[ { "id": 204475, "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-1962", "page_number": 107, "title": "RAS-1962", "content_text": "96\n\n5\n\nJ. W. HAYES\n\nSee a tablet in the Chow-Wong School at Kam Tin.\n\n* Papers 1899 p. 188.\n\n* Papers 1899 p. 188.\n\n'Lockhart's figures, given in Appendixes 3 and 5 to his Report are not exact, and he has emphasised his sketchy estimate of the land population \"in default of any reliable statistics possessed by the Chinese Government\" and said he had been unable to obtain even an estimate of the boat people Papers 1899 pp. 187,189. Taking areas within my own detailed knowledge I have found that villages established long before 1898 have not been included in the returns or else have been linked with other villages without special mention, The population figures for the Islands, in particular, are not above suspicion and are probably greater than shown in Appendix 5.\n\n* Papers 1899 p. 189.\n\nPapers 1899 p. 189.\n\n10 Universal ownership was clearly shown by the land survey which followed the lease of 1898. This was carried out by surveyors and staff on loan from the Government of India, and was followed by a registration of titles which was enlivened by land courts which sat to determine possession in disputed cases. The survey sheets and the Crown Rent Rolls which form the schedules to them can be found in the District Offices of the New Territories Administration and they are a valuable record of land ownership and land classification at the time of the lease.\n\nAt Shek Pik and Fan Pui in 1958 out of sixty-six families four owned between 3-4 acres, nine between 2-3 acres, nineteen between 1-2 acres, fourteen owned between a half to one acre, twelve owned between a quarter to a half, and eight between 10 to 25 acres. Except a few late arrivals, therefore, every family owned land of its own. The position was much the same as in 1898.\n\nThe same was true of Wei Hai Wei, of which Johnston wrote Lion & Dragon, p. 148, \"Whatever the faults of the Chinese social system may be there is no doubt that in Wei Hai Wei it very largely accounts for the complete absence of pauperism (though no one is rich) for the orderliness of the people (nearly everyone has a stake in the land and has nothing to gain and everything to lose from disorder), for the uninterrupted succession of father and son in the homesteads, and for the long pedigrees attested by family graveyards and ancestral tablets\".\n\n11 See Johnston Lion and Dragon pp. 134-54. I have compared customary deeds of sale and mortgage from the New Territory between the years 1898 and 1958 with those cited by him and find that they invariably follow the same form (see especially Johnston pp. 144-145). These deeds are known as white deeds (as in Ching times) and had not been put through the formal process of registration in the District Office which would turn them into legal documents; or, as formerly in Ching days, in the Magistrate's yamen when they became red deeds (RI #). They were common until the Pacific war and even now are occasionally known to be drawn up in addition to the Memorial registering the conveyance in the Land Office. To select an example at random here is one from Shek Pik on Lantau Island dated the second year of the Republic (1913) which reads", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204681, "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-1963", "page_number": 162, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "146\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nA NOTE ON THE NAMES SAN ON AND PO ON\n\nBefore Hong Kong island and Kowloon were ceded, and the New Territories leased, to the British Crown, the region which is now the Colony of Hong Kong, along with the present-day Po On District on the Chinese Mainland across Deep Bay, formed a separate district of Kwangchou Prefecture. This district was called San On, a name by which it had been known since 1573, when it first acquired district status. Before this, from A.D. 716 to 1573, the region had been administered as part of Tung Kun District. Still earlier, from A.D. 331 to 716, it had been part of a larger division called Po On District 寶安縣.\n\nThis ancient name was revived in 1912 when San On District (or rather the small area that was left of it after the lease of the New Territories) was renamed Po On District. It is not unusual, even to-day, for the people of the New Territories to refer to themselves as natives of Po On District.\n\nPETER Y. L. NG.\n\nWHAT'S YOUR LINGO?\n\nMost of the etymological dictionaries of English published in this century derive the former cant-word lingo, now a contemptuous term in the standard language, for speech, language, from Provençal and ultimately, of course, from Latin lingua.\n\nSkeat's gloss, in his Etymological Dictionary, includes the following: \"Prov. lengo, lingo, speech (Mistral); lingo is the precise form used at Marseilles and lengo is Gascon (Moncaut.)”\n\nIf the dictionaries are right, lingo may have come into the thieves' jargon of English sea ports from the mouths of sailors who had picked it up from Sabir, the old maritime lingua franca of the Mediterranean which is said to have contained many elements from the Provençal dialect of Marseilles.\n\nHowever, while most of the modern dictionaries give us a Provençal etymology and merely ask us to bear in mind the Portuguese form lingoa, earlier works such as Dr. Johnson's,\n\n \n \n !\n \n \n i\n !", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204799, "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": 102, "title": "RAS-1964", "content_text": "90\n\nJ. W. HAYES\n\nIt is hoped that this account of Peng Chau will demonstrate the diversity of settlers and enterprises which appears to characterise even the smaller settlements of this part of the Kwangtung coastline. Peng Chau is a Cheung Chau in miniature, and because of its smaller size a wider treatment than was possible for Cheung Chau can be given, in an article of this length. Again, my intention is to provide no more than an outline, and an indication that, despite their size, such communities could be complex settlements in which traditional lines of division were blurred by proximity and a common environment.\n\nNOTES\n\nAny statements in respect of Peng Chau and its people which appear to be unsubstantiated are based on information supplied by various elders. I am most grateful for the assistance given by the Chairman of the Peng Chau Rural Committee, Mr. LAM Shue-chun#, and Mr. LO Chi-chung# of the District Office, South,\n\n1 See \"The pattern of life in the New Territories in 1898\" pp. 75-102 of this Journal, vol. 2 (1962) and \"Cheung Chau 1850-1898\" in vol. 3 (1963) pp. 88-106.\n\n2 See Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong—hereafter styled Sessional Papers (Hong Kong Noronha & Company, at yearly intervals, in this case 1905) p. 144 in the Report on the work of the Land Court for the New Territories for 1900-1905.\n\n3 See G. N. Orme, “Report on the New Territories 1899-1912” in Sessional Papers 1912, pp. 56-57, for significant changes in wages and the cost of living.\n\n4 A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong, Government Printer 1960) p. 83. In this article characters have not been given for any place names which appear in the Gazetteer,\n\n5 Schedules to the Block Crown Lease for Peng Chau, District Office, South, New Territories Administration. Hereafter styled BCL.\n\n6 Under the Convention of Peking signed on 9th June 1898,\n\n7 Sessional Papers 1911, p. 103(22) and (26). This figure is broken down into 434 males and 208 females, children included. The preponderance of males is noteworthy and may be due, in part, to the number of single men employed in the limekilns. The boat population are not specified separately in the Census returns and cannot be separated from the 4,442 contained in the Cheung Chau district figure. Cheung Chau with Peng Chau and Nei Kwu Chau formed a census district in 1911, but whilst the land population for each place is given separately, the boat populations are not so specified.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204800, "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": 103, "title": "RAS-1964", "content_text": "PENG CHAU\n\n91\n\nThere are said to be over 230 islands within the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. See Hong Kong Annual Report for 1962 (Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1963) p. 319.\n\n? I am not well acquainted with the Chinese records, but there seems to be little information on Peng Chau available in the San On Gazetteer, or Gazetteer of the San On District, last edition 1819, but reprinted by Kwangtung Printers, Canton, 1933.\n\n10 A lucky day of a winter month of the third year of Chia Ching.\n\n11 A lucky day of the third winter month of the 57th year of Chien Lung.\n\n12 It is customary to do so: in fact the 1878 tablet states whether subscribers are local or from various other places. I base this statement on experience of many such tablets, but there are always exceptions to disprove the general rule. Tablets may be considered generally to be reliable, but are subject to occasional errors and omissions.\n\n13 A lucky day of the third winter month of the year, third year of Kuang Hsü (January/February 1878).\n\n14 The nineteenth day of the seventh Moon of the fifteenth year of Tao Kwang. There is nothing on the tablet to indicate that it was the only one erected. If it was, it confirms the island's importance as a fishing centre,\n\n15 This date and the number of boats stated cannot be confirmed. It is given in a short manuscript account of Peng Chau in Chinese, available locally, compiled anonymously a few years ago,\n\n16 On Cheung Chau a Peng On Tong existed in 1898 when, together with two other Tongs, it held a lease of land for a boatshed. These appear to have been organisations of Tanka fishermen. The Peng On Tong and its boatshed still exist, though its affairs have been managed by several generations of a prominent Punti family since at least 1910 (BCL and Land Registers).\n\n17 For some information on the origins of the Tanka see K. M. A. Barnett \"The Peoples of the New Territories\" in Hong Kong Business Symposium (Hong Kong, South China Morning Post, 1957) p. 261 and his Introduction, pp. 2-3 to T. R. Tregear's Hong Kong Gazetteer (Hong Kong University Press, 1958).\n\n18 The local name for trawlers is ... The smaller types of Tanka fishing craft using the anchorage in 1898 are described as * and *. Then there are Hoklo boats of a similar type: one usually equipped with cars and styled #, and a variant called, literally \"chicken hair claw\", which was the type of boat used by Mr. CHUNG and his fellow Hakka fishermen. I am told that the first are principally shrimp boats and the latter mainly used for catching fish. There is a good description of such craft on p. 53 of Orme's Report in Sessional Papers 1912 quoted above, which is also useful for a contemporary account of the boat people. A list of the various types of local fishing craft (modern) is given in Table I, pp. 45-51 of Stanley S. S. Yuan's paper on Fishing Junks, which was read to the Engineering Society of Hong Kong in the 1955-56 session and published in January 1956 in volume IX no. 2 of their Proceedings. A diagram showing six local types is on p. 55. For an interesting account of the Hong Kong fishing fleet before the Japanese War, see Reports on the Fisheries Industries of Hong Kong by S. Y. Lin, apparently written between 1938-48, of which there is a typescript copy in the Library, University of Hong Kong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205215, "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-1966", "page_number": 171, "title": "RAS-1966", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n165\n\nMalay title dato. As for Mo-lo-cha, an abusive expression for an Indian, I see the Portuguese element mouro, 'a Moor'. The slang term for Indian in Macanese is still moro- the area round Belilios Terrace in Hong Kong was once known as mato moros, 'hill of the Moors' because of the large number of Indians living in the district. This name was transformed by folk-etymology to the good old Christian matamoros ‘kill the Moors'. Santiago (or St. James) is nicknamed 'matamoros' in Spain to this day.\n\nMoreover the Indians in Malaysia are referred to by the Portuguese of Malacca as moros, whether they be Muslims or not. The Muslim Malays are never so named. In the Philippines the non-Christian inhabitants of Mindinao and other southern islands are also known as moros, a name given them by the Spaniards.\n\nThe old pidgin records collected by Leland in the nineteenth century also give moloman as the pidgin English word for Indian, so that there is no more reason to derive mo-lo-cha from Maharajah than to imagine that Hong Kong ever was a fragrant harbour.\n\nUniversity of the West Indies. St. Augustine, Trinidad.\n\nROBERT WALLACE THOMPSON\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Itcheong-U-Lam and Ian-Kuong-lam, Ou-Mun Kei-Leok (Monografia de Macau), Macao, 1950.\n\n2 Chang lu Lin and Yin Kuang Jen, Ao Men Chi Lüeh (Gazetteer of Macao), Canton, c. 1751.\n\nSee also Bawden C. R. \"An eighteenth century Chinese source for the Portuguese dialect of Macao\" in Silver Jubilee Volume of the Sinbun-Kagaku-Kenkyusyo, Kyoto, 1954, and Thompson, Robert Wallace, \"Two synchronic cross-sections in the Portuguese dialect of Macao\", Orbis, tome VIII, No. 1, Louvain, 1959,\n\nA NOTE ON LAND MEASUREMENT AND TENANT RENTALS IN HONG KONG.\n\nLand Measurement\n\nUnder the laws of the Colony of Hong Kong all land is Crown Land, albeit some of it is under lease. The right to resumption of leased lands for a public purpose is retained in all leases. The following notes on local Chinese custom have mostly been acquired during investigations for the purpose of presenting the Crown's", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205393, "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": 155, "title": "RAS-1967", "content_text": "148\n\nLIN SHU-YEN\n\n1939 “A slight (unspecified) fall in the output compared with 1938\" A very successful year as a result of a large increase in price.\n\nSome general figures for the New Territories salt-industry before 1912, not specifically related to Tai O, are given in G. N. Orme's \"Report on the New Territories 1899-1912\" (para. 71) to be found in the H.K. Government's printed Sessional Papers for 1912. They are as follows:\n\n1900 30 cents a picul.\n\n1908 $1.20 a picul: \"salt makers came in for large profits\".\n\n1912 70 cents a picul: decrease \"chiefly owing to imports from the Northern Coasts\".\n\nOrme lists 37 acres of salt pans at Tai O, 32 at Castle Peak, 12 at Shun Wan near Tai Po and less than one acre at Sha Tau Kok. However, at Tai O at least, the area under production at that time was not the total acreage laid out for the purpose. At the survey and land settlement conducted a few years after 1899 a total of 107.07 acres was recorded as salt-pans. These were then (1903-04) five pans, the largest 37.39 acres and the smallest 5.66 acres. The area under production was, it appears, usually less than the total and would vary according to the demand for salt, and the market price. These details are taken from the Block Crown Lease and Survey Sheets in the District Office South.\n\nThere is an interesting passage on the manufacture of salt in the New Territories and the uses to which both it and imported salt was put at that time in Colonial Reports Annual, No. 314 Hong Kong, Report for 1899 (London, HMSO, 1901);\n\n\"Salt is manufactured at four places in the New Territory, the yearly output being about 4,466 tons, worth some $16,000, which in part supplies the local demands of the population, the fishing junks which keep the fish they catch while at sea in brine, and the various fishing stations where fish is salted and dried. A much larger quantity is, however, imported at certain places for the use of the fleets of fishing junks. The imported salt is also largely used for the salting and drying of fish, for which purpose it seems to be preferred to the locally manufactured salt. The manufacture of salt is an industry which is likely to increase and develop in the New Territory, and which is worthy of being", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205552, "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": 94, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "FAN LAU AND ITS FORT\n\n$9\n\ni.e. great island, by the Chinese; the town Toongchung on the north shore opposite Chulocock I. is the largest on the island\"\n\nOn the other hand, it seems by this date that the fort was already abandoned since one of the British officers who came out to China for the hostilities of 1841-42, has this to say of it in an account of his experiences:\n\n14\n\nAt the S.W. part of Lantou (sic) we saw, on a height, the remains of an old walled fort, supposed to have been one of the haunts of the famous Coxinga, the pirate However, the fort could not have been abandoned for very long since a repair tablet inside the Tin Hau temple at Fan Lau dated the 2nd summer month of the 25th year of Chia Ch'ing (11th June -9th July, 1820) records contributions by officers of the\n\n21\n\nas it is described thereon. Both these records can only apply to the Fan Lau fort.'5\n\nWhen the Hong Kong Government surveyors arrived at Fan Lau in 1904 after the New Territories were ceded to Britain, they found the fort still abandoned. In the Block Crown Lease Survey, it is described as \"old fort, ruins, waste\".16 It had probably not been re-occupied since the early part of the 19th century.\n\nIt can now be argued that the Kai Yik Kok fort is a Ming dynasty fort built sometime before 1573, possibly abandoned, but rebuilt again in 1730, captured by pirates and re-taken by govern-ment forces sometime between 1810 and 1815, and then refurbished, refortified, and garrisoned until some time before 1841-42, by which time it was already again abandoned.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Also known to the villagers as Yuen To Shan (#ll) or \"the hill from which to watch the arrival of distant boats\". There is a level spot high above the village, which, according to tradition, was used by observers to watch for incoming vessels proceeding up the Chu Kong or Pearl River estuary.\n\n2 The locations of these various strongpoints can be plotted from the text and maps in the Coastal Defence sections of the 1864 edition (map circa A.D. 1822) of the Kwong Tung Tung Chi\n\nthe 1819 edition of the San On Yuen Chi M £ M ; the 1827 edition of the Heung Shan Yuen Chi ₺ 4B #; and the 1800 edition of the O Mun Kei Leuk * 1938 #. The last three works contain maps of varying dates from earlier editions.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205554, "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": 96, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "FAN LAU AND ITS FORT\n\n91\n\n11 A lorcha is a specialized fighting craft from Macau that combined a Western-style hull (for speed and maneuverability) with Chinese batten sails and rigging (for easier sail-handling and disguise).\n\n12 Charles F. Neumann, History of the Pirates (š), who infested the China Sea from 1807 to 1810, (London, John Murray, 1831) P. 58.\n\n13 J. R. Morrison, A Chinese Commercial Guide (Canton, Office of the Chinese Repository, 1848) pp. 70-71.\n\n14 The Last Year in China to the Peace of Nanking as sketched in Letters to his Friends by a Field Officer actively employed in that Country (2nd edition, revised, London, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans 1843) pp. 51-52.\n\n15 There is, in addition, the possibility that the fort had a temporary garrison in 1834 see the imperial directive given respecting defence and patrolling at Lantau and Macao quoted by J. L. Cranmer-Byng in his brief note \"An old fort at Tung Chung on Lantao Island” in J.H.K.B.R.A.S. Vol 3 (1963) pp. 144-145.\n\n16 Hong Kong Government. New Territories Administration. Block Crown Lease Demarcation Districts 322 and 327, Shek Sun village, Lantau Island.\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY CITED\n\nJ. J. L. Duyvendak, \"Sailing directions of Chinese voyages\", T'oung Pao vol. 34 (1938), pp. 230-237,\n\n\"The true dates of the Chinese maritime expeditions in the early fifteenth century\", T'oung Pao vol. 34 (1938), pp. 341-412.\n\nLuis B. Gomes, Monografia de Macau, Macau, 1951.\n\nHongkong Government. A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hongkong, Kowloon, and the New Territories, Hongkong, 1960.\n\nLo Hsing-lin, Hongkong and its External Communications before 1842. Hongkong, 1963.\n\nJ. R. Morrison, A Chinese Commercial Guide, Canton, 1848.\n\nCharles F. Neumann, The History of the Pirates who infested the China Sea from 1807 to 1810, translated from the Chinese original, London, 1831.\n\nCh'ing dynasty work:\n\nChinese Sources\n\nMo Pei Chi (AA) A.D. 1621\n\nThe provincial Gazetteer of Kwangtung:\n\nKwong Tung Tung Chi (♬✯ ih sk) 1864 edition\n\nThe District Gazetteers for the following:\n\nSan On Yuen Chi (%) 1819 edition\n\nTung Kwun Yuen Chi ✯✯✯) 1797 edition\n\nHeung Shan Yuen Chi (3) 1827 edition\n\nO Mun Kei Leuk (39 1932) 1800 edition", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205814, "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-1969", "page_number": 120, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "114\n\nH. G. H. NELSON\n\n(in an attempt to use the physical structures as a basis for a random sampling frame), and reached the conclusion that in the conditions of New Territories villages, it is strictly undefinable. The local \"village houses\" are built in terraced rows: each \"house\" consists of a single \"room\", which, although generally divided by a partition into living and sleeping quarters, is regarded as the living accommodation proper to one married couple and their unmarried children. It is very rare for an old and widowed mother to share the same \"house\" as her son and daughter-in-law: I have not come across a single instance of more than one married couple, however closely related, sharing the same \"house\". The correspondence between room, house, and household is by no means exact: not only may one household (defined as a group of kin sharing a common budget and a single stove) be spread over a number of \"houses\", but where one household is occupying two adjacent \"houses\", an interconnecting door may be opened between them, turning them, to all intents and purposes, into a single \"house\" of two \"rooms\". It might almost indeed be more logical to regard each unit in a terrace as a \"room\", and define \"house\" as that combination of \"rooms\" which is occupied by a single household, even when the \"rooms\" are located in more than one terrace; but Chinese usage does not support this — each unit is called uk, never fong.