[ { "id": 212868, "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-1992", "page_number": 177, "title": "RAS-1992", "content_text": "162\n\nIt was clear when I gave the Ezekiel Abraham Memorial Lecture in 1987 that strong feelings still remained,\n\nKranzler, 745.\n\n7 The Hankow Daily News July 13, 1917,\n\n1.\n\nStatistics differ. Even the Encyclopaedia Judaica gives different numbers on different pages. Without scrutinizing temple rolls, it is difficult to ascertain the number of Jews in Shanghai at a given time, but it can be estimated to be less than 2,000 from 1920 through the early 1930s.\n\nDavid Kranzler gave the following figures: On 25 March, 1934, there were 1,671 Jewish adults and children in Shanghai (881 male and 790 female), including Sephardic Jews as well as the Ashkenazi community. A little more than ten years later, 14,245 persons (8,283 male, 5,962 female) were classified as Jewish refugees in Shanghai in November 1944. Of these, 8,114 had come from Germany, 1,248 from Poland, 3,942 from Austria, and 236 from Czechoslovakia. Between 1939 and 1946, there had been 418 births, 366 marriages, 104 divorces, and 1,726 deaths among the Jewish population in Shanghai.\n\n40 Hans and Lala Diestel, respectably bourgeois before the Japanese occupation, ground assorted grains in their living-room by hand, using a Chinese millstone, selling the meal to the Red Cross for cash. Later on, they operated a factory making shoes, employing Jewish refugees. 'There was never any problem with raw materials,” related the indefatigable Mr Diestel, who was born in Tsingtao, 'because the Japanese thought that I was German.' Betty Peh-t'i Wei, Shanghai, Crucible of Modern China, Hong Kong, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, 252.\n\n\" Conversation with Ezekiel Abraham in Hong Kong. Also, see Joseph and Lynn Silverstein, 'David Marshall and Jewish Emigration from China', China Quarterly, (London 1979).\n\n12 The New York Times, 27 February, 1983.\n\n13\n\nOld Chronicle of Hong Kong November 1870.\n\n14 Hong Kong Telegram 4 May, 1904. Shanghai dispatch.\n\n15\n\nWei, 252.\n\n16 The China Mail, 24 September, 1918,\n\n17\n\nI am sorry that I have lost the date of this issue of the Hong Kong newspaper.\n\n10 His will was probated in Hong Kong in 1886.\n\n19 Left Sassoon and Company 21 January, 1891\n\n20\n\nMerchant. His will, witnessed by Hardoon, was probated in 1893.\n\n21 The obituary in the South China Morning Post. 8 August, 1979, identified Mrs Ezra as Mozelle Robinson Ezra of Shanghai. Edward Ezra and Mozelle Sopher were married in 1907\n\n22 People's Daily (Beijing), 15 October, 1991, 2.\n\n21\n\nChinese sources insist that he worked as a door keeper. At least he had control over accessibility to the boss\n\n24\n\nComplaints included members riding to services on the Sabbath and High Holy Days rather than travelling on foot", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1992.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qf85tx75x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213203, "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-1994", "page_number": 25, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "4\n\nincluded (CO129/414, p. 177).\n\nThe three German females in the 1921 census are mentioned in a report Canon Bannister sent to the Church Missionary Society in 1914. The Berlin Foundling House had 150 children and the two Blind Homes had 120 children. \"The Government has allowed three German ladies to remain in each home and the writer was asked to take general oversight”, (Archives of the Church Missionary Society, University of Birmingham, England, CH1/P/4 No. 149, Bannister, 5 Nov. 1914).\n\nThe German community gradually reestablished itself in Hong Kong, but in 1931 it was less than half of what it had been in 1911.\n\nHong Kong being a British colony, the British were the largest non-Chinese community. Next was the Macanese-Portuguese. The third were the Germans. They were followed by the Americans,\n\nGermans in the Canton trade\n\nGerman-speaking merchants participated in the China trade in the eighteenth century. The trade was confined to Canton. In 1729, the Holy Roman Emperor, the Emperor of Austria, chartered the Imperial East India Company to trade in the East using the port of Ostend in the Netherlands as its home base. At that time Netherlands was a part of the Austrian Empire. This company did not use German ships, but chartered British vessels which were principally manned by British crews. This was a stratagem to get around the efforts of the British chartered East India Company to control the European trade with China. Over the years there were usually two or three ships each season from Bremen or Hamburg arriving at Canton.