[ { "id": 204535, "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": 16, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "PROTESTANT CEMETERY IN MACAO\n\n11\n\nCompany doing in Portuguese territory? Why did the Protestants need a separate cemetery? What is the significance of the date 1814? These are but a sample of the problems that these few words pose.\n\nThe first Europeans to set up permanent maritime contacts with the Chinese were the Portuguese, and by 1557 they had been granted permission to settle on a small peninsula of the delta island of Heung Shan. This peninsula, covering an area of only about five square miles, thus became the first permanent European trading base in China.\n\nLater came the Dutch, the Spanish and the British traders and navigators; the first and the second of these national groups eventually made their oriental headquarters elsewhere, but the British, through their highly organized East India Company, were more persistent and more successful as far as trade with the mainland of China was concerned.\n\nBut the China of those days was, in the eyes of her own people, the centre of the universe, and all those who lived outside the confines of her ancient and well-tested civilization were considered barbarians. They could only be admitted inside the fold as tribute bearers to the Imperial Court to receive the ethical instruction of the Son of Heaven, and were then sent back home. When such admissions were allowed, portals of entry were carefully chosen and rigidly controlled, and in the case of sea-faring people, the port appointed was Canton, situated ninety miles up the river from Macao, and thus the barbarians were kept as far as possible from the sacred heart of the Middle Kingdom.\n\nBut even at Canton there were further restrictions, geographical as well as political. The ships could only get up as far as Whampoa, which was the deep-sea port for Canton, and about eleven miles down river from it. The foreign merchants were allowed to go on to Canton itself but they had to reside in a place set apart outside the city—the Factories; nor could they remain there permanently; the length of residence permitted was determined by the time it took to dispose of the cargo brought in their ships and to load the return cargo of silk or tea. The time of the year at which these operations took place was determined by the monsoon; foreign trade was therefore completely seasonal—from September to March approximately, and as soon", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204747, "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": 50, "title": "RAS-1964", "content_text": "JOURNAL OF OCCURRANCES AT CANTON\n\n39\n\nwas persuaded to join the firm of Baring Brothers & Co. In 1873 he became senior partner of the house, finally retiring in 1882. (L.T.R.)\n\n24 Lin Tse-hsü's fate. Hunter long survived Commissioner Lin. Lin Tse-hsü was dismissed from office in 1840 and later sentenced to exile in Ili in Chinese Turkistan, where he remained for three years. He was allowed to return to Peking in 1845. He later served as Governor-General of Yunnan and Kweichow, and retired from office in 1849. He died in 1850 at the age of sixty-seven. (J.L.C.B.)\n\n25 Heang-shan (Heungshan). Former name of the District in which Macao lies. Re-named Chung-shan in honour of Sun Yat-sen. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n26 Morrison. John Robert Morrison (1814-1843) was born in Macao, the second son of Dr. Robert Morrison and his first wife Mary (née Morton). He had some schooling in England but at the age of twelve he came back to Canton with his father in 1826. He became a fluent Cantonese speaker as well as a Chinese scholar, and on the death of his father in 1834 was appointed Chinese Secretary to H.M.'s Commission in China. In 1838 he became, in addition, Interpreter, and in 1841 succeeded Elmslie as Secretary and Treasurer to the Superintendent of British Trade in China. In 1843 he was appointed Chinese Secretary and member of the Executive Council of the newly founded Colony of Hong Kong and was recommended for appointment, by the Governor, as Colonial Secretary. Before the appointment was approved, however, he died in Macao in August 1843, and was buried in the Old Protestant Cemetery there. (L.T.R.)\n\n27 Kwang Chow Foo. Kuang-chou fu The Prefect of the Prefecture of which Canton was the chief city. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n28 Kam Hay Hue. No such title. But I suspect Hunter intended to indicate the Namhoi Hien which title was sometimes written Nam Hoy Hien. See note 14. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n29 Pwan Yu Hue. Also written Punyu Hien. The magistrate having jurisdiction over the eastern part of Canton city and the District lying to the westward of the walls which included Whampoa and the foreign shipping there. