[
    {
        "id": 204716,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 19,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "W. C. HUNTER \n\nengaged in the lucrative trade drew out of the country large amounts of silver. Lin Tse-hsu, Governor General of Hupeh and Hunan wholeheartedly threw his support to those who memorialized the throne requesting stringent measures to prevent the use of opium within the country, and to cure addicts. Moreover, Lin took direct action and seized caches of opium, 12,000 ounces and 5,000 pipes. As a result of his success in combating opium addiction and forceful condemnation of the sale of the drug he was called to Peking by Emperor Tao-kuang and appointed Imperial Commissioner to examine the opium traffic at Canton. He arrived at the provincial capital in early March, 1839. For several years prior to 1839 nearly 30,000 chests had been imported annually there.\n\nFateful events immediately took form. Lin warned the western merchants of dire results if the iniquitous trade did not cease. His threat was followed by the demand that within three days they offer a bond that no opium would be imported. A counter proposal was made to turn over to Commissioner Lin about 1000 chests of the drug which he summarily rejected. On March 22, he demanded that Lancelot Dent, one of the principal importers be given to Chinese officials as a hostage until all opium was given up. The western merchants insisted that Dent could be surrendered only on condition that his personal safety was guaranteed. The Chinese merchants doing business with foreigners were frightened by the action of their own government. Some of them were deprived of their buttons of rank and two appeared in public with chains around their necks. Under these circumstances the Hong (the association of Chinese merchants trading with the western merchants at Canton) pressed the foreign community to comply with the ultimatum of Lin and deliver up Dent.\n\nIn the midst of this seething situation, on March 24, Captain Charles Elliot, British naval officer and Chief Superintendent and Plenipotentiary of the China Commission arrived from Macao. He entered the foreign compound with great difficulty inasmuch as the river had been blockaded and the streets leading to the foreign section had been barricaded. The predicament of approximately 300 western people seemed most serious since food and water were in short supply and a large encampment of Chinese troops was close at hand. Canton was cut off from formal communications from Macao which was nearly sixty miles distant",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204746,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 49,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "38\n\n10 Linguist purser.\n\nW. C. HUNTER\n\nSee note 39, (J.L.C-B)\n\n11 Elliot's last day. On 25 March Elliot formally requested the Viceroy that passports should be issued within three days for all the English ships and people at Canton and that if passports were not issued he would consider the men and ships of his country as forcibly detained and act accordingly. Blue Book, Correspondence relating to China, 1840, p. 367. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n12 Edward Elmslie. Secretary and Treasurer to the British Superintendents of Trade, Captain Charles Elliot and the Deputy Superintendent, A. R. Johnston, (J.L.C-B.)\n\n13 Houqua. Known to Westerners at Canton as Howqua 7. His family name was Wu Ch'ung-yüeh (1810-1863). He was the fifth son of the famous Hong merchant Wu Ping-chien whom he succeeded as head of the firm in 1843. For his biography see Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, II, 867-8. (F.L.C-B.)\n\n14 Nam Hoe. Also written Nam Hoi. This means Nan Hai Hsien #i.e. the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the western part of Canton city and the District lying to the westward of the walls which included the area in which the foreign Factories lay. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n15 Kwang Hup. The author may be referring to the Kwangchou hsieh \"the Canton brigade\", and so to its commander. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n16 The Governor. The Governor of Kwangtung province at this time was I-liang (1791-1867). For his biography see Hummel, op. cit., I, 389. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n17 K'an-ch'o (J.L.C-B.)\n\n18 An-tsou (J.L.C-B)\n\n19 Columbia & John Adams. According to the Chinese Repository Vol. 8, p. 56 the Columbia was a U.S. frigate and the John Adams was classed as a sloop-of-war. The Columbia was commanded by Commodore George C. Read. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n20 Johnston, Alexander Robert Johnston, H.M. Deputy Superintendent of Trade. When the Government of Hong Kong was set up he was deputy first to Elliot and later to Sir Henry Pottinger and in this capacity he administered the Government of the Colony on various occasions from 1841 until 1843. