[
    {
        "id": 205648,
        "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": 190,
        "title": "RAS-1968",
        "content_text": "THE LIBRARY\n\n185\n\nFIRTH, Raymond.\n\nMalay fishermen: their peasant economy. Issued in cooperation with the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Institute of Pacific Relations. London, Kegan Paul, 1946. (International library of sociology and social reconstruction)\n\nFITZGERALD, C. P.\n\nChina: a short cultural history. 3rd ed. London, Cresset P., 1961.\n\nFONG, Siué-fong.\n\nFables. Pekin, Éditions en Langues Étrangères, 1955.\n\nFORTUNE, Robert.\n\nThree years' wanderings in the northern provinces of China ... Shanghai, University Press, 1935.\n\nFREEDMAN, Maurice.\n\nChinese lineage and society: Fukien and Kwangtung, London, Athlone P., 1966. (London School of Economics. Monographs on social anthropology, no. 33)\n\nFREEDMAN, Maurice.\n\nLineage organization in southeastern China. London, Athlone P., 1958. (London School of Economics. Monographs on social anthropology, no. 18)\n\nFRODSHAM, J. D.\n\nThe murmuring stream: the life and works of the Chinese nature poet Hsieh Ling-yün (385-433), Duke of K'ang-Lo. Kuala Lumpur, Univ. of Malaya P., 1967. 2 vols.\n\nGARNER, Sir Harry.\n\nOriental blue and white. 2nd ed. London, Faber, 1964.\n\nGARVEN, H. S. D.\n\nWild flowers of North China and South Manchuria. Peiping, Peking Natural History Bulletin, 1937.\n\nGEOFFROY-DECHAUME, François.\n\nChina looks at the world: reflections for a dialogue. Eight letters to T'ang-lin, tr. from the French by Jean Stewart. London, Faber, 1967.\n\nGILBERT, Rodney.\n\nWhat's wrong with China. London, Murray, 1926.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208578,
        "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-1979",
        "page_number": 35,
        "title": "RAS-1979",
        "content_text": "8\n\nCHAN KIT-CHENG\n\nOffice's wish. The Far Eastern division in the department believed that \"the sympathy of the American public would lie almost entirely with China and would be strongly critical of this Government,”32 The American government was fortunately spared the embarrassment of having to reject the British request in that the Chinese, for some still unknown reasons, agreed on 31 December not to raise the question of the New Territories in connexion with the extraterritoriality treaty.33 Under the changed circumstance, Lord Halifax, British ambassador to Washington, was given to understand that the American government would have been prepared to indicate its displeasure had China been obstinate over the inclusion of the New Territories in the treaty.34 The interesting question remains as to what attitude the United States would have adopted had China requested her support.\n\nMeanwhile, the Institute of Pacific Relations was actively preparing for a conference to be held at Mont Tremblent in the United States at the beginning of December. The conference attracted the serious attention of all those countries concerned with Pacific affairs because of the increasingly wide publicity enjoyed by the Institute since Pearl Harbour through its large publishing programme of books, pamphlets, and periodicals. From late spring onwards, earnest preparations for attending the conference were made by Chatham House, the British national council of the Institute of Pacific Relations, together with the Foreign Office which, despite its earlier apprehension of \"the risk of a lot of washing of dirty linen in public' ”, had now decided to make full use of the conference as a platform from which Britain could educate the American opinion about the British empire. From the beginning the Foreign Office was alive to the danger that the question of Hong Kong would arouse great attention at the conference. However, it was decided that the British delegation would not be briefed on Hong Kong because it was feared that the idea of returning Hong Kong on terms after the war, a point the British government had conceded after much painful inter-departmental consultation and deliberation, would be badly received by the Americans and Chinese who would denounce anything short of an outright retrocession,35\n\nThe Chinese delegation was equally well prepared. Pressure coming from the Chinese delegates, who explicitly expressed their desire for Hong Kong, was so intense that Sir John Pratt, the British delegate charged with the duty to speak on China, Japan, and",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1979.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2801w5938",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208580,
        "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-1979",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "RAS-1979",
