[ { "id": 205527, "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-1968", "page_number": 69, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "64 \n\nH. A. RYDINGS \n\nThe City Hall Library continued in existence till a much later date, beyond the scope of the present article. According to Twentieth Century Impressions, by 1908 the total stock was 3,332 in the Morrison Library. However, at this same date, according to the same source, the Hong Kong Club had over 18,000 volumes in its library, so the situation had not radically altered since the days of the Victoria Library.\n\nThere is apparently only one other library in Hong Kong the history of which goes back to the early days of the Colony. This is the library of the Supreme Court, which may in fact claim to predate the founding of the Victoria Library, since it was started by Chief Justice J. W. Hulme, who in 1847 presented his own collection of law books. Yet even eleven years later Government had made no attempt to add to this collection. The inadequacy of the Supreme Court library became a standing cause of complaint with a later Chief Justice, Sir John Smale, of whom it is said that he \"seldom delivered a judgment in which he did not make the time-honoured complaint as to the state of the library.\" Perhaps, however, he had an ulterior motive in so doing, since in 1881 Government bought part of Sir John Smale's collection to add to the Supreme Court library—and then had to keep it for a time packed away in boxes since the room used for a library was full.\n\nTwo years later it was felt that the Supreme Court had grown sufficiently in importance to require the appointment of a librarian. The position was advertised on 1st June, 1883, at a salary of $5 a week, the duties including to give general assistance as a copying clerk in the Registrar's office as well as to take charge of the library. The first appointee was Mr. E. B. Shepherd.10\n\nThe use of the Supreme Court library was not restricted to the Judiciary and Crown Law Officers, though misuse by other entitled persons resulted in the application of 'Rules for the Supreme Court Library', which were approved by the Legislative Council on 20th March, 1891. Amongst other matters, these specified that \"The books shall be in the custody of a Librarian to be appointed by the Governor,\" surely the most high-powered appointment of a librarian that the Colony has ever known. The supervision of the Library was, however, entrusted to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who was expected to submit an annual report on the state of the Library, including a list of books added. Books could", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205957, "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": 37, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "32\n\nSTEPHEN UHALLEY, JR.\n\nin answering a question it is always their chief endeavour to say what they suppose their questioner will be best pleased to hear. If therefore the knowledge of a fact is to be arrived at, it is, above all things, necessary that the inquiry bear a tint so neutral that the person to whom it is addressed shall find it impossible to reflect its colour in his reply. He will then sometimes, in his confusion, blunder into a truthful answer, but he does so generally with a bashful air, indicative of the painful consciousness that he has been reluctantly violating the rules of good breeding. A search after accurate statistics, under such conditions, is not unattended with difficulty,38\n\nElgin, however, never seemed to think equally critically of the information brought for his consideration about the Taipings. While it is of utmost importance what opinions such high-ranking English decision-makers were forming of the Taipings, it need not be supposed that the foreign community in general at this time was similarly influenced. We have the account of a relatively high ranking English naval officer which stated quite explicitly: \"When Lord Elgin returned from his expedition up the Yang-tze-kiang in 1858, his high-handed policy toward them at Nankin, Ngan-king, and elsewhere, was much disapproved of by a large section of the community, and it was thought that he had hardly done justice to them.\"39\n\nOne might legitimately raise the question again as to the purpose of the mission. We have already given the ostensible reason: to investigate suitable trading ports and trade conditions along the river. But this seems implausible. With a full-scale war taking place along the greater part of the lower Yangtze Valley, it was unlikely that such an investigation would prove of much value. The mission was premature in another respect as well, for it took place before the treaty was ratified, an observation that is especially to the point since the Ch'ing government did not, in fact, ratify the treaty. Actually, Elgin had two underlying purposes. First, he believed that the trip would confirm that the Emperor had in principle conceded the opening of the river, thus inducing the Chinese to take steps to put the treaty into effect. Second, Elgin reportedly believed that the trip would aid the Imperial cause against the Taipings since the \"opening", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206308, "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-1971", "page_number": 125, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "THE DISTRICT WATCH COMMITTEE\n\n119\n\npolice