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n21 Pwan Kei Kua. Probably the merchant whose name was also spelt by Westerners at Canton at that time Ponkhequa and Puan Khequa. This was P'an Chengwei (1791-1850). See Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, II, 605, (J.L.C-B.)\n\n22 Saoqua. His family name was Ma Tso-liang and the name of his Hong was Shun Tai Hong A. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n23 Sturgis. Russell Sturgis (1805-1887) of Boston was first named Nathaniel Russell Sturgis, Jr., but he was always known as Russell Sturgis after his name was changed by decree of the Middlesex County Court. He graduated from Harvard in 1823, married in 1828 but was widowed four months later. After an extended tour of Europe he returned to Boston and for a while practised law. He remarried and in 1833 took his family to the orient where he became a partner of Russell & Sturgis of Manila and Russell, Sturgis & Co. of Canton. Later in 1842 when the latter firm became incorporated with Russell & Co., China, he became a partner in 1842. In May 1844 he retired to Boston, his second wife having died in Manila in 1837. Being far too young to give up work altogether he decided to return to China in 1849 but while passing through London he",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204838,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 141,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "116\n\nCRANMER-BYNG AND SHEPHERD\n\nwhich lies in the mouth of the Pearl River estuary between Macao and Castle Peak on the opposite headland. However, during the south-west monsoons the anchorages of Kapsuimun門 pq 29, and Hong Kong were used because they provided greater protection. The Kapsuimun anchorage was situated south of Ma Wan island and sheltered to the west by the headland of Lantao and to the east by Tsing I island. Because of the smuggling of opium from depot ships at these outer anchorages the capabilities of the anchorages off Lantao island and between Hong Kong island and Kowloon on the mainland became thoroughly known to British merchants and sea captains. In 1835 a former member of the British East India Company published a book in which he advocated the need for Britain to obtain some island from which trade with China could be carried on because of the uncertain conditions of trade at Canton following the ending of the Company's monopoly30. In a review of this book published in the Chinese Repository the reviewer remarks on the fact that the author pressed the idea of Britain acquiring Macao from Portugal, which he considered ill-advised. He wrote\n\nThe want of a good harbour, and its dangerous position in the season of typhoons and strong north or east gales, unfit it for the possession of a commercial nation, as point d'appui. Lantao is better, and this we should prefer of the places named by our author. It is an island, capable of defence, producing abundant supplies of food, with many good harbours, is not so near the provincial city as to render it dangerous for natives to resort to it, for the purpose of commerce.31\n\nThus in 1835 Lantao was still considered eligible as a possible British settlement. In May 1839 the British Superintendent of Trade, Captain Charles Elliot, and all British subjects, left Canton as a result of the measures taken by the Imperial Commissioner Lin Tse-hsü, and retired to Macao. However, when in mid-August of 1839 the British were forced out of Macao by Chinese pressure it was to the anchorage of Hong Kong that the English ships went. Although Hong Kong was eventually ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Nanking 1842 this had not always been an automatic choice, the possibility of forming a settlement on Formosa, the Bonin Islands, and on Ma Wan and Lantao island had previously been given serious consideration.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204841,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 144,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "A RECONNAISSANCE OF MA WAN\n\n119\n\nIn 1897, two years before the lease of the New Territories by China to Britain, the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs set up a small customs house on Ma Wan in order to supervise trade between the Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong. The building used still stands. See photograph on p. 28 Ma Wan and a very small hamlet called Tin Liu. The total population of Ma Wan island at the 1911 census was 473. Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (H.K. Government Printer, 1911) p. 103 (36).\n\n29 Morse, op. cit., I, 178. The name Kapsingmun appears to have been used by foreigners as an alternative for Kapsuimun which should be preferred.\n\n30 Joseph Thomson, Review of Considerations Respecting the Trade with China (London, 1835). At this period both Lord Napier and after him Captain Charles Elliot spoke of obtaining an island and raising the flag somewhere.\n\n31 The Chinese Repository, IV (1835-6), 548.