[
    {
        "id": 207976,
        "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": 15,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "PRESIDENT'S Report TREASURER's Report THE LIBRARY\n\nCONTENTS\n\nPage\n\n1\n\n6\n\n10\n\nTRANSACTIONS :\n\nBrunei: A Historical Relic - LEIGH WRIGHT\n\nBehind Japanese Barbed Wire: Stanley Internment Camp, Hong Kong 1942-1945 - G. C. EMERSON\n\nA Journey to Yenan 1946 - W. A. REYNOLDS\n\nARTICLES:\n\nTwo Essays on the Ch'ing Economy of Hsin-An, Kwangtung - J. T. KAMM\n\nUnder Altars - K. G. STEVENS\n\nSocial Organization and Ceremonial Life of Two Multi-Surname Villages in Hoi-p'ing County, South China, 1911-1949 - YUEN-FONG WOON\n\n\"Little Fujian (Fukien)” Sub-Neighbourhood and Community in North Point, Hong Kong - GREGORY E. GULDIN\n\nReprinted ARTICLES:\n\nCheung Chow - Long Island - W. J. HINTON\n\nMemories of the District Office South, Hong Kong - W. SCHOFIELD\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES:\n\nNotes for the Royal Asiatic Society Visit to Tai Mo Shan, 3rd April 1976 — (I) L. B. and S. L. THROWER (II) JAMES HAYES\n\nNotes for the Visit to the Tang Family Graves, 11 December 1976 - DAVID LIU and JAMES HAYES\n\nRoyal Asiatic Society Visit to Tsuen Wan, 10th December, 1977 - A Village War'. JAMES HAYES\n\nThe Rural History Project in Yuen Long and Field Notes on the Social History and Fung Shui of Kam Tin - J. T. KAMM\n\nBean Skim, A Product of Blood and Sweat\n\nFour Chinese Banks Fail, Partners Blame Head\n\nTwo Letters From Wartime China\n\nA Further Note on Feng Yun-Shan and Gützlaff - Jen Yu-wen\n\nReptiles New to Hong Kong - J. D. ROMER\n\nThe Public Botanic Garden of Hong Kong\n\nBirds of Tai Mo Shan - MICHAEL Webster\n\nOccurrence of the Birds - J. D. ROMER\n\n12\n\n30\n\n(55)\n\n85\n\n101\n\n112\n\n130\n\n144\n\n179\n\n(185)\n\n199\n\n216\n\n218\n\n220\n\n228\n\n232\n\n234\n\n236\n\n237\n\nPage 15\n\nPage 16",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208033,
        "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": 72,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "56\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\n2 Throughout these essays, mention will often be made of a truly \"watershed\" event in the history of Hsin-An: the evacuation of the South China coast, ordered by the Kang Hsi Emperor, from 1661 to 1668. The step was taken to hinder the activities of the Ming loyalist-pirate Cheng Ch'eng-Kung, best known to the West as Coxinga.\n\n3 Field work in Kam Tin took place from May to September, 1973. Other research was undertaken into the Government Archives, Colonial Secretariat Library, and the Fung Ping Shan Library of the University of Hong Kong\n\nESSAY 1: PERPETUAL TENANCY IN HSIN-AN\n\nA cursory examination of the available evidence on the Ch'ing economy of Hsin-An reveals a seeming paradox: a large tenant population farming a limited amount of cultivatable land, yet enjoying relative prosperity. We shall begin this essay by dissolving the paradox.\n\nThe amount of cultivable land in the Tung Lu section of Hsin-An has probably never amounted to more than 15% of the total surface acreage. While the percentage of arable land was higher in the Hsi Lu, Chinese accounts of the area have always stressed the hilly, barren nature of the terrain. For the period we are studying, cultivated land probably accounted for no more than 20% of the land surface of the county.\n\nIn general, ownership of productive resources (agricultural fields, fishing grounds, oyster beds, quarries, and salt pans) were concentrated in the hands of landlords who leased them to tenants. Land was seldom worked by the holder of the hung ch'i (lit: “red deed”). In short, Hsin-An during Ch'ing was essentially a tenant economy.\n\nLockhart, in his Report on the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong, describes the population as follows:\n\n\"The inhabitants, by no means wealthy, seem to be, as a rule, comfortably well off, and able to earn an honest livelihood without difficulty. Few signs of anything approaching destitution were seen, and only a few beggars were met.\"\n\nLockhart's observations are borne out by an examination of three indices of relative prosperity: 1) low rent and tax burdens, 2) increase in market activity, and 3) population growth through immigration.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208035,
        "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": 74,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "58 \n\nJ. T. KAMM \n\nTABLE II: Tax as a Percentage of Rent Value Un Long, Hsin-An Hsien; Ch'ing \n\n  \n    Piculs\n    Memorial No.\n    Rent\n    Rent (Government)\n    Tax\n    Tax/rent\n  \n  \n    \n    28603\n    15.70\n    14.66\n    .26\n    1.8%\n  \n  \n    measure\n    28610\n    \n    13.33\n    4.40\n    \n  \n  \n    \n    28621\n    \n    4.00\n    5.97\n    .11\n  \n  \n    \n    28623\n    \n    5.40\n    17.62\n    \n  \n  \n    \n    28625\n    \n    16.02\n    7.15\n    .13\n  \n  \n    ཧྲྰི ཌཤཱ\n    \n    \n    \n    .08\n    1.8%\n  \n  \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    1.9%\n  \n  \n    \n    \n    \n    .32\n    \n    1.8%\n  \n  \n    \n    28626\n    \n    6.20\n    6.82\n    .12\n  \n  \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    1.8%\n  \n  \n    \n    28627\n    \n    15.70\n    17.27\n    .31\n  \n  \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    1.8%\n  \n\nPopulation growth: Evidence suggests a steady influx of Hakka settlers into the county during the middle years of the eighteenth century. These immigrants populated the whole of Hong Kong, Lantao, and Tsing Yi islands, as well as substantial parts of the Kowloon and Sai Kung peninsulas.10 The migration of Hakkas into the coastal region was part of a larger demographic movement initiated \"under the joint patronage of the state and local men of substance.