\n\nThe Hong Kong Government surveyors who numbered all agricultural and building lots in the early years of this century evidently came up against a similar problem of definition; and there are inconsistencies in the system of numbering they adopted. Where two adjacent units were owned (and occupied?) by one man, they are numbered together as one (double-sized) house-lot. There is one row in Sheung Tsuen, however, where the living quarters of each house are separated from their kitchens by the narrow lane that gives access to them: it is clear from the pattern of ownership in 1905 (when the Block Crown Lease was drawn up), and from the way these structures have been passed down the generations since then, that each kitchen is linked with a single\n\n* I use the Meyer-Wempe Romanisation of Cantonese terms throughout.\n\n† Sheung Tsuen (1) in the Pak Heung (^#) where Mr. Nelson carried out his research. See p. 171 of A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong Government Printer, n.d, but 1960), Ed.\n\nPage 120\n\nPage 121", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205815, "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-1969", "page_number": 121, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE DESCENT SYSTEM\n\n115\n\nliving unit; and yet the surveyors gave each structure a separate number.\n\nChinese village houses are not strongly built: once left unoccupied and untended, they rapidly succumb to the ravages of typhoons without, white ants and weeds within. They may be used for a while for storage, but without care they soon lose even this function. How is one to decide at what stage of decrepitude a structure ceases to qualify as a house and becomes an insignificant ruin? More importantly, what criterion did the 1905 surveyors use? There seems little doubt that they failed to number structures that were ruined then (gaps in the sequence of numbers in a row have since been filled with \"New Grant Lots\"), and gave numbers to structures that were destined to crumble away altogether by 1968 (many lot numbers correspond to nothing discernible on the ground at present). Therefore, just as it would be wrong to suppose that the habitable structures now visible represent the sum of houses listed in Government Land Records, so it would be a mistake to regard the entries in the Block Crown Lease as an exact reflection of the number of habitable structures on the ground in 1905.6\n\nA further problem is raised by the fact that the use to which village structures are put changes over time: relatively few are built as cowsheds, but a great many do service as such (or as pigsties) at some stage, and are restored for human habitation when necessary. They may even serve a dual purpose. My own attempt at defining \"house\" ran aground when I discovered two households which had insufficient space to accommodate each husband's aged mother: one mother slept in one of the separate kitchens mentioned above, while the other shared a house with the family's pigs.\n\nFor the purposes of this article, it is not necessary to make a hard and fast definition of “village house”, but simply to point out that the present-day observer cannot be certain that his understanding of the term coincides with that of the 1905 surveyors: so that the apparent total of \"houses\" recorded in the Block Crown Lease may include a good many structures that were unfit for human habitation, or used for other purposes, at that time. What follows is an attempt to explain why at any one time many of the houses that are fit for human habitation are likely not to be in use.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205821, "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-1969", "page_number": 127, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE DESCENT SYSTEM\n\n121\n\nof the two should in fact have proportionately more empty houses than its poorer neighbour22; it is not impossible that the sort of inefficiencies in the descent system that I have described whereby the swelling of a descent line in one generation may leave the next with more house-property than it needs or can redistribute — may account for this anomaly.*\n\nH. G. H. NELSON.\n\nNOTES\n\n1. Göran Aijmer, \"Being Caught by a Fishnet: On Fengshui in South-eastern China\", J.H.K.B.R.A.S., Vol. 8, 1968, pp. 74-81.\n\n2. Field data drawn on in this paper are derived from a period of work in Sheung Tsuen, Pat Heung, from June 1967 to October 1968. I was employed as a Research Officer of the London School of Economics, on a project financed by a grant made to Professor Maurice Freedman by the Social Science Research Council. Much of the information from the Hong Kong Government's land records was collected by my wife, whose fare to Hong Kong was provided by the London-Cornell Project for East and South-East Asian Studies, financed jointly by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Nuffield Foundation. I am very glad to acknowledge their generosity.\n\n3. See for example J. E. Spenser, \"The Houses of the Chinese\", Geographical Review, Vol. XXXVII, 1947, pp. 254-273.\n\n4. Cf. J. W. Hayes, ‘A Chinese Village on Hong Kong Island Fifty Years Ago Tai Tam Tuk, Village Under the Water', in I.C. Jarvie and Joseph Agassi, eds., Hong Kong: A Society in Transition, London, 1969, p. 33.\n\n5. Block Crown Lease, Demarcation Districts Nos. 112 and 114, 1905; various Memorials in Yuen Long District Office; and ‘A-Roll' volume X.14. I am most grateful to the New Territories Administration for their courtesy in allowing me access to the invaluable information contained in their Land Records.\n\n6. The current records conceal the difference between inhabited structures and \"house-lots' (Crown Rent being assessed on the site rather than the structure) - a difference of which the villagers are aware. Many of them, when asked how many houses they own, will say, \"so many houses and so many lots \"(uk-tel_£)\". It seems to me possible that some villagers may, in 1905, have been far-sighted ---or fortunate enough to register both their houses and their ruined lots, thereby avoiding the expense and complication of obtaining a New Grant Lot when they wanted to rebuild on an old site.\n\n* Groups of houses, bigger and more durable than usual, have also been built as a form of long-term investment (and prestige expenditure) by particularly wealthy men; but their hopes of producing enough sons and grandsons to justify this deliberate over-production of houses are often sadly unfulfilled.\n\n* On the subject of this article see also Mr. Hayes' note at pp. 158-160.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206405, "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": 222, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "196\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nlarge, old temples in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. it is not under the management of the Chinese Temples Committee but is exempted from the provisions of the Chinese Temples Ordinance No. 7 of 1928. At that time it was allowed to remain in the hands of the private family to eight of whose members a Crown Lease had been issued on 14th May, 1897. This was the Tai (...) clan formerly of Po Kong Village, Kowloon which was demolished during the Japanese occupation to make way for an extension to the Kai Tak airfield. The temple remains in the hands of their descendants to this day.\n\nJust when the Tai clan began the connection and whether they were responsible for the foundation and successive reconstruction cannot now be established for certain, as no written records remain. A document that might have helped, their clan record, (...) was lost during the Japanese occupation, and we are left with oral tradition. Conversations with the present manager and with an old village woman, a Tai, born in 1887 at Po Kong, gives information that the family are Hakkas from Tam Shui district, not far from Hong Kong. When they came to Po Kong to settle is not now known, but it was certainly before the British occupied Hong Kong Island in 1841. The story goes that members of the family used to come over to Hong Kong Island to cut grass. They found an image of Tin Hau among rocks on the sea-shore where the temple now stands—the coast-line has since been altered by reclamation—and built a modest shelter for it. By degrees it became a popular shrine with boat people and others, especially at the goddess' birthday on the 3rd day of the 3rd lunar month. A proper temple building was erected later by the Tai family who are said to have collected subscriptions for the purpose, leading in time to the major reconstruction of 1868.\n\n―\n\nThere is some doubt in my mind whether the bell now in the temple was cast specially for it. The Chinese characters on it do not mention that it was for the Tin Hau Temple. Alternatively, though the bell may have been made for this temple, the Tais may not have been the founders, despite their traditions, as not one of the five persons who presented it, and whose names appear on it, was a Tai.\n\nThe Crown Lease of 1897 was issued to eight persons, and from what the old lady has said it appears that this followed a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206526, "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": 74, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "68\n\nHENRY JAMES LETHBRIDGE\n\nLondon. His official rank corresponded with that of a Lieutenant-Governor, so that he received a salute of only fifteen guns compared with the seventeen of first-class Crown-Colony Governors, such as that of Hong Kong. But, as R.F. Johnston pointed out: 'his actual powers, though exercised in a more limited sphere, are greater than those of most Crown-Colony Governors, for he is not controlled by a (Legislative) Council.'33 Lockhart's official duties, which of course kept him extremely busy, were nevertheless limited in nature, and the tempo of life in the Territory did not change dramatically during his tenure of office, for after the lease was signed, little was done with the Territory. At first, it was thought that the port could be transformed into a fortified naval base like Hong Kong, but to do so would have been extremely costly and would have involved the construction of a long breakwater and extensive dredging work in the harbour. In fact, the port was never utilised as a strategic naval base; it became merely a naval rest centre and a place where the British China Squadron lay at anchor when it paid its annual summer visit to North China. A few visitors also arrived from time to time and stayed at its European-style hotel, and an English school34 attracted boys from China, Japan, and Hong Kong.\n\nLockhart was administering a mainly agricultural region, equivalent in area to a small-sized Chinese district magistracy (hsien). The leased Territory, with its population composed principally of fairly well-to-do peasant farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, and artisans, was in composition like that of the New Territories which he had left. Lockhart did not feel called upon to alter drastically the life of this old, settled community, nor indeed was it the intention of the Colonial Office that he should. The Order-in-Council under which British rule in Weihaiwei was inaugurated stated: 'In civil cases between natives, the Court should be guided by Chinese or other native law and custom, so far as any such law or custom is not repugnant to justice and morality.'\n\nLockhart attempted, then, to preserve as much of the fabric of Chinese society as was possible. In his report for 1902, he wrote: \"With the policing of the territory at Hong Kong as a guide, it might have been thought that this question (the maintenance of peace and good order) was one easy of solution; but it required no long residence here to reveal that the conditions existing in the new territory of Hong Kong and those of Wei-Hai-Wei are widely different. In the former case, the natives had lived for about half a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206609, "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": 157, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "H.K.'S CENTRAL MARKET AND THE TARRANT AFFAIR\n\n151\n\nthe level of the commercial interests of Chinese merchants of the time but also because of the extent to which it figured in a scandal over bribery by Government officials and the victimisation of a Government servant who later became the embittered editor of one of the Colony's newspapers, the Friend of China.\n\nThough, from an historical point of view, the former matters are far more important, the two are not wholly distinct for the Government servant in question acquired property interests in the market.\n\nAfter Sir John Davis let the market franchise go to the highest bidder, he granted the franchise holder a short lease on the premises, thereby effectively changing the relationship of the market operator to the Government. Accordingly, the lot on which the market stood, an area of 37,800 square feet, was leased on 1 July 1845 to Hwei Aqui at a rent of $4,800 per annum (about £1,000). This area, comprising the whole of the land between the shore-line and the Queen's Road, was larger than that of the original market and allowed for the houses and shops which had been built between the market buildings and the road.\n\nIt is at this point that the scene becomes confused for Hwei decided to develop the property further and had to borrow money to do so. Between the date of the lease and mid-1847 when Hwei died, he executed several transactions, some of which are recorded in the records of the Government Land Office as Mortgages, some of which are not. The earliest was on 6 August 1845 when he borrowed $1,500 for one month from the estate of a Chinese, Tong Kim-sing who had been in business as a ‘contractor' until his death in 1844, at the staggering rate of interest of 10% per month. The satisfaction of this mortgage is not recorded in the Land Office but it is known that the administrator of the deceased's estate left the colony about this time and the defect might have been one of form only. About two months later, on 12 October 1845, Hwei borrowed from Ying Wing-kee, described as a ‘compradore' and one of the only two Chinese to have bought land at the sale of Crown Land on 22 January 1844, $2,800 for a period of 18 months and at a rate of repayment which worked out at an interest rate of almost 6% per month. Hwei was, therefore, deeply in debt before the year was out. Before his death in 1847, there follows one further transaction which was imperfectly recorded at the time. On 13", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206610, "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": 158, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "152\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\nNovember 1846, he assigned the lot to Foong Achi (otherwise Attai) for an unspecified amount. The transaction was recorded as an absolute assignment and this led Tarrant, then Clerk of Deeds in the Land Office and to whom we shall shortly return, to add a note on the lease register to the effect that the leaseholder's name could not be altered in the Lease Register until the mortgage encumbrances were cleared. Though Foong later claimed that the transaction was an absolute assignment, with $1,000 as the consideration, Tarrant rejected this on the ground that the document of assignment was a forgery.10 But in 1848 Foong re-assigned the property to Hwei's administrator, stating that all sums owing were satisfied. This is sufficient to show that, when the market passed to Hwei's brother Afoon on his death in 1847, the picture was already complicated. It was to become more so.\n\nHwei Afoon seems to have felt the need for more cash for reasons which will soon become apparent and he entered into a transaction which is very difficult to understand, though he may have done so under duress. On 28 June 1847, he assigned his interest (as administrator) to two others on trust for various purposes. These two named persons were, first, Chow Aoan who, at the time was compradore to the Government Treasury and, as such, a powerful man. He already had extensive property interests in the Chinese parts of the town and was to extend them in the years to come. The other person was Le Quong-cheong about whom less is known. He described himself on one occasion as a 'bookseller' but certainly also lent money.\n\nThe purpose of the transaction must have been to secure the repayment of monies borrowed by Hwei Afoon. Ying Wing-kee had transferred to Le on 19 June 1847 his interest in the property, the transaction being memorialised as a mortgage to secure the repayment of $2,400 owing to Le by Ying, but it may have in fact been a transfer to Le of Ying's interest under the mortgage of 12 October 1845. As shall be seen, however, Ying retained some interest in the market. The deed of assignment of 28 June 1847 required the trustees (Chow and Le) to pay the Crown Rent twice a month. Then they were to permit Ying Wing-kee to receive the rents of the nine shops fronting on the Queen's Road, showing that Ying retained some interest though precisely what it was is not clear. Hwei Afoon himself was to be paid $100 per month and the trustees were to pay", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206617, "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": 165, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "H.K.'S CENTRAL MARKET AND THE TARRANT AFFAIR\n\n159\n\nforces during hostilities against China to settle and allotted them small lots on the waterfront. The Upper Bazaar which lay in the area of Graham and Stanley Streets consisted also of relatively small areas granted to Chinese who were presumptively useful to the nascent colony as tradesmen. The Lower Bazaar was almost totally destroyed in the great fire at the end of 1851 and the Upper Bazaar was removed in 1844 and its inhabitants resettled in Taipingshan.\n\n3 See Gordon to Pottinger, 10 February 1844 [CO129/V/f.141].\n\n+ Evidence given by Colonel Malcolm to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China, answer to question 4633.\n\n5 Davis sought to let as many monopolies go as possible to private individuals for what they were prepared to give. Thus, in addition to the markets, he let out also opium, salt, and quarrying monopolies.\n\n6 Lease Register Volume C, f.94. The lot was leased as Marine Lot 38. The lease registers referred to are the Registers of the Land Office in which all dealings in crown land were recorded. The actual transactions themselves are also recorded separately as 'Memorials' and reference is made to them by number. The numbering was done according to the order in which they were registered. I am indebted to the Registrar General of the Government of Hong Kong for allowing me access to the records of the Land Office and for permission to publish material derived from that source.\n\n7 Memorial 122.\n\n8 Memorial 143.\n\n9 Memorial 258.\n\n10 Friend of China, 7 July 1847.\n\n11 Memorial 383.\n\n12 In this article, the romanisations found in the Land Office records are used even where they do not correspond to those either in the Wade-Giles system or current usage.\n\n13 Memorial 304.\n\n14 Ibid.\n\n15 Memorial 345.\n\n16 Hong Kong Register, 27 July 1847.\n\n17 Friend of China, 14 July 1847.\n\n18 And in so doing, incidentally, infringing the provision of the Treaty of Nanking, 1842, which allowed British subjects to proceed only to the \"Treaty Ports\" and to nowhere else in China.\n\n19 Friend of China, 14 July 1847. Tam Achoy's market was known as the Kwang Yuen and in the disastrous fire in December 1851, the fifty-one houses which comprised the market were destroyed: see Hong Kong Register, January 1852. Tam was referred to a few years later as the \"most respectable Chinaman\" who made a practice of going into the witness box to speak for the character of accused persons. He remained in Hong Kong until his death in the 1870's and was one of the founders of the Tung Wah organisation, a charitable body still functioning in Hong Kong.\n\n20 Hong Kong Register, 27 July 1847.\n\n21 Hong Kong Register, 19 October 1847; Friend of China, 23 October 1847 and 18 December 1847.\n\n22 The Editor of the Friend (John Carr) claimed to have seen Hwei's accounts and that they revealed the \"squeeze\" payment.\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206618, "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": 166, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "160\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\n23 A writ of fieri facias (abbreviated to fi. fa.) is the means whereby a judgment is executed against the property of a person found liable to another in damages in a civil suit. It enables his property to be sold to meet the sums awarded against him. The writ was frequently employed at this time in suits for arrears of Crown Rent.\n\n24 Memorial 359.\n\n25 When property is mortgaged to secure sums advanced by the mortgagee to the mortgagor, the latter is said to have an 'equity of redemption'. The purpose of this is to make certain that his interest in relation to that of the lender is kept in balance, so that the lender can always be forced to release the security when the reasons for giving it are no longer present, i.e., when the sums advanced are repaid. The equity of redemption is treated as an item of property which the mortgagor is free to dispose of—it is the right to reconveyance when the security is discharged or repayment of the loan.\n\n26 Under the Ordinance No. 3 of 1844, all transactions in and concerning land, as well as judgments, wills and so on which involve land, must be registered in the Land Office. A transaction is quite effective even if the Ordinance is not complied with but subsequent purchasers or persons having dealings with property automatically have notice of any registered transaction which will therefore take precedence even over prior unregistered transactions.\n\n27 Ong Chok may in fact have been Ong Lok. The latter frequently dealt in property and is described in Memorials as a 'compradore'. He had extensive property interests in the Taipingshan district.\n\n28 Memorial 384.\n\n29 Memorial 385.\n\n30 Memorial 418.