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205251,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 13,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "6\n\nIn members the Society has hovered between the 400 and 500 mark. The total membership at the end of 1966 was 423, including 64 life members. During the year 50 new members joined, including 5 life members. There was, however, a loss of 63 members most of whom resigned on leaving the Colony. To offset this loss there were two encouraging features. Ten ordinary members, some of whom were leaving the Colony, showed their continuing interest by becoming life members, and it is hoped that more members will follow this excellent example. It is also gratifying to note that in the first three months of this year the Society has already gained 28 new members.\n\n3 April, 1967\n\nJ. R. JONES\n\n10 January\n\nLECTURES 1966\n\nMr. Peter Kam-on Wong\n\n\"Fighting Crickets of South China - a historical review\"\n\nAnnual General Meeting\n\n14 February\n\nMr. Lee Yen\n\n\"Oracle Bones\"\n\n**\n\n28 March\n\n4 April\n\n25 April\n\nMiss Helen Lowenthal\n\n16 May\n\nProfessor John J. Nolde\n\n\"Tumult and Turmoil on the South China Coast in the Early 19th Century\"\n\n\"Trade with the East and Its Influence on 18th Century European Taste\"\n\nProfessor Gerald S. Graham\n\n\"Safeguarding the Route to China\n\nChallenge of the Dutch 1816 - 1847\"\n\n\"Charles Elliot and Hong Kong\"\n\n18 July\n\nMr. Austin Coates\n\n8 August\n\n44\n\n26 September\n\nMajor A. M. MacFarlane\n\n**\n\nThe\n\n\"Birds and Man in Hong Kong - Bird Protection and Conservation\"\n\nMr. Jen Yu-wen\n\n*\n\n\"The travelling Palace of the Southern Sung in Kowloon",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205429,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 191,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "184\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nlung, who was concurrently a Grand Councillor and a Grand Secretary.\n\nThis inadequate chapter on the Macartney mission demonstrates the basic weakness of the whole book, namely the author's failure to use the best primary sources both Chinese and Western. The story of the abortive Macartney mission is a fascinating one because it marks the first cultural confrontation between China and a major Western power, and as such has historical overtones which are relevant to a full understanding of the confrontation which we are witnessing today. But Mr. Coates has failed to bring out this significance mainly, I suspect, because of his unfamiliarity with the primary English and Chinese sources. For instance, there is no indication from his account that he has read Lord Macartney's own journal of his embassy which was published in full in 1962. From the bibliography it appears that this chapter was based almost entirely on the official account of the embassy written by Sir George Leonard Staunton which is dull and florid in comparison with Macartney's own private journal.\n\nIt is only fair to say, however, that the last 50 pages of the book are devoted to the events following the death of Lord Napier in 1834 and leading up to the formal cession of Hong Kong in 1843, and that here the author appears to be on more familiar ground. For instance, he brings out clearly the difficulties which faced Captain Charles Elliot as British Superintendent of Trade and he guides the reader towards a fair and balanced judgment of Elliot as a statesman. It is time that the reputation of Charles Elliot, created mainly by the strictures of Queen Victoria and Palmerston, be reassessed.\n\nIn conclusion, Prelude to Hong Kong is not in any way an original work of scholarship and contains almost nothing which cannot be read more reliably elsewhere. It may be of some value to those who have recently become aware of Hong Kong's existence and want to read up, in brief summary, the train of events which resulted in its founding. But for those who already know something of the history of Macao and the development of foreign trade at Canton, this modest little book will be a disappointment since the author has failed to draw sufficiently on the richness of the archives of the period and thus the reader is compelled to view the story through the eyes of the author rather than through",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206654,
        "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": 202,
        "title": "RAS-1972",