were commonly reputed to be corrupt, inefficient, drunken and lazy. The police force, mainly composed of European and Indian policemen with a small contingent of Chinese, was officered by European inspectors and sergeants and controlled at the top by a European Captain Superintendent of Police, often at loggerheads with the Registrar General, the 'Protector of Chinese'. The main duty of the regular police was to protect the central business district of Hong Kong, where most of the great European firms clustered, and the docks and wharves on which the prosperity of commercial Hong Kong depended. Principally, though, the regular police were there to overawe the Chinese lumpenproletariat, composed in European eyes of the sweepings of Kwangtung Province. The Chinese residential and commercial areas on the fringes of the core central district were more arbitrarily policed—and policed of course by aliens, most of whom as ex-Indian sepoys, ex-soldiers or ex-British policemen were unable to speak Cantonese.11 Chinese merchants, therefore, thought there would be advantages in maintaining a force of district watchmen Chinese to a man—selected, vetted, paid for, controlled, and if needs be, dismissed by the Chinese community.\n\nThe establishment of a body of Chinese district watchmen by the Registration Ordinance of 1866 was at first strongly opposed by some officials. In 1866 Sir Richard MacDonnell reported to the Secretary of State that the scheme was 'working admirably'12; but two years later the Chief Justice, Sir John Smale, laid on the table of the Legislative Council a memorandum inveighing against the inefficiency and corruption of the Force and suggesting that, to avoid the constant friction between the Superintendent of Police and the Registrar General, the district watchmen should be embodied in the Police Force under one head13. Soon after the Chief Justice's animadversions were made public in the Legislative Council, MacDonnell was forced to set up a commission to inquire into the working of the regular police as a result of a number of police scandals. In his memorandum setting out the reasons for holding such an inquiry, MacDonnell also asked the members of the commission to 'report as to the expediency of continuing to maintain, with Chinese co-operation and pecuniary aid, an auxiliary force of District Watchmen, and to ascertain whether the latter body has", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206988, "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-1974", "page_number": 59, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "ADVENTURERS IN HONG KONG\n\n53\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Sir William Des Voeux, My Colonial Service, 2 vols., London 1903. Sir Frederick Lugard, Governor of Hong Kong 1907-1912, also found that 'entertaining was an essential part of governing. Hong Kong Government House was used as a high-class hotel, restaurant and sports club by many of the hundreds of passengers who left their ships to write their names in the Governor's book...socially more exacting were the many distinguished foreigners and Eastern potentates-Chinese and Japanese princes, Indian Rajahs, the Governor of the neighbouring Portuguese Macao, foreign admirals who had to be visited in their warships and later entertained in turn at Government House; ambassadors en route to or from Tokyo or Peking, and many lesser functionaries.' See Margery Perham, Lugard, vol. 2, London, 1960, p. 289.\n\n2 My Colonial Service, vol. 2, p. 234. Sir William Des Voeux (1834-1909) was Governor of Hong Kong from 1887 to 1891, in which year he retired from the colonial service.\n\n3 14 November, 1888.\n\n4 15 November, 1888.\n\n5 16 November, 1888.\n\n6 22 November, 1888.\n\n7 William Van Driesche was the third generation of his family to serve the Morèses. The children used to call him Mr. Willie.\n\n8 There are several photographs of Morès in Donald Dresden, The Marquis de Morès: Emperor of the Bad Lands, Norman, Oklahoma, 1970, and in Charles Droulers, Le Marquis de Morès 1858-1896, Paris, 1932. Morès was six-feet tall, lithe, ramrod-straight, muscular, with a needle-pointed waxed black moustache. He looked every inch a d'Artagnan.\n\n9 Richard Manca, Duke of Vallombrosa, born 1834, married the daughter of the Duke Des Cars, conqueror of Algeria. He had three children, of whom Morès was the eldest.\n\n10 Op. cit., vol. 2, p. 234.\n\n11 Ibid., p. 235.\n\n12 Ibid., p. 235.\n\n13 The Hong Kong Daily Press, 24 November, 1888. The Governor was accompanied on his trip by his wife, young daughter, and James Russell, the Chief Justice. The Colonial Secretary, Frederick Stewart, administered the government in Des Voeux's absence.\n\n14 The China Mail (1845-1911) was edited by George Murray Bain from 1879 until 1908(?).\n\n15 It is not surprising that Des Voeux took a great interest in his betters since promotion in the colonial service in the nineteenth century depended to a large degree on knowing people in high places.\n\n16 No full-scale study of Mayréna has been published as yet; the best book is probably Jean Marquet, Un Aventurier du XIXe siècle: Marie Jer, roi des Sedangs, 1888-1890. Hanoi, 1927; but Maurice Soulié, Marie Jer, roi des Sédangs, 1888-1890, Paris 1927, is amusing though really une vie romancée. The most penetrating essay on Mayréna is that by Marcel Ner, 'Marie Ier, roi des Sedangs: essai sur la psychologie de l'aventure”, Extrême-Asie, Revue Indochinoise (Hanoi), no. 21, March 1928, pp. 397-407 and no. 22, April 1928, pp. 491-498. There are many references to Mayréna", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209204, "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": 107, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1930'S 93\n\nposition and their work often depended on the social and economic status of the person who had bought them.