\n\n31 The Chinese used then and still do use to a certain limited extent a lunar calendar.\n\n32 Friend of China, 23 June 1849.\n\n33 Memorial 541.\n\n34 Lease Register Vol. C, f. 219.\n\n35 Lease Register Vol. F, ff. 38 and 47.\n\n36 It was suggested that Chinese merchants were not averse to bribery because they were accustomed to bribing Chinese Government officials.\n\n37 But it should be noted that there are a good many lots in the Taipingshan area in which there were no recorded dealings for a good many years. It is unlikely that there were no dealings at all. It is more likely that the dealings were simply not recorded.\n\n38 Towards the end of the 1840's and in the early 1850's the number of non-residents investing in property in the colony rose markedly, most of them coming from those districts of Kwantung Province adjoining Hong Kong and Macao. The Taiping rebellion may have caused some part of the flow of capital.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206864, "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": 141, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES \n\n135 \n\n(1847, or 26th year of To Kwang), Sz-man-king and one Tam-tsoi, built the Man Mo Miu, and here they \"judged the people\" in public assembly. In 30th year of To Kwang (1851) the shop keepers of Sheung Wan or Upper Bay ... repaired the Man Mo Temple, elected a Committee, and therein decided all cases of any public interest. \n\nBiographical notices of the two community leaders who built the temple are given in an article \"The Emergence of a Chinese Elite in Hong Kong” in this Journal, vol. 11 (1971), pp. 80-82, 87-88. \n\nPrevious to the opening of the Man Mo Temple the Shing Wong Temple may have been used as a Chinese \"Town Hall\", for as we have noted only one such building is listed in 1845 and 1846, but two are listed in 1847, the date given for the erection of the Man Mo Temple. The two temples were quite close to each other. The Shing Wong Temple was on the western edge of the European part of Victoria and the Man Mo Temple on the eastern edge of the Chinese settlement. A steep and rocky hillside divided the two sections. \n\nConfirmation of the 1847 date given in the quoted Chinese account is supported both by the date, Tao Kuang 27th year, inscribed on the bell at the Man Mo Temple and the date of the Crown Lease for Inland Lot 338 upon which the Temple is built, which is 24 June, 1847. A letter dated 29 May 1847, from the Colonial Secretary authorized its issuance with the stipulation that the premises be used as a school. After the building was finished, however, it was used as a temple. In consequence, the Government in March 1848, began charging Crown Rent for the lot. It was then decided that the temple should be rebuilt on a larger scale reflecting the increasing affluence of the Chinese community. An account of the opening of the new building is reported in The Friend of China, 24 May, 1851: \n\nThe Chinese Community are now enjoying themselves in a way we have never seen before in this Colony, on the occasion of the opening of a spacious Heathen Temple in the Hollywood Road, a few hundred yards from the London Missionary Society's College and Chapel. The Temple is dedicated to a body of the civil and military Gods, and has cost nearly a thousand pounds sterling in erection,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206865, "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": 142, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "136\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nA few months after the festive opening of the temple, \"The Joss House Committee\" received from Government the grant of a lot adjoining the temple for the erection of a school.\n\nSometime between 1860 and 1865 a small building was built on the rocky hillside just below the Man Mo Temple. It was near Circular Pathway and Ladder Street. In the Hong Kong Rate lists its name is given at one time as \"Sam Young” Miu and at another time as \"Sam Sing\" Miu. The 1878 Rate has the notation \"removed\". This is clearly another temple.\n\nEitel states that the Tai Wong Temple in Spring Gardens was in existence at the time of the British occupation of Hong Kong. If so, title to the Queen's Road East property on which it is built was not obtained until 1847. Lee Fun-wei, a compradore, then obtained a Crown Lease for Inland Lot 257. In 1852, Lee Muy, \"carer of Joss House\", was witness to the transfer of a nearby house. He may be the same as Lee Amoy, \"formerly a butcher, but now of no occupation”, who obtained a court order in 1864 prohibiting Lee Fun-wei from selling or further mortgaging the temple property. In the following year the two parties exchanged properties. Lee Amoy conveyed to Lee Fun Wei a lot with five houses and in return received Inland Lot 257 with \"Joss House, dwelling house and building erected thereon\". Lee Amoy immediately mortgaged the temple property to Delfino Noronha, a Portuguese printer, for $1,500. The mortgage remained unpaid, and in 1869 Noronha sold the temple to a committee composed of Tam Achoy, Ho Asik, and Lee Yuk Hang. It thus passed out of the private ownership of the Lee family to the representatives of the Chinese community.\n\nIf Eitel's statement is correct, that the temple on Queen's Road East at Spring Gardens was in existence before the British occupation of the Island, its proprietors the Lee family may have been settled in the Spring Gardens area, now better known as Wanchai, before the occupation. When Crown Leases were issued for land in this area in 1847, several members of the Lee family secured lots.\n\nA notice of the Hung Shing Temple at Ap Lei Chau written by Mr. James Hayes appears in Vol. 7 of this Journal. The date of the bell in the temple is given as 1773. As we have noticed Eitel states the temple was built about 1770. Information on when and by whom it was built is given in a court case reported in The China", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206867, "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": 144, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "138 \n\nNOTES AND QUERIES \n\nThe question then arose as to what party had legal title to the land. Had the Government acquired title to the land by terms of the Cession of the Island of Hong Kong, or was the Government bound to recognize the title of the original Chinese owners? The island of Hong Kong had belonged to the Tang family, but the small island belonged to the Wong clan who gave it to the Chan clan and allowed them to erect the temple. Unfortunately all the ancient records and title deeds held by the Chan clan had been destroyed in the typhoon of 1874. \n\nApparently the temple had been repaired in 1877, for in that year the Public Works Department had given the caretaker permission to erect a temporary structure near the present temple to store images while repairs were going on. The Land Office had granted a squatter's license to the Worship Committee to occupy the site. \n\nOwing to the dispute which arose in 1893 between the Chan clan and the residents of Ap Lei Chau, the Worship Committee and the Kai Fong of Ap Lei Chau petitioned the Government for a grant of a Crown Lease for the site of the temple. The petition states, \n\nThat the Temple was established almost a hundred years ago and has conferred many benefits on the surrounding inhabitants... \n\nThat after restoration, the Temple was entrusted to the care of Chan Kwai [Chan A-kwai] by general consent. \n\nThat unwittingly this man turned out to be of a bad heart, unboundedly avaricious. \n\nThat he frequently exhorted [sic] the people who went to Worship, and for this he was expelled by consensus of the people at a Public Meeting. \n\nThat first before he was expelled he being aware of the attitude of the populace towards him, purloined goods belonging to the Temple, and took with him all the Squatter Licenses and went to live on Chinese soil. \n\nThat as the Temple was erected by the populace, Your Honour's humble petitioners venture to think that it should be managed by the voice of the populace..", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207044, "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": 115, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "THE HONG KONG REGION\n\n109\n\nplexities of local settlement and the absorption of the aboriginal dwellers of the area in the past thousand years. For a general account, readers are referred to the works by Lo Hsiang-lin (1959, 1963), K.M.A. Barnett, (1957, 1967) and the earlier writings of Krone (1859), G.N. Orme (1912) and S.F. Balfour (1941) cited in the references to this article.\n\nIntroduction*\n\nFor present purposes the Hong Kong region is defined as the present British Crown Colony of Hong Kong (403.7 square miles)1 and the immediately adjoining parts of Kwangtung province with which there has been intermittent official concern following the establishment of Hong Kong 134 years ago. This takes in the districts round the market town of Sham Chun north of the present Sino-British frontier, occupied by British troops between 16th May and 13th September 18992, and the areas of Mirs and Bias Bays to the east of the Colony that were often visited by British naval forces in their suppression of piracy in local waters during much of the 19th century and well into the 20th3. (See map).\n\nAt the time the British occupied Hong Kong island in 1841, the whole of this area, less Bias Bay, formed part of the Hsin-an district of the Kuang-chou prefecture of Kwangtung province. The place names and geographical features of the region are shown in many contemporary and earlier Chinese sources, whilst the large scale European map produced in 1866 by Msgr. Volontieri, an Italian missionary of the Propaganda, provides rather more local detail4.\n\nIn time the British came to occupy a greater part of Hsin-an district. Their occupation of Hong Kong island in January 1841 was converted into possession by the Treaty of Nanking in August 1842. British territory was extended by the lease in perpetuity of Kowloon under a deed dated 20th March 1860 and the cession of the same area by article VI of the Convention of Peking 24th\n\n1 CR1971, p. 204; this figure includes recent reclamations.\n\n2 See Groves, pp. 52-55.\n\n3 For the early period see Fox and Dalrymple Hay. Two expeditions to Bias Bay in March and September 1927 were noted in AR1927, K16: and as late as 1947 piracy in Mirs Bay kept Hong Kong fishermen in port; CR1947, p. 46.\n\n4 The KTTS of 1865 provides more detailed maps of Hsin-an and its adjoining areas than are given in the district and prefectural histories (HNHC and KCFC); see the general chart at pp. 1-2 of the opening volume. For the Volontieri map, which includes Chinese characters, see Ronald C. Y. Ng (1969) pp. 141-148 and Hayes (1970) pp. 193-196.\n\n* For the place names of Hong Kong see A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, Hong Kong Government Printer, 1960: hereafter styled Gazetteer.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207046, "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": 117, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "THE HONG KONG REGION\n\n111\n\nOctober 1860, and again by the lease of the New Territories by the Convention of Peking in June 18981.\n\nThe population of the region was probably around 100,000 in 1898, including boat people. These persons inhabited — in round figures — a thousand villages and a number of market centres. Seven hundred of these settlements were located within the present New Territories of Hong Kong, with many others around Sham Chun and in Hong Kong island and Kowloon. The Punti or Cantonese-speaking element accounted for rather more than half the land population, with Hakka speakers comprising most of the remainder. The boat population, mainly Tanka, lived afloat in the main.2\n\nDescriptions of the geography and climate of the present British Crown Colony are generally applicable to the Hong Kong region. They have long been given in the Hong Kong annual reports. The most recent is supplied in the opening sections of chapter 18 of the report for 1974.3\n\n1. The Hong Kong Region in the wider scene: some historical and geographical considerations\n\nIn Ch'ing times Hsin-an was one of the 14 hsien of the Kuang-chou prefecture. The designation fu or 'prefecture' was adopted only at the start of the Ming dynasty but the area of Canton and the Delta had long been administered under various designations that changed through the centuries and with dynastic change. The oldest of its hsien, Nan-hai, was established in the Sui dynasty in the year 590-591; the next, P'an-yu in 703-704 during the Tang; with the rest becoming separate districts at various times until the first year of Wan Li of the Ming (1573-1574) when, finally, Hsin-an was created from one of the former commanderies of Tung-kuan district (a hsien of 973-974) established in the 27th year of the first Ming ruler (1394-1395).\n\n1 The relevant documents are given in Alabaster, III, pp. 2-4 and 6-8. 2 See Baker 1968: 3-4. Also the Colony Census for 1911 in SP1911: 103(27-36) and (37-38), though it does not list all the villages of the Southern District of the New Territories or of New Kowloon.\n\n3 CR1974, pp. 176-178.\n\n4 See e.g. TCITC 41/1 and KCFC 6/10.\n\n5 KCFC 6/1-10 and YCKC 4/1-9.\n\n6 KTTC 2/93 and KTKKCY 1/1. The administrative areas to which the Hsin-an district belonged from the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 B.C.) onwards are shown in KCFC 6/24 and in HNHC 1/1. The date of the establishment of the commandery is given as Hung Wu 27 in HNHC 1/3, KTKKCY 1/1, TCITC 41/3 and KTTC 2/93, but as Hung Wu 14 in KCFC 6/24.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207132, "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": 203, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\nThe purpose of the visit is to see\n\n197\n\n(a) the quiet residential terraces of this part of Kennedy Town, namely Tai Pak Terrace, Hee Wong Terrace, Ching Lin Terrace, To Li Terrace, and Hok Si Terrace;\n\n(b) the Lo Pan Temple which stands at the western end of\n\nChing Lin Terrace.\n\nKennedy Town was named after an early Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Arthur Kennedy in whose term of office, April 1872 - March 1877, the district was first developed. Kennedy ‘was genial, and possessed a great sense of humour, much common sense, and a strong Irish accent'. For a short but interesting and lively account of the events of his governorship see Endacott's History of Hong Kong (Oxford University Press, 1958, pp. 160-169),\n\nEndacott gives the following reason for the development of Kennedy Town, then located on the western fringe of the city of Victoria\n\nThe telegraph and the Suez Canal had brought changes in commercial practice; large stocks used to be kept by the European firms to meet any advantageous price changes; but now shipments could be arranged far more quickly. The result was that large godowns in the eastern district were no longer necessary, and coolies moved to the western part of the city in search of employment. To meet this change a new Chinese area was laid out on partly reclaimed land, and named Kennedy Town after the Governor.\n\nThe Five Terraces\n\nCarl Smith has very kindly provided the following information about the development of the particular section of Kennedy Town in which we are interested:\n\nThe area we are visiting today, lying between Pokfulam Road and the sea shore and from Holland Street to Sands Street, was the earliest development in what is now Kennedy Town. George Underhill Sands was granted a Crown Lease in 1873 for 330,634 square feet at Belcher's Bay. The lot was numbered Marine Lot 239. It not only had a sea frontage suitable for docks and a ship slipway, but it extended up the hillside toward Pokfulam Road. Sands died in 1877 and his executors sold the lot with its patent slips and shipways to the Hong Kong and Whampoa", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207133, "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": 204, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "198\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nDock Company for $150,000. In turn, the Company sold the property in 1883 to a Chinese consortium composed of three members of the Li Family and Chan Kun, with the proviso that the premises were not to be used as a dock or slip except for Chinese style ships. This was to prevent Chinese competition to their Dockyards at Hung Hom and Aberdeen. In time other industries were developed on the site: a soy factory, and a lard manufactury, and godowns were built along the Praya.\n\nThe Li family of Tsat Po Heung, San Wui District, had established its interests in Hong Kong as early as 1854, and under the astute leadership of Li Sing it had become probably the wealthiest family in Hong Kong by the turn of century. Shortly before the death of Li Sing in 1900, he divided his extensive real estate holdings among his eight sons. Marine Lot 239 was included in the share of Li Po Lung (***), also known as Li Wai Tong (*). He sold out most of his interests in the property in 1921.\n\n**\n\nIn 1918 new Crown Leases were granted to Li Po Lung in lieu of the original lease of 1873. The upper part of the original lot was then set off as an Inland Lot numbered 1355. The top left-hand corner of the Lot (as seen when standing on the seafront facing the hillside) had some years previous been given to the Contractor's Guild to build the 'Lo Pan' Temple, and a path led up to it bearing the name of Li Po Lung. The hillside was terraced for building sites. The first row was known as Li Po Lung Terrace, situated between Belcher Street and the present Tai Pak Terrace. Ching Lin Terrace upon which the Temple is located was formerly known as Li Sing Kui Road and To Li Terrace was formerly Tam Woon Tong Road.\n\n44\n\nLi Sing Kiu, Tam Woon Tong, Look Poong Shan, Li Tsz Chung and Chung Sek Fan had purchased the site of the Temple along with other land from Li Po Lung in 1921. They, in turn, in 1923, sold the Temple site as Section E of Inland Lot 1355 for a sum of $4,222.40 to Lam Lau, Lam Sheung, Yu Cheuk, Ng Wah and Ng Tsz Mei, representatives of the Temple, though the conveyance stated they were tenants in common in equal shares rather than Trustees.\n\n44\n\nDue to difficulties over payment of the Crown Rent for Inland Lot 1355, the Government re-entered the lot in 1926 in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207169, "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": 240, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "234\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nhouses were built later at the back when they had more descendants. That is the entire village even to this day.\n\nThere are 42 dwelling houses within the village, divided by 5 lanes and ten gates; measuring 162'-3\" in width and 125'9” in depth. The idea of this layout would seem to have been to protect themselves from pirates, when the whole family stayed inside. The Chi Tong is located in the centre with three roofs and two light wells (#). There is a village school 150 feet from the southern corner for primary education of their children, and a Tin Hau Temple within 500 feet to the northeast for worship.\n\nLand Registration took place in 1906 in Tsuen Wan after the Lease of the New Territories. The village was recorded from Lot No. 1528 to 1559 (Lot No. 1546 excluded) in Demarcation District No. 449 in the Block Crown Lease, totalling 0.43 acre of house land and 0.03 acre of waste land, all belonging to the Chan family. It is a pity that 0.135 acre of house land were sold to outsiders since 1937 otherwise the village would still remain solely in the hands of the descendants of the founder.\n\nChan Kin Sheung, the founder of Sam Tung Uk, was awarded a portrait by Chien Lung of Ch'ing Dynasty, worded \"Heung Yam Tai Bun” (means Honourable Guest in Village Parties). To everyone's sorrow and great loss it disappeared during the Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong.\n\nThere have been very many big changes in the area surround-ing the village since re-development of Tsuen Wan. Fung shui trees at the back were felled, village type houses were built around, roads were constructed in front, multi-storeyed buildings were erected with obstruction of the front view. Ngau Kwu Tun, the small hill by the left, was removed to make way for a school building, and the hill at the back was partly cut off for construction of the Rapid Gravity Filter. Even the grave of the village founder was affected as it was in the same line and over-looking the village. The name in fung shui was called \"Lion over-looking the village platform\" (獅子瑩樓台)\n\nIt is to be hoped that the Walled Village can be retained as a historical relic in Tsuen Wan, even if the whole area is to be re-developed. God has blessed it for over two centuries and it is hoped will continue to do so.\n\nText and visits are organized and prepared by Mak Kai Yim, A. H. Mackreth, Brian Liu and Helga Werle.\n\nPage 240\n\nPage 241", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207564, "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-1975", "page_number": 332, "title": "RAS-1975", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES \n\n323 \n\nto the government for a lot on which to build a school. In granting the lot for charitable and educational purposes, it was stipulated that \"the school should be built on that portion of the ground furthest away from the front of the native temple which is opposite. The villagers have asked that no houses be erected immediately fronting the temple, but they could not object to a playground. The latter should be fenced around.” (C.S.O. No. 700 of 1885) In 1898, the Roman Catholic Church bought a large piece of land behind the village for a church and a school. The Canossian Sisters, however, already had two lots on Bulkely Street in 1894 where they conducted a school (No. 59 & 60).\n\n(c) The Kwun Yam (††) and Pak Tai (†) temples.\n\nAn old memorial board in the Kwun Yam Temple dated 1873-74 lists eleven individuals or shops who may tentatively be identified as the management committee.* I can only identify one, Li Shing Fat, listed as a rate-payer in 1875 and possibly as Lee A Fat on the 1867 squatter licence list. A Hop Shing shop is listed, and it is possible that the owner was Chan Hop Shing who appears on the 1873 rates list or Chang Hop Shing of the 1867 squatter list. Another possible identification might be the Kwong Lung shop with the Kwong \"Leong\" grocer in the 1884 Rate.