\" These immigrants formed a substantial portion of the tenant population; before the migration tapered off in the early years of the nineteenth century, as many as 50,000 Hakkas may have settled in the county.12 \n\nThe major determinant underlying the relative prosperity of late-Ch'ing Hsin-An was the presence of perpetual tenancy as the dominant mode of land tenure in the agricultural sector.* The remainder of this essay will be devoted to an analysis of the specific characteristics of perpetual tenancy in Hsin-An. This analysis will be elaborated within the general framework which treats perpetual tenancy as a system of relations based on the division of land into distinct values, each governed by separate modes of production (extraction) and circulation. \n\n*This is not to suggest that perpetual lease was the only determinant of relative prosperity. Population growth and market increases were clearly inter-related and mutually casual. Perpetual lease is primary in the sense that it \"creates\" the conditions for both.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208037,
        "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": 76,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "60\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nexercise of ownership, and are contented to do nothing further than to receive a yearly rent. They can sell this right of receiving rent, but the land is otherwise under the absolute control of the cultivators, who often sell their perpetual leases.\n\nThe landlord is called the owner of the \"T'i Kwat\" (note: Cantonese equivalent for t’i k’u), which may be termed the right of receiving rent. The tenant is said to possess the T'i P'i, or right of cultivation. Constant lawsuits result from this double ownership and the contending interests which it necessarily involves16\n\nTo summarize, perpetual lease in Hsin-An was characterized by the division of land into two values, surface-value, which corresponded to cultivation-value, and subsurface-value, which corresponded to rent-value. Landlords held rights over the rent-value, conceptualized locally as t'ien-ku-chuan (†), while tenants held title to the cultivation-value, or t'ien-p’i-ch’üan (✯✯). The process by which rent-value became separated from cultivation-value, i.e. the process of its primary accumulation, becomes manifest in an examination of the social and economic evolution of the county following the resettlement during the early 18th-century.\n\nOf the several kin groups displaced by the Kang-Hsi evacuation, the Tangs were among the least adversely affected. This was so for two reasons: 1) the proximity of the Hsin-An Tangs to several Tang settlements in Tung-Kuan,17 and 2) close relationships between Tang gentry and local officialdom.18 Not only were the Tangs able to keep abreast of developments while residing in a secure base not far from the evacuated county, moreover, the evacuation had the unintended result of increasing clan solidarity. In this regard, the establishment of the Tu-Ch'ing Tang (**)- the largest order ancestral trust uniting the clan, was most significant:\n\nTang Pao-sheng (£), a chin-shih of the Ch'ing Dynasty, had the intention of constructing an ancestral temple, but his plans were not realized. An official, Tang Hsu-chou (✯✯✯), seeing that the five branches of his clan resided in different places far from one another, decided to fulfill Pao-sheng's wishes. After choosing a beautiful site at Chiu-Ch'iao (**), Tung-Kuan, the clan gathered together to construct a great temple. At each winter sacrifice (), the male descendents of the various branches would assemble and encourage each other to",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208039,
        "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": 78,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "62\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nThat is, the Tangs, as well as the other large landholding clans, first established rights over cultivation-value; their claims to ownership rested primarily on their identity as \"first-cultivators.\"23\n\nThe priority of cultivation-value is best revealed by a brief examination of tax assessment in Hsin-An. Land has traditionally been classified according to its production potential. At the time of British occupation, first class land (甲) yielded two crops of paddy annually, or one crop of sugarcane. Second class land (乙⺕) was capable of producing one crop of rice, or one crop of sugarcane. Third class land (丙) \"was generally devoted to the cultivation of peanuts, sweet potatoes, millet and other hardy crops.\"24 This classification scheme was recognized by the Hsin-An Magistrate in 1582, a mere nine years after the creation of the county. Different rates were fixed according to whether the land was considered to be first, second, or third class land.25\n\nThus, by the time of the great Hakka influx, little cultivatable land was available in the county. The landlords, who often lived miles away from their fields, were eager to take on tenants, and offered the migrants “reasonable rents.” Rent-value was assessed by a simple extension of the tax assessment value; i.e., rent-value was extracted from an already established cultivation-value.26\n\nOnce fixed, tax-rates and rent-rates seldom, if ever, changed. The tax-rates listed for the three classes of land in the Hsin-An Hsien-chih, which had been in force for decades prior to the publication of the gazetteer in 1819, were quoted in the petitions concerning the Tang holdings in Hong Kong, written in 1842. Similarly, there is strong evidence to suggest that landlords were generally powerless to impose greater rent-burdens, and, as we shall see, were occasionally forced to lighten the rent.27 Rent-values were often stated in all bills of sale between landlords.\n\nThe increasing alienation of rent-value from cultivation-value was reflected in the inability of landlords to locate their plots of land when called upon to present evidence to the Land Court. Furthermore, there were often significant disparities between the market-prices of the \"skin\" and the \"bones.\"28 Tenants were occasionally able to manipulate the system to their own advantage:\n\nFor generations, landowners have been content to collect their rents without ever having taken the trouble to enquire into the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208041,