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n30 Fearon, Samuel Turner Fearon was the second son of Christopher Fearon and Elizabeth Noad who were married on 14 May 1818 at the Streatham Parish Church. His father served as a midshipman at the Battle of Trafalgar and after being discharged from the Royal Navy he joined the Honourable East India Company's marine service. In this service he made a number of voyages to Canton and when he decided to take a shore posting there he brought his wife and family out with him. Samuel became a fluent Cantonese speaker and in 1838 was appointed Interpreter to the Canton General Chamber of Commerce. After the cession of Hong Kong he was appointed interpreter and clerk of the Chief Magistrate's Court and a couple of months later were added the duties of Notary Public and Coroner. Three years later he was appointed Assistant Magistrate of Police and on 1st January 1845 he became Registrar General and Collector of Revenue. In July 1845 he was granted a year's sick leave and while in England he was appointed Professor of Chinese at King's College, London, an appointment which he held from December 1846 until December 1852. (L.T.R.)\n\n31 Van Basel. Magdalenus Jacobus Senn van Basel, born in Groningen, Holland on 27 September 1808, was appointed clerk in the Dutch Consulate at Canton in 1826, and Vice-Consul in November 1831. He was later in partnership with G. M. Toe Laer and P. Tiedenan in the firm of Senn van Basel & Toe Laer & Co. In 1848 he became Collector General of Taxes", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204971, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1965", "page_number": 79, "title": "RAS-1965", "content_text": "70 \n\nA. D. BLUE \n\nmiddlemen in trade between the two countries. There was a flavour of irony in this, as the Portuguese were to prove as great pirates as the Japanese, Their most famous pirate was Mendes Pinto, who flourished in the latter half of the sixteenth century, and who seems to have been a combination of Sir Henry Morgan and Baron Munchausen. Pinto's exploits are characteristic of Portuguese history during those early centuries, displaying that amazing mixture of gallantry and greed, of religious zeal, bigotry, and cruelty. \n\nThe eastern seas had always been full of violence, and the arrival of the Portuguese in the early sixteenth century, and the Dutch a century later, increased that violence. The Dutch lacked the religious zeal of the Portuguese, but substituted an equally unattractive obsession with trade. Much of the European trade in the Far East at that time was based on piracy. The Dutch, for instance, were excluded from direct trade with China until 1729, and in their Japan trade in which Chinese silk was the most important commodity they obtained much of their silk by plundering Portuguese and Chinese ships. \n\n— \n\nThe persistence of piracy in Chinese waters for so long after regular trade had been established there by Europeans, was due to the peculiar conditions under which that trade developed. In India, and in the East Indies, European trade was succeeded by a steady increase in European power, although in both places there was a considerable time lag between establishing political power on land and the suppression of piracy at sea. \n\nBy the mid-nineteenth century, however, British and Dutch naval power had made Indian and East Indian waters comparatively safe for European commerce. The situation in China was very different, however, and piracy continued there for fully another century. Not until after the First China War of 1841-42 were there any centres of European power in China, and the few centres established then were separated from each other by hundreds of miles of Chinese territory. The situation was aggravated by the increasing anarchy and lawlessness which became endemic over much of coastal China from the early nineteenth century, as the authority and power of the Manchu Government declined. \n\nWhen the East India Company's monopoly of the China trade was abolished in 1833, and the trade thrown open to all comers,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1965.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s752cj653", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206547, "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": 95, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF\n\nHOUSING CONDITIONS IN HONG KONG\n\nE. G. PRYOR\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe pattern of residential development in Hong Kong today is the cumulative result of historical forces which began to exert their influence almost from the time when the colony came under British jurisdiction in 1842. It is therefore towards an appreciation of the current housing situation that this study outlines Hong Kong's efforts to provide homes for its people over the past 130 years. In tracing the course of history in this particular field it will be found that the dreadful living conditions which persisted in many districts in the last century, and even in more recent years, have been the combined result of an overwhelming demand for and critical shortage of accommodation; the general poverty of the population; the inadequacy of utility services; the exploitation of families desperate for a roof over their heads; and the difficulty of enforcing (and sometimes the lack of) suitable regulations governing standards of building construction, the provision of household facilities and overcrowding. However, on the basis of recent achievements the future seems much brighter.