[ { "id": 205017, "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-1965", "page_number": 125, "title": "RAS-1965", "content_text": "116\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nAdditional Note on Article “JOURNAL OF OCCURRENCES AT CANTON IN 1839 BY WILLIAM HUNTER”\n\nReaders of Volume 4 of the Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society will be grateful to the Editorial Committee for deciding to print the full text of William C. Hunter's manuscript journal preserved in the Boston Athenaeum. It is a happy coincidence that his journal should have been made available in print to scholars of modern Chinese history at the very time when Hunter's manuscript has been drawn on extensively in a recently published account of the causes and events which led to the Opium War. The late Dr. Hsin-pao Chang, in his scholarly book Commissioner Lin and the Opium War (Harvard University Press, 1964), relates in some detail the story of the detention of the foreign merchants in their factories from 24th March until 5th May by orders of Imperial Commissioner Lin Tse-hsü (pp. 151-159). In describing this episode Dr. Chang has used various sources but has taken most of his details from Hunter's manuscript journal.\n\nAfter reading Dr. Chang's book I have discovered answers to a few problems which puzzled me while writing some of the footnotes to Hunter's journal as published in Volume 4 of this journal. May I, therefore, make a few additions and corrections to the text. Firstly, the sketch map of the Canton estuary on page 59 of Commissioner Lin and the Opium War marks most of the places mentioned by Hunter which were not shown on the sketch map on page 27 of Volume 4 of this journal, or left unidentified in the notes to the text. Thus the positions of Lankeet, Chuenpee, Shakok and Chunhow are clearly shown on the map in Dr. Chang's book. Hunter's use of the name Chinn-up under entry for 13th April is still inexplicable but in fact the opium was being unloaded at that date at Sha-chiao ('Sandy Head') which presumably was the Shakok of Western accounts, lying across the estuary from Lankeet. Secondly, some minor corrections. On p. 16, line 1, the word 'songs' should read 'gongs'; on p. 14, lines 9-10, it would be more accurate to say", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1965.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s752cj653", "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": 214298, "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": 156, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "119\n\nmust have been dreadful. For whenever they were wounded and fell, the match-lock set fire to their cotton clothes, and I saw several instances of their being literally burnt alive.\n\n33 C.Worswick & J.Spence. Imperial China, Photographs 1850-1912. London, 1979,\n\np.36 shows a photograph by Felix Beato.\n\nMackenzie, op. cit., p. 144 reports that \"The Tartars and Chinese troops use bows of different sizes and strengths, the Tartars use a peculiar kind of cross-bow, throwing three arrows..\"\n\n35 John Henry Gray. Walks in the City of Canton. Hong Kong, 1875, p.527.\n\n36 Ouchterlony, op. cit., p. 98 reporting the taking of the fort of Tycocktow says \"More resistance, however, was offered here than at Chuenpee, for the Chinese were not forced from their ramparts until the boats' crews had gained the summit, and the bayonet and cutlass had clashed with the spear and the broadsword. Several of the assailants received wounds from the cold steel, a rare occurrence in the Chinese war.\"\n\n37 Mackenzie, op. cit., p. 151.\n\n38 Lt. Colonel Fisher, C.B. Personal Narrative of Three Years' Service in China. London 1863. p.383.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 } ]