\n\nIn 1896 the Temple Committee applied for the grant of a Crown Lease for the lot on which the building stood. It was noted that \"This Temple is a public temple, owned by the committee of Hung Hom. A notice was posted at Hung Hom on the 23rd (March, 1886) saying that anyone who objected to the issue of the proposed lease should report to the Registrar General within ten days. No communication has been made on the subject.... therefore recommend the issue of the lease.\" (C.S.O. No. 704 of 1896). In consequence, a lease was granted to Chung Kam Fuk, Chan Ying Cheung, and Ching Ki, Trustees. Of these, Chan Ying Cheung was a large property owner at Hung Hom who was also a wealthy contractor in Hong Kong. Upon his death, his will left his Hung Hom property to his sons.\n\nThe two named temples date from this early period and have survived: one of them in its original location and another on a new \n\n*The names are listed as follows:\n\n福隆號,兴有容,新順扣,勝扣廠,廣隆號,李富利,陳日新,怡興行,廣勝同,合勝號,李勝發。The board carries the large characters 法雨同沾and is dated 同治甲戌年仲春吉旦", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208032, "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-1977", "page_number": 71, "title": "RAS-1977", "content_text": "TWO ESSAYS ON THE CH’ING ECONOMY OF HSIN-AN, KWANGTUNG\n\nJOHN THOMAS Kamm*\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe British Crown Colony of Hong Kong was carved, in three successive steps, from the Chinese county of Hsin-An (新安). These essays represent attempts to reconstruct modes of economic activity which prevailed in this remote county during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This reconstruction will eventually serve as the groundwork on which an analysis of mercantile capitalism, in terms of its impact on local Chinese social structure, will be built.\n\nIn the first year of Wan-Li (1573), Hsin-An Hsien was formed from the division of Tung-Kuan Hsien (東莞縣) into two jurisdictions. Except for a brief period during the reign of the Kang-Hsi Emperor, the county remained one of the fourteen counties of the Kwangchow Prefecture throughout Ch'ing. As with most other magistracies in rural imperial China, Hsin-An was characterized by a high degree of self-government. The magistrate seldom intervened in local affairs, and relied heavily on the indigenous social order for the day-to-day administration of the countryside.\n\nThe dominant stratum of the local hierarchical order consisted principally of landlord-gentry patrilineal descent groups, commonly referred to as great clans (大族). Of these clans, the Tangs (鄧) and especially that branch of the clan which resided in Kam Tin (錦田) -- were probably best representative. Much of the data presented was collected during field work into the social history and oral tradition of this Punti \"power brokerage.\"\n\n*\n\nMr. Kamm states, The essays were written in fulfillment of seminar requirements for an A.M. at Harvard University's Regional Studies-East Asia program. The work is based largely on research undertaken in the New Territories (including a brief stint as coordinator of an NTA-Yuen Long \"oral history\" project in Kam Tin) and in the archives of the Public Records Office, Hong Kong. Writing and editing was supervised by Professor Yang Lien-Sheng of Harvard during late 1974.\n\nNOTES\n\nThe cession of Hong Kong Island was ratified by the Treaty of Nanking (1842). The Kowloon peninsula was added in 1860. Britain obtained the New Territories (on a 99-year lease) in 1898.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208053, "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-1977", "page_number": 92, "title": "RAS-1977", "content_text": "76\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nTaxlordism first came to the attention of the British in an intelligent report filed with the Colonial Secretary nearly eight months prior to the occupation of the leased area. The document, essentially an analysis of potential unrest in the neighborhood of Kam Tin and Sham Chun, sheds light on the politics of the lease at the local level. Addressing himself to the question of possible resistance in Un Long Tung (*), the author remarks:\n\n+ + +\n\nenquiries proved that the people of the markets and towns were glad to see England get the place. But the villagers were very much displeased, especially those of Kam Tin village, owing to the fact that, though the owners in the neighborhood of Kam Tin hold deeds, they have to pay tax to the said village. If England got the place, it is feared that the benefit will be deprived of (sic).... It is like the way the (Chinese) Government charges taxes.23\n\nThe report proved to be prophetic, for it was the gentry of Un Long Tung, specifically those of the Tang villages and their dependencies, which mounted the most effective and prolonged resistance to the occupation. The same reasons were invariably set forth in petitions from captured “ringleaders:” Among the wealthy villages, there was considerable apprehension over substantial and drastic changes in the tax structure, while among the smaller villages, leaders cited the coercion and bullying of the larger gentry villages.24\n\nTaxlordism was so widespread that an enterprising land officer suggested, in 1902, that the Colonial Government utilize the taxlords \"to get the taxes for us as they did for the Chinese Government.”25 When existing tensions ruled this out, a plan was formulated to eliminate the institution by granting unclaimed tracts of crown land to those who could establish “taxlord claims.” Initial optimism over a rapid settlement evaporated, however, as taxlords attempted to establish rights over huge tracts of land. The largest claims were unquestionably in Un Long Tung, where the Kam Tin Tangs laid claim to taxlord status over the whole of Pat Heung (A) and Shap Pat Heung (+A+),26\n\nThe \"taxlord claims\" proved to be the thorniest problem faced by British colonial administrators charged with the rationalization of revenue collection. The plan by which taxlords were to be compensated for rights \"not compatible with the principles of British", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208844, "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": 6, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "205\n\n12 On this particular type of tenancy, see John Kamm, \"Two essays on the Ch'ing economy of Hsin-an, Kwangtung Province”, JHKBRÁS 1977, pp. 55-84, and James Hayes, The Hong Kong Region, 1850-1911, Folkestone, Kent, England, 1977, pp. 50-53.\n\n13 Ints. Mr. Wong 22.6.81, Mr. Lam Kaap Shau 8.6.81, Mr. Cheung Kau 26.6.81, Mr. Cheung 26.6.81, Mr. Cheng Yung 10.7.81, and Mr. Yau T'aam Shang 8.5.81; Hugh D.R. Baker, Sheung Shui, A Chinese Lineage Village, Guildford and London, 1968, p. 172.\n\n14 Father Sergio Ticozzi, 12.5.81, quoting from Giovanni B. Tragella, Le Mission Estere di Milano, Nel Quadro Degli Avvenimenti Contemporanli, Milan 1950-1963, vol. 1, pp. 274-275, vol. 2, pp. 85, 89, and 314. Int. Father George Carusso, 20.5.81.\n\n15 Ints. Mr. Lok Tak K'ei 17.7.81, Mr. Leung Yung Hei 16.6.81, Mrs. Lau 14.6.81, and Mr. Tse Kw'an 16.11.80.\n\n10 Int. Mr. Yau T'aam Shang 8.5.81. Mr. Yau's term for \"moorage inlet\" was \"siu wan t'au\". Cf. also the type of market James Hayes refers to as \"coastal market centres\" in his Hong Kong Region, p. 37.\n\n17\n\nDocuments on this case are included in Kuan T'ien-p'ei, Ch'ou-hai ch'u-chi (1836, n.p., Taipei reprint, 1968) 2/26a-33a, 56a-74a, 80a-99b. Kuan was Naval Commander-in-Chief for Kwangtung from 1834 to 1841. C. Fred Blake, in Ethnic Groups and Social Change in a Chinese Market Town, Hawaii, 1981, p. 46 note 8, states \"Lung Shuen Wan was a traditional outpost for the Chinese imperial navy's regulation of eastern approaches to the Pearl River. I wonder if perhaps Lung Shuen Wan was the original 'coastal market centre' in this area?\" Elsewhere (loc. cit. and p. 95) he points out that the Lung Shuen Wan Tin Hau Temple retained the patronage of the Pak Kong and Sha Kok Mei villagers, despite the greater convenience of the Tin Hau Temple within Sai Kung Market.\n\n18 These are figures of shops as registered in the Block Crown Lease (DD215, DD224). It is more than likely that these were shop spaces rather than shops, and in the event that a shop might take up more than a shop space, there were fewer shops in Sai Kung and Hang Hau in the early 1900's than noted here. For comparison, in 1905, Yuen Long had only seventy-four shops and Tai Po Market twenty-three large and fifteen small ones. See James Hayes, Hong Kong Region, p. 36.\n\n19 Ints. Mr. Yau T'aam Shang 15.5.81, Father George Carusso 20.5.81, Mr. Lei Kan 19.6.81, Mr. Ue Shun Hing 10.7.81.\n\n20 Mr. Yau T'aam Shang 15.5.81.\n\n21 Mr. Cheung Ts'oi 20.6.81, Madam Chiu I Mooi 7.5.81, Mrs. Foo, née Lei, 28.6.81.\n\n22\n\nMrs. Kong Lei San Kiu 21.6.81. Mr. Cheung Kin Wa 10.6.81 of Taai Fung Nin (opened c. 1933) in Sai Kung Market remembered that the shop used to slaughter a pig each day to sell to the boat people.\n\n23 Mr. Chan Kei Shang 28.5.81, Mr. Chan Shou 19.6.81.\n\n24 Mr. Hoh King 6.5.81, Mrs. Lei née So 20.6.81, Mr. Lei Yau 13.11.80, Mr. Cheung Ming Shing 8.6.81, Mr. Lai Foh 8.5.81. Mrs. Lei used to obtain piglets from Kam Lei Loi in Sai Kung Market. It took six to seven months to fatten them, and two dollars to have each pig carried back to Sai Kung Market. She also had rice and pig feed (chiefly rice husk) from Kam Lei Loi on credit. Kam Lei Loi was a butcher's cum general store, where her husband worked.\n\n25 According to Mr. Yau T'aam Shang, 15.5.81, the interest rate in Sai Kung Market was 5 cents per dollar per month, i.e. 60 percent per annum.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209142, "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": 45, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE N T. c 1900\n\n31\n\ntenants and tenants asked the names of the owners from whom they rented, primarily, it would seem, as a double-check on the identity of the owner, although there was, no doubt, some concern about future landlord-tenant disputes. Unfortunately, these records are unavailable to us, and we therefore have no direct written means of determining even the rate of tenancy in the New Territories in 1900.\n\nI have attempted to arrive at an estimate of the rate of tenancy by examining the Block Crown Lease Schedules of 1905 for three Demarcation Districts in the Yuen Long region, adding to this interviewing in the villages within those districts and other materials, wherever I can find them. My findings so far are, of course, quite tentative and local, but I think they may be generally suggestive of the situation in some other parts of the New Territories. The area I have covered so far extends from near the Tang clan stronghold of Kam Tin eastward to the very end of the Kam Tin Basin. In other words, it includes a major portion, although by no means all, of the Pat Heung region. My estimate is that total cultivated land in this area in 1900 was close to 1,500 acres. The population, according to the 1911 Census, was about 2,650, which I take to be about 530 households. Thus, if the land had been equally apportioned, each household would have had about 2.75 acres to farm, enough for subsistence and close to the maximum an average-sized family could farm with its own labour. In fact, however, the land was not so apportioned, at least not in ownership terms.\n\nMy estimate is that slightly over 50 percent of the land in these three Demarcation Districts was tenant-cultivated in 1900. I arrived at this estimate as follows: all cultivated land over three acres in the name of a single owner I took to be land that he and his family probably could not cultivate themselves and so would either lease out or work with hired labour; all clan-owned land would, of course, have to be counted as tenant-cultivated, whether the tenants were or were not members of the owning clan. Third, any land located over a mile from the address of the owner I took to be too distant for him to work regularly and hence likely to be let out to tenants. The sum of these figures represented my total of tenant-cultivated land. Not surprisingly, the major portion of tenant-cultivated land was clan-owned land. In this region, about 35 percent of the land under cultivation was clan land. Most of the difference between that and my figure of slightly over 50 percent was accounted for by holdings\n\nPage 45\n\nPage 46", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209144, "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": 47, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE N.T. c. 1900\n\n33\n\nmigrating for a time. What makes this picture plausible is that it accords well with the findings of C. K. Yang for a village located near to the city of Canton. The Pat Heung region did not have the population pressure upon arable land that helped shape the tenure system of Yang's village; but there was a common factor of clan ownership which immediately removed a large proportion of the land from the possibility of private ownership and also made tenancy, at a substantial rate, inevitable. My findings so far are also generally consistent with John Brim's reconstruction of the tenure system in the Yuen Long region as a whole.\n\nI have identified 44 persons or households as non-corporate owners of lands amounting to over 3 acres each. The largest of these large owners owned over 50 acres, quite sizeable by New Territories standards. Another held 25 acres. All others owned less than 20 acres, the usual amounts being between 3 and 10 acres each. Parenthetically, let me say that I am well aware of the limitations of the Block Crown Lease Schedules as a research tool, including their possible inaccuracies in owner registration, and I have, I hope, maintained an open mind to the possibility that the picture may have been somewhat different from what I now see. Although some of these large owners might be classed as absentee owners for some of their lands were quite distant from their homes, there was very little absentee-owned land of this kind. And there was no urban Hong Kong or even market town (that is, Yuen Long) ownership registered for lands in this region.\n\nA small proportion of the lands of the region were subject to mortgages. Most often these were of the customary type referred to above, in which the lender takes over the land and its income throughout the life of the loan, acquiring his compensation for the loan from the land proceeds rather than from interest, which is not paid. There were, however, some interest loans, although I could not discern any patterns in the use of one type of mortgage or the other. Those lending and those borrowing were in all kinds of relationship to each other. That is, they might or might not be of the same village and surname; they might often be major owners lending to individuals or else to their own clans (in which case the major owner in question might also be a trustee of that clan); they might be clans lending to persons of the same surname or a different surname; or one clan might mortgage its property to another clan. In some cases, major landowners, some of whose lands were distant from their homes, were registered as mortgage holders on other lands away from their home territories.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209145, "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": 48, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "34\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nOne might infer that in such cases the large owner was using mortgage loans as well as direct purchases to expand his holdings over a large span of territory. Not all large \"absentee\" owners appear as mortgage holders, however.\n\nOur interpretation of the mortgage data is severely limited by the fact that we are looking at a single slice in time, 1905, which may not give us a full picture of the lending and borrowing operations of individuals as they might appear over several years of activity. It also is well known that at the time of British takeover of the New Territories many long-standing customary mortgages were paid off under an apprehension that they might not be recognized by British policy. Therefore, the situation of 1905 as reflected in the Block Crown Lease Schedules, does not necessarily typify that of any given year in the nineteenth century.\n\nIt would be of interest to compare land tenure in Hakka areas and in Punti areas. Of the four major villages that make up my area of study, only one is completely Hakka, although Hakkas are found in one other. In addition, much land in this region was owned by the Hakka clans of the large village of Wang Toi Shan, which is in the eastern part of the Pat Heung but outside the scope of my research so far. The limited amount of information I have allows little generalization. The small Hakka village of Shui Lau Tin contains a few major owners whose holdings are well beyond the lands of the village itself; but many \"outsiders\" owned lands right up to the gates, so to speak, of Shui Lau Tin. The Wang Toi Shan Hakkas, on the other hand, owned land all over the region of my study. More about them below.\n\nHakkas were important as landlords. We do not normally think of Hakkas as landlords. But in this region Hakka-owned tenant-cultivated land amounted to about 175 acres out of 1,472, or about 12 percent. Locally speaking, about 20 percent of tenant-cultivated land in the western end of this area was Hakka-owned; and in the western extremity Hakka-owned land was almost 50 percent of all tenant-cultivated land.\n\n―\n\nThus, of four reasons commonly given for relatively high rates of tenancy - population pressure on land; existence of sizeable land-owning clans; frontier or land reclamation; and commercialization it would appear that the presence of the clan was clearly the most important reason for the level of tenancy in this part of the New Territories, and probably in the entire New Territories as well.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209310, "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": 213, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n199\n\na small family, 1 shing (about 760 sq. ft.) for a large one.\n\nBasic family requirements\n\nAssume a family of 2 adults and 3 children and assume each child eats 0.75 as much as an adult. Such a family would require 4.25 adult requirements. Assuming all food and Crown Rent met from harvest with no cash sales or casual labour income.\n\nIn land, this implies:\n\nTai Wai good average land, 1 tau can feed 1.94 adults (as above) without outside assistance, 4.25 adults, therefore require 2.19 tau, which requires 4 shing of seedbed and 0.5 shing vegetable gardens or 2.19 + 0.4 + 0.05 = 2.65 tau,\n\nTai Wai best land\n\n1 tau can feed 3.03 adults (as above). 4.25 adults therefore require 1.4 tau which require 2.75 shing seedbed and 1/2 shing vegetable gardens or 1.4 + 0.275 + 0.05 = 1.73 tau.\n\nWong Chuk Yeung good average land\n\n1 tau can feed 1.38 adults (as above). 4.25 adults therefore require 3.08 tau which require 6 shing seedbed and 0.5 shing vegetable gardens or 3.08 + 0.6 + 0.05 = 3.72 tau.\n\nLarger families (4 adults, 6 children)\n\nIt may be assumed that economies of scale appear, and that the family would require about 1.75 of the land of the small family, e.g. (Note: not checked)\n\nTai Wai average land 2.64 x 1.75 = 4.62 tau\n\nbest land 1.73 x 1.75 = 3.02 tau.\n\nWong Chuk Yeung average land 3.72 x 1.75 = 6.51 tau.\n\nTo translate to Block Crown Lease acreages\n\nAssume approximate equivalence 1 tau and 0.175 acres (=7630 sq.ft.)\n\nTherefore,\n\n \n Basic family requirements\n \n \n \n \n Tai Wai average land\n 2.64 x 0.175 = 0.462 ac.\n \n \n \n best land\n 1.73 x 0.175 = 0.302 ac.\n \n \n \n Wong Chuk Yeung average land\n 3.72 x 0.175 = 0.651 ac.\n \n \n \n Small family\n \n \n \n \n Large family\n \n \n \n \n \n 4.62 x 0.175 = 0.809 ac.\n \n \n \n \n 3.02 x 0.175 = 0.529 ac.\n \n \n \n \n 6.51 x 0.175 = 1.139 ac.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209778, "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-1983", "page_number": 37, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "shopkeeper, land speculator, auctioneer and entrepreneur; William Tarrant, Land Office clerk and later editor and proprietor of the newspaper Friend of China, Charles Markwick, auctioneer for the Government; Hugh Mackay, shopkeeper his lot No. 4 was resumed in 1859 for nonpayment of Crown Rent; and Wong Ah Hoy, one of the original So Kon Po cultivators.\n\nWong sold his lot in 1852 to Chang On Kee, a merchant trading at Hong Kong, who in turn sold it to George Duddell in 1857. Duddell had already bought in 1851 the lots of Markwick and Tarrant. Thus all the arable land of the valley was in his possession, except the lot of Mackay which reverted to the Government shortly after. Duddell added to his holdings by purchase from the Government in 1853 of Farm Lot 13. This was between his valley lots and So Kon Po village.\n\nIt was probably in the 1850's that Duddell experimented with growing coffee plants in the valley. Evidence of the project was still to be seen in 1878. The Hong Kong Daily Press in that year published a series of articles on places of interest around Hong Kong. The issue of 17 December 1878 gave directions for a walk to the \"Coffee Plantation\". The hiker was directed to proceed to the Race Course, passing the Obelisk and keeping straight on over a bridge to the gardener's cottage. There he was to turn to the right for one hundred yards, with the race course on his right and a densely wooded hill on the left, and follow the footpath up the hill through the trees. On descending the hill on the other side, he would find himself near some huts occupied by Chinese quarry-men or stone-masons and on the path leading to the coffee plantation. The writer noted, however, that \"the coffee shrubs are now neglected\".