\n\nFounding of the Colony\n\nThe sea routes between Europe and China, first established by the Arabs in the 7th Century A.D., were reopened in the sixteenth century by the Portuguese who settled in Macau in 1557. Spanish, Dutch, English and French traders soon followed but during the eighteenth century the British merchants captured most of the China trade which comprised mainly exports of tea and silk. The East India Company initially held the monopoly of trade and Canton became the centre of business for the British merchants.\n\n*Dr. E. G. Pryor is Senior Planning Officer in the New Territories Planning Section, Crown Lands & Survey Office, Hong Kong. This monograph has been extracted largely from his Ph.D thesis, \"An Assessment of the Need and Scope for Urban Renewal in Hong Kong.\" The views expressed are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily coincide with those of the Government of Hong Kong. Author's copyright.\n\nPlates 8-12 illustrate this article.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206775, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1973", "page_number": 52, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "46 \n\nA. D. BLUE \n\nsteamships in India operated on the Hoogly in the early 1820s, mainly as tug boats. \n\nThe first steamship in the Dutch East Indies was the Van der Capellen, a paddle steamer of 230 tons, designed to operate a coastal service in Java. The Van der Capellen was built by a consortium of British merchants in Sourabaya in 1825, and equipped with engines built by Fawcett and Company of Birmingham. \n\nDue to the close association between British India and Canton through the East India Company, it was not long before steamships were introduced on the Canton River. Although he did not live to see his scheme carried through, a Mr. T. J. Robarts of the Company's Canton staff is the pioneer of steam navigation in China. When on leave in London in 1821, just nine years after the Comet was launched on the Clyde, he suggested to the Court of Directors that a steam tug could be usefully employed on the Canton River. Because it was thought that the Chinese might object, his scheme was turned down, but Mr. Robarts decided to go ahead on his own. He ordered two 16 horse-power engines and a copper boiler from Henry Maudslay and Company of London, and a hull of oak frames; all of which arrived at Canton in 1822 and aroused great curiosity and admiration. Unfortunately, bad health caused Mr. Robarts to retire prematurely, and there was no one at Canton able, or willing to continue with his scheme. Everything was therefore sent to Calcutta, and arrived there in June 1822. \n\nThe parts were assembled at Kyd and Company's yard at Kidderpore, and the vessel, known as the Diana, was launched on 12th July 1823. However, the original oak hull was discarded in favour of a new hull built locally of teak. The name Diana was taken from the figurehead which had accompanied the original hull. The total cost of the Diana was 70,000 rupees, and the government declining to take any part in the enterprise--this was financed by a group of Indian agency houses. \n\nThe Diana ran successfully, but not profitably, on the Hoogly for a year, and was then sold to the government for use in the Burma War, 1824-1826. It was Captain Marryat, then the senior naval officer in India, who recommended her purchase to the government. The Diana took part in the first expedition to Rangoon, and proved so useful that she was retained on the Irawaddy for the whole of the war. She suffered at times from overloading, as not", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210599, "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": 206, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "ANTHONY FARRINGTON\n\n187\n\nA NEW SOURCE FOR CHINESE TRADE TO JAPAN IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY\n\nANTHONY FARRINGTON*\n\nI must confess that the word 'new' in my title is a slight exaggeration; 'neglected' might be more accurate, because the source which forms the basis of this paper has been known from at least the beginning of the twentieth century.1 But my contention is that one of its more interesting features has been overlooked and the general context has been partly misinterpreted.\n\nIndia Office Records: G/12/17 comprises the diary and consultations of the English East India Company's factors in Tongking from 25 June 1672 to 30 November 1697. The volume is a composite one, made up in the nineteenth century from ten separate 'books' representing the sequence of transmissions back to London, and it contains some 500 folios of varying size. Neither a calendar nor a transcript of the text has been published, and I can claim to be one of the few to have read through it.