\n\nIn the nature of the case, some were sexually exploited by the male members of the family. Some were treated very cruelly by their mistresses. If they were attractive, they were often taken by the head of the family as a concubine.\n\nEveryone acknowledged that, like all social institutions, there were abuses in the system, but the traditional view was that its advantages outweighed its negative side. There were several arguments to support this view.\n\nOnly the poor sold their children. If they could not sell them, many would be killed off as infants. Their lot in a foster home was much better than it would have been in their natural home. They were fed, clothed, and when of proper age, a marriage was arranged for them with a suitable partner. Everyone benefited by the system: the child who escaped death or starvation, the natural parent who was lifted out of poverty, at least for the moment, and the purchaser who acquired a servant.\n\nIn Chinese society, it had long been an unquestioned aspect of the social order. The buying and selling of human beings did not sit well with the English conscience of the latter half of the nineteenth century. However, most colonists felt it was best to leave undisturbed the modus vivendi which had been established in Hong Kong between British law and moral standards and Chinese social practice.\n\nAfter some eighteen years on the bench in Hong Kong, Chief Justice John Smale, not long before his retirement in 1881, openly stated that, in his opinion, the practice of buying and selling children for domestic servitude was a form of slavery, and hence its continued toleration in a British colony was a blot on the honour of England. He received support from anti-slavery groups in England, but his views were not generally welcomed in Hong Kong, either by the Chinese or expatriates. There was some stir over the question for a short time, and then interest in it died away, not to be re-aroused until the question again came to public attention in 1917.\n\n1917 - The Question Raised\n\nMr. C. G. Alabaster, in defending a client charged with kidnapping, raised a legal point regarding the status of children purchased as servants. The report of the case focused the attention of the English", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "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": 211703, "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": 118, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "93\n\nas a whole was bitterly critical of the Hongkong Government, and it strongly opposed any suggestion that Government officials should dominate the camp. Mr. Gimson, however, took the view that the Hongkong Government had not ceased to exist, that its authority continued in so far as circumstances permitted, and that, as a matter of practical politics, it was essential that this position be maintained for disciplinary and other purposes unless Japanese intervention was to be constantly invoked. He realised, however, that it was neither possible nor desirable to take a high hand in the matter, and decided to work in with the Communal Councils and trust to time to calm feelings and produce a modus vivendi. He was so far successful that a day or two before we left the camp a resolution asking him to accept the Chairmanship of a reconstituted Council was signed by 1,300 British internees, and the existing British Council tendered its resignation to enable the change to take place. It was clear from this that there was no hostility to Mr. Gimson personally, but the stubborn determination to prevent the \"old gang\" from getting in and \"bossing\" things remained undiminished, and it was tacitly agreed that Mr. Gimson's assumption of the Chairmanship would not involve the placing in executive positions in the camp of the senior Cadet officers.\n\nOne of the rather curious consequences of the \"continuing jurisdiction\" theory is that the Police Courts continued to function, though of course on a very limited scale. Persons were tried and sentenced by the Magistrate for theft. The Chief Justice even declared his readiness to hear certain classes of civil actions, and he did in fact make a decree nisi in divorce proceedings begun before the Japanese occupation,\n\nIt will be noticed that the Japanese interfered actively very little in the internal affairs of the camp. However, they interfered negatively to a great extent, by insisting that nothing was to be changed without their consent, and by refusing to give their consent even in quite trivial matters. They themselves kept aloof. I made repeated written representations about the status of myself and the rest of our Embassy and Consular party and asked for interviews, but received no replies, and it was not until July 20th, when I was about to leave the camp, that I was able to exchange a few words with Mr. Nakazawa, the camp superintendent. Mr. Ohda, the Chief of the Foreign Affairs Section of the Hongkong Military Government, remained quite unapproachable.