        "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": 80,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "64\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nveyors, however, found well over 1000 mou under cultivation, roughly valued at 228.10 crown rent. At the current price of $2.30 per picul, the Tang's rent-value equalled $92.00. The British administrators were of the opinion that the 40 piculs rent was indeed in respect of all cultivation on the island, and hence the Tangs should be held responsible for \"encroachments.\" As can be imagined, the Tangs eventually lost interest in pursuing the claim.32\n\nThe landlord-tenant equilibrium was maintained by social organizations ready to defend the respective positions. On the one side were aligned the tenant rings, or alliances, while on the other, the clan increasingly came to defend landlord interests.33 To this end, a \"managerial elite,\" well-versed in the details of ancestral estates, rose within the clan. Evidence from the Tang petitions suggests that the Hong Kong estates were managed by a committee of four wu-sheng (military graduates of the first degree, in this case probably purchased-degree holders) on behalf of fifteen lineal descendants of the original “cultivator.\" The military gentry, who were not mentioned in the tax registers (and hence, probably not listed on the ancestral rent rolls), managed the fields for a fee. This managerial structure also prevailed on the Tsing Yi estates. Clementi, in a communication to the Colonial Secretary, writes:\n\nI have seen Tang Kwai Yui of Kam Tin, a military fau tsoi who is manager on behalf of the descendants of Tang Kou Nam for the land in question. He says that the first ancestor of the clan is Tang Kou Nam, and that after his time the clan divided into two branches:-(1) Tang Yi Kwok, and (2) Tang Lun Tai; “both branches have descendants still alive; they are both settled at Kam Tin. We are all British subjects. Both branches have a share in the land. I am manager of both branches. I have been manager for two years. I remain manager so long as I give satisfaction. I have no business. I live on the rent I collect. I have property of my own at Kam Tin,34\n\nClans and rings constituted bounded groups within which the circulation of rent-values and cultivation-values, respectively, ideally took place. Circulation of values was effected by two means: \n\n1) succession, and 2) sale. By definition, the perpetual leasee was succeeded by his male lineal descendants. Division of cultivation-value, in the event of more than one son, often",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208043,
        "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": 82,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "66\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nFinally, a word on economic development. Equilibrium in the tenancy system in no way implied stagnation in the economy. We have already noted the benefits which tenants derived by extending the surface value. The clans, restricted in the amount of rent-value collected, expanded economically into two areas, regulation of trade and monopolization of tax collection. It was at the level of periodic marketing that the landlord clans \"reasserted control” over the tenants' surplus; moreover, the landlords were able to extract increasingly large amounts of revenue, as taxes, while both trade and agricultural production increased. In this way, perpetual tenancy gave impetus to the rise of taxlordism, which we shall consider in the next essay.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Hugh Baker, Sheung Shui, A Chinese Lineage Village, p 8.\n\n2 See, for instance, the Kwang Tung Nung Yeh Kai-K’uang Tiao-ch'a-pao-kao Shu Hsuan-pien (*), Vol. I, p 185.\n\n3 Hung ch'i represented officially recognized ownership of land. Pai ch'i (é) denoted unregistered ownership, mortgage, and the like. Tenants might possess pai ch'i, or they might not.\n\n4 It is very difficult to give a realistic estimate of the amount of land worked by tenants in the early nineteenth century. Existing records (including Government CSO reports, sessional papers and cadastral surveys) suggest a very high degree of tenancy. A survey taken by Potter in 1960 indicates a tenancy rate of 83% in Ping Shan (); this coincides with my observations in Kam Tin.\n\n5 Extension of the Boundaries of the Colony, p 52.\n\n6 In the first tally of cultivated land conducted at the beginning of the Ch'ing Dynasty, 4039.567656 mow of land were liable to the payment of taxes. By 1819, this amount had shrunk to a total of 3815.94836965 mow. (Hsin-An Hsien-chih, ch'uan 8). Lockhart, in the Extension papers, writes of the land registers: \"The land registers of the district, which ought to be a reliable guide, are worse than useless, as they contain not more than half of the land under cultivation.\" (p.48).\n\n7 See Tung-Kuan Hsien-chih (*), ch'uan 39, for an account of the problems raised by this situation. In the early years of British administration, officers were often informed by cultivators that plots of 3rd class land (see below) were exempt from tax in certain areas.\n\n8 Kwang-chow Fu-chih ( ), ch'uan 4:46b-47a.\n\n9 Hsin-An Hsien-chih, ch'uan 2.\n\n10 James Hayes, \"Old British Kowloon\", Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. 6, 1966, gives some data on Kowloon. The Hakka Tangs of Pat Heung apparently arrived in the neighborhood of Kam Tin during the migration years.\n\n11 Wan Lo, “Communal Strife in Mid-19th Century Kwangtung” Papers on China from the Regional Studies Seminar, p 93. See also N.B. Dennys (ed), The Treaty Ports of China and Japan (1867), pp 20-22.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208045,