\n\nBritish free traders used the protection of the office of Consul for foreign states to acquire the privilege of permanent residence in China. These free traders were large importers of opium of India, a trade the British East India Company ships did not engage in as it was prescribed by Chinese Imperial Edict and the company wished to maintain a good relation with the Dragon Throne. It feared that if it was too closely identified with the opium trade the Chinese authorities would curtail the company's lucrative and traditional trade in tea.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213204, "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-1994", "page_number": 26, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "As a chartered monopoly the East India Company had the right to exclude British subjects who were not members of the company from residing permanently in China. Their presence was tolerated for only the few months of the trading season. Consuls representing a foreign country could claim exemption from this rule. In 1783, John Reed was commissioned as head of the Austrian Imperial Factory at Canton - the trading establishments were called factories. He had been born in Britain but subsequently became a naturalised subject of the Austrian Emperor. Another Englishman, a subject of Austria, arrived in Canton in 1787, carrying a certificate of naturalisation from Austria. There was, however, a dispute about the national status of Edward Watts and the British East India Company demanded he leave at the end of the trading season, but he stayed on for several more years ignoring the attempt to get rid of him.\n\nDaniel Beale, a British subject who had been in the employ of the East India Company, in 1787 was appointed the Prussian Consul at Canton. This post was held by subsequent partners of the firm of which Beale was a member. The firm eventually became Jardine, Matheson and Co. The present Rua Pedro Nolasco da Silva in Macao is called by Chinese Bak Ma Lo, or in translation White Horse Road. Father Manuel Teixeira, the Macao historian, states that the white horse was on the Prussian flag which flew over what was then No. 1 Rua Hospital, a building occupied by Jardines for some years.\n\nIn the lists of residents on the China coast published in the Chinese Repository and the Anglo-Chinese Commercial Directory, the first name I have identified as German is Edmund Mueller in 1835. He was from Hamburg but arrived at Canton from Manila. He became the editor of the Canton Press, holding this position from 1836 to 1844. In the latter year he went into trade at Macao. He appears to have left China by 1847.\n\nGustav Christian Schwabe is listed as a German residing at Canton in 1837. He had arrived from Calcutta in November 1836 and sailed for Manila in October 1837. The firm of Sykes, Schwabe and Co, which later became Boustead and Co., had its head office at Liverpool with overseas branches at Singapore, Manila and Canton. Mr. Schwabe was manager of the Liverpool office from 1845 to 1853. He then returned to China to head the firm of G.C. Schwabe and Co. at Shanghai. This firm was dissolved by lapse of time in 1859 and was succeeded by Bower, Hanbury and Co, Shanghai.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213211, "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-1994", "page_number": 33, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "12\n\nLudwig Braun graduated from the University of Graz, Austria and qualified in 1899. He was in Hong Kong in 1903 and 1904. His address was that of the acting Consul for Austria, Mr. Post. Carl Georg Johann Rohrmann held a diploma from the German State Medical Examination qualifying him to practice medicine from 1897. He appears on the Hong Kong Medical Register in 1900.