\n\ns.s. \"Narkunda\"\n\nSeptember 19th, 1942.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214377, "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": 235, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "201\n\nof affairs is not known but it is a possibility which cannot be discounted entirely. What is beyond dispute is that these widely publicized fears were used by the leaders of the Chinese community as a reason to petition the Government for permission to organise a force of Chinese watchmen who would help the public police. The scheme received the blessing of the Governor, Sir Richard MacDonnell, though it met with less than wholehearted approval from some other members of the administration, most notably the Chief Justice, Sir John Smale. The feature of the plan which appealed most to Government officials was its economy. Since the expenses of operating the scheme would be borne by the Chinese merchants, the Government would not need to spend any money yet it would, in effect, gain additional police constables.\n\n\"The Victoria Registration Ordinance 1866\" (No. 7 of 1866) provided the authorization for the formation of this body of men and came into effect on 1 January 1867. By its provisions the Governor, on the recommendations of the inhabitants of a particular District, could appoint a Chief Watchman and Watchmen who were under the control of the Registrar General and had the same powers as a constable. Thus, although both the words 'District' and 'Watchmen' appeared in the Ordinance, the combination 'District Watchmen' was not used. Two of the most informative early accounts of the District Watch Force appeared in the Registrar General's Reports for 1867 and 1868. In 1867 the Registrar General's post was held by a young Cadet Officer, Cecil C. Smith, who also acted as Colonial Secretary whilst in 1868 Alfred Lister, a Cadet with even less experience, acted as Registrar General. From the tenor of the earlier report it seems that Smith favoured the establishment of 'a body of men acting as a help to the Police Force.' The introduction of the scheme was not easy and 'Much jealousy was at first displayed as to the powers which were to be exercised in controlling the Watchmen.' Although the wording is ambiguous and the sentiments could have applied equally to some Europeans, the tone of the following sections of Smith's report suggest that this 'jealousy' prevailed within the Chinese community. This political in-fighting amongst the Chinese merchants and shopkeepers had long-lasting consequences for the future direction of the watchmen and undoubtedly led to the subordinate position of the Chinese in its operation.\n\nAs had occurred with earlier attempts to give the local population", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214379, "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": 237, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "203\n\n'it is not paid by the European community. The chief object of the Chinese in paying these Watchmen is to drive away thieves, the cardinal evil of a Shop-keeping population.' The success of the Watchmen was 'not only in arresting actual offenders, but also in keeping away those who live by pilfering.'\n\nDue to an administrative oversight 'no records were kept of the doings of the Watchmen until 27th August 1867. Thereafter data was collected and in the following six months the Watchmen were involved in the prosecution of fifty-three cases some of which were serious. By the end of 1868 another ninety-eight cases had been prosecuted due to the actions of the Watchmen and these resulted in the conviction of 117 defendants. Although the number of cases dropped to forty-one in 1869, data collected for the following two years showed that there were eighty-one and seventy-nine cases in 1870 and 1871 respectively. These returns compare favourably with similar data from the following century. As an example, in 1914 there were 109 convictions when the strength of District Watchmen had risen to one hundred.\n\nThe difference of opinion which had existed in Government circles in 1866 when the Watchmen scheme was introduced continued as the Watchmen went about their business. Cecil Smith was unstinting in his praise but, since he had been responsible for introducing the scheme, he could hardly be regarded as an impartial witness. Others, however, like the Police Magistrate Mr J. Russell and the Coroner Mr F. Stewart commended the Watchmen for their actions. At the other end of the spectrum were political heavyweights such as the perennial Mr Charles May and Chief Justice Smale. May had served as Captain Superintendent of Police between 1845 and 1862 before being appointed Police Magistrate and his low opinion of Chinese constables, whom he considered to be 'utterly untrustworthy,' was well known. His opinion of the Watchmen was similar and, according to Smith in December 1871, May showed 'an antipathy to the Corps which has had a very unfortunate effect.' This unfortunate effect manifested itself in a decline in the Watchmen's activity and energy with a corresponding decrease in the number of arrests. Smith maintained that the Chief Justice, who should have known better because of his legal background, objected not so much to the individual watchmen who appeared before him in Court, as to the whole system which apparently he did not know was established by law.\"9", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 } ]