\n\nGeorge Duddell, having retired from Hong Kong some years previously, sold his So Kon Po land to William Keswick, of Jardines, in 1884. The lots, whose twenty-one lease had been extended to seventy-five years, were regranted to Keswick as Inland Lots 955, 1018, 1019, 1020 and 1021. Keswick transferred the present site of St. Paul's Convent and Hospital to a Jardine enterprise, the Hong Kong Cotton Spinning, Weaving and Dyeing Company. This was in 1898. The property was bounded to the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209815, "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-1983", "page_number": 74, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "52\n\ngenerations. With the general increase of agricultural activity since 1949 (due to the influx of industrious refugees), tenancies are more frequently called in. Sometimes a mere pretext covers the real reason that a hardworking tenant has spent much capital in improving poor land which the landlord now wishes to lease again at a higher rent. It is always wise before intervening in tenancy cases to be sure that a good reason exists for recovery of the land. These reasons might be that the tenant is a poor one who makes little use of the land; the tenant has failed to pay rent or has otherwise committed a breach of conditions, e.g. illegal Temporary Structures; the landowner is short of land and has a large family. Where it is necessary on the facts to find in favour of the landlord, it is often easier to persuade the tenant to comply by offering to find him alternative Crown Land.\n\n(i) It is a recurring feature in many cases that tenants tend to sink capital into land, particularly with chicken farms, without having any real lease to protect them. Rapacious landlords take advantage of this and often deliberately refuse to issue written leases. I have had no success whatsoever in trying to educate tenants in this respect.\n\n10. Graves\n\n(a) Bodies are normally buried in an earth grave (huet chong) for 5 years or so. At the end of that time, they are usually exhumed and the bones arranged in an earthenware funerary pot (kam tap). Richer families and clans will sometimes install the exhumed bones in a masonry grave (shan fan) instead of a funerary pot.5\n\n(b) Huet chong (#) and kam taps () are always sited in groups on hillsides or ground where the fung shui is good. It is not usual to build or cultivate near these areas.\n\n(c) The choice of site of a shan fan () is again dictated by fung shui (k). Considerable sums of money may be spent in fees for the fung shui sin shang (★★★4) and in construction, although workmanship is rarely first class. The site is usually high up, commanding a view of water in some form or", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209819, "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-1983", "page_number": 78, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "56\n\nwith kuk (*) and the other with mai (*), and candles and joss-sticks placed standing in the rice. Worshipping takes place at the shrines of the earth god (t'o tei £) and kitchen god within the house. If the applicant can still afford it, he holds a feast for friends and relatives who often bring presents of mirrors and furniture.\n\n12. Some Fung Shui (¥) Problems\n\n(a) Certain localities, particularly hills, are sometimes regarded as throwing out good or bad influences, according to the animal which the locality represents. In the same manner, strong objections are frequently raised to the opening of windows in a house that faces some other house or temple. The window represents the open mouth of a tiger ready to swallow up the occupants of the building facing it. A lamp flashing in the direction of a house is equally obnoxious.\n\n(b) Antidotes to these evil rays or influence are often difficult to apply. One method is for the aggrieved householders to put up a paat kwa (^) or eight-sided diagram on the outside of their house. Alternatively, a mirror sometimes will suffice to reflect the evil rays. A third method is to erect some effective barrier in between, such as trees or bamboos, with a temporary wall until the trees have attained sufficient height and bushiness to be an effective screen.\n\n(c) These objections are for the most part confined to Cantonese rather than Hakka (). However, because of their greater belief in animism, Hakka (*) are the more concerned with fung shui (¥) trees and rocks, damage to which they will strenuously oppose.\n\n13. Oaths\n\n(a) Before the lease of the New Territories to the Crown in 1898 and the coming of British law, the question of which party to a dispute was telling the truth was customarily settled by a form of trial by ordeal in a temple. Both parties would attend at a mutually agreed temple (miu, never a clan temple or Tsz t'ong) with witnesses and all interested villagers.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209912, "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-1983", "page_number": 171, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "149\n\nBut they were in the minority. Most spinners entertained what appeared to me to be an impossible dream: government support without concomitant control. They criticised the Hong Kong Government on three policy areas which threatened their operations, namely the rise in land value, the 'hurried' introduction of labour legislation, and the administration's refusal to impose import control on foreign textile products. The Korean and Taiwanese governments were often mentioned as examples of political systems supportive of industry. But simultaneously, the spinners were aware of the twin evils of red-tape and corruption which often accompanied government subsidies. Their real desire appeared to be for the government to provide the ‘infra-structure' and leave them a free hand to run their business. As A12 said:\n\n'The more government assistance the better. But this is difficult to realize. When I say help, it is not necessarily with money. To control inflation is a form of assistance. To regulate finance and prices... Now the government does not know what changes will be introduced tomorrow. If there was a definite policy, then we would know what to expect.'\n\nThe tone and omissions were as important as the actual contents of their answers. Their opinions were strongly seasoned with resignation and cynicism. For example, B32 said to me:\n\n'Mr. Wong, all these [statements] are against the government. No comment. You see, there is no use participating. It is only superficial democracy. All are yes men. The more \"yes\" you say, the more honours you get. So all these are theoretical, cannot be done in practice. For example, the setting up of the Cotton Commodity Exchange. We are all in opposition, but the government wants to have it. Just another gambling house!'\n\nOf course, the flavour of powerlessness was not quite real. The spinners had strong political muscles as they provided employment on a large scale. When conflicts of interests did occur, they could force the government to yield. In the early 1970s, for instance, there was a dispute over the re-evaluation of the value of industrial land on 'Crown lease'. Immediately after the Second World War,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209980, "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-1983", "page_number": 239, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "217\n\nwas great and must have left them with little time or money to spare for their ruined temple. Finally, and almost certainly the most seriously, the influx of a new population, and immense schemes of redevelopment completely altered the generally rural background of village and market town life that still characterised pre-war East Kowloon.\n\nThus, in the Tung Shan Temple we can see a temple, founded for purely rural reasons slowly growing until it became the predominant community temple of the whole of rural East Kowloon. During this period its management changed from a purely private, clan-based system to a typical community temple structure of committee members and chairman of a type typical not only of the rural community temples in the rest of the New Territories but also of those in urban Hong Kong at this date.\n\nFounded in a rural community this temple could, and did, develop both physically and in its management structure to reflect the needs of that community. It could not, however, survive the complete destruction of that community, and its ruination directly reflects the collapse of its founding community in the face of massive urbanisation, and the establishment of the new urban communities created by that urbanisation. The new urban communities have formed their own shrines, and their flourishing condition, alongside the continued ruin of the main temple of the defunct rural community, show more clearly than anything else can the essentially community basis of the temples of this area and their management groups.\n\nNOTES\n\nIn the 1904 Block Crown Lease for Survey District No. 3, New Kowloon, the ownership is recorded in the monk's name Shing Kin (Hsing Star Bridge) and the property is listed under Lot 1101 as temple 0.7 acres, house 0.2 acres, and potato ground 0.33 acres. An entry \"Kwun Yam Temple, Ngau Chi Wan\" had been crossed out by the Assistant Land Officer who recommended that a lease for the temple buildings and site be given to the Registrar General, 28 April 1904.\n\nFrom south-east Kowloon, Ngau Tau Kok and Cha Kwo Ling; from east Kowloon, Ngau Chi Wan, Ping Shek, Sha Tei Yuen, Upper and Lower Yuen Ling and Chu Shi Liu; from central Kowloon, Tai Hom, Po Kong, Nga Tsin Wai, Upper and Lower Sha Po, Nga Tsin Long and Kak Hang; from Kowloon City, the commercial areas, Sai Tau, Tung Tau and Hoklo Village.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209996, "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-1983", "page_number": 255, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "233 \n\nOLD HAU WONG TEMPLE, TAI WAI, SHA TIN \n\nP. H. HASE \n\nOn 14th June 1982, as part of the development of Sha Tin, an area to the north of Tai Wai Village was cleared. At the time of the Block Crown Lease (1905) this area had been separated from the walled part of the village by the village moat. The area was at that date crossed by the main footpath leading from Tai Wai Village to the footbridge over the Shing Mun River from where the footpath continued through to Tai Po. \n\nOn this area, very close to the edge of the moat, a temple to Hau Wong had been built. This temple had been abandoned at some date between the Block Crown Lease and 1914. The abandoned temple had been used as a playground for village children in the period up to the last War. During the last War the roof was removed and used for fuel. After the War the temple was occupied by squatters who demolished part of the walls and divided the building into three units, two of which were used as residential units (in one case part of the unit being used as a sitting area for a cooked food stall), with the area near the original altar being used as an engineering workshop. Later the old moat was filled in and the whole area became covered with squatter structures many of which backed onto the outer wall of the temple: by 1955 only a small part of the doorjambs of the temple remained visible. \n\nSince the whole area was due for clearance the opportunity was taken of discovering what could still be uncovered of the structure of the old temple, measuring it and if possible discovering more on the history of the temple. The attached plan and description is the result. Since the measurements could only be made in the 24 hours between the demolition of the squatter huts and that of the temple, all was done in great haste. \n\nEntrance \n\nThe entrance front of the temple was constructed of rudely coursed blue brick faced in the area around the entrance with finely laid granite ashlar slabs, and faced with well laid blue brick \n\nPage 255\n\nPage 256", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210003, "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-1983", "page_number": 262, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "240\n\ntrading contacts with Tai Wai. At the same time the temple is currently used by the villagers of Tai Wai for purely village rituals such as the hanging of the lanterns for new-born sons, and the only communal worship is conducted by the village elders, and not by the elders of the Heung.\n\nIt was probably this conflict between the communal and the purely village interest in Hau Wong and his temple which led to the decision to build an entirely new, and much larger temple, just outside the village. Such a site would certainly make it easier for non-villagers to worship, and that this was aimed at is shown by the specific mention of Lek Yuen (1), the old name for Sha Tin District, in the doorjamb inscriptions. At the same time all the donors named in the door inscriptions were Tai Wai villagers, the most prominent, Wong Yin-Tsun (2), being a villager who had succeeded in securing an official post in Shantung province.\n\nThe villagers believe that this new temple was only built a few decades before the Block Crown Lease - probably, therefore, the date 1888 on the door is the original foundation date. The foundation was not successful: most villagers wanted the god back in the old temple inside the village, and difficulties which arose were blamed on damage to the Fung Shui of the village as set out by Lai Po-i. After about 30 years, the temple was closed and the god taken back to his old home opposite the village gate: since then his temple, in the village, has been considered basically for Tai Wai villagers only.\n\nNOTE\n\n1 Chinese Monasteries, temples, shrines and altars in Hong Kong and Macau, Keith G. Stevens, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. 20, 1980, pp. 1–33.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210213, "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-1984", "page_number": 184, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "163\n\narea of about 115 km2 and contains 330 Mm3 of water at mean sea level (about 1.3 m above Hong Kong principal datum (PD)). Sand is brought into Deep Bay close to Black Point on the flood current and moved along the Hong Kong coast by wave action during storms. Silts and clays appear to be largely derived from the catchment draining to the inner part of Deep Bay.\n\nThe tides are complex, with a strong diurnal component superimposed on a semi-diurnal pattern. The usual sequence is thus two high waters and two low waters in just over 24 hours, with one high and one low significantly higher or lower respectively than the other. On certain occasions (14 in 1984) the diurnal component completely dominates and only one high and one low occur in a day. The maximum tidal range is about 2.8 m.\n\nHistorical background\n\nOyster cultivation is traditional and has been practised in the Pearl River estuary for several hundred years. The coastal town of Shajing (JP) has long been associated with oyster fattening. Oyster cultivation has been practised in Deep Bay since at least 1800 (Bromhall, 1958; Mok, 1973).\n\nDisputes over the ownership of Deep Bay oyster beds led to short term leases being granted in 1909 to those organisations, both those based in Hong Kong and those based in China, who could prove good claim to ownership prior to 1898 when the Crown Lease of the New Territories commenced. One oyster bed was reclaimed from the sea around 1915/16 and now forms part of the Tin Shui Wai area. Additional oyster beds were leased, mainly in the mouth of the Shenzhen River, during the period 1909 to 1933. The original 1909 leases were extended from 1931 to 1952.\n\nDuring the early part of World War II many oyster farmers with much traditional expertise moved from Shajing to settle in the Lau Fau Shan area, but the majority of the beds were either ruined or fell into disuse by 1945. Reorganisation of the industry in the immediately post-war era was influenced by events within China culminating with the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Further leases were granted to some oyster farmers", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210532, "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-1985", "page_number": 139, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "120 \n\nJOHN KARL EVANS \n\nThe lettering suggests that this inscription should be dated to the second century A.D. This was, however, a century of notorious religiosity. In the course of his sixth satire, a prolonged diatribe against married women published in or shortly after A.D. 116, Juvenal vividly describes how penitent followers of the goddess Isis atoned for their transgressions by plunging into the freezing waters of the Tiber and then crawling across Rome on blood-stained knees (Juv. 6.522-541). Some fifty years later, in A.D. 177, there occurred at Lyons one of the most terrible of the Christian persecutions, recounted at length by Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica. One brief excerpt will serve to give a sense of the whole:\n\n7 \n\nThen Maturus, Sanctus, Blandina, and Attalus were brought forth to face the beasts brought forth for a public exhibition of the inhumanity of the heathen, since the day for combat with wild animals had been specially set aside for our people. There in the amphitheatre, Maturus and Sanctus once again passed through every conceivable torture just as if they had suffered nothing at all before, or rather as if, having already overcome their opponent in the several preliminary bouts, they were now competing for the victor's crown. Once more they ran the gauntlet of the whips, in accordance with the local custom; once more they were mauled by the beasts; once more they suffered everything which the maddened populace, seated on one side or the other, howled for and cheered on, culminating with the iron chair that roasted their bodies and suffocated them with the stench. Even at this point their tormentors did not cease, but became more and more frenzied in their desire to overcome their resistance. Nevertheless, they heard nothing from Sanctus beyond the confession of faith that he had been accustomed to make from the outset (5.1.37-39).\n\nA large body of comparable evidence for the heterogeneous religious attitudes to be found within the Roman Empire could be amassed without difficulty, but it would be pointless to do so. These few examples should serve to demonstrate just how wide the parameters of belief really were. Whether in Rome or a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210559, "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-1985", "page_number": 166, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "147\n\n22 Anthropologists tend to use the terms \"ancestor worship\" and \"cult of the dead\" interchangeably, but as Yang (1945) has pointed out, the former is inappropriate in the Chinese context \"because the Chinese do not worship their ancestors in the way that gods are worshipped\" (p. 90). The term \"cult of the dead\" seems more accurate, for both Roman and Chinese practices satisfy Emile Durkheim's definition of a cult as \"a system of diverse rites, festivals and ceremonies which all have this characteristic, that they reappear periodically.\" See The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. J.W. Swain (New York, 1915), 80.\n\n23 Pet. Sat. 71.\n\n24 Cf., inter alia, ILS 7814, 8077, 8079, 8081, 8240, 8246, and 8341; on the concept of the domus aeterna, see further the discussions of Cumont (1922), 48; and Lattimore (1942), 165–167.\n\n25 Cf., inter alia, ILS 7583, 8426, and 9143. The abbreviation $.T.T.L is more frequent: ILS 1555, 1659, 2514, 2654, 4960, 6801, 7594, 7595, 7749, 7766, 7802, 8100, 8131, 8421, and 8445. On this and similar formulae that presuppose a belief in sensation after death, see again Lattimore (1942), 65-74.\n\n26 CIL 6.2357 = Buecheler, Carm. Epigr. 838 = ILS 8204. On this phenomenon, see again Cumont (1922), 58; and Lattimore (1942), 118-123, and 230-237.\n\n27 These nine days, called the denicales, began and ended with funeral banquets at the gravesite, the silicernium and cena novemdialis respectively. With the latter, the deceased took his or her place among the maiores, or ancestors. For more detailed discussion of these rituals, see de-Marchi (1896), 1.192-199; Toynbee (1971), 50-51; and D.P. Harmon, \"The Family Festivals of Rome\", in H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 1.16.2 (Berlin, 1978), 1602-1603.\n\n28 Cf. Bömer (1943), 48; and Toynbee (1971), 35.\n\n> \n\n29 There is a considerable literature on this point; cf., inter alia, Fustel de Coulanges (1874), 17-22; Cumont (1922), 3, 50; Lattimore (1942), 126-135; and Toynbee (1971), 37. As H. J. Rose, Ancient Greek Religion (London, 1948), 29-30; and R. Garland, The Greek Way of Death (Ithaca, N.Y., 1985), 104-120, have emphasized, the classical Greek cult of the dead was similarly structured.\n\n= \n\n30 One should also note CIL 12.5102 Buecheler, Carm. Epigr. 188 – ILS 8154, from Narbo in southern France: \"I drink without cease at this my tomb, the more eagerly because it is here that I must sleep and dwell.\"\n\n31 See R.E.M. Wheeler, “A Roman Pipe-burial from Caerleon, Monmouthshire”, AntJ, 9 (1929), 1-7; and H. Laver, \"Roman Leaden Coffins Discovered at Colchester\", Trans. of the Essex Archaeological Society, n.s. 3 (1889), 273-277; cf. G.C. Boon, \"Mensa Dolenda — a Caerleon Discovery of 1774\", Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 25 (1973), 346-358. More generally, cf. again Fustel de Coulanges (1874), 21-23; Cumont (1922), 50; and Toynbee (1971), 37, 51.\n\n32 See Festus, v. culina; and, inter alia, CIL 1,1059, 5.7459 = ILS 8342. These amenities are also discussed by Fustel de Coulanges (1874), 22-23; Cumont (1922), 53-57; and Toynbee (1971), 51.\n\n33 See Goody (1962), 393-394, and 401; and E.K. Gough, “Cults of the Dead among the Nayars\", Jour. Amer. Folk., 71 (1958), 449-450; cf. A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, \"Religion and Society\", in his Structure and Function in Primitive", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211533, "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-1988", "page_number": 250, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "226\n\nto this one, although the bamboo arm-rest was a bit of a luxury not always found! This latrine was probably built early this century. Sheung Wo Hang had 30 latrines to service its approximately 100 families at the time of the Block Crown Lease in 1905; the great majority of them were very close in style and construction to this one.\n\nNOTES\n\nP. H. Hase\n\n2 Journal Vol. 23, 1983, p. 241-246.\n\nMy thanks are due to Mr. M.Y. Lee, of Sheung Wo Hang village, for drawing the latrine to my attention, and for helping me to measure it.\n\nSee plan attached, and plate 11.\n\n4 See plate 12.\n\nA NOTE ON RICE HULLERS (RE)\n\nIn March 1972, I visited the New Territories' village of Ma Yau Tong, situated off the Po Lam road leading to Rennie's Mill in Junk Bay. I knew the village representative, Mr. Li Tak (...) from my days as\n\nDistrict Officer South, 1957-60. He was aged 79 in 1972.