        "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": 84,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "68\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nsystem of land distribution had its origins several centuries ago. At the time when the land was distributed, the tenant paid the landlord a certain sum; this sum represented the rent which the tenant thereafter handed over each year. The landlord could not increase the rent, nor could the tenant refuse to pay it. Furthermore, the landlord could not investigate his tenants in order to take back the land.” (G236).\n\n28 Data from the land memorials, which register sales of subsurface values, indicate that a one-mow plot of land seldom exceeded 6 taels during the late 18th century. As we shall see later in the text, these prices necessarily remained constant into the 19th century. In the Hong Kong Almanack and Directory for 1846, we learn that the tenants valued each mow of rice paddy at $40.00 (1 tael = 1.11 Mexican dollars in 1846). Granted that tenants made good profits from the sale of land, still this example tends to illustrate the great potential disparity between the two values. (Hong Kong Almanack and Directory for 1846, Note on the Island of Hong Kong by A. R. Johnston; written in 1843).\n\n29 Correspondence Respecting Affairs in China, ibid., p 7.\n\n30 CSO306/1899 Extension; \"With reference to the petition of Tang Yung Ping and others they naturally, at present, prefer the old feudal system of payment of rent in kind.\"\n\n31 HKTCSMTC: Hong Kong Almanack, “Note on the Island of HK”.\n\n32 CSO150/1901 gives a detailed account of these negotiations.\n\n33 In general, the maintenance of perpetual tenancy systems presupposes the existence of communal landownership. The British found over 25% of all lots held in clan names in 1898; later Chinese sources place the estimate at 30%. These figures are probably not reliable for the earlier part of the century. The Tangs, as we have seen, held landlord rights over all of Hong Kong Island. They similarly held over 60% of the territory in Kowloon ceded to Britain in 1860, Land in North Kowloon was lost by \"fraudulent sale” in 1898 (CSO2982/1898). Other clans, besides the Tangs, apparently lost sizable tracts as “individual initiative” replaced clan solidarity throughout the period,\n\n34 CSO150/1901.\n\n35 CSO109/1902.\n\n36 Nan Yang Tang Shih Tsu P'u, \"Notes on Land Tax.\"\n\n37 Correspondence Respecting Affairs in China, ibid., p 18.\n\nESSAY II: TAXLORDISM\n\nThe peasants and gentry of Hsin-An witnessed two concrete manifestations of the growing power of foreign countries in China during the waning years of the nineteenth century. In April 1887, the Kowloon Customs House of the Imperial Maritime Customs was established under provisions of the Anglo-Chinese Opium Agreement of September 1886. As was the case with all customs houses established during the era, supervision of the revenue stations was entrusted to a European career officer in Sir Robert Hart's service, J. McLeavy Brown. A great expansion in customs activity",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208047,
        "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": 86,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "70\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nout to private concessions. So pervasive was tax farming in this regard that the Kowloon Customs itself joined with the local magistracy in insuring its maintenance. CSO15 of 1900 records the case of the Ying Yi Farm which was granted the concession for supplying services to trading junks at Lai Chi Kok (*** ) in exchange for supplying free water to customs cruisers.4\n\nDespite its significance for late Ch'ing finance, little has been written concerning the origins and structure of tax farming in China. C.M. Chang's case study of auctioned revenue collection in Ching-Hai Hsien **), Hopei, remains our most authoritative account. Chang, who focuses on the workings of the brokerage tax farm, ascribes the origins of tax farming in China to the growth of miscellaneous taxes imposed after the Taiping Rebellion, an assertion decisively rebutted by Lien-sheng Yang, who traces the institution as far back as the fifth century. In general, we can say that tax farming arose at various times in Chinese history to meet the demands of the specific era and locality.\n\nThere was indeed a remarkable increase in miscellaneous taxes imposed on Hsin-An in the late nineteenth century. In an appendix to his report on the New Territory, Lockhart lists a number of \"extra\" taxes and rents not found in the gazetteer of 1819. This list, in turn, is borne out by an investigation of the data contained in the Kwangtung Ts'ai-cheng Shuo-ming-shu (*****). Lockhart, distrusting the figures supplied by the Nam Tau Magistrate, persuaded an informant in Sham Chun () to provide him with an unofficial assessment of the revenue collected annually in the Tung Lu. As expected, Lockhart discovered a great number of omissions and discrepancies between the \"official\" and \"unofficial\" revenues. Lockhart observed that the magistrate and his superiors benefit substantially from these discrepancies, but noted that \"not a small portion of it (the difference between reported and collected revenue) is secured by those who farm various items of revenue, for which they pay much less than they make out of them.\"\n\nDespite the surge of miscellaneous taxes and the consequent rise in the activity of farmers in the trade sector, the origins of tax farming in the East River counties of the Kwangchow Prefecture can be traced to earlier times. I propose to show that tax farming evolved in the agricultural sector, and was the direct result of the failure to effectively implement the official li-chia system.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208049,
