[ { "id": 204540, "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": 21, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "16\n\nLINDSAY RIDE\n\nAs we leave the church level to visit the terraces below, it is worth noticing that the corner of the balustrade behind the chapel is adorned with an old piece of Chinese porcelain in the form of a large peach. It is about a foot in diameter and carries on top, another small, almost parasitic one, about two inches in diameter; both have a delightful bluish-grey underglaze. These peaches, Chinese emblems of longevity, are most fitting and reassuring adornments to the approach of a Christian burial ground.\n\nThe three most widely known personalities, and the most frequently visited memorials, in the cemetery are undoubtedly those of Dr. Robert Morrison, D.D., Captain Lord Henry John Spencer Churchill, R.N., the brother of Sir Winston's great-grandfather, and George Chinnery; but these people are so well known that they need neither introduction nor lengthy consideration. Chinnery will be mentioned again in connection with his portraits and we shall have to be content therefore with just one or two observations on the artist himself when we come to his memorial. The Memorials. The Upper Terrace contains forty memorials; thirty-eight of them are to be found on either side of a small central avenue, and the other two are at its far end; they are of Chinnery and Drinker. All these memorials mark the resting places of those most recently buried in the cemetery, from 1850 to 1859, as well as one relatively very recent one who unaccountably gained entrance in 1889, thirty years after the cemetery was closed!\n\nOn the left, as we move along the central avenue from the entrance, the memorials nearly all stand back under palms and shrubs near the retaining wall below the chapel. They include American naval and merchant personnel, an Armenian and a few British. The majority of the Upper Terrace memorials however are on the right, their backs to the Lower Terrace. They include more American seafarers both naval and merchant, missionaries both British and American, a member of Perry's historic mission to Japan, and Joseph Adams, the grandson of the second President and the nephew of the sixth President, of the United States of America.\n\nNames associated with early Hong Kong, for example Duddell of Duddell Street, will be found in this row, as will also that of a famous Danish family of sea captains; in fact Captain Ipland has two memorials", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204541, "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": 22, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "PROTESTANT CEMETERY IN MACAO\n\n17\n\nTowards the far end of the terrace a number of children lie buried in a row and this is undoubtedly responsible for the oft repeated comment on the high infant mortality amongst the Europeans living in Macao in those days.\n\nThe two memorials at the far end of the central avenue are very conspicuous; the first is the altar-tomb of Sandwith Drinker, an American sea captain, business man and consul. The other is built into the wall at the end of the avenue, and carries only these two words: GEORGE CHINNERY. He was Macao's great canvas historian.\n\nHe is generally referred to as an Irish artist. If this is correct, it is not because of his place of birth. He was born in 1774 in Gough Square, Fleet Street, London, and not in Ireland. He went to Dublin when a young man, probably because a branch of the family had moved there from East Anglia a few generations previously. Nor is it certain that he was, as is usually claimed, a Member of the Royal Hibernian Academy which was not founded till twenty-one years after Chinnery left Dublin.\n\nWhile in Dublin he formed two attachments which were mainly responsible for the pattern of his future life; one had political repercussions which led to his sudden departure from Ireland and eventually from England to India. The other attachment was a wife; after an all too short period of blissful happiness, he spent the rest of his life trying to evade her. In this he was finally successful, but only by eventually settling in Macao with its haven of refuge from females close at hand in nearby Canton.