\n\nWith friends from Ngau Tau Kok old village in East Kowloon, who knew the Ma Yau Tong people, I looked carefully round the houses, paying special attention to old ones and their contents.\n\nLike most N.T. villages, Ma Yau Tong had been a rice-growing settlement, but in their case they had stopped planting some 10 to 15 years before my visit. I was interested in the farming tools and equipment, and made notes on a pair of rice hullers that we saw. However, we were only able to learn the details about one of them. The other was much older, and had been in the house longer than the old lady who lived there. As she had already lived in the village for 48 years, after marrying into one of the village families when she was 20 years old, it had obviously been made before about 1920. “About 100 years\", they guessed, but", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211535, "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-1988", "page_number": 252, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "228\n\nIt reads in translation:\n\n+\n\n+\n\n\"There are two sorts of rice huller. One is made of wood. The other sort is made of mud. This sort is made with a round bamboo frame, filled with clean yellow mud. Bamboo teeth are pressed into both the upper and lower hulling faces. The upper frame of the huller has a hollow to receive the grain, the capacity of which is double that of a wooden huller. If the grain is at all damp when it goes into the huller, it will be crushed. After hulling 200 shek (E) of rice, a mud huller will start to fall to pieces. Wooden hullers require strong men to operate them, but mud hullers are suitable for operation by women or young people. The ordinary peasants use mud hullers of this type.\"\n\nI am grateful to Mr. Yau for drawing my attention to this description.\n\nJames Hayes\n\nA GLIMPSE OF THE LAND SETTLEMENT AT SHEK PIK VILLAGE,\n\nLANTAU ISLAND, HONG KONG\n\nIn the opening years of this century, following the lease of what is now the New Territories of Hong Kong, all land that was being utilised or had been occupied was surveyed by the new government. A Land Court was set up to settle all claims to ownership of land, and any disputes were adjudicated. Finally, a register of ownership for each of the 355 Demarcation Districts was prepared and bound into a folio together with a survey sheet and a Block Crown Lease.\n\nWhilst the work of the survey and land court are well-documented in the official reports of the time,1 few materials showing the process in the villages have survived.\n\nTo my mind, the most interesting of these are the small printed \"chits”, known to villagers and government staff alike as Chi Tsai", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211537, "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-1988", "page_number": 254, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "230\n\nThe main additions to our knowledge of the land situation at Shek Pik afforded by the chi tsai come from the notations giving the local place name (4) of each property, and whether a field was being cultivated by an owner or another party, and whether the claimant held a mortgage on someone else's property, as did Chi Yau-kei in a number of cases. Other information, on the use of huts, the occupancy of houses, with the numbers by which they were known in the village (?), and on abandoned (uncultivated) land, was also provided. Mortgages held by Yau-kei were also noted.\n\nIn Chi Yau-kei's case, the chi tsai appear to show him in possession of a considerable amount of land, some abandoned or fallow but mostly under his own (and his family members') cultivation and use. His fields extend over demarcation districts 312, 315, and 318, but are mostly located in the last.\n\nIs such information reliable? It could only have been given by the claimant. Unless he was slack in his answers, deliberately to avoid giving more information than he had to, or because he could not be bothered — it would have been easier to say that he occupied and farmed everything himself — the chances of accuracy are fairly good. If so, it is a pity that more chi tsai from the village have not survived, as they would have told us more about land use than it is possible to gain from the ownership schedules in the Block Crown Lease.\n\nFinally, a word about the forms themselves. They are of additional interest because each carries a red oval-shaped \"chop\" bearing the title of the New Territories Land Court in English and Chinese. In every case, there is another \"chop\", also in red, from the District Officer, added after the claim of ownership had been substantiated, stating that the paper is only for identification and record purposes and has no value by itself, since only the Tsap Chiu would be taken as an accurate record — presumably in case unscrupulous persons tried to pass the Chi Tsai off as title deeds in a fraudulent sale.\n\nThe forms have another value, in that the District Officer's notice is the earliest example I have seen of the use of the Chinese title “Lei Man Fu (li min fu)”, the time-honored description of the officer and the implied duties of the post. The full inscription reads:\n\n!\n\n \nI", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211540, "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-1988", "page_number": 257, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "DEZAKETTRE DWUKISME)\n\nJames Hayes\n\n233\n\nNOTES\n\nSee the list of printed papers given at pp. 271-272 of my book, The Hong Kong Region 1850-1911: Institutions and Leadership in Town and Countryside (Hamden, Conn., Archon Books, 1977). Perhaps I should add that whilst the progress of the survey and land settlement are described, the records of hearings in cases where disputes could not otherwise be settled are not now available, save for some reports in the local English-language newspapers.1 See Chapter 4, \"Shek Pik, A Multilineage Settlement of Cantonese Farmers\" in Hayes 1977, op cit, pp. 104-128. I have also used some of the documentary material in my paper Education and Management in Rural South China in the Late Ch'ing at pp. 575-592 of Vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Asian Studies 1984, (Hong Kong, Asian Research Service, 1985).\n\n1 Although surviving “Chi Tsai” from the New Territories are few in number, they are not rare either. I have come across them here and there in my research, but unfortunately dismissed them as being of no particular interest or value, compared with the Block Crown Leases and actual customary deeds of sale and mortgage.\n\nOne entry from my Notes, for instance, taken at Chuk Yuen Village, New Kowloon, in July 1963, states, \"Her husband's father was Lam Hei (), and she showed me a few chits for lot numbers claimed at the Land Court in 1901. They included one interesting receipt for 13 tax receipts, presumably Ch'ing land tax receipts, which must have been submitted as proofs of ownership at the land settlement following the lease of the New Territories to Great Britain in 1898“. A collection of some dozens of chi tsai from New Kowloon villages is in the Public Records Office, Hong Kong (HKMS104): these will be the subject of a separate note in due course.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211566, "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-1988", "page_number": 283, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "259\n\nNOTES\n\nThere are several instances where Faure distorts the anthropological literature completely. The “frontier” which Pasternak (1969) refers to, for example, has to do with the socio-political consequences of a certain economic relationship between man and his use of specific strategic resources, namely water and land. Land reclamation is not an accurate translation of this frontier situation. Faure also reads Freedman's (1958:2) interpretation of a passage by Fei (1946: 1) superficially and without much understanding of its context or rhetorical intent. Freedman's purpose in quoting Fei was to argue that the function of the lineage as a political and local organization transcends its identity \"in name” as a descent group. But it should be noted also that Freedman deliberately distorted Fei as well. Had Faure actually read Fei, he would have also discovered that the phenomenon which Fei (1946:5) was describing was not even a descent group at all, which should make it quite enigmatic indeed. Sometimes among the peasants, the clan is found, but it is of another kind. In Yunnan, for instance, I have seen that in villages local organization is formed in terms of clan which includes even members of different surnames. Functionally these are not strictly kinship groups. I shall leave open as to the nature of the so-called clan-village. I rather suspect that such an organization among the peasants is a local organization, not a kinship organization.\n\nWhen reading Fried as he does Freedman, Faure confuses the model for empirical reality. Underlying the petty disputes over the definition of lineages and clans as analytical constructs, Fried (1970) was trying to make a more important point about the political functions of a genealogy in allocating differential access to scarce strategic resources (i.e., lineage property), this according to Fried being more important than the existence of property per se. The relative distinction between stipulated and demonstrated descent must be understood in this light.\n\nSheer numbers never mean anything. Even in Faure's (p. 96) analysis of a Chinese funeral, there is no a priori reason to believe that the lineage or village should have any role or obligation to play in ritual preparations. The scale of any such operation is always determined by the family of the deceased. “Work” is delegated among volunteers within the community (not necessarily a territorial one), whether it be neighbours, colleagues, or friends. Correspondingly, compensation for services rendered is made either as payment or as fa see.\n\nI suspect that variations in village organization and relationships within village clusters were shaped during the formative period prior to the time when the village had any formal identity. The diversity of local experience can only be attributed to the diversity of interaction within different villages. Rules prohibiting intermarriage in Man Uk Pin and the lack of an ancestral hall in Wong Keng Tei are other examples of local phenomena which must be understood in reference to the way the villagers themselves define or interpret the nature of their own community.\n\nSee Strathern's (1984) study of the \"community\" in an English village.\n\nThe whole problem with Faure's description of “lineage-building” is that it is too easy to project a genealogical structure onto residence patterns, especially with help from Block Crown Lease Demarcation District Maps and the like. As for the Sha Tin Wai example, I doubt whether Faure bothered to match up the registered ownership of houses with its actual inhabitants or even to seek informant testimony with regard to this period of household mobility. In practice, villages rarely update actual ownership records unless there is a conveyance of sale or other transaction that requires re-registration. That registered ownership is usually a couple of generations behind is thus the norm rather than the exception.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211710, "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": 125, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "100\n\nTsun Wan has several local industries; . . . In the valley running up into the hills to the south-west of Tai Mo Shan there is a village consisting entirely of watermills, where wood is ground up for the manufacture of joss sticks. This picturesque place is about half a mile beyond Tsun Wan, near the 9th milestone, and follows the stream upwards, first on the one bank and then on the other. The first watermill is reached in 5 minutes' walk from the road, and beyond are a dozen more little houses perched on the sides of the valley, each with its waterwheels busily turning. For a small tip the owner of one of these mills will show you inside; the atmosphere is thick with fragrant dust, and through it you can dimly see great stone-headed hammers pounding away the aromatic wood.23\n\nFrom the description cited, the area seems to be Tso Kung Tam (2H), which is situated to the north-west of Tsuen Wan. According to elder villagers, there were six water-wheels in operation after 1930, and one of these was still in operation until 1952-1953. Later, they were replaced by electrically driven grinders, and manufacturing activities expanded to include the production of incense coils. Heywood's description was written during the last few years in which the incense wood was pounded by water power. The whole area was resumed by the Government around 1978 for the construction of the Tsuen Wan Mass Transit Railway Terminus.\n\nAlthough Tsuen Wan is the best known of the incense milling centres of the New Territories, and was the only one to survive after the 1920s, in the early years of the century there were at least two others. Sandalwood mills were noted at Pak Kiu Tsai between Pun Chung and Wun Yiu immediately outside Tai Po New Market during the Block Crown Lease surveys of about 1905. Similarly, early twentieth-century maps show sandalwood mills at Heung Fan Liu (56%, “Incense Powder Sheds\") just outside Tai Wai in Sha Tin. Heung Fan Liu and Pak Kiu Tsai are sites very similar to Tso Kung Tam in Tsuen Wan immediately alongside a fast-flowing stream with a substantial year-round flow of water to power the water-wheels. Heung Yuen Wai (I, \"Incense Tree Grove\") in Ta Kwu Ling may also be a placename referring to the incense trade → adjacent villages are called Tsung Yuen (AB, \"Pine Grove\") and Chuk Yuen (†, \"Bamboo Grove''), suggesting three local specializations. No sandalwood mills at Heung", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211745, "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": 160, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "135\n\nbeen only too pleased to have the buildings back in operation, and the daily prayers re-started. Kuk Shan Kit, however, died after being at the Cheung Shan Kwu Tsz for only a few years. His disciples dispersed to other monasteries. Only one disciple, a lady of over 40 when she arrived from Lo Fau Shan, stayed at the Cheung Shan Kwu Tsz, where she lived until she died early in 1991. It is because of Kuk Shan Kit's early death, and the dispersal of his disciples, that the nunnery escaped being rebuilt in the 1950s and 1960s.\n\nBefore the War, the nunnery seems to have been dependent on donations from villagers and on offerings made by wayfarers, despite the fact that, at least on paper, it owned a considerable amount of land. At the Block Crown Lease Survey (1905) it was registered as the owner of 2.49 acres of First Quality, 1.8 acres of Second Quality, and 0.23 acres of Third Quality riceland in the Ping Shan area (DD79), 3.79 acres, 0.42 acres and 0.26 acres in the Ping Che area (DD77), 0.87 acres of First Quality riceland in the Wo Hang Au area (DD38), and 1.22 acres of First Quality riceland in the Man Uk Pin area (DD37), totalling 8.37 acres of First Quality, 2.22 acres of Second Quality, and 0.49 of Third Quality riceland; 11.08 acres overall. The only houseland owned was the nunnery itself. Unfortunately, the title deeds for this land have been lost, and it is impossible to be sure when they were donated to the nunnery. The tiny plots near the nunnery were also owned by the nuns, but the value of these plots was so low that they were left unregistered.\n\nIt should be noted that the average holding of an average New Territories family actually farming their own land in the early part of this century was about one acre. Land rented out was usually rented at 50% of its crop, so that the 11.08 acres of the nunnery's holdings should have produced enough, if all rented out, to provide for the subsistence needs of five families, and hence should have been more than sufficient for the needs of a couple of elderly nuns, even if they did have to provide free tea to all wayfarers. However, it seems likely that only a small percentage of the income from this land actually reached the nunnery. This point is considered more fully below.\n\nThe Cheung Shan Kwu Tsz and the Ping Yuen Hap Heung\n\nPolitically, the nunnery stood at a nodal point in the tangled web of local politics. The area near the nunnery was certainly settled in the Ming period. The Punti Ho (I), Tang ( ), Man (A), To (#), and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211754, "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": 169, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "144\n\nThe Shing Ping She was thus required to maintain the Kim Ho Temple, and at least the Heroes Shrine part of the Ping Yuen Temple, and had to meet the costs of the rituals it conducted there. It also had to maintain the bridges and roads, and to meet the costs of the patrols it sponsored. However, it had no land at the time of the Block Crown Lease (1905). Apart from the temple itself, the Ping Yuen Hap Heung owned no land at that date either. Similarly, none of the individual villages of the area owned any significant amounts of communal land. The Shing Ping She did, however, have enough income to buy a good deal of land within the New Territories later — five and a half acres was bought, together with a house, between 1911 and 1920, at a cost of $1,272.50 for just over three of the five and a half acres. Villagers believe the She also bought land at Wang Kong Ha during this period.\n\n18\n\nThe She seems to have imposed a grain tax on all householders and cow owners within the patrol district. At least in the 1930s, as the elders recall, some of this grain was passed to the nuns at the Kim Ho temple and the Cheung Shan Kwu Tsz for their sustenance, but most was sold.\n\nThe villagers claim that the Shing Ping She also bought from the Cheung Shan Kwu Tsz all the nunnery's lands within Ping Che and Ping Yeung, at a date somewhen in the 1920s, but without changing the registration of the land in the Land Registry. This is possibly why the She's programme of land purchase in its own name comes to an abrupt end in 1920.\n\nThis claim may well hide a more complex situation. As mentioned above, neither the Shing Ping She nor the Ping Yuen Hap Heung held any communal land in 1905, although they had significant communal commitments: Loi Tung, equally, seems to have had no communal land to provide income for the needs of the Loi Tung Yeuk. At the same time, the nunnery land does not seem to have been used to meet nunnery needs. After the fire, the abbess repaired the roof by seeking donations, not by selling or mortgaging part of the land, and this was clearly the position also at the time of the 1868 rebuilding, since the inscription in the temple records the donors. In the 1930s, the nuns' rice came from donations from the Shing Ping She, not from rent. It seems very likely that the Ping Yuen Hap Heung and Loi Tung people had placed their communal lands under the name and protection of the Buddha. This is not uncommon in the area; such an arrangement made it more difficult for managers to embezzle the land entrusted to them, and protected it from external...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211764, "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": 179, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "154\n\n19\n\n, at Law Fong) are believed to have entered the area after 1700. See Map of Ta Kwu Ling.\n\nIt is interesting to note that, of the 21 villages in the Ta Kwu Ling area, seven are purely Punti, nine are purely Hakka (including two of originally Punti but now Hakka speaking Mans), but five are of mixed Punti and Hakka residents, including the large village of Chau Tin (which has only a tiny handful of Hakka residents), Fung Wong Wu, Kan Tau Wai, and Law Fong, and Tong Fong which consists partly of Punti speaking Mans, and partly of Hakka speaking Mans.\n\n+\n\n1\n\nYeung, and Ng, at Fong Wong Wu; Siu, and Ho, at Chau Tin; Wong, at Kan Tau Wai; Pang, and Au, at Tai Po Tin; Fu Lau, (and others) at Wo Keng Shan; Yiut, at Chuk Yuen; Chan, and Yiu, at Law Fong (Luofang); Chau at Wang Kong Ha; Yeung, and Kwu, at Sai Ling Ha (Xilingxia), and others.\n\n21 The temple bell, of Chien Lung 21 (1756) was donated by \"all the faithful people of the Ping Yuen Hap Heung...\n\n...to stand for ever before the altar of the Lady Tin Hau*. Faure, Luk, Ng, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 670. The only earlier dated item in the temple, a Cloud Gong of 1727, was donated by a single family from Ping Che, Faure, Luk, Ng, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 661. The temple continued to be owned and controlled by this group of villages. Faure, The Structure of Chinese Rural Society: Lineage and Village in the Eastern New Territories, Oxford Univ. Press, Hong Kong, 1986, p. 104 is incorrect in saying that the temple was owned by Ping Yeung. In the Block Crown Lease, the Manager of the temple was Man Shan-fung, of Ping Che. The Tong Fong people, although closely related genealogically to the Ping Che people, were not part of the Ping Yuen Hap Heung, and did not take part in the Ta Tsiu.22 Faure, op. cit., p. 103.\n\n+\n\n+\n\n23 The four managers at the time of the Block Crown Lease were Tang Hung-wai (a houseowner of Loi Tung), Chan Shing-pong, called a houseowner of Ping Yeung in a District Office report of 1979), Man Ying-shau (probably a villager of Ping Che, a relative of the houseowners Man Ying-kei, Man Ying-wai, and Man Ying-fat), and Chung Choi-wah (a houseowner of Man Uk Pin). These died in 1938, 1926, 1925, and 1942 respectively, according to a report made to the District Office in 1979. The abbess, Wong Tik-yuen, was appointed a manager in 1926, but she died in 1931. After the War, the lack of managers caused trouble on a number of occasions. A temporary manager was appointed in 1968. In 1979 the Chairman of the Sha Tau Kok Rural Committee and others were appointed as managers, although he, as a Lin Ma Hang villager, had no connection with the nunnery. This seems to have been with a view to rebuilding the nunnery. This proposal has led to a string of vigorous complaints from the elders of the six villages with shares during the last three years, but the situation remains, at present (1991), unresolved.\n\n24 See Faure, The Structure of Chinese Rural Society, op. cit., pp. 100-127, for a discussion of the Yeuk.\n\n25 The only alternative was a dangerous, difficult, and often impassable waist-deep ford, as the 1896 Kwong Fuk bridge tablet makes clear. See Faure, Luk and Ng, Historical Inscriptions of Hong Kong, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 298.