        "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": 88,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "72\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nFor the purposes of land registration, tu constituted the highest-order unit in the tax system; p'i were essentially equivalent to li. For other purposes, however, notably the collection of the land tax and the policing of the district, tu was subordinated to still higher administrative divisions. Baker (1968), who has studied the 1689 edition of the Hsin-An Hsien-chih (**), mentions the existence of hsiang (*) units superordinate to tu; these are undoubtedly the same units mentioned in the chapter on Administrative Divisions (#) of the 1759 edition of the Kwangchow Fu-chih (✯✯✯✯). In this account, both Tung-Kuan and Hsin-An are divided into hsiang with jurisdiction over discrete tu. The distribution of rural administrative divisions is schematized below; the approximate locations of Hsin-An's seven tu are given in the map on page 28.\n\n文顺歸城 延福\n\n歸化\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\n粜\n\n莞\n\n1 2 3 5\n\n新\n\n延福歸城\n\nDiagram I: Administration Divisions of Tung Kuan and Hsin-An, 1759.\n\nBy 1819, the hsiang-tu-li system had given way to the ssu-tu-ts'un (]*††) system in official correspondence relating to civil administration.13 Our most complete description of this system appears in the chapter on Hsin-An from the Kwangtung T'u-shuo (✯✯ER). This work, which lists 429 registered villages throughout the county, breaks Hsin-An into four \"jurisdictions\" for purposes of general administration (excluding defence). The assistant magistrate (**) resided at Tai-Pang (**) and was responsible for sections of the 4th and 7th tu. One deputy magistrate (*) was located at Fuk-Wing (*), and was responsible for parts of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th tu. Another deputy magistrate resided in Kowloon, and was delegated authority over significant portions of all seven tu. Finally, a police master (#), who operated out of Nam Tau, watched over relatively small, apparently remote, portions of five tu.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208051,
        "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": 90,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "74 \n\nJ. T. KAMM \n\nwrites: \"When the Mandarins intend to levy the taxes, they announce their intention to the gentry of the villages, one or two weeks, or sometimes a month, before their arrival. They then make a progress through the district, accompanied by a sufficient force to protect themselves against large bands of robbers...\" This situation engendered the rise of local \"magnates\" (大家) who gained monopolization of collection responsibilities within whole districts. The magnates, in most cases local gentry, typically extracted sizable commissions from the revenue collected. This form of tax farming, known as pao-laan (包攬) in Chinese and referred to as \"tax-lordism\" by the British, was particularly widespread in the East River counties of the Kwangchow Prefecture. The 1797 edition of the Tung-Kuan Gazetteer gives the following account of conditions in that county:\n\nPreviously, the collection of the grain tax was regulated by li-chang who rotated the responsibility on an annual basis. These li-chang were local magnates who practiced pao-laan by manipulating the rotation. The neighboring households, moreover, would each take bribes by turns in exchange for shouldering the blame (for not paying their grain tax). For these two reasons, they (the magnates) were able to hoard great amounts. During the Yung-Cheng period (1723-1736), the District Magistrate, Chou T'ien-ch'eng (周天成), first attempted to rectify this situation. He ordered the inhabitants of each p'i to register the amounts of tax due under their household names. Thus, it was a simple matter to check who had paid their taxes and who had avoided payment. The policy was very good, and crafty methods could no longer be used. After a few decades, however, this method of registration gradually fell out of use, to the extent that it is no longer possible to investigate p'i by reference to the book,\n\nThe author goes on to note that the current situation has reverted to the previous one, and proposes the reinstitution of the registration policy.\n\nThe process by which local gentry of large landlord villages gradually gained monopolization of the land tax was closely related to the complimentary process by which smaller, less powerful villages placed themselves under the protection of more powerful villages. Both Krone and Lockhart take note of the practice in\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91",
        "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": 208055,