\n\nChinnery came to Macao in 1825 and died there in 1852. During that time he must have painted hundreds of portraits and pictures of local scenes. Practically no foreigner and certainly no ship's captain left Macao without at least one portrait of himself by Chinnery, and the number of these scattered throughout the world must be vast. Yet it used to be said that this part of the world possessed no examples of his art. However true that was, it is certainly not so now, for the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, acting on the expert advice of our President, has built up a most valuable collection of his paintings. Although Chinnery never did like Hong Kong very much, many examples of his art certainly have a permanent home in our midst now. In the Lower Terrace there are 122 memorials and in our experience the most popular one amongst visitors is that of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204546, "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": 27, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "22\n\nD.\n\nLINDSAY RIDE\n\nDAVID, J. Ferdinand\n\nDAVIES, Joseph\n\nDE VOGEL, Emile Willem Eugene\n\nDANIELL, Edmond Murray\n\nDENSON, Thomas A.\n\nDINNEN, John\n\n++\n\nDRINKER, Sandwith\n\nDUDDELL, Frederick\n\nDUDDELL, Harriet\n\nDUFF, Daniel\n\nDUNCAN, George H.\n\nDUNCAN, J. George\n\nDURANT, Euphemia\n\nDYER, Samuel\n\n++\n\n+\n\nJ\n\nייי\n\nייי\n\nE.\n\nELLIS, William\n\ntr\n\nENDICOTT, Fidelia Bridges\n\nENDICOTT, James Bridges\n\nENDICOTT, Rosalie\n\nENGLE, Isaac E.\n\n+\n\nEVANS, William Thomas Bowen\n\nF.\n\nFEARON, Elizabeth\n\nFITZGERALD, Edward\n\nFRASER, Sir William\n\nFRENCH, Maria Ball\n\nFORBES, Thomas T.\n\nFORREST, Andrew\n\n...\n\nG.\n\nGANTT, Benjamin\n\nGILMAN, Agnes\n\nGAILLARD, Helen Baptista\n\nGANGER, Charles F.\n\n+r.\n\nGILLESPIE, Elizabeth McDougal\n\n++\n\nrr\n\nGOVER, Samuel\n\n+++\n\nGRAHAM, Charles\n\nGRIFFIN, John P.\n\nH.\n\nHADDON, Elizabeth Lewis\n\n+++\n\nFr\n\n-\n\nHAMILTON, Lewis\n\nHARRISON, George W.\n\nHAVELOCK, William\n\nHAWKINS, Charles\n\nHICKMAN, Washington F.\n\nHIGHT, John Francis\n\n+\n\nHIGHT, Matthew James\n\nHOOKER, James\n\n+++\n\n+\n\nJ\n\n- r\n\n+\n\n++ T\n\n125 L\n\n130 L\n\n25 U\n\n97 L\n\nLL+\n\n5 U\n\n+\n\n17 U\n\n+\n\n39 U\n\n27 U\n\n-\n\n+++\n\n21 U\n\n+\n\n138 L\n\n14 U\n\n48 L\n\nJ\n\n--\n\n111 L\n\n146 L\n\n---\n\n9 U\n\n33 U\n\n165 C\n\n34 U\n\n73 L\n\nJ\n\n10 U\n\n+\n\n84 L\n\n132 L\n\n62 L\n\nJ\n\n26 U\n\n56a L\n\n123 L\n\n32 U\n\n77 L\n\n+\n\nJ\n\n6 U\n\n92 L\n\n30 U\n\n+\n\n53 L\n\nJ\n\n++\n\n66 L\n\n64 L\n\nrrr\n\n+++\n\n28 U\n\nTH\n\n-\n\n72 L\n\nrrr\n\nL\n\n103 L\n\nT\n\nrrr\n\nrtr\n\n47 L\n\nH\n\nTH\n\n++\n\nFFF\n\n51 L\n\n18 U\n\n+\n\n102 L\n\n118 L\n\n+\n\n+\n\n139 L\n\n149 L\n\n110 L\n\n+\n\nJ\n\nTI\n\n57 L\n\n+\n\n137 L\n\n---\n\nJ\n\n+\n\n20 U\n\nHOWARD, Jane\n\nL.\n\nILBERY, Frederick\n\nILBERY, Louisa\n\nINNES, James\n\nJ.\n\nJPLAND, Christian\n\n+\n\nJPLAND, Christian Johann Friedrich\n\nJONES, Henry\n\n+4\n\nL\n\n+\n\n16 U\n\n3 U", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204551, "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": 32, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "PROTESTANT CEMETERY IN MACAO\n\nL\n\nUPPER TERRACE – Cont'd.\n\n27\n\nNo. Name\n\nSex Row\n\nAge\n\nDate of Death\n\nNationality\n\n \n 32.\n GAILLARD,\n Helen Baptista\n F\n Eastern\n 111/12\n 2 Sept. 1857\n Amer.\n \n \n 33.\n ENDICOTT,\n Fidelia Bridges\n F\n Eastern\n 6\n 15 Sept. 1859\n Amer.\n \n \n 34.\n ENDICOTT,\n Rosalie\n F\n Eastern\n 15/12\n 15 March 1856\n Amer.\n \n \n 35.\n MEDHURST\n \n F\n Eastern\n 1 day\n 9 Nov. 1854\n Br.\n \n \n 36.\n VROOMAN,\n Elizabeth C.\n F\n Eastern\n 28\n 17 June 1854\n Amer.\n \n \n 37.\n URMSON,\n Arthur William\n M\n Eastern\n 3/12\n 1 March 1854\n Br.\n \n \n 38.\n ADAMS,\n Joseph Harod\n M\n Eastern\n 36\n 4 Oct. 1853\n Amer.\n \n \n 39.\n DRINKER,\n Sandwith (B)\n M\n Central Avenue\n \n 18 Jan. 1858\n Amer.\n \n \n 40.\n CHINNERY,\n George\n M\n Central Avenue\n 79\n 30 May 1852\n Br.