        "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\nThe following letter appeared in the South China Morning Post, 10th April, 1972. — Ed.\n\nWHO HOISTED THE UNION JACK?\n\nIn today's (April 7) issue on page 20 you publish an article headed \"The Hongkong Club decides to go back to Victorian Era”. In the article you state \"The Club was founded in 1846, five years after the Union Jack was hoisted on Possession Point by Captain Charles Elliot\".\n\nThe statement is not correct. It is true that Sir Charles Elliot issued a formal declaration of British sovereignty over Hongkong in January 1841 after the treaty of Chuenpi, but the Union Jack was hoisted on Possession Point by Captain Belcher commanding H.M. survey ship, Sulphur, on January 26, 1841.\n\nThe account is given in Captain Belcher's book \"Voyage round the World\" published 1843, Volume II page 157. The following is an extract:\n\n\"The only important point to which we became officially partners was the cession of the island of Hongkong, situated off the peninsula of Cow Loon within the island of Lama,\n\n\"On the return of the commodore on the 24th we were directed to proceed to Hongkong and commence its survey. We landed on Monday the 26th January at fifteen minutes past eight, and being 'bona fide' first possessors, her majesty's health was drank with three cheers on Possession Mount.\n\n\"On the 26th the squadron arrived; the marines were landed, the union hoisted on our post, and formal possession taken of the island by Commodore Sir J. G. Bremer, accompanied by the other officers of the squadron, under a feu de joie from the marines, and a royal salute from ships of war”.\n\nThere may be some uncertainty about the exact date. It is probable that the landing was on Monday, January 25 and that the more serious formalities took place on Tuesday, January 26.\n\nCaptain Belcher's history is preserved in the Colony in the names Belcher's Gardens, Belcher's Fort (and formerly Belcher's Creek)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211122,
        "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": 183,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "158\n\nsent to Hongkong to inquire into the affair and in consequence the petitioners had gone into hiding.\n\nIn the petition, the Chinese merchants humbly requested Her Majesty to intercede for them with the Chinese Government in the case of the seizure of a junk called the Kum Hop Shing.\n\nIt had been stopped near the Lyemun Pass in January 1874, as it neared Hongkong from Taiwan.\n\nWhen it could not produce a receipt bearing the \"Grand Chop\" for duties paid on its cargo, the junk was taken to Canton where it was sold at auction.\n\nThe Hongkong merchants interested in the affair held that no document with the \"Grand Chop\" was needed for goods coming to Hongkong from Taiwan.\n\nThey first appealed to the British Consul at Canton for redress. He told them the question must be referred to him through the Hongkong Government.\n\nThis then was done, but the final decision of the consul was that the Chinese were within their rights in seizing the vessel. This, of course, from the Hongkong view, was most unsatisfactory.\n\nThe petitioners firmly believed that the consul's decision was wrong and had only been made because he had been \"cajoled by Canton authorities.\"\n\nThey claimed that the promise made by Captain Charles Elliot, the British Plenipotentiary for Trade in China, in a proclamation he issued in June 1841, was not being honoured. The document was entitled (they said) \"An Invitation to Chinese Merchants.\"\n\nThe petitioners of 1874 regarded the 1841 proclamation as the constitutional foundation stone of their position in Hongkong.\n\nCaptain Charles Elliot had stated that \"merchants and traders of Canton and all parts of the Empire... have free permission",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211123,
        "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": 184,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "159\n\nto resort to and trade at the port of Hongkong, where they will receive full protection from the high officers of the British nation.\" This promise was needed for at the time China and Britain were in conflict over the opium questions.\n\nThe principle of a free port was set forth: \"Neither will there be any charge upon imports and exports to the British Government.\n\nIn the light of the strained relations between the two nations, Charles Elliot threatened China with \"an immediate embargo upon the port of Canton and all the large ports of the Empire if there be the least obstruction to the freedom of Hongkong.\"\n\nConditions had altered considerably from 1841. At that time, any Chinese trading in or with Hongkong would have been traitors to the Chinese Government.\n\nOnly because of China's humiliation on the field of battle was Hongkong ceded to Britain. Time and financial interests had blurred the national pride of the Chinese merchants in Hongkong.\n\nThe signers of the petition may also have been connected with the opium trade. Their names are not given in the published petition. Even the consul at Canton, when he sent a copy of the petition to the British Minister at Peking, did not know the names of the signatories.\n\nThe \"blockade\" had made it increasingly difficult for the opium smugglers to escape the surveillance of the Chinese armed cruisers. The smugglers equipped their own vessels with ever larger armaments that they might emerge victorious in a shoot-out with the cruisers.\n\nThe picture of the situation the merchants painted for Her Majesty was a dark one. The villains in the scene were the Chinese officials.\n\nThe petitioners informed the Queen that, “during the past five years, some of the mandarins in authority at Canton, actuated, as your petitioners believe, by avarice and jealousy, and presuming",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211618,
