[ { "id": 204681, "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": 162, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "146\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nA NOTE ON THE NAMES SAN ON AND PO ON\n\nBefore Hong Kong island and Kowloon were ceded, and the New Territories leased, to the British Crown, the region which is now the Colony of Hong Kong, along with the present-day Po On District on the Chinese Mainland across Deep Bay, formed a separate district of Kwangchou Prefecture. This district was called San On, a name by which it had been known since 1573, when it first acquired district status. Before this, from A.D. 716 to 1573, the region had been administered as part of Tung Kun District. Still earlier, from A.D. 331 to 716, it had been part of a larger division called Po On District 寶安縣.\n\nThis ancient name was revived in 1912 when San On District (or rather the small area that was left of it after the lease of the New Territories) was renamed Po On District. It is not unusual, even to-day, for the people of the New Territories to refer to themselves as natives of Po On District.\n\nPETER Y. L. NG.\n\nWHAT'S YOUR LINGO?\n\nMost of the etymological dictionaries of English published in this century derive the former cant-word lingo, now a contemptuous term in the standard language, for speech, language, from Provençal and ultimately, of course, from Latin lingua.\n\nSkeat's gloss, in his Etymological Dictionary, includes the following: \"Prov. lengo, lingo, speech (Mistral); lingo is the precise form used at Marseilles and lengo is Gascon (Moncaut.)”\n\nIf the dictionaries are right, lingo may have come into the thieves' jargon of English sea ports from the mouths of sailors who had picked it up from Sabir, the old maritime lingua franca of the Mediterranean which is said to have contained many elements from the Provençal dialect of Marseilles.\n\nHowever, while most of the modern dictionaries give us a Provençal etymology and merely ask us to bear in mind the Portuguese form lingoa, earlier works such as Dr. Johnson's,\n\n \n \n !\n \n \n i\n !", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205061, "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-1966", "page_number": 17, "title": "RAS-1966", "content_text": "JOHN J. NOLDE\n\nlarger prefecture of Kwangchou, whose administrative center was at Canton. Kwangchou itself was one of the fifteen prefectures which made up the province of Kwangtung, the latter being linked with the neighboring province of Kwanghsi to form the Viceroyalty of Liang-Kwang. Kwangchou prefecture was about 25,000 square miles in size and was occupied by a population of about five to ten million people.\n\nNow, when this area appears in the standard histories of nineteenth century China it is usually as the stage-setting for the activity of the foreigner and the conflict between the Western barbarians and Chinese officialdom. There are long accounts of the nature and organization of the Canton trade. H.B. Morse wrote six volumes on the East India Company. The diplomatic historian is concerned with the Amherst mission of 1816 and the Napier mission of 1834. There are detailed accounts of the effect of the dissolution of the Company on the Canton trade. And, of course, there are numerous descriptions of the Opium War and its causes and consequences.4\n\nIt would seem, somehow, that the history, if not the day to day living, of the people of the Hong Kong-Macao-Canton axis (if not all China) was inseparably linked with the foreigner, his exploits, the Canton system, and the opium traffic,\n\nBut what was really \"going on\"? What was life really like?\n\nThe most striking fact about the area during those times was not the foreigner and his trade but the deplorable state of civil administration. It was in chaos. Official authority did not extend much beyond Canton. Banditry and brigandage were the order of the day inland. Secret societies harassed government officials and private individuals at will,\n\nPiracy, especially, was a problem.