[
    {
        "id": 208932,
        "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-1980",
        "page_number": 94,
        "title": "RAS-1980",
        "content_text": "62\n\nLEWIS M. CHERE\n\napplied that system's principles to their native charges. By the 12th October the police had collected over five thousand weapons. Among the collection of swords, spears and assorted other traditional weapons there were quite a few firearms, including a case of Winchester carbines. It should be pointed out that the rioters of the 3rd had not used anything in the line of weapons beyond the usual sticks, stones, bricks and assorted other missiles. By the 12th the city was considered calm and safe enough for the troops to return to their barracks.\n\nIn spite of his all-too-evident prejudice against the Chinese, the editor of the Daily Press was having his doubts about the nature of the disturbances.20 He was not prepared to call them anti-foreign, but he was not sure exactly what they were. Nationalism as we think of it was still a new concept in 1884, and most Europeans had difficulty associating the concept with non-European peoples, especially the Chinese. For a century Europeans on the China Coast had referred to the Chinese resistance to foreign influences as xenophobia encouraged by the Confucian literati. When they realized that that concept would no longer adequately describe what they were seeing among the Chinese it is no wonder that they might have had difficulty in thinking of it in terms of nationalism. To them nationalism implied a degree of sophistication which did not square with their preferred view of China and the Chinese. We should, therefore, not be surprised that the editor did not recognize what might have been early signs of nationalism among the Chinese. It is notable that he was prepared to admit that the old definitions and explanations no longer applied to the situation as he saw it developing. Even the usual rumors of outside agitators no longer seemed to correspond to the facts and he was flexible enough to admit that.21\n\nBy October 21 the troubles were unquestionably over and the city was getting back to its business. Police guards were no longer needed for the boatmen. When Tam Yik Kiu, editor of the Wah Tse Yat Po, was tried for having published Chang's proclamation the case was thrown out of court on the 24th. The editor of the Daily Press hailed the failure of the action as a victory for freedom of the press.\n\n22\n\nThough the disturbances were over rather quickly one late incident could lead one to believe that perhaps nationalism was a",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209405,
        "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": 62,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "40 \n\nJ. H. HAAN \n\nIt was one of the first manifestations of the fact that after all the land-renters were not sovereign in taking their own decisions and that for important measures the consent of one or more consuls was necessary. \n\nFor the time being the matter was allowed to rest, but the fact of tenants not having the franchise was again broached in the mid-1860s. Amidst numerous other signs of civic disobedience, a number of tenants refused to pay taxes which they themselves had not voted. Some of them were prosecuted before their respective Consular Courts with the result that in some cases the Municipal Council was proved right and sometimes wrong.23 \n\nThere was a widespread feeling that tenants could no longer be barred from attending Public Meetings; this feeling was expressed at the meeting of April 15, 1865, by the chairman of the Municipal Council, Henry Dent: \"Hitherto the practice has been of only land-renters voting. That this system is wrong in principle can hardly admit of doubt. Ratepayers contribute largely to the taxes and ought certainly to have a voice in matters of taxation. (...)\"24 \n\nApart from the principle involved, it was doubtless also an effort to muster support for the Municipal Council from the tenant-ratepayers. \n\nThe way seemed open for a wider franchise and indeed the new Land Regulations provided for the vote by some tenants (article XIX). The basis was rather restricted, however, and during the deliberations about the Land Regulations on March 12 and 13, 1866, it became clear that many land-renters who until then had exercised sole power—wished to limit the franchise even more than had been foreseen by the Commission which had drawn up the new Constitution. \n\nThe minimum rent which gave a tenant the right to vote was, therefore, eventually put at 700 taels. The only person who pleaded the cause of the tenants was the British consul, Charles Winchester, whose opinion was \"that the article just read (XIX) did not by any means come up to his idea what the franchise should be. One description of right should not alone",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    }
]