[
    {
        "id": 206775,
        "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-1973",
        "page_number": 52,
        "title": "RAS-1973",
        "content_text": "46 \n\nA. D. BLUE \n\nsteamships in India operated on the Hoogly in the early 1820s, mainly as tug boats. \n\nThe first steamship in the Dutch East Indies was the Van der Capellen, a paddle steamer of 230 tons, designed to operate a coastal service in Java. The Van der Capellen was built by a consortium of British merchants in Sourabaya in 1825, and equipped with engines built by Fawcett and Company of Birmingham. \n\nDue to the close association between British India and Canton through the East India Company, it was not long before steamships were introduced on the Canton River. Although he did not live to see his scheme carried through, a Mr. T. J. Robarts of the Company's Canton staff is the pioneer of steam navigation in China. When on leave in London in 1821, just nine years after the Comet was launched on the Clyde, he suggested to the Court of Directors that a steam tug could be usefully employed on the Canton River. Because it was thought that the Chinese might object, his scheme was turned down, but Mr. Robarts decided to go ahead on his own. He ordered two 16 horse-power engines and a copper boiler from Henry Maudslay and Company of London, and a hull of oak frames; all of which arrived at Canton in 1822 and aroused great curiosity and admiration. Unfortunately, bad health caused Mr. Robarts to retire prematurely, and there was no one at Canton able, or willing to continue with his scheme. Everything was therefore sent to Calcutta, and arrived there in June 1822. \n\nThe parts were assembled at Kyd and Company's yard at Kidderpore, and the vessel, known as the Diana, was launched on 12th July 1823. However, the original oak hull was discarded in favour of a new hull built locally of teak. The name Diana was taken from the figurehead which had accompanied the original hull. The total cost of the Diana was 70,000 rupees, and the government declining to take any part in the enterprise--this was financed by a group of Indian agency houses. \n\nThe Diana ran successfully, but not profitably, on the Hoogly for a year, and was then sold to the government for use in the Burma War, 1824-1826. It was Captain Marryat, then the senior naval officer in India, who recommended her purchase to the government. The Diana took part in the first expedition to Rangoon, and proved so useful that she was retained on the Irawaddy for the whole of the war. She suffered at times from overloading, as not",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209270,
        "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": 173,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "28.48\n\nJUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826\n\n159\n\nThe Topaze crisis, lasting from late 1821 into 1822, was the most serious confrontation between the Chinese and the British to that day, especially since the controversy involving all the significant issues of the day, including naval presence, jurisdiction over foreigners, and opium smuggling, came so close on the heels of the Terranova crisis. British trade at Canton was stopped for several months. The British factory, fearful that they would be held responsible for the misdeeds of sailors from the frigate Topaze, fled to their ships at Chuenpi on 11 February 1822. At the end of the crisis Juan Yüan made a compromise by not insisting on the surrender of the already departed criminals, but the British capitulated by abandoning the policy of using \"threat of force as a means of protecting or forwarding British interests in China\" at least for the time being. The Court of Directors of the East India Company \"advised the First Lord of the Admiralty to stop all peace-time visits of His Majesty's ships to the China coast unless assistance was urgently requested by the Governor-General of India\". An Order in Council was subsequently issued to this effect in 1823,\n\n1\n\n$\n\nIn December 1821, rancour from the Terranova case had hardly died down. Foreign traders realized that they could not escape completely the newly reinstituted stringent anti-opium laws even by sacrificing Terranova. The Emily, Terranova's ship, as well as three British ships, all with opium on board, were sent away from their Whampoa anchorage to Lintin, where they remained for three years without discharging or taking on cargo. During this period, two British warships, HMS Curlew and HMS Topaze, had sailed into the Pearl Estuary to \"protect\" these commercial vessels. Sailors had gone ashore \"to fetch fresh water\" from time to time. On 14 December 1821, a group of sailors from frigate Topaze came ashore. Only this time they brought along their pet goat. Unfortunately, the goat dug up potatoes, eating a number of them, and damaging the potato patch. A Chinese peasant, Huang I-ming, owner of the patch, then called upon his wife, brothers and neighbours to trample upon the sailors with sticks and stones, and in the fracas two urns of wine on the side of the hut were broken. When the sailors were driven aboard their ship, they discharged the cannon to disperse the pursuing and cursing villagers. During the skirmish among the potatoes a number of British sailors were injured, but none died. The next morning, the sailors, reinforced, went ashore again to revenge their mates. They chopped down the door of the hut of Huang I-ming, and fired a musket, killing him instantly. His son-in-law, also injured by the fusillade, died a",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209276,