        "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": 33,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "8\n\n00\n\n# HONG KONG, 26 JANUARY 1841: HOISTING THE FLAG REVISITED*\n\nK. J. P. Lowe\n\nThis article will attempt to investigate the circumstances surrounding the ceremony of the hoisting of the British flag on Hong Kong Island on 26 January 1841, following the cession of the island in the treaty of 20 January 1841. It will in the process shed light on some of the more immediate British reactions to the acquisition of the island. The first Opium War and the subsequent Chinese expedition of 1840-1 form the immediate background to this event, and these subjects are well covered in the contemporary China-coast English-language press, in quasi-governmental sources and in memoirs by those involved. Negotiations leading to the cession were carried out by Captain Charles Elliot1 for the British, and the Chinese commissioner Ch'i-shan. Yet the hoisting of the flag itself seems largely to have been ignored or played down at this stage, even though Hong Kong was taken by the British as a direct result of successful military action and the ceremony should have been an important gesture of victory. I wish to posit that although Elliot and J. Gordon Bremer, the naval commodore, were proud of the acquisition of Hong Kong (and steamed all round their island at the first opportunity2), most people were not, and considered it of little consequence. The downplaying of the formal possession ceremony in contemporary accounts reflects this, and it was only when the colony started to be a financial success and stable social entity in the 1870s that the ceremony of possession took on a new significance.3\n\n6\n\nReminiscences of the Chinese expedition by officers in the navy and the army are common. Good examples of this type of literature by naval officers are the books by Edward Belcher of HMS Sulphur,4 by John Elliot Bingham who had been first Lieutenant of HMS Modeste,5 and by William Bernard who had been on board the Nemesis. Of these three, unfortunately only Belcher was in Hong Kong on the requisite day to witness the ceremony because Elliot had commandeered the Nemesis to take him to the Second Bar for his meeting with Ch'i-shan (also on 26 January), and Elliot Bingham had fractured a leg during enemy action on 10 January and had been taken to Macao. Belcher\n\n* I should like to thank Jardine Matheson and Co. Ltd. for permission to use their archives, and Eugene McLaughlin for his help.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211622,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1989",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "12\n\nHong Kong had been named for the first time as a potential British acquisition only on 11 January 1841.33 Lord Palmerston wrote a letter to the minister of the Emperor of China on 20 February 1840 instructing him that 'the British Government demands that one or more sufficiently large properly situated Islands on the Coast of China, to be fixed upon by the British plenipotentiaries [Admiral G. Elliot and Captain C. Elliot], shall be permanently given up to the British Government'.34 The two Elliots were left to choose the island or islands, and when the Rear-Admiral returned home, the choice was left entirely to Charles Elliot. However the British Government had been expecting the acquisition of the island of Chusan off the northern coast of China. As neither Chusan nor Shachiao were acceptable to the Chinese, Hong Kong was suggested as an alternative. Ch'i-shan wrote to Charles Elliot on 15 January offering him either Hong Kong or Kowloon but not both, and Elliot replied accepting Hong Kong on 16 January 1841. On 15 January James Matheson wrote to his partner that Elliot had arrived in Macao the night before: 'I learn from him very confidentially that Ki Shen has agreed to the British having a possession of their own outside, but objects to ceding Chuenpee; in lieu of which Captain Elliot has proposed Hong Kong'. Consequently there had not been much time for reconnoitre between the suggestion of Hong Kong and the reality of its possession, either on the part of the expeditionary forces or on the part of those members of the merchant community of the Pearl Delta who were conversant with the diplomatic negotiations. James Matheson's curiosity about the island, as evinced by his circumnavigation of it, which was surely not done for show, was matched by that of the Protestant missionaries, eight of whom chartered a lorcha in Macao on 8 February and went to Hong Kong on an exploratory outing.