\n\nIn the early years of the century a large pirate fleet under the leadership of one Cheng I had been organized. While his theatre of operations extended from Swatow to the Philippines, and perhaps as far as Borneo, most of his activity was centered in these waters. Commanding a fleet of hundreds of junks and thousands of men, Cheng I virtually terrorized the coast.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208032, "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": 71, "title": "RAS-1977", "content_text": "TWO ESSAYS ON THE CH’ING ECONOMY OF HSIN-AN, KWANGTUNG\n\nJOHN THOMAS Kamm*\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe British Crown Colony of Hong Kong was carved, in three successive steps, from the Chinese county of Hsin-An (新安). These essays represent attempts to reconstruct modes of economic activity which prevailed in this remote county during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This reconstruction will eventually serve as the groundwork on which an analysis of mercantile capitalism, in terms of its impact on local Chinese social structure, will be built.\n\nIn the first year of Wan-Li (1573), Hsin-An Hsien was formed from the division of Tung-Kuan Hsien (東莞縣) into two jurisdictions. Except for a brief period during the reign of the Kang-Hsi Emperor, the county remained one of the fourteen counties of the Kwangchow Prefecture throughout Ch'ing. As with most other magistracies in rural imperial China, Hsin-An was characterized by a high degree of self-government. The magistrate seldom intervened in local affairs, and relied heavily on the indigenous social order for the day-to-day administration of the countryside.\n\nThe dominant stratum of the local hierarchical order consisted principally of landlord-gentry patrilineal descent groups, commonly referred to as great clans (大族). Of these clans, the Tangs (鄧) and especially that branch of the clan which resided in Kam Tin (錦田) -- were probably best representative. Much of the data presented was collected during field work into the social history and oral tradition of this Punti \"power brokerage.\"\n\n*\n\nMr. Kamm states, The essays were written in fulfillment of seminar requirements for an A.M. at Harvard University's Regional Studies-East Asia program. The work is based largely on research undertaken in the New Territories (including a brief stint as coordinator of an NTA-Yuen Long \"oral history\" project in Kam Tin) and in the archives of the Public Records Office, Hong Kong. Writing and editing was supervised by Professor Yang Lien-Sheng of Harvard during late 1974.\n\nNOTES\n\nThe cession of Hong Kong Island was ratified by the Treaty of Nanking (1842). The Kowloon peninsula was added in 1860. Britain obtained the New Territories (on a 99-year lease) in 1898.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208044, "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": 83, "title": "RAS-1977", "content_text": "TWO ESSAYS ON THE CH'ING ECONOMY OF HSIN-AN\n\n67\n\n12 Lockhart lists 255 villages occupied by Hakkas, with a total population of 36,070 in the Tung Lo in 1898. Assuming a population of 250,000 for the total district in 1900, Hsin-An probably had a Hakka population of around 90,000.\n\n13 Rawski's bibliography in Agricultural Change and the Peasant Economy of South China offers the most complete listing of works bearing on perpetual tenancy.\n\np. 64.\n\n14 CSO280/04 Extension. See note 4, Essay 2.\n\n15 Hsu T'ien-tai, Fu Chien Wen Hua (福建文化), Vol. 1, No. 1, (1941),\n\n16 Correspondence Respecting Affairs of China, March 1898-September 1900. \"Report on the New Territory at Hong Kong,\" (Presented to both Houses of Parliament, November 1900) p. 19.\n\n17 The Shih Chien T'ang Chia P'u (世鑑堂家譜), a collection of genealogies from Kam Tin, gives the following settlements of lineal descendants in Tung Kuan: Chuh Yuan (竹園), Yen Tien (燕田), Fu Lung (福龍), Huai Te (懷德), Shih Ching (石井), Tu Kao (土高), and Ping Hu (平湖).\n\n18 \"These clans gain their local influence, not through numbers alone, but owing to the fact that certain of their numbers have official rank, gained through competitive examinations, or obtained by purchase, which keeps them in touch with the Magistrate and even higher officials.