[
    {
        "id": 206548,
        "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": 96,
        "title": "RAS-1972",
        "content_text": "90\n\nE. G. PRYOR\n\nBesides their wider trading interests, the British in Canton had established a thriving trade in opium brought from India. The Chinese government regarded this trade with considerable concern, on the grounds that it was harmful to human welfare and also a serious drain on the country's finances. Early attempts by the Chinese government to stop the opium trade failed but in 1839 a Special Imperial Commissioner was appointed who forced the British traders in Canton to relinquish their supplies of the narcotic. The British Superintendent of Trade, Captain Elliot, consequently withdrew the English merchants to Macau and later transferred them onto ships anchored in Hong Kong harbour; subsequent events led to open hostilities between Chinese and British forces.\n\nIt was decided by Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, that a satisfactory settlement of the dispute would require either a commercial treaty with adequate guarantees to protect the interests of British merchants or the cession of one or more off-shore islands from which the traders could operate without restriction. A British expedition was despatched to China in 1840 to back up these demands and in January 1841 negotiations were held in Canton between Captain Elliot and Keshen, a Manchu Commissioner, whereby it was agreed by the Convention of Chuenpi that Hong Kong Island was to be ceded to the British (Figure 1).* A British naval force took possession of the island on 26th January 1841,\n\nThe Chuenpi terms were accepted by neither side. Elliot was replaced by Sir Henry Pottinger and hostilities were renewed. The war was concluded by the Treaty of Nanking on 29th August 1842 by which the island of Hong Kong was ceded in perpetuity to the Crown and four additional ports besides Canton were opened to British traders. The island was formally declared a British Colony on 26th June 1843 and Sir Henry Pottinger was appointed the first Governor. Hong Kong was declared a free port and by the Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue the Chinese were given free access to the island for trading purposes.\n\nThe Housing Problem Takes Root: 1841-1881\n\nAlmost from the day Captain Elliot raised the British flag on the northern shores of Hong Kong Island, a steady stream of artisans and labourers made their way to the Colony from the southern provinces.\n\n*Figures 1-8 will be found at the rear of the text.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212400,
        "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-1990",
        "page_number": 342,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "319\n\nchange these arrangements at will (and indeed in a few instances did so), for most matters imperial respect for established statutes prevailed and advice on the wisdom of proposed changes was sought and followed.' (p.6). This was not the case with the inner court in the eighteenth century. It was the creation of the Emperor. But Bartlett argues that by the end of the century the Grand Council straddled the roles of pawn and directorate. The result was a greatly expanded inner-court dominance, but one where both ministers and monarchs could be strong. While the framework for autocracy continued in place, the expansion of inner-court work and the ministerial skill and labor essential to accomplishing it weakened the monarchs' ability fully to oversee and direct the government.\" (p 7).\n\nHere I might take issue with the statement that the Grand Council weakened the monarch's ability to direct government; rather, it permitted him to do more than he could alone. It is at this point within the system that the individual comes into play, and the balance between monarchical power and conciliar power was less a question of institution, and rather varied on the basis of the personal qualities of the incumbent emperor, as well as the qualities of certain officials such as Heshen.\n\nThere is the risk in working with thousands of documents of losing sight of the wood for the trees. The reader is forewarned by the author that Part One covering the Yongzheng reign is very detailed. This reflects the evolution of the Grand Council as the Yongzheng and Qianlong Emperors experimented with the Inner Court before it was enshrined in statute. In Part Two Bartlett soars above the foliage to give us an overview of the mechanism of government.\n\nMonarchs and Ministers is a seminal work, and opens up many avenues of research. We must study the officials who held concurrent titles in both the Inner and Outer Court, and determine if their authority derived from their positions as Grand Councillors or from their incumbency as presidents of various boards (much as we ponder the power of government officials that derive from their party membership in modern China). This book also looks outward from the Inner Court, and we would do well to look inward from the Outer Court. We should not underestimate the value of Bartlett's analysis of the types of documents existing in the archives. There was no guide to the materials; who drafted them, who read them.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    }
]