        "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": 94,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "J \n\n78 \n\nJ. T. KAMM \n\nIt is interesting to note that each of the five great clans (§ Tang (鄧), Hau (侯), Pang (彭), Liu (廖), and Man (文) — are represented on the schedule.30 Of these, the Tangs clearly have the greatest share. Another point, which is less obvious from the scanty data presented above, is that the taxlords only chose land within the boundaries of the tung itself, even though plots existed in Un Long Tung considerably closer, and hence easier to manage, than the plots chosen. This seemingly minor point leads us into an examination of the political and economic foundations of the tung. \n\nThe standard \"primary source\" on the nature of tung is Lockhart's description of “Local Government in the Villages\" contained in his report on the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong.31 On the basis of this report, which heavily stresses the judicial functions performed by the chu (Cantonese: Kuk) which oversee the tung, Acting Governor Black recommended the appointment of “a commissioner or a Resident, possessing knowledge of the Chinese” who \"should govern somewhat in the present Chinese system, i.e., the village elders to rule the villages, which grouped according to topographical limits, form a tung having a council composed of representatives from the village elders.\"32 \n\nConsiderable confusion exists over the precise nature of tung and chu. Lockhart clearly overestimated the political-judicial power of the Tung Ping Kuk (東平局), a mistake which would have proven costly had not the British possessed superior firepower in the Pat Heung Valley. Having won the support of this chu, Lockhart believed that the gentry of the various “divisions” would follow suit. He was to discover later that the gentry of Un Long Tung had convened another chu, the Tai Ping Kung Kuk (太平公局) which financed, and to some extent coordinated, the local revolt; in so doing, they effectively dismantled the Tung Ping Kuk by summoning Tung-Kuan clansmen to occupy Sham Chun.33 \n\nIn most of the counties of the Kwangchow Prefecture, chu formed the basis of local self-government throughout the troubled nineteenth century. One of the best descriptions of these organizations is to be found in Kang Yu-wei (康有為)'s chapter on self-government.... \"taxlord claims,\" but, since the inhabitants could not produce title to the land, the Tangs were recognized as \"chief landlords.\" CSO8551 in 1903. One taxlord was recognized in Sha Tau Kok (Li Tung-chung) and one on Lantao (Wong Kwok-shi). Little is known concerning these cases, except that the latter status was granted out of compassion.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208057,
        "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": 96,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "80\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nOne of the earliest petitions received by the British after the occupation relates to the collection of land tax by a group of tax-lords, and illustrates their ability to lobby effectively for the preservation of their \"rights\":\n\nHau Chak Wing (侯澤榮), Liu In Yu (廖延裕), Liu Sut Kam (廖雲錦) and Tang Yui Shan (鄧銳臣) gentry of Sheung Yu Tung, complain that Ho Fung Wing (何鳳榮) of Ki Ling Ha (企嶺下) village, Wong Sin (黃先) of Nai Chung village (坭涌村), Li A Fat (李亞發) of Wong Chuk Yeung (黃竹揚), Tang Shek Tse (鄧錫梓) and Wong Fat Shing (黃佛成), have combined together, and instigated the various villages of Tung Hoi (東海) district to refuse paying the rent in paddy amounting to 2000 stone.\n\nPetitioners have already produced title deeds for the payment of taxes, and the government has already issued notification directing the farmers to pay their rent as hitherto. These farmers have not paid their rent for two years, nor have they been dealt with, although petitioners have brought this matter to the notice of the Government.40\n\nThough considerable confusion initially existed over the issue of whether the sum stated referred to taxes or rents, the matter was eventually resolved with the Land Court's recognition of these gentry as \"taxlords.\"41\n\nExamination of the early history of Britain administration in the New Territories lends final proof to the economic interpretation of the basis of tung. Though the colonial administration attempted to bolster the chu as local judicial bodies, they essentially undermined their power by abolishing taxlordism. As a result, the category tung rapidly dropped out of local usage.42\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Imperial Maritime Customs, Decennial Reports, See Kowloon reports in the volumes for 1882-1891 and 1892-1901.\n\n2 Ibid., 1882-1901: p.682.\n\n3 C. M. Chang, \"Tax Farming in North China,” in Nankai Social and Economic Quarterly 8:4 (1936), pp. 831-836. Chang defines ya shui (牙稅) as \"at first no more than a license fee paid by various brokers for the privilege of doing the business of brokerage, i.e. to bring together prospective...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208059,
        "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": 98,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "82\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nlawsuits. In some instances the smaller villages pay their land tax through the influential clans.\" (p. 20).\n\n18. Tung-Kuan Hsien-chih (1921), 3:4a.\n\n19 For details on Hakka migration into the area, see Lo Hsiang-lin's K'o chia shih liao hui p'ien (***** Historical Sources for the Study of the Hakkas). See also Essay I.\n\n20 Krone, op. cit., p. 125.\n\n21 Sung Hok-p'ang, \"Legends and Tales of the New Territories” in The Hong Kong Naturalist, VII: 3 and 4. For the tale of the \"Hungry Bug\" see pp. 249-250 in number 3.\n\n22 CSO6269 in 1909,\n\n23 Extension Papers, p. 227.\n\n24 See statements by Tang Kok-lam in the Extension Papers (pp. 216 and 293-294): \"... the reason for the resistance is that there were rumours that there would be an increase in taxation, numbering of houses, and taxes on fruits and houses.\" See similar reasons put forth in the petition from the Tung Wo Kuk of Sha Tau Kok Tung, p. 319.\n\n25 CSO130 in 1902.