\" Their verdict that 'Hong Kong will, if retained by the British, rise in importance and influence until it becomes the first insular emporium in these Eastern waters'38 could provide a key to later references to the flag-hoisting\n\n36\n\nceremony,\n\nFor although twentieth-century and contemporary historians of Hong Kong have continued in the tradition of downplaying or ignoring the event, there was a period between the late 1870s and the early 1890s when at least two people contended for the honour of having been the person who hoisted the flag on 26 January 1841. That such claims were being made is indicative of the fact that Hong Kong had become a more stable community with a developing sense of identity. The differences between the contenders illustrate the wide-ranging appeal of this honour.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211625,
        "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": 40,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "15\n\nhas not materialized is a testimony to the fact that the present and the future in Hong Kong have always been more important than the past, with the result that the recovery of information on Hong Kong's history is now very difficult.\n\nCHRIST'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE\n\nNOTES\n\nSee C. Blake, Charles Elliot R. N., 1801-1875 (London, 1960).\n\n2. W. D. Bernard, Narrative of the Voyages and Services of the Nemesis from 1840 to 1843, I (London, 1844), p. 304.\n\n3. When the British flag was hoisted on Chusan on 5 July 1840, the name of the person responsible for hoisting the flag also went unrecorded as it was considered unimportant. See G. Graham, The China Station (Oxford, 1978), pp. 127-8. I am grateful to Alan Reid for this reference.\n\n4. Captain Sir Edward Belcher, RN, Narrative of a Voyage round the world performed in HM's Ship Sulphur, during the years 1836-1842 (London, 1843).\n\n6. J. Elliot Bingham, Narrative of the Expedition to China (London, 1842).\n\nBernard, Narrative, op. cit. Bernard wrote the book from the notes of W. H. Hall who had commanded the Nemesis, and included his own observations.\n\n7. Bernard, Narrative, op. cit. I, p. 291.\n\n8. Elliot Bingham, Narrative, op. cit. II, p. 120.\n\nIn the text 26 January is misprinted for 25 January.\n\n19. Belcher, Narrative, op. cit. p. 148. This account is the one usually quoted in an account of the cession of Hong Kong. See for example G. R. Sayer, Hong Kong: Birth, Adolescence and Coming of Age (London, 1937), p. 93 and J. R. Jones, “Who Hoisted the Union Jack?“, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 12 (1972), p. 196.\n\n|| Supplement to The Times of 12 June 1841. This expression appears to be formulaic as Bremer uses identical words in a letter to the Earl of Auckland who was Governor General of India of 10 March 1841. See Duncan McPherson, Two years in China (London, 1842), p. 274.\n\n12. The Times of 9 April 1841. The editorial went on to say: 'the recognition of a territorial right in the British crown, as well as the terror of the British name, will give our countrymen advantages which were never possessed by the Portuguese in China'.\n\n13. The Times of 10 April 1841.\n\nE. Jardine Matheson Archives, Cambridge University Library (hereinafter JMA), C5/6, James Matheson's private letter book, 54.\n\n15. Ibid., C5/6, 60, 22 January 1841.\n\nThe Times of 15 April 1841.\n\n17. JMA, C5/6, 69.\n\n18. The Times of 13 April 1841.\n\nMcPherson, Two Years in China, p. 76 and W. W. Mundy, Canton and the Bogue:",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212301,
        "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-1990",
        "page_number": 243,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "220\n\nand business in Hong Kong has been neglected. Nonetheless, over the past decade some hongs have commissioned researchers and authors to compile company histories. A number of these are listed in the bibliography.\n\nEarlier Days\n\nHistorically, overseas businessmen have been permitted only limited contact with locals in China. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries Westerners were only authorised to reside in Canton during the trading season, from October to May. Emperors confined all foreign trade there, as far from Peking as possible, keeping 'unpleasant things at a distance.' Foreigners were forced to maintain their base in the Portuguese city of Macau (established 1557).\n\nThese restrictions caused great inconvenience to merchants. Captain Charles Elliot wrote, on April 6th 1839:\n\n\"There can be neither safety nor honour for either government until Her Majesty's flag flies on these coasts in a secure position.\"\n\nIt was considered necessary to have a colony with a fine harbour, where Europeans could live, work and trade in peace and security. The Union Jack was raised at Possession Point, on Hong Kong Island, on January 26, 1841.\n\nHong Kong was established specifically to facilitate trade. Not surprisingly, therefore, the authorities depended a great deal upon the support of business houses in the early days of the colony. Some of these early trading houses are still trading here today.\n\nBy the end of 1843 there were 12 large British firms in Hong Kong, ten British merchants trading on a smaller scale, and about six Indian companies. The following year there were said to be about 100 foreign firms doing business, half of which were British and about one-quarter Indian or Parsee. Russells, an American firm, had six partners and eight griffins (assistants). Dent and Company (British) five partners and eight assistants, and D. and M. Rustomjee (Parsee) fifteen partners. Jardine Matheson employed",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 213389,