\n \n\nLOWER TERRACE\n\n \n 41.\n LIVINGSTONE,\n Charlotte M.\n F\n Bamboo Row\n 5/12\n 5 Jan. 1818\n Br.\n \n \n 42.\n PATTLE,\n Thomas Charles\n M\n Bamboo\n 44\n 26 Nov. 1815\n Br.\n \n \n 43.\n RABINEL,\n John Henry\n M\n Bamboo\n 56\n 24 March 1816\n Dut.\n \n \n 44.\n STEWART,\n Patrick\n M\n Bamboo\n 50+\n 20 April 1857\n Br.\n \n \n 44.\n STEWART,\n Louisa\n F\n Bamboo\n 55\n 19 April 1857\n Br.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207394, "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": 162, "title": "RAS-1975", "content_text": "154\n\nDONALD C. BOWIE\n\nconflict. I came to regret my thoroughness, for there was never time to use the equipment thus accumulated and this must have been splendid booty for the Japanese. There was also a full social life; many British women had enrolled for nursing and other essential duties and had not been evacuated. The Hong Kong Hotel was a gay place indeed, particularly on a Saturday night.\n\nIn October 1938, 35,000 Japanese troops had landed in Bias Bay on the China coast 35 miles from Hong Kong, and had then occupied Canton and had cut all communications between Hong Kong and mainland China. Patrolling Japanese ships thereafter made sailing from the Colony outside a circumscribed area very hazardous. In February 1939 the Japanese occupied the island of Hainan, 300 miles to the south of Hong Kong thus controlling the sea communications with Singapore. Curiously, after my arrival I do not remember taking part in any serious discussions with my friends about the prospects of a successful defence of Hong Kong. There were however plenty of rumours to fill the air. It was generally known that the strategic plan required Hong Kong to resist an attack for 90 days before a relief could arrive, a decision taken by the British Chiefs of Staff in 1937. In February 1940 the home authorities decided that food reserves should be accumulated for 130 days, while in August 1940 the Chiefs of Staff reached a further decision that in case of war with Japan, Hong Kong should be regarded as an outpost to be held as long as possible. After the war I learned from Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War, that in February 1940 the Chiefs of Staff concluded that the troops should be withdrawn from Hong Kong. Nothing was done to give effect to this decision. I have no doubt that the decision taken in February 1940 was the correct one which could with advantage have been taken much earlier. Ever since my arrival in Hong Kong in 1939 I believed that the Colony could not be defended successfully. The frontier, beyond which lay a strong Japanese army, was some 20 miles from Hong Kong harbour, the line to be defended, the so-called Gin Drinkers line was less than 5 miles from the harbour, the Japanese navy controlled the coast, our airport was tiny and the Air Force planes were few in number and no match in performance for their potential opponents. One and a half million Chinese civilians were crowded into Kowloon and Victoria. Roads suitable for wheeled traffic were few and open to close observation at many points. The whole picture left no doubt", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210627, "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": 234, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "215\n\nOsborn knew his job although he tended to stick to the book: he did not lose his temper, nevertheless he stood no nonsense.\n\nManchester continued:\n\n\"He was both strict and straight, and he did his best to set an example and to 'make something' of his men.”\n\nOsborn was also said to be ‘gentlemanly' and a good ‘mess man'.\n\nAs Manchester pointed out:\n\n\"Jack Osborn was a moderate drinker and not a 'womaniser'.\"\n\nIn short, while as a sergeant major he had few friends, he was looked up to by his men.\n\nHaving walked in the Tai Tam Country Park many times, with instructions from Harry Atkinson (he was just over the ridge, so he told me, on the day of the battle), I found the location where, 44 years before, Osborn and his brave band made their last stand. It is situated on a knoll, which is now overgrown with bushes, at the foot of Jardine's Lookout, not far from Stanley Gap.