\n\n26 Pat Heung and Shap Pat Heung are districts whose natural boundaries are made up of two major valleys of Un Long to the southeast and northwest of Kam Tin, respectively. These hsiang consist largely of small, multi-lineage settlements with substantial Hakka populations. In some of the documents in the Extension Papers, tung is appended to these districts, a usage still heard among the older elders in the area. The hypothesis which I develop later in this paper refers specifically to the large-order tung; however, it applies equally to the smaller-order tung insofar as they constitute districts treated as a whole for the purposes of revenue collection.\n\n28 CSO6269 in 1909.\n\n29 The only mention of this decision which I have seen is Tratman's account of the opening of a new market at Un Long in CSO3172 of 1915. \"Of the existence of this feud there can be no doubt. It began in the endeavors of Pat Heung to free their land from the ground-rent claimed by Kam Tin as first settlers and so overlords of the whole district. The actual bone of contention fell to the Pat Heung when the Land Court disallowed all the \"taxlord claims\" in that district; but the bad blood still remains. Its fast manifestation was in the form of an organized assault by the people of Un Long on certain Kam Tin cultivators in 1911.”\n\n30 Hugh Baker, \"The Five Great Clans of the New Territories,\" Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume 6. pp. 25-48.\n\n31 “If a person is arrested by a village constable, he is taken before the gentry and elders of the village, who assemble in a place specially appointed for the purpose. The gentry and the elders, who are the representatives of the clans inhabiting the villages, are selected by the inhabitants to deal with cases in the village council, The usual cases are those of theft, disputes about land, domestic squabbles, and cases of debt. Most of these cases are summarily dealt with by the village council, and as a rule, the decision of that council is accepted as final. But if either of the parties to a case is dissatisfied, he can appeal to a council of the Tung, or to a general council, made up of representatives of the different Tung. A reference to Map VI will show how the newly leased territory is divided",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208061,
        "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": 100,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "2\n\n84\n\nJ. T. KAMM\n\nThe clans and farmers 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 has always been theirs absolute free from rent, and that the amount paid by them to the clans was the Government land tax.\" p. 23, Report on the New Territory at Hong Kong.\n\n42 Chinese civil administration across the border offers interesting contrasts to the British colonial model. After the fall of Ch'ing, the county was renamed Pao-An (†), and was subsequently divided into seven \"wards\" or ch'ü (E). These wards generally followed the topographical features of the countryside, with the result that tung and ch'u were probably quite homogeneous (the evidence for Sham Chun certainly indicates this). As we noted above, agricultural production within the tung tended to follow specific, if not unique, patterns; the authors of the Kwangtung Nung Yeh Kai-K'uang T'iao-ch'a-pao-kao Shu Hsuan-pien (***)'s chapter on Pao-An link this phenomenon, which they note in the various ch'u, with the relative availability of arable land within the district. Aside from the presence of elements of the police force, the Nam Tau government kept a low profile in the ch'u, and depended on these areas to collect the land tax and hand it over by themselves (see Kwangtung Ch'uan-sheng t'i-fang Chi-yao (✯✯✯****★)), p. 189.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208176,
        "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": 215,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n199\n\nTHE RURAL HISTORY PROJECT IN YUEN LONG DISTRICT, NEW TERRITORIES OF HONG KONG, 1973.\n\nIn 1973 Mr. John Kamm, a candidate for the A.M. at Harvard University's Regional Studies--East Asia Program, conducted field research in the N.T. The letter which follows explains how he cooperated with the District Office Yuen Long in a rural history project, and gives interesting details of how it was accomplished. The \"Field Notes on the Social History and Feng-shui of Kam Tin” which follow the letter were one result of the project. The two “Essays on the Ch'ing Economy of Hsin-an, Kwangtung,” printed elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, are another. Hon Ed.\n\nMr. Patrick Williamson, J.P.,\n\nDistrict Officer,\n\nYuen Long District Office, New Territories Administration.\n\nDear Mr. Williamson,\n\nI would like to take this opportunity to provide your office with a preliminary report on the Rural History Project. I also intend to include general thoughts on the advisability of expanding the current pilot project into a more-structured, government-sponsored operation of longer duration.\n\nAt our first meeting, on 31 May, we discussed the concern in Yuen Long District, shared by both Government and village leadership, over the deterioration of Chinese tradition and custom. One substantial portion of traditional culture, i.e. oral history, seemed threatened with especially rapid extinction. We decided to explore the possibility of setting up a summer project aimed at collecting and preserving the folk tradition of a specific area of Yuen Long District. Since I had been trained in social anthropology (having won University Scholar distinction in the structural analysis of Chinese myth and folk-tale), and since I was eager to begin field work in the New Territories, I readily accepted the offer of an unpaid attachment to your office.\n\nThroughout the early weeks of June, the project gradually took shape and became a reality. Government showed interest in the idea, and approved the project. Scholars at both universities pro-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209149,