        "content_text": "10\n\nCHAN KIT-CHENG\n\nhad, according to Hopkins, urged Britain on more than one occasion to give up Hong Kong as a gesture of “good will”. To this suggestion Eden, who had originally objected to agreeing to the return of the New Territories on terms after the war in connection with the extraterritoriality negotiations with China but eventually bowed to the majority opinion of the Foreign Office, returned a cold shoulder.41\n\nBritain's attitude regarding Hong Kong steadily stiffened in the course of 1943. She talked less and less about returning the colony on terms. It was partly because pressure from China decreased markedly since the beginning of the year, presumably because she assumed the retrocession of Hong Kong as a matter of course judging from Britain's behaviour in the extraterritoriality negotiations and at the Institute of Pacific Relations' Conference. More significantly, perhaps, Britain became increasingly confident in her relations with the United States and China with the improvement in the European war situation. By the end of the year a final Allied victory in Europe was no longer seriously in doubt.42\n\nIt was under such circumstances that Stanley Hornbeck's visit to London, as a return gesture to Ashley Clarke's visit to Washington the previous year, took place in November 1943. Hornbeck spent much of his time in London on consultation with the Foreign Office and other offices concerned with Far Eastern affairs. At the final conference at which most interested British officials were present, Hornbeck, “entirely on his own responsibility”,43 remarked as follows: \"I felt that we had covered much ground and had explored a good many subjects, [but] there was one additional matter to which we perhaps might need, not at the moment but as the situation unfolded, to give thought. That matter was ... the future of Hong Kong.\" \"The effect was electrifying\", observed Hornbeck. He immediately regretted it: \"I had had no thought of injecting a discordant note. I felt at once that discretion in that context would be the better part of valour.”44\n\nHornbeck's regret came too late. That very evening the British arranged that he would, before his departure for home, call on Churchill the following morning. At the meeting Hornbeck received a long and emphatic lecture from the Prime Minister on Hong Kong: \"What about Hong Kong? I will tell you. [The rest retold in Hornbeck's words] He then described the acquisition by Great\n\n+ + + +",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1979.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2801w5938",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209784,
        "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": 43,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "21\n\nA prolonged discussion followed, mostly with local researchers into the history, economy and society of the Hong Kong Region. Dr. David Faure offered two contributory reasons for the KMT's failure to deal with land reform in addition to those mentioned by Dr. Myers. One was the effects of the World Depression of the early 1930s; another was the amount spent on military expenditure that might have been usefully spent on land reform. Dr. Myers agreed. Dr. Hayes said that if the time needed for land survey and settlement in the N.T. of Hong Kong (4 years) and its cost were any indication of the size and complexity of the task, it might indicate that it was beyond the KMT's capacity, even in one province. There was also the matter of sufficient trained staff.\n\nThe discussion then turned to tenancy itself. Dr. Patrick Hase said that, if the N.T. was in any way typical of the situation in the sub and top soil ownership situation, the amount of true tenancy was small, consisting of a small number of landless peasant families and others who had to rent land from others to make up for their own insufficient holdings. He also queried whether one could apply a broad brush. There was surely a difference between subsistence areas such as the Hong Kong Region and highly developed market-economy regions centred round big cities, as at Canton and in the Yangtze delta.\n\nDr. Hase went on to say that in discussion of tenancy an important factor in assessing its effect was the percentage of the crop taken in tenancy, either by the sub-soil owner or by the surface owner from sub-tenants. In the Hong Kong Region the percentage of the crop represented by the first was very low, below 25% and getting less as more land was opened. The latter was (and had long been) customarily set at around 50%, and there were no signs that it had created economic deprivation and social tensions. Dr. Hayes added that the desperate economic situation of the peasants attributed to the tenancy position, as reported by the Institute of Pacific Affairs' social scientists in the 1930s, seemed very unreal to those of us working on the Hong Kong Region.\n\nDr. Quested asked \"who, then, were the tenants?\" and what had been their experience and significance. Dr. Myers said they",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    }
]