        "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": 211,
        "title": "RAS-1994",
        "content_text": "199\n\nDewey, John and Alice Chapman Dewey, Letters from China and Japan, New York Dutton, 1920\n\nDictionary of Ming Biography 1368-1644, edited by Carrington Goodrich, et al, New York Columbia University Press, 1976\n\nDingle, E.J., Across China on Foot, Bristol Arrowsmith, 1918 (Taipei Reprint Ch'eng-wen Publishing)\n\nDobell, Peter, Travels in Kamchatka and Siberia, with a Narrative of Residence in China, London H. Colburn and R. Bentley, 1830\n\nDonne, G.H., Generation of Giants. The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decade of the Ming Dynasty, Notre Dame University of Notre Dame Press, 1962\n\nDonovan, John F., The Pagoda and the Crows, the Life of Bishop Ford of Maryknoll, New York Charles Scribner, 1967\n\nDowning, C. Toogood, The Fan-qui in China in 1836-7, London Henry Colburn, 1838 (Shannon Reprint, Irish University Press)\n\nDyce, Charles M., Personal Reminiscences of 30 Years Residence in the Model Settlement, Shanghai 1870-1900, London Chapman and Hall, 1906\n\nEames, James Bromley, The English in China, London Curzon Press, 1909 (New York Reprint Barnes and Noble)\n\nEarl, Lawrence, One Foreign Devil (on Mary Ball. A Medical Missionary in North China), London Hodder and Stoughton, 1962\n\nEdkins, Jane Rowbotham, Chinese Scenes and People, London Nisbet, 1863\n\nEdwards, Dwight W., Yenching University, New York United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, with a sequel by Y.P. Mei on Yenching in Chengtu, 1959\n\nElliot, Robert, Views From the East, London I. Fisher, 1835\n\nEllis, Sir Henry (1777-1855), Journal of the Proceedings of the Late Embassy to China, Comprising a Correct Narrative of the Public Transactions of the Embassy, of the Voyages to and From China, and of the Journey From the Mouth of the Pei-Ho to the Return to Canton, 2nd edition, London J. Murray, 1818\n\nEnders, Elizabeth Crump, Swinging Lanterns, New York Appleton, 1923\n\n— Temple Bells and Silver Sail, New York Appleton, 1923\n\nEnglishman in China, The, London Saunders, Otley, 1860",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214837,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1999",
        "page_number": 252,
        "title": "RAS-1999",
        "content_text": "219\n\n\"Playing at War\": Poor View of Chinese Good Faith and Criticism of Captain Elliot\n\nTurning, now, to their views of the Chinese way of waging war, however much they respected individual courage, our British soldier and sailor authors and their commanders had soon come to form the notion that Chinese leaders were untruthful, deceitful and were not to be trusted in war or diplomacy. They and their colleagues were generally highly suspicious of the deceits and ruses practised by Chinese diplomats and commanders in order to gain time, especially those palpably insincere approaches such as took place during the negotiations attending the operations in the Canton River and the heights above the City in 1841: \"all being eager for the fight, and dreading a messenger of humbug,\" as Commander Bingham put it.31\n\nThey frequently criticized Captain Charles Elliot, the British plenipotentiary, who was making every attempt both to re-open the Canton Trade and to avoid further hostilities. He was not popular when he agreed to the temporary suspension of military and naval operations; and never less so than when he agreed to ransom Canton at the end of May 1841, without consulting the commanders, who were then heavily engaged with the enemy.\n\nAfter the small British force of soldiers, sailors and marines had spent several days' fighting their way onto the heights of Canton, orders had been issued on 25th May for storming the City early on the following day. However, as Belcher recounts, \"At dawn, the ominous white flag was again displayed [by the Chinese] and for some hours there had been repeated cries of \"Elliot, Elliot!,\" as if he had been their protecting joss.\" Sure enough, he continued, a British officer who had lost himself since ten the night before and roughed it out in the paddy fields overnight, presented himself with a despatch from Captain Elliot. \"Dead silence prevailed until it was handed to Sir Le Fleming Senhouse who immediately said \"I protest against it!”\n\n32\n\nMajor Armine Mountain of the 26th Regiment, Deputy Adjutant-General to the Expeditionary Force, was forthright in his condemnation of Elliot, writing home that \"We have been playing at war, instead of waging it.\"33 Mountain was equally scathing of what he saw as the overindulgence shown to the native population adopted at Ting hae",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214961,