\n\nCromwell's charter of 1657, broadly confirmed by Charles II in 1661, rescued the East India Company from a period of financial confusion and commercial difficulties.2 The 1660s then saw the growth of serious interest in the possibility of reviving trade to Japan. The subject was discussed by the Company's Directors at the end of 1658, a report was compiled for the Deputy-Governor in 1661,3 and in 1664 a plan was put forward. A ship would leave London in September with a cargo of English manufactures, take in pepper and Indian piece goods at Bantam, call at Cambodia for any suitable commodities, sail on to Japan and finally, leaving there in November 1665, return to England via Bantam.4 The plan had to be shelved with the outbreak of the Second Anglo-Dutch War in 1665, while in any case the Agent at Bantam pointed out that a base in Tongking, not Cambodia, to secure raw and finished silks for the Japanese market, would be\n\n* Mr. Farrington is Curator, India Office Records, London.\n\nI\n\ni", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210600, "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": 207, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "188\n\nANTHONY FARRINGTON\n\nan essential preliminary to any such scheme.\"\n\nA reformulated version in 1670 incorporated this suggestion and added Taiwan. Beginning in 1672 three ships a year were to be sent to Japan, one via Tongking and the others via Taiwan. Tongking would supply silk, musk, skins and tutenague for Japan; Taiwan would supply hides and sugar. On the return voyage the three ships would separate: one to Surat, one to Madras, and the third to Taiwan, Tongking and Bantam, to pick up any commodities suitable for Europe.\n\nUnlike the early years before 1623, the East India Company seems to have begun to appreciate that the whole area of South-East and East Asia, from Malaysia to Japan, formed a region-wide commercial unit, criss-crossed by an inter-dependent trade network powered by the monsoons. What the Company was now attempting to do, as the Dutch had already done, was to insert itself into a Chinese dominated system of exchange.\n\nLooking back from the Company's commercial and political strength a century later it is perhaps tempting to see the Japan scheme as a second-best alternative or a prelude to trade with mainland China. However, more than 25 years ago at least one historian argued that the gradual development of trade with China only took place against a background of failure in Japan and difficulties in Tongking, and that it was not until the decade 1674-1684 that interest really shifted from Japan to China. The possibility of direct access to China had agitated Richard Cocks at Hirado in Japan between 1613-1623. But the Company paid little attention to his dreams and the archives covering the new 'East Asian push' of the 1660s and 1670s give China only passing mention. Morse throws Tongking into his confused narrative as a mere extension of China and states that Tongking was the only accessible source for the bulk supply of Chinese silks. The English factory diary, though, makes it quite clear that the silk trade out of the Red River was not a matter of re-export but handled a local product.\n\nIt seems incredible now that the East India Company never considered that they might not be allowed to re-enter Japan", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210603, "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": 210, "title": "RAS-1985", "content_text": "191\n\n3 Written by Quarles Browne, former chief factor in Cambodia, it survives in a 1664 copy in IOR: G/21/4 JJ. 4-8.\n\n*IOR: E/3/86 fl. 184-90 Company to Bantam 29 Feb 1664.\n\n5 IOR: E/3/28 no. 3041 Bantam to Company 31 Dec 1664,\n\n6 \"The trade of the English East India Company in the Far East 1623-84\", D.K. Bassett, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1960 32-47 and 145-57.\n\n7 The Chronicles of the East India Company Trading to China 1635-1834, Hosea Ballou Morse, 5 vols (Oxford, 1926 & 1929) — I p. 40.\n\n* For an excellent transcript of the documentation see Experiment and Return: documents concerning the Japan Voyage of the English East India Company 1671-3, ed Roger Machin (Kyoto, 1978).\n\n9 Vividly summarised in the diary as \"to be devoured by a company of catterpillers\" — IOR: G/12/17 p. 281.\n\n10 For example, Sep 1677 Tongking ‘peelongs' brought between 29s piece; Oct 1680 Cantonese 'peelongs' coloured 12s 8d 13s 2d, plain 23s 6d. IOR: Court Minutes B/34 and B/36.\n\n37s per 23s\n\nIn May 1677 Bantam forwarded \"two pettecoats made of a sort of silke much worne in England — it's called by the name of gawze.”\n\n12 The Tongking currency consisted of Japanese 'great' cash and locally coined small cash, which passed in the ratio of 6:10. The tael of silver (65 8d sterling) was reckoned at between 1000 and 1400 'great' cash, according to the availability of copper coinage. In September 1672 three Dutch ships from Batavia, bound for Nagasaki, brought in 6 million Japanese cash.\n\n13 'Floss' silk, used for padding winter clothing.