\n\n26 See Robert G. Groves, \"The Origins of Two Market Towns in the New Territories\", Aspects of Social Organisation in the New Territories, Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, Symposium Report, 1964, pp. 16-20, and Alice Ng Lun Ngai-ha, \"Xianggang Xinjie xushi zhi xingqi yu shuailao: Dabuxu yanjiu\" [The Foundation and Decay of Market Towns in the New Territories of Hong Kong: A Study of Tai Po], in Chinese Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1985, pp. 633-655. The very widespread support for the Tsat Yeuk can be gathered from the list of donors shown on the Kwong Fuk bridge tablet, Faure, Luk and Ng, loc. cit.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213108, "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-1993", "page_number": 176, "title": "RAS-1993", "content_text": "158\n\nKong waters. This petition was probably written because of fears as to the practical problems they would face if they lived in British territory, and their market was in Chinese territory. \"In the early years after the lease, grievances over the Customs remained at high heat. In the winter of 1906, the villagers from the New Territories went on strike, and refused to go to market. In 1907 there was a full-scale riot, triggered by a Customs official beating a villager for not paying duty. Later that same year, the elders of the Shap Yeuk petitioned to the authorities at Canton, begging that the Customs officials at Sha Tau Kok be restrained.4 Later, relations with the Customs improved a little, but the duty demanded from villagers remained a major irritant and grievance throughout the period from 1899 to 1951.\n\nAnother irritant, and brake on economic development, was the political chaos in the border area of China. As can be seen from the Calendar of Border Disturbances at Appendix 1, political trouble in this area began even before the Revolution of 1911. An abortive rebellion in the Wai Chau (Huizhou,H) area in 1900 saw the Ch'ing Government lose control of the wild lands east of Yim Tin. A second abortive rebellion was centred in these hills, at Sam Chau Tin (Sanzhoutian,E), in 1904-1905.\n\nA second period of disturbance came after the Revolution, during the years 1911-1928, when the area immediately north of the frontier was the plaything of various competing political groups and would-be warlords, passing from one to the other week by week - 'In those days, when we went to market, the soldiers would be wearing yellow, but the next week, they would be wearing brown'. This period was marked by large-scale banditry, piracy, and general turmoil. With the large garrison of Customs and military personnel at Sha Tau Kok, bandits never threatened the town itself, but the Yim Tin Customs post was sacked by bandits in 1913 and (three times) in 1916, Nam O (Nanao,) Customs post at the entrance to Mirs Bay, was sacked in 1913 and 1914, Chan Hang in 1915, and, a little east of Chan Hang, Kai Chung (Xichong,) Customs post was sacked in 1916 and 1917. The Customs post at Sha Yue Chung (Shayuchong,) was sacked in 1919 and 1920, while the Sha Yue Chung Ferry (the lifeline of the market to the east) was captured by pirates in both 1921 and twice in 1922. For nearly one and a half years in 1918-1919, indeed, all the Customs Stations in Mirs Bay east of Yim Tin were forced to close, so lawless had the area become. The irregular soldiers", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213141, "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-1993", "page_number": 209, "title": "RAS-1993", "content_text": "No. Name of Shop\n\n191\n\nAddress\n\nof Shop\n\nName of Owner\n\nVillage of Owner\n\nSource\n\nComments\n\nTobacco\n\n67\n\nGuesthouses\n\n68-71.\n\nWIS\n\nC\n\nC\n\n'3 or 4\" guesthouses See below under \"Others\" Basel missionaries. 1859\n\nOpium Divan\n\n72\n\nWIS\n\nLunie-burners\n\n73-74\n\nYin Lou\n\nC\n\nC\n\nFt.L\n\nOilers\n\n75\n\n=\n\n}\n\nWH\n\nC\n\ngroceries\n\n76\n\n77\n\n仙\n\n78\n\n利\n\n79\n\nSE\n\nB\n\n1 or 2 limekilns\n\nLockhart's Report, 1899\n\nsweets and small\n\n) these may be two of\n\nB\n\n) the guesthouses\n\nB\n\nJ\n\nB\n\n)\n\nHO\n\n...\n\nB\n\n) nothing is now\n\n18\n\nW\n\nB\n\n} remembered about\n\n82\n\n87\n\nK\n\n4\n\nB\n\n> these shops\n\nB\n\n}\n\n#4\n\n¥\n\n}\n\nProstitutes\n\n85-96\n\nRow neat\n\nCity\n\nC\n\nLS\n\nSaltworks\n\n97-115\n\n-\n\nYon In EL\n\nC\n\nHawken\n\nC\n\nWIS\n\nPunti girls from City\n\nOffered opium to clients\n\nHL workers from\n\nSwabue, sold salt retail\n\nDetail of works in Block Crown Lease\n\nFish, meat, vegetables, cooked food (including noodles), handicrafts\n\nfuel. Also at Yim Liu Ha\n\nE\n\nNOTES\n\nSee G A C Herklots, The Hong Kong Countryside, Hong Kong, 1951, pp 86-89 for tigers and leopard on Ng Tung Shan, and the Hsin An County Gazetteer (1819 Gazetteer, ch 3. Chung Lap Pao Edition, 1979, p. 45) for tiger, wild boar, and deer in the area\n\n2 1688 Hsin An County Gazetteer, ch 3, 127\n\nA salt commission was established at Nam Tau (Nantou) just outside the present borders of Hong Kong, probably in the Nan Yueh period, in the second century BC This was later divided into 4 commissions, probably during the Nan Han period (tenth century A.D) Of the 4 Nan Han commissions, the Kwun Fu commission certainly covered the Mirs Bay area in the Sung; the headquarters of the commission were moved temporarily from Kowloon City to Tip Fuk (Deep Fuk) on the east coast of the Bay in 1163; and probably did so from the establishment of the commission The borders of Tung Kuan County and its predecessors bent round to include just the coastal strip of Mirs Bay.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213143, "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-1993", "page_number": 211, "title": "RAS-1993", "content_text": "193\n\nH\n\nDetails of the early Hakka examination successes are known from a recently recovered genealogy, of the Chan (陳) lineage of Nam Chung. It is understood that a copy of this genealogy will be deposited with the Hong Kong Museum of History. I am indebted to Mr Chan Wing-hot for drawing my attention to the information in this genealogy.\n\nQ Seen 8\n\nAt the time of the Block Crown Lease (1905), 12.68 acres of saltpans were recorded. However, the serious inadequacies of the first survey here led to another being conducted in 1912, when 17.11 acres were recorded. However, in 1912 two areas were left unclaimed, probably because storms had breached their bunds and ruined them. These two areas totalled about 3.3 acres. In addition, there were about 0.6 acres of houses, huts, and waste within the saltpan reclamation, which, therefore, totalled about 21.2 acres. The saltpans were very valuable property in the nineteenth century - the Basel missionaries (see below, n. 17) record the sale of a share by a Tam Shui Hang villager in 1882 for \"several hundreds of dollars\" (Basel Mission archive, doc. AT-16, Nr. 45). In the 1920s, however, and still more in the 1930s, cheap imported salt caused ever-growing problems, which led to the closure of the saltworks before the War. A bridge was built to the saltpans in 1934 (Administrative Reports for the Year 1934, App. J, \"Report on the New Territories for 1934\", p. J17). After the War, the abandoned saltworks became the site of a major squatter settlement, recently cleared. Today, the saltpan area has disappeared under new reclamation, and all that remains is a new Tin Hau Temple, replacing the old one previously on the saltpans, built on a new site on the new waterfront.\n\nFor details of the history of the temples in the area, on the settlement of the Hakka in the area, the reclamation projects they undertook, the founding and management of the market at Sha Tau Kok, and the functioning of the Shap Yeuk as the district management body, see P.H. Hase, \"The Alliance of Ten Settlements and Polities in the Sha Tau Kok Area\", in D. Faure and H.S. Siu, eds., Down to Earth: The Territorial Bond in South China, Stanford University Press, 1995.\n\n12. No details on the earlier history of the temple survived the very full restoration of 1894, but Shan Tsun elders believe it to be very old.\n\n13. In the 1688 Gazetteer (Ch. 3) a ferry “along the coast” is mentioned called the \"Ma Tseuk Ling Ferry\". There can be no doubt that this is the ferry to Sha Yue Chung (Shayuchong, etc.), 12 miles down the coast. Ma Tseuk Ling, at the head of Starling Inlet, is the nearest old village to the Wu Shek Kok Temple (Wu Shek Kok village - probably a foundation of the early nineteenth century). The coasts of Starling Inlet within two or three miles of Ma Tseuk Ling were blocked with mudflats and mangrove everywhere except at Wu Shek Kok, where alone a hill falls steeply into the sea. Wu Shek Kok is, therefore, the only possible site for a \"Ma Tseuk Ling Ferry\" landing place. The Ma Tseuk Ling villagers owned the Wu Shek Kok Temple, and the Ma Tseuk Ling military post (1688 Gazetteer, ch. 7), was at Shek Chung Au, just a few hundred yards from Wu Shek Kok. These Ma Tseuk Ling connections with the Wu Shek Kok area strongly suggest that the Wu Shek Kok hill was regarded as forming part of the Ma Tseuk Ling area. Later, Wu Shek Kok formed part of the Ma Tseuk Ling Yeuk of the Shap Yeuk.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213144, "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-1993", "page_number": 212, "title": "RAS-1993", "content_text": "194\n\n14 The oldest surviving dated object is the bell, of 1922 (D Faure, A Ng B Luk, F. M. Xianggang Beiming Huabian, Historical Inscriptions of Hong Kong, Urban Council, Hong Kong, Vol 3, p 733) The temple, however, appears in the Block Crown Lease (1905), and the local villagers believe it is old\n\n15 The Sam Heung villagers have recently elected a tablet at the resited replacement temple, stating that the temple was first built in the Chia Ch'ing reign (1796-1820), and that the Ta Tsiu was instituted as soon as the temple was built While the grounds for these statements are not given, they are reasonable, and probably correct, although a date late in the reign is likely\n\n16 D Faure, The Structure of Chinese Rural Society, op cit. p 107\n\n17\n\nA copy of this genealogy is in the collection of New Territories historical documents at United College, Chinese University of Hong Kong I am indebted to Dr D Faure for drawing my attention to this reference\n\nOur information on mid-nineteenth century Sha Tau Kok comes primarily from documents of the Basel Mission, which had a Mission Station in the town 1849-1854, and whose missionaries regularly visited it in the late nineteenth century The missionaries rented four houses from a local village elder, near the western end of Upper Street, backing onto the wall The missionaries drew a map of the town in 1853, plans of typical shop units in 1849 and 1853, and wrote a long description of the town and district in 1853 – Map 2 is a re-drawing of the missionaries' map of 1853, corrected by measurements taken from the 1924 aerial photograph of the town (13 November 1924 original in the Department of Geography, University of Hong Kong) The written description of 1853 is Basel Mission archive, doc Al-2, Nr 44, “Half-Yearly Report of the missionary Rev P Winnes, from 1st January to 1st July 1853\", printed in translation in P H. Hase. \"Sha Tau Kok in 1853”, in Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol 30, 1990, pp 281-297 See PH Hase, \"The Alliance of Ten\", op cit, for redrawings of the plans of mid-nineteenth century shop units, and also for a drawing of a cross-section of such a shop unit I am indebted to Rev Carl Smith for drawing my attention to the importance of the Basel Mission documents to the history of Sha Tau Kok, and for allowing me to use his transcripts and notes I would also like to thank Mrs W Haas, and the staff of the Basel Mission archive in the preparation of this article\n\n19 The Tung Wo Kuk was so named in direct emulation of the older Punti Council in Sham Chun, which was also known as \"The Council for Peace in the East\", PA, Tung Ping Kuk - the choice of the name Tung Wo Kuk must be seen, in these circumstances, as a marked sign of local pride and self-confidence\n\n20 See n 11\n\n21\n\nThe villagers believe that the name Sha Tau Kok is taken from a poem by a Ch'ing official who passed by and was so impressed by the beauty of the sun rising above the sand-dunes that he wrote a poem on it ADV AEAA. \"The sun rises from the sand-dunes the moon hangs where land and ocean meet\" I have heard this story from a Sheung Wo Hang elder, and see also Shatoulaode quwer xuanguanbu (Sha...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213451, "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-1995", "page_number": 47, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "14\n\nEven portions of the sea and the bed of the sea, foreshore, sand beaches, and any land whatever which may be turned into use and profit, are claimed and in some cases registered\n\nAll land in the New Territories with effect from 23rd July 1900 was declared to be Crown Land.\" Any Crown Land not included in a Block Crown lease was, therefore, unleased Crown Land. But the District Commissioner records:-\n\n\"Certain prescriptive rights over \"Crown Land\" have, however, always been recognised either tacitly or by official acknowledgment; most villages have rights of this kind over a greater or smaller area adjoining them, where they graze their cattle, cut grass and bury the dead...\"\n\nThe question of clan lands has right from the outset been a thorny problem. The Memorandum states:-\n\n\"Small villages and hamlets often place themselves under the protection of large and influential clans to which they refer all their complaints and from which they expect assistance in case of attack, robbery, and lawsuits. In some instances the smaller villages pay their land tax to the Government through the influential clans... These clans have, as before stated, claimed large tracts of land, which they have never occupied, but which they have leased in perpetuity to others, who undertake to bring the land under cultivation. The greater part of the land claimed by clans was never registered and, as a rule, it appears that no land tax was ever paid on this land to the Government.\" The cultivators, who have paid rent for years to the clans, in view of the fact that the land had not been registered, were afraid to dispute the rights of ownership, as they anticipated it would result in the land being resumed by Government and they would thus be deprived of their right of cultivation.\n\n+\n\nThe sequel is to be found in the \"Memorandum of the work done in the Land Office, Hong Kong, in respect of the New Territories for the year 1899***.\n\n\"The most serious matter of all, however, has been the stand taken by the farmers against the clans, their former landlords. The clans and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213452, "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-1995", "page_number": 48, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "15\n\nfarmers agree that the farmers are absolute owners of the soil in perpetuity, but have been paying money or produce to the clans for generations, which the clans claim to be rent payable to them. The case for the farmers is that the land is and always has been theirs absolutely free from rent, and that the amount paid by them to the clans was the Government land tax, which they claim to pay direct to the Hong Kong Government without the intervention of the clans... The system of payment in produce is one of the farmers' troubles because the measures used by the clans are larger than those intended by the deeds, and are not the measures in general use in the district.\n\nThis \"taxlord\" problem was settled by the Land Court which found the status of the clan taxlords to be \"under Chinese law... entirely illegal\" and disallowed their claims as “untenable”. In some cases, however, grants of Crown land were offered them in compensation for loss of income.\n\nGrants of Crown land to the clans were registered under the Crown lease in the name of the clan's ancestral temple, that is, in the name of mythical grandfather or Tang. The tradition is that a proportion of the rent from such land is set aside for the maintenance of ancestral halls, for the upkeep of schools and for other objects connected with the clan's welfare. No clan land may be sold or mortgaged without the consent of all the clan members who may, of course, number hundreds.9\n\nSuch clan land (tso) sometimes is leased to one of the families within the clan and they pay an annual rent to the clan accountant who is usually one of the male heads of the families within the clan who so serve for a fixed period in rotation. Sub-letting by such a family is not permissible and, if it occurs, the lease is usually cancelled. Alternatively the various families of the clan may cultivate the land for a year at a time in rotation and at a fixed annual rent. A third method whereby clan land may be leased within the clan is by auction of the tenancy for the following year. The proceeds of the auction are devoted to the worship of ancestors and for the education and welfare of clan members.\n\nThat type of land tenure has a close resemblance to the traditional tenure of ancestral land or sheung t'in described by Lockhart's memorandum.2", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213455, "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-1995", "page_number": 51, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "18\n\nconveyances and mortgages (Part II passim) and the derivation of title in accordance with the Crown lease, grant or licence (section 49).\n\nThe ancient Chinese law governing leases is also described in the Memorandum and although it is now superseded by the leases granted by the British it will be of interest to consider it in comparison with modern customary agricultural leases.\n\n\"The relation between landlord and tenant is often a complicated one, chiefly owing to the system of perpetual lease. Under such leases the landlords have practically renounced all rights to the exercise of ownership and are content to do nothing further than to receive a yearly rent. They can sell this right to receiving rent, but the land is otherwise under the absolute control of the cultivators, who often sell their perpetual lease.\n\nThe landlord is called the owner of the \"Ti Kwan\" which may be termed the right of receiving rent. The tenant is said to possess the \"Ti Min\", or right of cultivation.\n\nThe most common practice in the case of land-owners who do not farm their own land, is for them to let it out to tenants, who pay them a fixed rent in kind or in money, the amount of which is settled beforehand. In bad seasons the landlords grudgingly reduce their rent on being asked by their tenants but they are not compelled to do so.\n\n\"Gompertz, writing in 1901, stated that short leases of agricultural land for a year were not uncommon and were usually determined at the end of the spring or autumn harvest by six months' notice on either side.109\n\nCustomary agricultural leases provide the subject-matter of quite a few disputes and this frequent consideration by the courts has caused this kind of lease to be particularly studied.\" \n\nIt has also resulted in there being available a few judicial decisions on this type of land tenure, which are regrettably absent, as already observed, in other branches of the customary law. The most important decision is that of Williams, Acting Chief Justice in the case of CHAN PUI and CHU YAN KIT. That was an appeal from the land officer sitting at Tai Po who had heard expert evidence on the local custom.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213473, "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-1995", "page_number": 69, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "36\n\nHong Kong Sessional Papers, 1900, pp 26-269 This Report was forwarded to London under cover of Sir Henry A. Blake's despatch to Mr Chamberlain of 19th February 1900 and this Memorandum of Land was subsequently published as Command Paper 403 in November 1900 (vide Committee Report, 1953, Chap III para 39 and Appendix 10 at p 207, where only two extracts appear) Mr Lockhart stated that the Memorandum was prepared with the assistance of Mr. Messer and Mr Ts'oi, Cader and First Clerk respectively\n\nA later, verbose but less informative source is \"Some Notes on Land Tenure in the New Territories\" attached to the Report, dated 4th March 1901, on the Land Court for 1900 by Mr HHJ Gompertz (who in 1909 was elevated to a puisne judgeship), a Member of that Court - Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1901 p 371 at p. 374\n\n17\n\nThe Emperor of China\n\nre the Chinese Government and Imperial Rent\n\nReport, DCNT, 1959-60, para. 171. The District Commissioner's Report for 1947-48 records (at para 29) that it was discovered in that year that one hamlet had never paid Crown rent since the British occupation of the New Territories This was remedied by the grant of a Block Crown Lease\n\n90 8. New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97)\n\n\"Report, DCNT, 1959-60, para 171\n\nTA\n\ne The Chinese Government\n\nby Bruce Shepherd, Deputy Land Officer, dated 17th January 1900, being Appendix VIII to Lockhart's Report, para. 12 (Hong Kong Sessional Papers, 1900, p 277 at p 279)\n\n44\n\nReport dated 18th February 1905 of Mr C. Mcl Messer, member of the Land Court (Hong Kong Sessional Papers, 1905, p. 149)\n\nReport dated 7th March 1905 of Mr JR Wood, Member of the Land Court (Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1905 p. 147)\n\nIbid, and see also Report on the New Territories 1899-1912, para 21(1), (Hong Kong Sessional Papers, 1912, p 46)\n\n7\n\nTregear, op cit, p 62\n\nDA\n\nReport, DCNT, 1959-60, para 177 and Tregear, loc cit\n\n44 Wilson's Notes\n\nalso sometimes termed \"Ching Sheung\" according to Wilson's Notes", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214650, "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": 65, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "29\n\nNga Tsin Wai in 1902\n\nA great deal of information on Nga Tsin Wai can be gathered from the Block Crown Lease, which in Nga Tsin Wai dates from 1902. Nga Tsin Wai forms part of Survey District 1, the very first area to be surveyed, and, as a result of experience gained, the later surveys were improved, particularly by the inclusion of the Chinese characters for the names recorded, and the recording of the village the landowner claimed to belong to. Although this useful information is omitted from the Nga Tsin Wai Lease, a good deal of information can still be had.