\n\nErich Hermann Paulan was admitted to the Hong Kong Medical Register in February 1896, by 1898 he had moved to Shanghai. While in Hong Kong he had his office at the Bank Building, No. 16 Queen's Road Central. He died in March 1909 at Shanghai. His obituary published in the Hong Kong Telegraph on 13 March 1909 gives details of his life. He was born at Pasewalk in 1862. At an early age he became an orphan. He was educated at the grammar school at Wolfenbuttel, the Friedrich Wilhelm Institute, and the Berlin Army Medical Institute. After qualifying in 1887 he was a naval doctor. In 1895 and 1896 he was an assistant in the office of Dr. Zedelius in Shanghai, but then came to Hong Kong for a few years. Dr. Zedelius died in January 1899 and Dr. Paulun returned there to take over his practice. He founded at Shanghai a charitable hospital for Chinese which in time became the German Medical School in Burkill Road, Shanghai. His wife had been a Miss Zedelius, probably a daughter of Dr. Zedelius.\n\nThe surgery of the medical firm of Muller and Justi was for some years at the same address as had been that of Dr. Paulun. In 1905 they moved to the Hotel Mansions Building, newly built on reclaimed land in Central (DP 1 Aug, 1905). The firm was established by Oskar Muller, a graduate of the University of Munich. He qualified in 1897, and was registered as a medical practitioner in Hong Kong on 2 November 1900. Dr. Carol Justi joined Dr. Muller in 1903. He was a graduate of the University of Marburg and qualified to practice in Germany in 1897. He left Hong Kong in 1913 (HKT 2 May 1913). Karl Hoch joined the practice of Muller and Justi in 1907. He received his medical education at the University of Kiel and qualified in 1904. Theodore van Wesel, a graduate of the University of Freiburg, became a member of the firm in 1912. He had qualified in Germany in 1903.\n\nFriedrich Piers Grone was a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians who qualified in 1901. He first appears on the Hong Kong Medical Register in 1906. He became a member of the medical firm of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213224, "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-1994", "page_number": 46, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "25\n\nerected on the lot was completed, he moved into temporary offices. Two marine lots were bought in 1858 in Sai Ying Pun on which extensive godowns (ware-houses) were built (Hong Kong Land Office, Memorial 1477, 21 Sept. 1858). He soon after left Hong Kong to assume management of the firm's affairs in Hamburg. There he married in 1859 a Miss Wagner (North China Herald 6 Aug. 1859). He continued to reside at Hamburg until his death on 24 November 1886 aged seventy-one (DP 6 Dec. 1886).\n\nWhen Mr. Siemssen left Hong Kong his partners were Ludwig Wiese and Woldemar Nissen (FC 31 Mar. 1855). Mr. Wiese was a Norwegian by birth but subsequently became a naturalized British citizen. From 1849 to 1855 he had been an assistant in the office of Carlowitz, Harkort and Co. at Canton. At various times he served as Consul for Hamburg, Lubeck, Sweden and Norway and was acting Consul for Prussia and Austria. His connection with Siemssen and Co. ended in 1863 (CM 5 Jan. 1865). He located in London, where in 1871 he joined the Board of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China (CM 24 July 1871). Though no longer a partner he represented the interests of Siemssen and Co. in England. He died in England on 22 March 1887 (GG, Probate Calendar 4 July 1887). His widow Joanna died in the City of Westminster on 10 May 1904 (GG, Probate Calendar 25 Apr. 1906).\n\nAgathon Friedrich Woldemar Nissen — usually known as Woldemar — was a partner from 1855 until his death in Hamburg on 28 December 1896 (DP 7 June 1897). He was a member of the Provisional Committee for the organisation of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in 1864. He was Deputy Chairman of the Board in 1866 and Chairman in 1867. He left Hong Kong in October 1867 (CM 31 Oct. 1867). In Hong Kong he was Consul for the Hansa Towns of Bremen, Hamburg and Lubeck as well as for Sweden and Norway.\n\nThe business of the firm increased rapidly. New branches were opened and new partners admitted. Rudolph Heinsen was transferred from the Canton office to Shanghai to open a new branch there in January 1856 (FC 1 Jan. 1856). He later became a partner and his interest in the company ended in 1868 (GG 9 Jan. 1869). George Wilhelm Schwemann was the managing partner at Foochow in 1861. Friedrich Adolph Joost was a partner from 1864 to 1873 (CM 1 Jan. 1864, Daily Press 28 Jan. 1874). When Messrs. Schwemann and Heinsen retired from the firm in 1868, they were replaced by Ferdinand Nissen and Heinrich Hoppius (GG 9 Jan. 1869).", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213232, "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-1994", "page_number": 54, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "33\n\nof