        "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": 52,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "38\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nhalls to see what I could learn about Tang influence on the one hand and local solidarities and influence on the other.\n\nI expected to find a pattern of declining Tang landholdings as one moved away from Kam Tin towards the east end of the Basin. In fact, what I found was solid owned-holdings and mortgage holdings by the Kam Tin Tangs in the area immediately to the east of the lineage stronghold itself, but a complete drop-off thereafter: no Kam Tin Tang holdings beyond a mile or two east of Kam Tin. Instead, what is most noticeable is the widespread land ownership influence of a different set of Tangs - the Hakka Tangs of Wang Toi Shan, a large village of several hamlets in the Northeastern portion of the Pat Heung area. Indeed, it is Wang Toi Shan ownership that follows my presumed pattern of solidity nearby trailing off to smaller amounts over distance. Wang Toi Shan people owned lands at considerable distances from their village well beyond their ability to walk to them and cultivate them themselves and right up to the area where Kam Tin Tang ownership began. Interestingly enough, Wang Toi Shan Tang holdings were mostly those of clan trusts. Where the lands were near to Wang Toi Shan itself, they were both individually-owned and clan-owned; more distant lands were almost all clan-owned. Parenthetically, this seems to resemble an observation made by J. T. Kamm about the holdings of the Kam Tin Tangs: that their individual holdings were close by and their clan holdings were often distant.\n\nThe Tangs of Wang Toi Shan may or may not be related in some way to the Tangs of Kam Tin. The Wang Toi Shan Tangs were Hakkas, of course, and the Kam Tin Tangs are usually thought of as Punti. But there is a Kam Tin tradition that someone of the Punti Tang branches of Ping Shan or Ha Tsuen married a Hakka woman of Waichow and that her male offspring settled in Wang Toi Shan, thereby founding the Tang name and fortune there. And the genealogy of the Hakka Tangs of Shui Lau Tin, who claim affiliation with the Wong Toi Shan Tangs, shows some possible links between themselves and the Kam Tin Tangs. The Wang Toi Shan Tangs with whom I have spoken deny kinship, but their genealogy appears to show a common place of origin in North China with the Kam Tin Tangs. Lo Hsiang-lin, however, finds no modern connection.\n\nV. Localities\n\nLet us look individually at the villages in the area east of Kam Tin, starting with Sheung Tsuen village, the farthest away at the east end",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210188,
        "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": 159,
        "title": "RAS-1984",
        "content_text": "138\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\n37\n\nCO 129/99, Despatch No. 115 of 28 July 1864.\n\n38 Ibid. The report, by Lieutenant Adams, R.N., dated ‘Woodcock’, Hong Kong, 28 June 1864, is at pp. 37-45.\n\n39 Reports on the Past and Present State of Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions (hereafter Blue Book) 1845, No. 38 Hong Kong, p. 149.\n\n40 Blue Book for 1847, No. 36 Hong Kong, p. 308.\n\n41\n\ne.g. W.F. Mayers, N.B. Dennys and C. King, The Treaty Ports of China and Japan. (London, Trubner and Co., 1867), p. 108, for two very bad piracies there.\n\n42 Harbour Master's Report for 1887 in Sessional Papers (Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong) September 1887-December 1888, p. 258.\n\n43 Blue Book for 1845, No. 38 Hong Kong, p. 151.\n\n44\n\n**科大蘭,陳鴻基,吳倫霓霞, 合品 香港碑銘彙編 p. 98 (D. Faure, B. Luk, A. Ng The Historical Inscriptions of Hong Kong (Hong Kong Urban Council 1986) p. 98-101, 75-78.\n\n45 Public Record Office, London: CO129/12/9757, para 12.\n\n46 E.J. Eitel Europe in China op. cit. p. 132.\n\n47 J.W. Hayes The Hong Kong Region op. cit. p.62, (and see also p. 27, n. 11).\n\n48\n\nUnpublished Temple Directory, The Temples Unit, Home Affairs Dept. H.K. Government, 1980, p. 17.\n\n49 Mayers, Dennys and King, op cit, p. 2. Sin Ngan (#) variously romanized herein as San-on, Sun-on and Hsin-an was the county to which Hong Kong Island belonged in 1841. Tungkwan ( ) otherwise Tung-Kwun was the older, larger county from which it was created in 1573. For Hsin-an see Peter Y.L. Ng, prepared for press and with additional material by Hugh D.R. Baker, New Peace County, A Chinese Gazetteer of the Hong Kong Region (Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, 1983).\n\n50 Mayers, Dennys and King, op. cit. p.3\n\n51\n\n52\n\n53\n\nFriend of China, 24 July 1858 (courtesy of Revd. Carl T. Smith),\n\nIbid.\n\nSee J.W. Hayes The Hong Kong Region op. cit. pp. 46-53. See also J.W. Hayes, The Rural Communities of Hong Kong, Studies and Themes (Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, 1983) pp 9-10.\n\n54 Petition dated 8th day of 4th lunar month, Tao Kuang, 21st year, i.e. 28th May 1841, to the District Magistrate of Hsin-an. This and other quoted papers belong to the Tang family of Kam Tin, New Territories. I am grateful to the District Officer, Yuen Long and Mr. J.T. Kamm for the translations that appear here. They have been checked against the originals by my friend Dr. Anthony K.K. Siu. Kwan Tai Lo was a village near the foot of the present Leighton Hill.\n\n55 Copy of an undated instruction to a presumably subordinate office following the above.\n\n56 Petition dated 28th day of 5th lunar month, Tao Kuang 23rd year i.e. 25th June 1843.\n\n57 Undated reply to the petitioners, presumably from the District Magistrate, following receipt of the foregoing petition.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572",
        "rank": 0
    }
]