\n\n14 Perhaps anticipating modern reactions, the Agent at Bantam wrote in June 1676 \"Wee would have you be larger in your advices though shorter in your letters.\"\n\nPage 210\n\nPage 211", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213227, "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-1994", "page_number": 49, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "28\n\nAlexander Cosman Levysohn, another founder of the firm is on the Hong Kong jury lists in 1864 and 1865. He then went to Canton to take charge of the Shameen office there. Lewis Mendel became a partner in 1875 (DP 3 Jan. 1874). He died at Hong Kong on 4 November 1895 aged fifty-one. He came to China to join the firm in 1867, retired in 1883 and returned home, but came back to Hong Kong later and established his own business as a share broker (DP 5 Nov. 1895). His will made in 1882 mentioned only his father, brothers and sisters as his heirs. His executors were Jacob Arnhold of London and Lorenz Poesnecker of Hong Kong. Mr. Mendel was a native of Altona, Germany (PRO will File No. 101 of 1896 [4/1105]).\n\nLorenz Poesnecker was an assistant in Arnhold, Karberg and Co. in Hong Kong from 1870 to 1880. He was authorised to sign for the firm on 6 June 1874 (DP 7 June 1876) and became a partner in 1880/81. When he made his will in June 1896 he gave his address as 5 East India Avenue, City of London. He left his estate to his wife and after her death to his children. He named Caesar Erdmann of Hamburg and Richard Millitzer of Hof, Bavaria as his executors. He died in London on 9 July 1897 and the administration of his estate in Hong Kong was granted to Carl Beurmann and Max Carl Johann Grote as attorneys of the executors named in the will (PRO Will File No. 20 of 1898 [4/1162]).\n\nJulius Kramer was authorised to sign for the firm in June 1888 and was admitted a partner in 1892 (DP 13 June 1888, 18 Mar. 1892). During his first years with the company he was at its Canton office. At an auction for lots in the French Concession on Shameen in November 1889 he purchased Lots 1 and 7 for $2,610 (DP 8 Nov. 1889). After being admitted a partner he moved to Hong Kong. There his wife Bertha died on 14 February 1896 at “Luginsland” on the Peak Road (DP 15 Feb. 1896). Not long after he left Hong Kong and died on 11 November 1898 at Heidelberg. Administration of his estate in Hong Kong was granted to Ernest Goetz as the attorney of Philip Arnhold (GG Probate Calendar 7 June 1898). A former street in Tai Kok Tsui, Kowloon, was named after Mr. Kramer. When the Royal Dutch Oil Co. began importing oil to China by tanker in the last decade of the nineteenth century, Arnhold, Karberg and Co. acted as its agent. Oil storage tanks were built at Tai Kok Tsui. The Royal Dutch is better known as the Shell Co.\n\nWhen Philip Arnhold died in 1910 Ernest Goetz became senior partner.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213385, "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-1994", "page_number": 207, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "195\n\nBirch, John Grant, Travels in North and Central China, London Hearst and Blackett, 1902\n\nBishop, Isabella Lucy, The Golden Chersonese and the Way Thither, London J Murray, 1883\n\nThe Yangtze Valley and Beyond, New York Putnam, 1900\n\nBlackburn Chamber of Commerce, Report of the Mission to China of the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce, 1896-7, Blackburn North East Lancashire Press, 1898\n\nBlakiston, Thomas Wight 1832-1891, Five Months on the Yang-Tze and Notices of Present Rebellions in China, London J Murray, 1862\n\nBland, John Otway Percy, Houseboat Days in China, London Heinemann, 1919\n\nBoardman, Eugene, Christian Influence Upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion, 1851-1864, Madison University of Wisconsin Press, 1952\n\nBohr, Paul Richard, Famine in China and the Missionary Timothy Richard as Relief Administrator and Advocate of National Reform, 1876-1884, Cambridge (Mass) Harvard University Press, 1972\n\nBoone, Murel, The Seed of the Church in China, Edinburgh St Andrews Press, 1973\n\nBraam Houckgeest, Andreas Everard van, An Authentic Account of the Embassy of the Dutch East India Company to the Court of the Emperor of China in the Years 1794 and 1795 (Subsequent to that of the Earl of Macartney) from the journals of..., London printed by R Phillips, 1798\n\nBradford, Ruth, \"Maskee?