\n\nIt was a lovely, peaceful December day when I visited the place, although there was a considerable amount of building construction going on on the hill opposite. But it was easy to believe that, somewhere on that hill, was a fitting place for the remains of a hero to lie.\n\nD.D. WATERS", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214064, "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-1997", "page_number": 132, "title": "RAS-1997", "content_text": "99\n\n1941 there were thirteen operational batteries (complete with underground ammunition magazines, living quarters and access roads) on the Island, the earliest emplacements for these being built around 1895, an underground battle headquarters off Queen's Road near the naval dockyard (completed in 1940) and scores of reinforced-concrete structures comprising pill-boxes, observation posts, searchlight positions, anti-aircraft sites, bunkers, shelters, ammunition and stores dumps, tunnels and water tanks. On Stonecutters' Island the Royal Navy built between the World Wars a huge ammunition depot which included eleven large underground magazines; earlier the first land-based explosives' depot was completed here in 1876 from where it was transferred to Green Island in 1906. Of the original six battery emplacements designed and constructed on Stonecutters' Island during the period 1880-1905, only one remained commissioned at the outbreak of hostilities.\n\nThe two battery positions on Devil's Peak in Kowloon overlooking Lai Yue Mun gap were constructed soon after the New Territories' lease was signed in 1898 and a redoubt on top of the hill was completed by the Royal Engineers in 1914. The guns however were removed in 1936 and transferred to the Island. Subsequently the 18km-long Gin Drinkers' defence line was constructed during the mid-1930s across the hills to the north of the Kowloon peninsula and comprised a series of pill-boxes, trenches, bunkers and tunnels, the key feature being the underground Shing Mun Redoubt covering some five hectares on the northern flank of Smugglers' Ridge.\n\nThe decision to construct air raid shelters so that the whole urban population could be protected was not taken until 1940. In the space of about a year some 22 kilometres of 2.5m-size tunnels (of which about 80% still exist) were constructed on the Island and in Kowloon, including one adjacent to the Secretariat in Lower Albert Road which extended to Government House causing structural damage. In view of the urgent need for these tunnels, the project was arranged on a cost-plus basis and gave rise to rampant corruption, one architect involved even committing suicide to avoid giving evidence. The sub-standard pre-cast concrete breeze blocks made by the Director of Air Raid Precaution's girlfriend's firm are still (or at least until recently) known in the trade as Mimi blocks. Unfortunately the report on the Commission of Enquiry was never made public; it was taken into the Stanley internment", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1997.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/wp98g7579", "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 }, { "id": 214747, "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": 162, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "126\n\nindicated in Table 1, the Japanese outnumbered the Hong Kong garrison by 3.09 (X). However, they could only inflict a casualty rate of 2.11 (Y). The Singapore garrison, by comparison, fared better than its counterpart in Crete.\n\nSome Speculative Thoughts Regarding the Merits of the Defence\n\nConstrained by the statistics available to the author, the above analysis is crude indeed. However, it raises the point that the Hong Kong garrison, however unprepared and poorly equipped, had fought quite well. There are indeed sources that suggest a much higher casualty rate for the Japanese. Why was this the case?