\" Correspondence Respecting Affairs of China ibid., p. 20. The Shih Chien T'ang Chia P'u records that, from Cheng Hua (Ming Dynasty) to Tao Kwang (Ch'ing Dynasty)—that is, from roughly 1470-1820—fourteen Kam Tin Tangs passed the state examination. Several of these became office holders. Another indicator of gentry connections with officialdom was the construction, in Kam Tin, of a temple (祠堂) dedicated to the two officials (Chou Yu-te (周有德) and Wang Lai-jen (王來任)) who petitioned the Emperor, on behalf of the inhabitants of the coastal areas, to allow resettlement.\n\n19 Introduction to the Nan Yang Tang Shih Tsu P'u (南陽堂世族譜), compiled by the Ping Shan Tangs.\n\n20 Sung Hok-P'ang, in his articles on the Kam Tin Tangs in the Hong Kong Naturalist, claims to have seen references to Tang lands on Hong Kong in the Land Register (土地冊) of Tung Kuan. \"One may judge that the land was owned by the Tangs before the first year of Maan Lik, AD 1525, (sic) as after that the San On District was formed” (Vol. VIII, nos. 3 and 4).\n\n21 HKTCSMTC, \"Details of Cultivated Land” (耕地詳情).\n\n22 ibid.\n\n23 The landlord clans were often referred to by the British as \"first cultivators.\" See, for instance, CSO3172/1915 cited in the essay on tax-lordism.\n\n24 Correspondence Respecting Affairs in China, ibid., p. 16.\n\n25 Hsin-An Hsien-chih, ch'uan 8.\n\n26 In this regard, note the high degree of correlation among the different \"tax-burdens\" in Table II. One is tempted to speculate that a native formula for the conversion of rent rates from tax-rates existed.\n\n27 In the 1934 edition of the Chung-Kuo Ch'ing-chi Nien-chien (中國經濟年鑑), chapter 7 (Chinese Tenancy Systems), contains the following description of the Fen Chih Chih (分種制) system, a form of perpetual lease found in the East River counties of the Kwangchow Prefecture: \"This", "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": 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": 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": 210933, "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-1986", "page_number": 283, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "266\n\ning in the New Territories. Unfortunately, the British misunderstood that the soldiers were sent there to assist the uprising.\n\nWith this as an excuse, the British invaded the Walled City on the 8th day of the Fourth Moon (i.e. 19th May) and drove away the Imperial officials and the three hundred soldiers.\n\nThis ended the Ch'ing rule over the Kowloon Walled City.\n\nHong Kong, June 1987\n\nAnthony K. K. SIU\n\nNOTES\n\n2\n\nSee JHKBRAS 20(1980): 139-141.\n\nThey were said to be Hakka stone workers and Triad members.\n\nCheung Yu-tang E, a native of Wai Chau H, was a Fu-cheung #or Brigadier of the Tai Pang Battalion in 1854. He was stationed in the Walled City for thirteen years. Then he retired in the 5th year of Tung Chih (1866) and died four years later in the 9th year of Tung Chih (1870) at the age of 76.\n\nSee Chapter 82 of the Kwangchow Fu Chi, Kuang Hsu edition 廣州府志卷八十二,\n\n5 See the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong, 1898 (signed at Peking, 9th June, 1898): Treaties between China and Foreign States Vol. 1, P. 539-540. Shang-hai, 1917.\n\n6 See Despatches and other Papers relating to the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong, 1899.\n\nSee the Report of Viceroy Tam Chung-lun and Governor Luk Chuen-lam of the Kwangtung and Kwangsi Provinces to the Imperial Court on the Lease of Kowloon Customs and her territory on the 9th day of the 4th moon in the 25th year of the Kuang Hsu Reign (1899).\n\nSee the Report of Viceroy Tam Chung-lun and Governor Luk Chuen-lam of the Kwangtung and Kwangsi Provinces to the Imperial Court on the British Occupation of the Kowloon City and the French Occupation of Ng Chuen and Shui Kai Prefectures 奧督撫譚鈺麟鹿傳霖泰英人佔據九龍城法人圖佔吳川遂溪兩縣請飭籌 on the 15th day of the 5th moon in the 25th year of Kuang Hsu (1899).", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 } ]