        "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": 57,
        "title": "RAS-2000",
        "content_text": "12\n\nالرقاب\n\nwe wanted might have been got, if it had not been for the unaccountably strange conduct of Charles Elliot - not Admiral Elliot, for he was obliged to come away from ill-health who completely disobeyed his instructions and tried to get the lowest terms he could......Albert is so much amused at my having got the Island of Hong Kong...' (author's italics).\n\nWaley compares Lin and Elliot, the opponents in the opium dispute, and finds similarities; for instance, both were civil servants carrying out tasks imposed on them from above, both being cashiered for failing to fulfil these tasks. Strangely, Waley does not mention what is perhaps the most significant similarity: they both detested the opium trade. Elliot saw it as a disgrace and a sin and the blackest stain on the British character. It has even been suggested that Elliot, under instructions to protect the opium traders - a task he resented - deliberately disobeyed his orders and demanded less from the Chinese than the Government at home had ordered him to do.\n\n21\n\nLin was dismissed in late 1840. He left Guangzhou in May 1841, exiled to Xinjiang (Turkestan). He failed through no fault of his own; he was sent on a “mission impossible.\" Booth sums it up by saying that Lin had powerful forces massed against him - the military power of the British, the corruption of the Chinese government, and the devious immorality of the opium dealers.'22 The Opium War settled nothing. The long line of an unprotected Chinese coast threw the opium trade, in Elliot's words, 'into desperate hands.' Opium smuggling became totally out of control, and relations between Britain and China remained unstable and hostile. The measures Emperor Daoguang took to stop the opium traffic may have led to war, but it would be inaccurate to say that they caused it. It has been strongly argued that they merely gave an excuse for the war, which certain groups in Britain had been long demanding. It would be wrong, however, to assume that British public opinion was solidly behind the government and its war with China. Elsewhere in the Symposium it will be pointed out that a strong anti-opium sentiment existed in Britain, which in the end could not be silenced and led eventually to the end of the infamous trade. Two examples will suffice here: The Times, upon receiving the news of the Treaty of Nanjing wrote that the moment had come for Britain to extricate herself from her involvement with opium. Some moral compensation was owed to China 'for pillaging her towns and",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 216344,
        "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-2003",
        "page_number": 103,
        "title": "RAS-2003",
        "content_text": "52\n\n29 See Morse, International Relations op.cit., pp.651-2, in Captain Elliot's despatch of 21 June 1841 to Governor-General of India at Appendix I. The native population of Hong Kong included many boat people.\n\n30 The definitive work on the Hoppo, the changing nature of the post, and his relations with the high provincial officials and the Co-hong is Cheong, Weng Eang (1997). Hong Merchants of Canton, Chinese Merchants in Sino-Western Trade, 1684-1798. London, Curzon. See Chapter 4, Officials and the Trade, at pp.191-245.\n\n31 Gutzlaff, Rev. Charles, (1834). A Sketch of Chinese History, Ancient and Modern, Comprising a retrospect of the Foreign Intercourse and Trade with China. New York, John P. Haven, 2 Vols. See Vol.II, pp 224-227.\n\n32 Gutzlaff, Charles (1834). Journal of Three Voyages along the Coast of China in 1831, 1832, & 1833. London, Thomas Ward, at p.306.\n\n33 Morse, International Relations, Period of Conflict, op.cit., pp.86-7.\n\n34 Cheong, Hong Merchants, op.cit., pp.63-4.\n\n35 Ibid., p.15.\n\n36 Ibid., p.15.\n\n37 Ibid., p.14, and (e.g.) p.126n101.\n\n38 Morse, International Relations, Period of Conflict, op.cit., p.86. Also Cheong, Hong Merchants, op.cit., pp.221-224.\n\n39 Morse, Ibid., pp.85-6.\n\n40 Morse, Hosea Ballou, (1926). The Chronicles of the East India Company Trading to China 1635-1834. Oxford, Vol.III, pp.270, and Vol.IV, pp.282-3 and 305.\n\n41 Ibid., Vol. IV, p.282.\n\n42\n\n42 See the striking passage in Morse, International Relations, Period of Conflict, op.cit., pp.73-74, which makes his responsibilities (and his perquisites) very clear.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2003.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2v242g390",
        "rank": 0
    }
]