        "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": 179,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "JUAN YUAN'S MANAGEMENT OF SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS IN CANTON, 1817-1826\n\n11 Ti-tzu chi, 5:11.\n\n165\n\n12\n\nFour men were known by the name (or title) of Howqua. They were Wu Tung-yüan (Puiqua or Howqua II), his father Wu Kuo-yung (Howqua I) before him, his two sons, Wu Shou-ch'ang (Howqua III) and Wu Chung-yao (Howqua IV).\n\n13\n\nWai-chi-tang, (hereafter cited as WCT), n.p. Copy of memorial from Juan Yüan, Governor-General of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, dated TK 1/11/19 (1821/2/21).\n\n14\n\n+6\n\n16\n\nMorse, Chronicles, III, 334.\n\nLiang-kuang yen-chik, chuan on Chia-ch'ing.\n\nIbid.\n\n17 Morse, Chronicles, IV, 57.\n\n18\n\nCopy of memorials from Juan Yüan, Governor-General of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, in Shih-liao Hsun-k'an 4:126a-b.\n\n19 W. C. Hunter, The \"Fan Kwae\" at Canton Before Treaty Days, 1825-1844, (Shanghai, 1911), p. 40.\n\n20 H. F. McNair, Modern Chinese History: Selected Readings, (Shanghai, 1913), 1:42.\n\n21 Chinese Repository, V:2:422 (January, 1834).\n\n22\n\nMorse, Chronicles, III, 377.\n\n23 Extract of letter from the Select Committee to the Court of Directors, East India Company, as reprinted in Parliamentary Papers, 21:104.\n\n24 Morse, Chronicles, III, 318.\n\n26\n\nIbid., 320.\n\n26\n\nWai-chiao shih-liao, Chia-ch'ing 6:57.\n\n27\n\n28\n\nLetter from the Select Committee, Parliamentary Papers 21:537. Wai-chiao shih-liao, Chia-ch'ing 6:57b.\n\n20 Letter from the Select Committee, Parliamentary Papers, 21:537.\n\n30 Morse, Chronicles, III, 381. In the listing of Company ships at Canton 1805-20, however, the security merchant for the London is given as Kinqua, Ibid.\n\n31 Letter from the Select Committee, Parliamentary Papers 21:537.\n\n32\n\nIbid. After the crisis was over, it was revealed that Pigott had been hiding on a British warship, the HMS Liverpool, then moored at Lintin. He could not return to the London when it left China because of bad weather, but managed to return to England at a later date, Morse, Chronicles, III, 382.\n\n33 Letter from the Select Committee, Parliamentary Papers 21:539; Morse, Chronicles, III, 380.\n\n34 Morse, Chronicles, p. 380.\n\n35 Eliot to Palmerston, as cited in Chinese Repository IX:406 (August, 1842).\n\n**WCT-TK1/11, Chinese Repository, V:5:223.\n\n37\n\n*7 WCT-TK 1/11.\n\n38\n\nMorse, Chronicles, IV, 23.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214966,
        "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": 62,
        "title": "RAS-2000",
        "content_text": "17\n\n⚫ M. Greenberg (see bibliography).\n\nX\n\n0\n\n10\n\nIt was mentioned in the Egyptian Papyrus of Ebers, c.2000 BC, and by the Greek Theophrastus, 3rd century BC.\n\nM. Booth: Opium: A History, London 1996, p.104.\n\nAn inferior quality opium was grown in Zhejiang Province. Chinese government made efforts to suppress it (1831).\n\nH.B.Morse: Trade and Administration of the Chinese Empire, New York, 1908, p.341.\n\n'Imperialism' is used to describe the system whereby one nation acquires political and economic control over another less technologically developed nation. \"Colonialism\" is more difficult to define. Originally the term applied to a settlement of the subjects of a country in lands beyond its boundaries who remain subject to or connected with the parent state. However, in recent times the two terms have been used synonymously,\n\nGreenberg, M., British Trade and the Opening of China 1800-42.\n\n13 American firms Olyphant & Co, and Nathan Dunn & Co.; their strict Quaker moral principles prevented them from trading in opium.\n\n14 Another, highly improbable, anecdote relates that Macartney asked the Emperor to enter into an alliance with Britain against the French, to which The Emperor allegedly replied that he was not concerned with the \"barbarians' petty squabbles\" outside his domain.\n\nS\n\n15 Secretary to the Court of Directors of the East India Company.\n\n16 S. Bard: Traders of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 1993, p.30.\n\n17 Anon.: China: Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical, London 1853, p.231.\n\n18 Reproduced by courtesy of Charlotte Horstmann & Gerald Godfrey Ltd., Hong Kong.\n\n19 The belief probably had its origin in the prevalent practice in Europe of a 'seasonal",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n",
        "rank": 0
    }
]