\" The Journal and Letters of Ruth Bradford 1861-1872, Hartford The Prospect Press, 1938\n\nBredon, Juliet, Sir Robert Hart: The Romance of a Great Career, London Hutchinson, 1909 (New York Dutton, 1909)\n\n—, Peking, Shanghai Kelly and Walsh, 1931 (Hong Kong reprint Oxford University Press)\n\nBruce, Clarence D., In the Footsteps of Marco Polo, Edinburgh Blackwood, 1907\n\nBryson, Mary Isabella, The Land of the Pigtail, London The Sunday School Union, 1905\n\nBurland, Cottie Arthur, The Travels of Marco Polo (with photographs by Werner Forman), London Joseph, 1971\n\nCable, Mildred, Through Jade Gate and Central Asia, with an introduction by Rev John Stuart Houghton, London Constable, 1927", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213550, "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": 146, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "115\n\nIn the early seventeenth century, according to Dr Batalha, Portuguese had attained the status of a lingua-franca around the coasts of Africa and southern Asia, including Malacca. The resident population of Macau in 1563, according to Montalto de Jesus, comprised some 900 Portuguese, excluding children, with some thousands of Malays, Indians and Africans mostly domestic slaves. A creole dialect was already established among these groups, based on pre-renaissance Portuguese. This dialect was spoken by the Portuguese residents of Macau in addition to native \"metropolitan\" Portuguese.\n\nIn the period from 1550 to 1650, xenophobia among Chinese officialdom was very gradually overcome by a desire to import foreign goods and to exploit the market for Chinese silk, spices, porcelain and decorative articles. In the early days of Macau, Chinese who wished to work or carry on business there had to enter in the morning and leave the enclave through the border gate before sun-down. (Whether this requirement was laid down by the Chinese or the Portuguese is not clear.)\n\nDuring this period of Portuguese-Chinese trade, we speculate that the existence of an Indo-Portuguese creole spoken among a population, many of whom would have had long contact with Chinese settlers in south-east Asia, would have allowed ample opportunities for translation between Chinese and Portuguese traders. Demands on the Chinese traders to learn Portuguese would have been minimal.\n\nThe Honourable East India Company was founded in 1600, and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. In the 1650s, the first vessels of the United East India Company were coming to Canton to do trade. These fundamentally English-speaking traders were faced with a different order of problems.\n\nTheir exposure to the Far East at that time had not been long enough to permit the establishment of a lingua-franca. The low volume of trade between China and the North European traders up until the early eighteenth century was no doubt supported by translation services by Malays who had had exposure to the Chinese language.\n\nHowever, in the early seventeen hundreds, the demand for China trade rose dramatically, and this laid the ground for the development", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214956, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2000", "page_number": 52, "title": "RAS-2000", "content_text": "7\n\nwas still the way of the strong. Since ancient times successive empires have risen and fallen. China, too, had an imperialist past, when the Han Empire (206BC-221AD) extended its rule from Burma in the south to Korea in the north. Britain was the last to enter the stage, after the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the Dutch, forging perhaps the largest empire since the Roman Empire 2,000 years before. In the spirit of the new age, Britain professed an obligation to assist the indigenous colonial peoples in economic development and prepare them afterwards for self-government within the framework of the British Empire. This was the foundation of the 'Imperialism' which dominated her colonial policy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This mission was sometimes regarded as at best illusory and at worst hypocritical. However, there is little doubt that the spirit of commercial enterprise was the leading motive of the British colonial policy, and it was the British pursuit of trade in the East, which brought China and Britain into confrontation. Predictably, this encounter of two nations, both proud and arrogant, proved disastrous.\n\nBritish attempt to establish contact with China began early. A Captain Weddell approached Canton in 1637, was refused entry but forced a passage through the Humen Forts (Bogue Forts). After a skirmish with the Chinese war junks, in which it was claimed Weddell had the upper hand, he was finally forced to withdraw. It was an ominous start to what Britain hoped would be a peaceful penetration. No further attempts were made for some 150 years, though in the meantime the English East India Company had managed to secure, in 1664, a trading base in Macao, and, by the turn of the century, in Guangzhou. Slowly, and in spite of many difficulties, foreign trade with China had assumed a regular character by the early 18th century. The main difficulty has already been mentioned: while British traders were eager to trade and in particular secure a steady supply of much needed tea from China, the latter desired no trading intercourse with the West. Emperor Qianlong's oft-quoted announcement stated: \"The Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its borders, there is therefore no need to import manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our products.' The Emperor spoke for himself and his government but hardly for the common man, to whom trading and material profits mattered. While requiring little from the West, Chinese were eager to sell tea - a ‘wholesome beverage' prepared almost exclusively for the British people. The question has been often", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215771, "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": 70, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "3\n\nbecame British territory. Malacca was administered by the Dutch until the signing of the Anglo-Dutch treaty in 1824, whereby it was ceded to the British among other terms. Two years later, Singapore and Malacca came under the Penang Presidency.