Adolf Andre in the firm ceased in 1889 (DP 16 Feb, 1890) He left Hong Kong about 1882 and settled in London. He also had interests in France, and at the time of his death in Paris in 1911, he was director of Paguin Ltd and Maison Virot Ltd, as well as the London-based firm André, Mendel and Co. At the time of his death, he was a baron. For some years, he had been the Austrian Consul in Hongkong (DP 25 July 1911). Wilhelm Rainers was admitted a partner in 1874 (DP 3 Jan. 1874). He was appointed a Consul for Russia in Hong Kong and was an Acting Consul for Austria. He took charge of the Shanghai office in 1881 and was elected to the French Concession's Municipal Council (CM 17 Jan 1881). He retired from the firm in 1883 and returned to Hamburg (DP 16 Jan. 1884). Carl Krebs, a former bookkeeper at the Hong Kong and Dock Yard, was admitted as the partner of Melchers in 1877 and sent to open a branch in Shanghai (DP 4 July 1876, 13 Apr. 1877).\n\nMax Carl Johann became a partner about 1884, but left the firm in 1887 (DP 3 Jan. 1888). He then joined the firm of Chater and Vernon. About the year 1897, he entered into a partnership with H.Z. Just and J.J.B. Heemskerk. The partnership was dissolved soon after. Heemskerk and Grote continued under the style of Heemskerk and Grote (DP 3 Jan 1888) In 1903, he retired from this firm (DP 1 January 1903). Laurenz Heinrich Carl Melchers Jantsen - usually known as Carl Jantsen - was an assistant in Melchers and Company in 1869. Sometime after 1880, he became a partner and was placed in charge of the Shanghai Office.\n\nStephen Cornelius Michaelson became an assistant in Melchers and Company in 1887. In 1888, he became a partner. As had been other partners in the Company, he was a Consul for Russia in Hong Kong. Upon the occasion of Tzar Nicholas' visit to Hong Kong, when he was still the Tsarevitch, Mr. Michaelson was awarded the order of St. Stanislaus and St. Anne. Mr. Michaelson's interest in Melchers ceased when he left China in 1898 (HKT, 30 Mar. 1898). Gustav Adolf Melchers, a nephew of Hermann Melchers, became a partner in 1894 (DP 1 Aug. 1894).\n\nAs opportunities for trade increased, the company opened new offices: Shanghai 1877, Hankow 1884, Canton 1893, Tientsin 1897, and Chinkiang 1900. In 1914, the partners were Hermann Melchers and A. Korpff of Bremen, C. Michelau, J.W. Bandow, and A. Widmann of Shanghai, G. Fiesland of Hong Kong, and K. Lindemann of Hankow. Mr. Fiesland, as the managing partner in Hong Kong, was a director of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213575, "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": 171, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "140\n\ntrouble.\n\nHalf way through, I came to feel that my book could not benefit the World, and I abandoned it. Not long after, I travelled throughout Fukien, Chiangsu and found even more people coming to me for translations. Seeing my friends suffering through ignorance of English - some being tricked, others being despised because they knew no English - I took up the correction of my book again.\n\nWell aware that my book cannot be of help to the World. Yet that it may still be of some help to those engaged in trade, it is formatted in the Chinese style of reference: this is different from other books on English. Moreover, not only may Chinese use it to learn English, but English and Americans can also use it to learn Chinese. The Americans and the English have shared origins. Their nations have been separated for over a hundred years, but their speech and writing remain the same.\n\nThe foreign words collected in these volumes are current not only in Britain and America, but also in all the nations of Europe, including France, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland and, as well as throughout the American continent. But as their spelling is different, their meanings also differ.\n\nThe Americans and British form the majority of those who come to trade with our Country, and those of other nations all speak English. For this reason, English is the language of foreign trade. Kwangtung and East China have been trade routes for over a hundred years, and the majority of Chinese doing trade with foreigners are Cantonese. So this book takes Cantonese Pronunciation as its standard, so that it can gain the maximum currency.\n\nEverything has been included in this book; readers may find it too detailed. Learners should choose the most important parts and seek out their essence so that uncertainties can be dispelled.