[
    {
        "id": 211133,
        "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-1987",
        "page_number": 194,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "169\n\npublic. Its conclusions were considered not acceptable and its tone would have aggravated differences between China and Britain.\n\nIn December 1873, the Governor of Hongkong had appointed a three-man commission to investigate the alleged interference by China with the trade of Hongkong. Its members were Phineas Ryrie, a businessman and chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, H. G. Thomsett, the harbour master, and M. S. Tonnochy, his assistant. They submitted their report in April 1874.\n\nThe General Chamber of Commerce requested a copy, but it was told that as the Colonial and Foreign Offices were still considering the report, it could not be released to the public.\n\nThe merchants felt that the Government was deliberately withholding the findings of the commission. To draw attention to their views, which were similar to those expressed by the commission, the merchants encouraged a group of aggrieved Chinese to petition Her Majesty. They then followed this up with their own public meeting.\n\nThe commission had taken the position that the method China was using to enforce its revenue collection was seriously hurting Hongkong trade. The main premise of the report, that China had encroached on Hongkong's sovereignty, was rejected by the representatives of the British Government at Canton and Peking.\n\nAlthough the Foreign Office in London, Sir Thomas Wade, the British Minister in Peking, and Sir Brooke Robertson, Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, were not in complete agreement about the various points raised by the commission, they all agreed that the commission had greatly overstated the case.\n\nIt was conceded that the employment of a low type of foreigner by the Chinese was objectionable, that in the nature of the case there must have been some violation of Hongkong waters when a junk was being chased by cruisers, and that no doubt there had been instances of squeezing.\n\nIn commenting on the report of the commission, Sir Brooke",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215559,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 336,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "286\n\nof gravity of the tower low and to afford the minimum resistance to wind and wave. This lighthouse became superfluous and stopped operating in 1896 after Waglan lighthouse came into operation in 1893.\n\nSeveral considerations\n\nIn building Hong Kong's first lighthouse many factors were considered, such as need, finance, location, the apparatus to be installed and the staff.\n\nIn the beginning of the 1870s the need to erect lighthouses was envisaged by the Western mercantile community. In fact, in 1872, the combined tonnage, outwards and inwards, amounted to about six million. The need to provide navigational aids for the heavy sea traffic was thus obvious. The revenue raised by levying vessels entering Victoria Harbour would be able to support the running costs of lighthouses.12\n\nSurveys were conducted to look for suitable sites on which to erect lighthouses to light the approaches to Hong Kong harbour. The three best sites were considered to be,\n\n• Waglan, an island off the south-eastern extremity of Hong Kong,\n\n• The North East head of Lema Island, and\n\n• Gap Rock, 26 miles southward of Hong Kong.\n\nHowever, all these three were then under Chinese jurisdiction. Negotiations with the Chinese Government did not reach satisfactory conclusions for both parties. This was because the Chinese Government would not cede or lease any island for such purposes and the British Government did not wish to spend money on projects not under its direct control.\n\nThe second-best sites, all within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, were considered to be Cape D'Aguilar, Green Island and Cape Collinson, as reported by the Harbour Master, H.G. Thomsett in March 1873. Lighthouses in these places would cover the eastern entrance and the western entrance to Hong Kong harbour. Eventually, this is",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    }
]