\n\nAt the Appendix is a summary of the land-holdings of Nga Tsin Wai as recorded in the Block Crown Lease. For the purposes of this summary, any villager owning a house in Nga Tsin Wai in 1902 is considered a villager of Nga Tsin Wai, even if he owned other houses elsewhere. Any villager not recorded as owning any house is considered an Nga Tsin Wai villager if the bulk of his farmland was near the village. Any trust is considered a Nga Tsin Wai trust if the Manager (or any one of the Managers) was a Nga Tsin Wai villager, or if it owned a house within the village: any manager of a Nga Tsin Wai trust is also considered a Nga Tsin Wai villager, even if he would otherwise not be. There were other landholders in the Kowloon City area - especially men of the Ng clan resident in Sha Po - who are here considered as Sha Po villagers rather than Nga Tsin Wai villagers, and so are not included in the summary. This is not entirely satisfactory since, in 1902, there was probably no clear distinction drawn between Nga Tsin Wai and Sha Po, and the distinction drawn here between Nga Tsin Wai and Sha Po villagers is one unlikely to have been accepted by the villagers in 1902. However, it is the best that can be done.\n\nThe village consisted in 1902 of about 140 houses within the walls (not including the Tin Hau Temple and the Village Office), and some 48 outside the walls, plus the Ng clan Ancestral Hall and school. Six of these 188 houses were owned by village trusts: 73 individual villagers or groups of villagers owned the others. A further twelve house-owners classed here as Nga Tsin Wai villagers owned houses only in Sha Po, and five more owned houses only in Kowloon City. These villagers are here classed as Nga Tsin Wai villagers because of acting as trustees of Nga Tsin Wai village trusts or because the bulk of their agricultural land lay near the village, or because they formed part of groups of villagers.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214652, "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": 67, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "31\n\nOne of the things which stands out most clearly from the Block Crown Lease at Nga Tsin Wai is that the Chans were already only a remnant in the village in 1902. Eight Chan clan households are recorded owning houses in the village, but five of these are recorded as owning only houses (four of the five only owning a single house, within the walls). Yet another Chan is recorded as owning nothing except one one-hundredth of an acre of arable land. A seventh household consisted of no less than five adult men as joint heads of household, owning jointly a single house within the walls, and a small amount of arable land (one-fifth of an acre). These seven households are clearly relics of an earlier period when their ancestors were villagers in reality. Most of these families had sold out, and kept back just the one house, possibly for ritual reasons, disposing of their arable land, and, probably going into business in the City.\n\nand the one-fifth of an acre of arable land, however, was almost certainly a Tso Uk (祖屋, \"Ancestral House\"), owned by all the Chans from all the various scattered places where they then (and now) live. This house was doubtless put into joint ownership when the Chans started to desert Nga Tsin Wai, so that the clan would retain their links with their place of origin. The house still functions in this way today, with the Village Headmen of all the various Chan villages being the joint owners. The house is used for various rituals at the Ta Tsiu and elsewhen. Only two Chan households remained in 1902 as genuine villager households - Chan Ying-kam, who owned five houses in the village and one in the Market, and 0.43 acres of arable land; and Chan Fu, who owned three houses within the walls, one outside, and one in the Market, and 0.86 acres of arable land. Chan Ying-kam was also the Trustee of the only Nga Tsin Wai Chan clan trust to survive as a functioning Nga Tsin Wai body to 1902: the Chan Shuk Ching Tso, which owned 0.16 acres of arable land (the Chan Chiu In Tso functioned insofar as it was one of the three joint owners of the Tin Hau Temple and the Village Office, but this trust, in 1902, retained no other property in the Nga Tsin Wai area).\n\nThe Yung clan, which had bought into the village, probably only a few years before the 1902 Survey, consisted of just two brothers, Yung Wing-kwong and Yung Wing-fai. They owned only the two houses they lived in, and no arable land - the houses were owned jointly. These brothers had doubtless bought the houses as a place to live in: they were very probably merchants working in the Market.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214656, "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": 71, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "35\n\nby renting arable from the ancestral trusts of which they were members. 28.91% of the total arable land owned by the Ngs of Nga Tsin Wai was held by ancestral trusts. As usual in the New Territories, these trusts ranged from the very tiny to the very large. Thus, the Ching Yam Tso (in the name of the pivotal ancestor of the twelfth and most junior of the descent lines of the Ngs) owned only a single house within the walls, and 0.13 acres of arable land. There were only three descendants alive at the time of the Block Crown Lease. There can be little doubt that this house was a Tso Uk, used by the descendants to hold their ancestral tablets and to perform family funeral and other rituals (this was a common practice at Tai Wai in Sha Tin, where, as at Nga Tsin Wai, the houses within the walls were just too small to cope with rituals). The arable land was doubtless rented out to provide income for maintenance of the family graves. Similarly, the 0.14 acres of the Man Hing Tso, the 0.12 acres of the Shing Pak Tso, the 0.07 acres of the Tsak Tai Tso, and also the 0.1 acres owned by the Li Yung Fat Tso - all of these probably reflect small areas rented out for the maintenance of graves.\n\nAnother reason for these tiny trust estates which is quite likely in some circumstances (and which would reflect similar practices in Sha Tin) would be trusts set up by brothers on the division of their father's estate on his death, when some part of the estate was found to be difficult to divide, and so was put into a trust, so as to be held by the brothers jointly - examples in Sha Tin include small orchards, rice-drying grounds, buffalo wallows, and so forth. This is almost certainly the case with the King Tai Tso, where the trustees and sole beneficiaries in 1902 were the King Tai Ancestor's younger son and the son of his already deceased elder son - this trust owned only 0.04 acres of land.\n\nOther trusts, however, were devices for holding family property. The Chiu Pak Tso owned a large house in Kowloon Market, and 0.99 acres of arable land. The two trustees, Ng Shing-po and Ng Loi, were the only members of this trust: individually, the two owned only houses (Shing-po owned two houses within the walls and one without, and Loi owned one within and two without), and one small plot of arable each (probably the family vegetable garden - 0.04 acre in the case of Shing-po, and 0.03 in the case of Loi). This trust was probably set up in the name of the ancestor who was the grandfather of Loi and the great-grandfather of Shing-po: this was effectively another uncle-and-nephew land-holding, but where the family preferred to hold the joint estate more formally, as a trust. Other similar situations are likely to lie", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214661, "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": 76, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "40\n\nThe 1902 Lease also shows us a glimpse of how women were treated in the village then. It was a frequent occurrence that men died, leaving widows. Traditionally, there were three ways of dealing with this. In poorer households, the widow would live in a corner of the house, which would be taken over by her sons. Where this happened, the Block Crown Lease, of course, does not show it. However, in other cases, especially where the widow was elderly, with adult sons, she would be given the house she had lived in for life, while the sons took the other houses and the farm, guaranteeing the mother a certain fixed amount of food per month for her upkeep (in some villages, the sons would execute a legally binding deed to this effect). At least three examples of this practice can be detected in the Nga Tsin Wai Block Crown Lease. The widow Ng Chan Shi (“Madame Ng, of the Chan surname”) is recorded as owning merely 1 house within the walls, and 1 house in Kowloon Market. Li Chan Shi (“Madame Li, of the Chan surname”) owned a house outside the walls, and 0.37 acres of land - probably to provide her with vegetables, and possibly for a small market garden plot. Li Ip Shi (“Madame Li, of the Ip surname”) had a house outside the walls, two houses in Kowloon Market, and a vegetable plot of 0.06 acres, with a further 0.05 acres held jointly with Li Ping-sang.\n\nThe alternative method of dealing with widows, especially where there were infant children, was to allow the widow to occupy the land in trust for her sons' coming-of-age. Sometimes this was formalised, with the widow shown in the Block Crown Lease as Trustee, but very often the widow is shown as full owner, everyone understanding the arrangement. There is one clear case of this in Nga Tsin Wai. Li Ng Shi (\"Madame Li, of the Ng surname\") is recorded as the owner of three houses within the walls, and a very large house at Sha Po, together with 1.24 acres of arable land. While it was theoretically possible for a woman to own land (e.g. land she bought with her own money), it was very rare, and it can be confidently assumed that this land was land held by her as widow, in trust for her infant sons.\n\nThe 1902 Block Crown Lease, therefore, shows us a prosperous village, filled with people, surrounded by what, for the New Territories, were broad areas of arable land, with the essential components of a self-confident village of a fine Ancestral Hall and School, and with access to a literary club. The Lease shows us that the village families were mostly holding enough land for their subsistence, especially if", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214663, "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": 78, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "42\n\narea faced in consequence a sellers' market, and doubtless the result was a steady increase in the number of fields under vegetables, and in the number of village households rearing pigs and other livestock for the market. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, buyers from Hong Kong could only buy from villages on the mainland sea-coast opposite the City, since there then were no roads to bring in produce from further afield, and no vehicles to carry anything either. However, even though market gardening must have increased in importance throughout the later nineteenth century, it is likely that demand from Kowloon City and the ships calling there was enough to make market gardening a significant feature of local life even before 1841.\n\nThe Nga Tsin Wai villagers say that rice cultivation stopped in the village well before the last War. Most of the elders cannot remember seeing any rice cultivation there in their youth in the 1930s. By then, the area was entirely devoted to producing food for the market. One contact said his mother and grandmother ran a pig-farm in the 1930s with 40 head of pigs - a very large farm for the New Territories at that date. That farm operated out of sheds built on the family fields, but a lot of villagers kept pigs and cattle actually within the walls of the village. The elders say that a lot of houses within the walls were empty in the 1930s. Many of the villagers had moved to the larger and airier homes outside the walls leaving empty premises behind (twelve villagers in 1902 owned houses both within the walls and outside, and a further nine had houses only outside the walls then). These empty houses within the walls were mostly used as pigsties and cattle sheds in this period: indeed, it is doubtful if there had ever been enough resident population at Nga Tsin Wai to fill all the village houses within the walls.\n\nA Sha Tin villager, Hui Wing-hing, F, of Shek Kwu Lung Village, wrote a series of poems about villages in Sha Tin and adjacent areas, mostly in the period 1890-1905, i.e. at approximately the same time as the Block Crown Lease Survey. For each village, he wrote about what caught his eye as important and special in that village. Market gardening was what he found most significant about the Kowloon City villages, and, in particular, the growing of fruit for the market. He has this to say of the League of Seven and Six Villages areas in his poem on the villages of Hong Kong, Kowloon, and Tsuen Wan:", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214665, "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": 80, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "44\n\nThe lychees at Po Kong are really abundant.\n\nOf these verses, the reference in line 169 is to a temple near Ma Thu Wai. The reference in lines 170-172 is probably to the ejection of the Ch'ing officials from the Kowloon Walled City. In line 174 the reference may be to the prostitutes' quarter in the Market. The \"hospital\" in line 175 is the Lok Sin Tong.\n\nFor three villages - Po Kong, Sha Tei Yuen, and Yuen Ling - the poet singles out the orchards and vegetable fields he saw there as particularly significant and worth comment, and at Ngau Chi Wan it was \"herding\" - presumably of meat animals for the market - which he noted as interesting and special. The vast majority of villages visited by Hui Wing-hing were rice-subsistence villages, with almost every inch of arable land used for rice, and the Kowloon villages clearly looked very different. While Hui Wing-hing's attention at Nga Tsin Wai was taken up by the British takeover of the New Territories, there can be no doubt that Nga Tsin Wai, too, was to a large degree a market-gardening area in his time.\n\nAlmost all the coastal villages in the New Territories area had sampans, and added inshore fishing to their subsistence. It is a measure of Nga Tsin Wai's general prosperity that the Nga Tsin Wai village elders believe that their ancestors did not do this: the village had no sampans, and bought its fish - probably mostly from the coolies carrying fish from Tolo Harbour past the village to Kowloon Market. The Nga Tsin Wai villagers did, however, dig clams from the mud flats offshore, together with the villagers of all the other villages in the Kowloon Bay area. They also reared carp in the village moat, and possibly in other fishponds, for sale in the Market.\n\nNga Tsin Wai was never a poor village, but it prospered noticeably during the later nineteenth century. 1902, the date of the Block Crown lease must have been about the most prosperous period of this village community. The village fields were fast being converted to market gardens as the village faced their sellers' market in the growing City. The village had developed good contacts with shipping companies, so that many of the men were able to get good jobs as seamen. Many villagers were also getting good jobs in the Whampoa Docks, where, again, the village developed good contacts in this period. As the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214667, "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": 82, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "46\n\ntrust in his father's name (the Chan Hok Yin Tso) which owned 2.7 acres (Chan Tak-hing and his brother Chan Tsan-hing,\n\n(\n\n, were the only beneficiaries - it is likely that much of the property of this trust was amassed by Chan Tak-hing). His son, Chan Kwok-yan, 1872-1937) succeeded him on the Lok Sin Tong Board, the Kowloon City Kaifong, and as trustee for the Chan Hok Yin Tso, but he took to smoking opium, and the family business was closed down in 1930, when the family shop in Kowloon City was cleared for re-development.\n\nAs for the Lis, Li Ping-ngam, an \"honest farmer, who, on coming back from a meeting in Kowloon City, would take off his shoes and go back to work in the fields\", and resident in Sha Po, was an early Director as well312. He was probably dead by 1902. Li Ping-shang, who does appear in the 1902 Block Crown Lease, may have been his brother; if so, the lady Li Ip Shi mentioned above was very possibly Li Ping-ngam's widow, since Li Ping-shang owned a small piece of land jointly with the widow Ip. It is entirely likely that Li Ping-ngam was not quite the simple farmer he was remembered as. He may have been the dominant leader of the Li clan before Li Lai-ting (who could also have been called \"an honest farmer\").\n\nNg Shue-fan was also one of the Directors of the Lung Chun School within the Walled City () at the end of the nineteenth century33. This had been founded in the 1840s when the Sub-Magistracy was moved to Kowloon City, as a mark of the importance the Ch'ing Government placed on education and scholarship. Five trustees, who probably represented the local groups who had paid for the erection of the school in the 1840s, managed it: it is likely, therefore, that Nga Tsin Wai had been significantly involved in the foundation. By the end of the nineteenth century this school was being used as a Meeting Hall when meetings of the district elders and gentry were called. That Nga Tsin Wai provided one of the trustees is eloquent evidence of its local prestige and importance.\n\nNg Shue-tong was similarly important in local charitable affairs outside the Lok Sin Tong. Thus, when the Hau Wong temple was restored in 1879, he was the Chief Manager for the project (at least seven other Nga Tsin Wai villagers can be identified from the Donation Tablet)34. When the Hau Wong Temple had been restored in 1822,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214684, "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": 99, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "63\n\n16 The date is engraved on the earth god shrine in the village\n\nFor the Ta Tsiu at Nga Tsin Wai, see J W Hayes, The Rural Communities of Hong Kong Studies and Themes, Hong Kong Oxford University Press, 1983, pp 157-159 See also p 162\n\n18 These guns were all sunk in the moat immediately to the south of the village gate when the Japanese came\n\n19 In the 1902 Block Crown Lease, the Ancestral Hall is shown as the Ng Kit-san house, and the Ng Kit-san house as the Ancestral Hall by some strange error\n\n0\n\n1\n\n༣།\n\nDespatch from Sir M Nathan to Colonial Office, January 11th, 1905, in file CO882/6, printed in Eastern No 88, Confidential Hong Kong Correspondence [December 15 1903 to February 27 1907] Relating to the Proposed Canton Kowloon Railway', printed for the use of the Colonial Office, April 1907, No 59, pp 81-88\n\nThe slopes to the east of Lion Rock were under the protection of Kwun Yam These slopes were called Tsz Wan Shan (Fill, “Mountain of the Cloud of Compassion one of the titles of Kwun Yam) There has been a temple to Kwun Yam half way up to the pass since at least 1853, probably much earlier The early ownership of this temple is unclear\n\nInformation on the Chus is taken from their Tsuk Po, a copy of which I was kindly given by Dr James Hayes, and from notes of interviews Dr Hayes had with Chu clan elders in the 1960s See also, Southern District Board, 1996, p 138\n\nOn the Tung Shan Temple, see J W Hayes, \"The Kwun Yam - Tung Shan Temple of East Kowloon, 1840-1940”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, Vol 23, 1983 pp 212-218\n\n*For instance, in Aed (), Joint Publishing (Hong Kong), 1994, p 44, and RPF Lam, ed The Hong Kong Album, Urban Council, Hong Kong, 1982, p 66\n\n25 I am indebted to Dr James Hayes for much of the detail of this section\n\n26 See A Lui, Forts and Pirates, op cit p 31", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214737, "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": 152, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "116\n\nmirrored by the meticulous interest of model enthusiasts. There has been less interest in events in Asian theatres of war, particularly those before the change of the tide of war after the Battle of Midway. Save for a few battles, little has been written in English about the major battles in the Pacific War. One exception is the Battle of Hong Kong fought against the Japanese forces in December 1941. In this Battle, two brigades of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps without air support fought three full-strength Japanese divisions supported by an air fleet.\n\nThe Battle broke out at 08:00 hour on 8 December, when the air raid on Kai Tak Airfield began, and lasted to 15:25 hour on Christmas Day, when the Governor Sir Mark Young made the decision to surrender. This led to the official ending of the almost 18-day fighting, which was intended to cease at 18:00 hours, when for the first time in history, a British Crown Colony was surrendered to enemy forces with her governor taken as a prisoner. This surrender occurred one hundred years after the creation of the colony. A miserable three years and eight months period followed for the captive defenders and civilians until the British administration returned on 30 August 1945.\n\nBriefly, the Battle was conducted in two distinct phases2. From 8 to 13 December, it was fought in the New Territories and Kowloon. This phase ended with the fall of the Shing Mun Redoubt of the Gin Drinkers Line on 11 December and the final evacuation of defence forces to the Island of Hong Kong two days later. The second phase commenced in the early morning of 18 December when the Japanese made their first attempted landings on the Island near Lei Yue Mun Strait, the eastern approach to Victoria Harbour, and ended with the surrender one week later. Before the final capitulation, the Governor had rejected the Japanese request for surrender twice, on 13 and 17 December.\n\nWe shall consider a brief textual review of the English and Chinese publications and materials on the Battle of Hong Kong available in the University of Hong Kong Library, which provides points of reference for our re-assessment of the performance of the defenders of Hong Kong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 } ]