\n\nAny answer to this question surely requires a much more rigorous study. A number of speculative points and observations worthy of attention are raised below. Firstly, the geography of Hong Kong rendered defence more effective than that of Singapore. It is a cliché that the Japanese forces were well trained and prepared. Yet, they did suffer great losses. Most such losses were incurred when they made attempts to cross the harbour and in fighting for control of the hills and gaps on Hong Kong Island. In both the Battle of Singapore and the Battle of Hong Kong, the Japanese forces aimed at capturing reservoirs as their tactical targets, as they had anticipated long resistance and the loss of water supply would erode the morale of the defending forces and their ability to continue fighting. Unlike the Island of Singapore, Hong Kong Island is much larger in size, and is highly rugged in relief with several reservoirs in different parts of the upland areas.\n\nSecondly, the size of the garrison was also a factor. Comparing again Hong Kong and Singapore, a smaller garrison operating in a more defensible topography proved to be more battle worthy than a large number of troops congested in a much smaller flat island devoid of air cover and was running out of fresh water.\n\nThirdly, notwithstanding criticism of the design weakness of the Gin Drinkers Line, the Hong Kong garrison fought in an orderly manner according to a pre-conceived plan with defence structures well in place. As soon as the under-powered Shing Mun Redoubt was lost, the garrison evacuated the New Territories and Kowloon to prepare for", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215872, "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-2002", "page_number": 171, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "104\n\nPottinger Battery were relocated to Bokhara Battery, Cape D'Aguilar in 1939 or 1940 (Rollo: 201). The batteries' arc of fire at Devil's Peak in 1938 reached the southwestern tip of Lamma Island and the south of the Po Toi Group of islands, whereas those at Stanley reached beyond the southwestern part of the Lema Islands (Dangan Liedao).\n\nThus, before the Japanese invasion of Hong Kong on 8th December 1941, there were no guns at either the Gough or Pottinger Battery. However, the sites at Devil's Peak had become part of the Gin Drinker's Line in the 1930s. This Line runs from Gin Drinker's Bay (Kwai Chung) in the west to Port Shelter in the east. The Devil's Peak was a crucial component of the Kowloon segment of the Line. The Japanese had good maps about the location of the defences of Hong Kong. Some remarks on the defence works at Devil's Peak are registered in a map produced in 1939/1940 (Empson 1992). Defensive positions in the military sites on Devil's Peak were taken up by the 5/7 Rajputs of the Hong Kong Garrison on 12 December, after the fall of the Shing Mun Redoubt in the western part of the Line three days before.\n\nThe sites at Devil's Peak witnessed heavy defensive fighting by the 5/7 Rajputs and the First Mountain Battery of the Hong Kong and Singapore Artillery. The latter expended 400 rounds with their four 3.7 inch field guns before the evacuation of the defenders to Hong Kong Island on the morning of 13th December. The defenders destroyed all equipment before they crossed the Harbour during the night. Thereafter, the Japanese used the sites to bombard the Island and the defenders' gun returned fire.\n\nAfter the defeat of Japan, the Devil's Peak sites were abandoned by the British, although the batteries on the Island side of Lei Yue Mun Pass were reoccupied and put into active military use until the mid-1980s. Before 1997, there had been little news connected with British military activities at Devil's Peak, save for an air accident in the 1950s. In March 1956, two Royal Navy Sea Hawks struck fog-shrouded Devil's Peak, killing the pilots and an elderly lady (Eather 1996).\n\nA surviving example of the 9.2-inch guns that were deployed on the batteries at Devil's Peak can be seen at the Buyu Battery (Siu 1997: Plate 6 at p.76) that guards Humen (The Bogue). This battery was modernised in 1883 with the assistance of British and German military experts.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]