have been published. I refer, of course, to the Report of the Committee appointed in 1948,1 Greenfield's article on marriage,2 and the report and recommendations on the same subject by the Attorney General and Secretary for Chinese Affairs in 1960.2 The latter two publications do not deal with any Chinese customary law of marriage particularly obtaining in the New Territories, but the first does deal with certain aspects of Chinese customary law peculiar to the New Territories.\n\nIf a search is made of the law reports, only two cases will be found where the particular Chinese customary law obtaining in the New Territories was considered. Prima facie, that is a remarkably small number for 57 years of law reporting, and it is worthwhile probing the reasons for this dearth of case law.\n\nFirstly, the Chinese much prefer to compose their disputes or to refer them to extra-judicial arbitration than to a court of law.**\n\nSecondly, in deference to this general desire of the litigants, the District Officers arranged for the bulk of the disputes which came before them, in their Small Debts Courts or when they sat as Assistant Land Officers to decide summary land cases, to be settled out of court, most", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213468, "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-1995", "page_number": 64, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "31\n\n* These powers of the Land Officer sprang from the New Territories (Land) Ordinance, 1905 (No. 36 of 1905).\n\n1 Such powers were originally conferred on District Officers by the New Territories Small Debts Court Ordinance, 1908 (now repealed). By agreement of the parties, District Officers, by virtue of the proviso to that section, could determine suits with subject matter up to $5,000 in value ($1,000 HK is the approximate equivalent of £62-1st in 1962 - Editor).\n\nBy the Convention of Peking, 9th June 1898 vide Laws of Hong Kong, Allibone's Edition 1913, Vol. III, pp. 6-7.\n\nibid, pp. 8-9.\n\n* § 7, Supreme Court Ordinance 1873 (now s. 5 of Cap. 4).\n\nExtracts from a Memorandum on some Legal Aspects of the Hong Kong Extension, by W. Meigh Goodman, Attorney General of Hong Kong, dated December 1898, in Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1899, p. 209 at p. 210.\n\n19 Mr. Chamberlain (then Sir Joseph) to Sir Henry A. Blake, Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1899, p. 177 at p. 178, para 5.\n\nTranslation of the Chinese Proclamation dated 9th April 1899, being Appendix IX to Sir Henry A. Blake's Report to Mr. Chamberlain dated 19th February 1900, in Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1900, p. 280.\n\nvide my article \"The Choice of Chinese Customary Law in Hong Kong\" (1962) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 231 at pp. 232-233.\n\n\"Chinese Law and Custom in Hong Kong\" Hong Kong 1953, (hereinafter cited as Committee Report 1953) Appendix 1A at p. 122.\n\n1bid, Chap. II, para. 13 at p. 8.\n\n15 Memorandum of the District Commissioner, New Territories, to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, dated 20th March 1958. It would appear that the 17th April 1899 was the date intended (vide the Governor's Proclamation of 8th April 1899 which appeared as Appendix XX to the Governor's Report in Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1900 at pp. 291-292) to bring the Colony's laws into force in the New Territories with effect from 17th April 1899.\n\n18 (1962) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 231.\n\n17 loc cit para. 6.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214395, "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-1998", "page_number": 253, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "(Source: Annual reports of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs)\n\n219\n\nThe 1928 Annual Report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs stressed that it was 'gratifying to note that close co-operation exists between the District Watch Force and the Police Force. This was certainly a considerable improvement from the situation which existed a mere decade earlier when District Watchmen had been specifically excluded from searching passengers who arrived at or left Hong Kong by ship.24\n\nIn 1930 a new Ordinance, No. 23 of 1930, was passed entitled the District Watch Ordinance and, although its provisions differed very little from Chapter IV of the 1888 'Regulation of the Chinese Ordinance,' it is useful to repeat the justification given by the Attorney General at the first reading of the new Bill since it illustrates the apparent high regard in which the Force was held at this time: 'It has been decided that this very valuable Force should have an Ordinance of its own and the name of the Committee had been changed from The District Watchmen's Committee to the District Watch Committee as more suitable and as preferred by the Committee themselves.'25 Only when the replacement Bill was read for a second time do we see that a new ordinance was a necessity since other parts of the \"Registration of the Chinese Ordinance' were considered to be of no further use in the interests of the Colony generally.' Along with the new ordinance, a new pay scale was introduced in 1930 and the establishment of the District Watch Force rose to 133 which enabled the patrols to extend to Shamshuipo.\n\nDuring the next few years more Watchmen were recruited and by 1934 the full strength of the Force was 140. Not only did they attend the Police Training School, they participated in revolver courses organised by the Police. 