\n\nAccording to Turnbull, the Straits Settlements were the East India Company's most incongruous offspring….The Straits Settlements formed a scattered unit, which was difficult to administer efficiently.” In legal terms, it included Western laws at constitutional level, and local legal systems under the control of sultans.\n\nPhysical/geographical problems\n\nPenang Island lay opposite Province Wellesley (a strip of land about 30 miles long and three miles wide) which the EIC acquired from the Sultan of Kedah in 1800. Malacca was about 260 miles to the south of Penang. Singapore Island was a further 120 miles south, at the tip of the Malay Peninsula.\n\nThere were problems of communication between these settlements, being only by means of sea. Until 1861, the Straits government possessed only two antiquated sailing gunboats and one steamer, used mainly to ferry the governor, recorders and senior officials between the three stations. Communications with the EIC's headquarters in Calcutta were also poor, and until 1864, a monthly steamer service between Calcutta and the Straits Settlements remained the only link with the seat of government.\"\n\nAdministration problems\n\nAccording to Turnbull, '[d]ivision of interest between the East India Company and its eastern dependencies was even more formidable than the geographical and physical problems of administration. The sole value of the Straits Settlements to the East India Company was to protect and stimulate the China trade. When [the EIC] lost its monopoly of this trade in 1833 Calcutta was left with an unrewarding and expensive burden. She could not abandon the Straits Settlements but constantly begrudged the drain they made upon India's financial resources and upon the time and attention of senior officials over the next thirty years.'", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 216181, "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": 480, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "414\n\ngrow on the same tree, or rather shrub, called by the Chinese tzay.' (Leiper p.61) This information seems to have been ignored for almost a century. In 1778 Sir Joseph Banks, botanical adviser to the East India Company had recommended importing Chinese bushes. (Goodwin p. 148) Macartney's effort at agricultural espionage fifteen years later was not the first attempt to find the secret. The race to unlock the secret of tea was an international high stakes event; the Swedes and the Dutch were also in the running. (Kit p.27). It was a very slow race.\n\nIn 1823 Major Robert Bruce — a distant relative perhaps of RAS member Phillip Bruce discovered indigenous tea in Assam but the authorities in India did not appreciate its significance at the time. (Kit p.27) In 1834 the East India Company appointed a Tea Committee to look into the possibility of making tea in India. The secret of tea had become an issue of national importance to a country that was drinking the expensive beverage in ever-increasing quantities.\n\nIn his huge 1,079 page two-volume tome with an equally huge title—China Opened; or, a display of the topography, history, customs, manners, arts, manufactures, commerce, literature, religion, jurisprudence, etc. of the Chinese Empire Charles Gutzlaff devoted many pages to descriptions of tea planting and manufacturing he had witnessed. Yet even in 1838 Gutzlaff had not discerned that both green and black tea are made from the same plant. His detailed reports about the growing areas, complete with latitudes and longitudes of tea plantations and descriptions of the manufacture of tea hinted at the secret but it still eluded Gutzlaff. He even provides a chemical analysis of tea (Gutzlaff p.129). He noted that tea leaves were 'carefully manipulated, dried in various ways, and then packed' (Gutzlaff vol. i p. 46) and that 'It has been repeatedly asserted, that green teas could be converted into black, and vice versa, but that the qualities would thereby suffer.' (Gutzlaff vol. ii p.125) While this transmogrification of green and black tea is dubious, the following passage is noteworthy for its accuracy in describing the manufacturing process without realizing its significance:\n\nWhen the green tea leaves have been sufficiently dried, they are three times thatched, picked and rolled, and put into hot baskets, where they are kept, until the time of packing them, when they undergo another roasting. (Gutzlaff vol. ii p.125)\n\nPage 480\n\nPage 481", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]