\n\nSigned,\n\nTong Ting-shue of Canton", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214981, "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": 77, "title": "RAS-2000", "content_text": "33\n\nTHE CHINESE LABOUR CORPS IN FRANCE\n\n1917-1921\n\nBRIAN C FAWCETT\n\n\"What were the Chinese doing in France during the First World War?\"\n\nThe above is a frequent question, not only posed by people in the UK but also, as we found, by amazed French people in their own country.\n\nTo answer this, and also as a possibility for a visit by a larger group of Friends of the RAS [Hong Kong Branch] in the UK, a small group under the guidance of Keith Stevens, accompanied by Jenny Welch, Paul Bolding, John Tamplin, David Mahoney, my French wife, Claudine and myself, decided to investigate. Claudine and I have also made separate visits, but more of our findings later.\n\nIntroduction\n\nBriefly the reasons as to why the Chinese were in France may be stated as follows:\n\nAs China was not a belligerent nation, her nationals were not allowed by their government to participate in the fighting. The recruiting for labourers was launched by the War Committee in London, in 1916, to form a Labour Corps of labourers from China to serve in France and to be known as the Chinese Labour Corps [CLC]. This was because, as the war progressed, Great Britain and her allies required more manpower for their Forces, so releasing those men who were assisting at the docks unloading necessary supplies and war material. The Allies regarded such recruitment of labour in market and business terms rather than as politically significant Chinese participation in the war. The Chinese did declare war against Germany and Austria-Hungary on 14th August 1917, for reasons of domestic policy and also to ingratiate themselves with the Powers and win resources from them which would support a military campaign to reunify the country under Beijing's rule.\n\nThe scheme to supply men was originated in June 1915 by Liang", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215775, "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": 74, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "However, in response to a petition by European merchants in 1835 to the EIC against piracy, some action on the part of the Indian government was taken, through the use of steam warships (for example, the Diana and HMS Wolf). These ships were effective in fighting piracy, and according to LA Mills, 'piracy in the Straits greatly decreased for several years... Conditions never became as serious as they were before 1836.'38\n\nHowever, Turnbull says that these measures only gave temporary relief and that, within a few years, the position deteriorated. Moreover, in the 1850s, a new breed of pirates began to haunt the merchants' commerce. They came from China, and the Chinese imperial government was too weak to suppress them. The main theatre of Chinese operations was the Gulf of Siam, although many vessels were captured near Singapore.40\n\nThe Indian government did not pay much attention to the problem as it was involved in the second Anglo-Burmese war at that time, and as Calcutta had passed no laws to detain suspicious vessels, there were no legal means to curb piracy. In 1857, the Indian legislative council had passed an inadequate law which permitted the right of search, but did not solve the problem of proving intent. No improvement was made to the naval force in the Straits Settlements in the last ten years of Indian rule, which consisted of only three gunboats (a 'lilliputian fleet'41).\n\nEventually the Chinese pirates were gradually eliminated from the Straits waters as a result of a series of treaties and agreements between China and other western powers (such as with Prussia 1861, Denmark 1863, the Netherlands 1863, Spain 1864, Belgium 1865, Italy 1866, and Austria-Hungary 186942), the contents of which included co-operative measures to wipe out piracy. The Hong Kong 'Ordinance for the suppression of piracy' was the first real blow delivered against Chinese piracy.4\n\nThe Indian government played a minimal role with regards to the combat of piracy in the Straits. The problem was brought under control through a list of other factors, including foreign treaties and ordinances, and hence, the merchants' complaints were not without reason, as little credit can be attributed to the Indian administration in this respect.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]