1933 was particularly glorious for the Force since every one of the 131 District Watchmen who took part in the revolver course passed.26 Although the District Watchmen had considerable success in bringing suspects of minor crimes to Court, they were much more than a duplicate Police Force, even though they did assist the Police in dealing with serious crimes such as the riots of 1894 and Communist infiltration in 1929. We have seen that as early as 1883 they were engaged in sanitary duties and in 1899 'during the outbreak of plague in the summer months 8 District Watchmen were employed on special duty at the Tung Wah Hospital.' In the censuses of 1896 and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214925, "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-2000", "page_number": 21, "title": "RAS-2000", "content_text": "that it contains a considerable pool of talent, but we also appreciate that some people like to be invited before they are prepared to step forward.\n\nProjects and other activities\n\nWe do, as readers appreciate, undertake various projects and receive enquiries from around the world about local history and the like, where sometimes the specific answers do not appear as important as the quests to find them. During the year under review we received interesting information from old soldiers in Britain about searchlights used in pre-World War Two Hong Kong. This information was passed on to Comendador Arthur Gomes of the Hong Kong Prisoners of War Association for publication in their Monthly Newsletter.\n\nWe also received an enquiry from Mr. Kenneth Evans, in England, about his ancestors who lived both in China and in Hong Kong. One of these was Thomas Child Hayllar KC, Attorney General, who at one stage was embroiled in a dispute with Governor Pope-Hennessy. This has been well documented. For our efforts, Mr. Evans made a small donation to our Branch. This appears to be the first time the HKBRAS has been 'paid' for undertaking research. We also received an enquiry from a Dr Hansell in Bath, UK, who had bought a 19th century clock which had been made by Douglas Lapraik, in Hong Kong. Information was requested about the latter gentleman who started his working life as a clockmaker and died a shipping magnate. The information requested was duly supplied.\n\nThe RAS/AMO Volunteers\n\nThe working group of 20 plus RAS volunteers has continued to make a meaningful contribution to the conservation of heritage by assisting the Government Antiquities and Monuments Office. Most of the visits have taken place on Saturdays and this year they have included such places as villas in Kowloon Tong and excavations at Tai Fu Tai in San Tin. The more energetic members have then been called upon to undertake follow-up research, to write reports and make recommendations. We are grateful to all our steadfast volunteers and if anyone else would like to join them, especially those with a sound knowledge of local building or local history, they would be welcome. We also need more members who can read Chinese. As always a special\n\nPage XX", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 216217, "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-2002", "page_number": 516, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "450\n\nwas not possible to erect a replacement plaque in the cathedral. The authorities concerned would not permit it.\n\nAnother interesting case was that of a clock made by Douglas Lapraik in Hong Kong in the mid 19th century. This story has been written up by the enquirer, Dr Peter Hansell, and an account is published in this volume of JHKBRAS,\n\n*\n\nOther enquiries have included a request from a family member about Thomas Child Hayllar who was Attorney General in Hong Kong in the middle of the 19th century. On similar lines, Francis Howell was also enquiring about family members named Eckford who worked in China and Hong Kong during the past two centuries.\n\nOn another occasion we received an enquiry from a HKBRAS overseas member for information about what appear to be bullet marks on the low boundary wall which runs along the east side of lower Stubbs Road. Although they were probably caused by machine gun fire during the attack by the Japanese, in December 1941, we have not been able to glean any detailed information about the actual incident.\n\nAnother enquirer, an academic living in New Zealand, wanted to know whether there were any roads, buildings or any monuments at all in Hong Kong in memory of Nurse Edith Cavell. She was executed by the Germans in Brussels, on 12 October 1915, for assisting Allied prisoners escape. As far as we know there is nothing erected in her memory in Hong Kong.\n\nA gentleman from Britain wanted to learn more about his maternal grandfather who joined the colonial service in 1910, whereupon he was posted to Hong Kong and subsequently to Canton to learn Cantonese. During the run-up leading to the Sun Yat Sen Revolution, probably in May or June of 1911, the group of Hong Kong cadets was accosted by over-zealous Chinese officials. One of the cadets then drew his revolver and shot an official. The British gentleman has said that, according to family lore, his grandfather, Samuel Burnside Boyd McElderry, was able to calm the situation and talk the group out of the encounter. In spite of searches at the Hong Kong Public Records Office (who were extremely helpful) and elsewhere, no information has been gleaned about this incident.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]