[ { "id": 206654, "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": 202, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\nThe following letter appeared in the South China Morning Post, 10th April, 1972. — Ed.\n\nWHO HOISTED THE UNION JACK?\n\nIn today's (April 7) issue on page 20 you publish an article headed \"The Hongkong Club decides to go back to Victorian Era”. In the article you state \"The Club was founded in 1846, five years after the Union Jack was hoisted on Possession Point by Captain Charles Elliot\".\n\nThe statement is not correct. It is true that Sir Charles Elliot issued a formal declaration of British sovereignty over Hongkong in January 1841 after the treaty of Chuenpi, but the Union Jack was hoisted on Possession Point by Captain Belcher commanding H.M. survey ship, Sulphur, on January 26, 1841.\n\nThe account is given in Captain Belcher's book \"Voyage round the World\" published 1843, Volume II page 157. The following is an extract:\n\n\"The only important point to which we became officially partners was the cession of the island of Hongkong, situated off the peninsula of Cow Loon within the island of Lama,\n\n\"On the return of the commodore on the 24th we were directed to proceed to Hongkong and commence its survey. We landed on Monday the 26th January at fifteen minutes past eight, and being 'bona fide' first possessors, her majesty's health was drank with three cheers on Possession Mount.\n\n\"On the 26th the squadron arrived; the marines were landed, the union hoisted on our post, and formal possession taken of the island by Commodore Sir J. G. Bremer, accompanied by the other officers of the squadron, under a feu de joie from the marines, and a royal salute from ships of war”.\n\nThere may be some uncertainty about the exact date. It is probable that the landing was on Monday, January 25 and that the more serious formalities took place on Tuesday, January 26.\n\nCaptain Belcher's history is preserved in the Colony in the names Belcher's Gardens, Belcher's Fort (and formerly Belcher's Creek)", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210169, "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": 140, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "119\n\nIn the years before 1841 many fishing vessels from other places made use of the local harbours, especially Stanley and Aberdeen. An official report from the 1840s refers to the situation:\n\n\"I have not inserted under the head of \"Fisheries\" anything with respect to the large quantities of fish caught off the south side of the Island as the fishing ground being off the Lama Island cannot strictly be claimed on behalf of the Colony. Some of the boats employed in the traffic belong to Stanley and Aberdeen, but the greater number and all those of the largest class (called To-Ku) carrying from 30 to 50 tons belong to various places in the districts of Heangshan and Sinan and merely use these Harbours during the fishing season to take in provisions and water. The fish caught is generally sold to smaller vessels who carry it to different places for sale. About 500 tons are annually dried at Stanley.\"45\n\nThe main fishing in the waters off the South China coast was seasonal, with the main fishing fleets moving up and down the coast with the migrating shoals of fish. The larger vessels would travel up and down the coast, landing their catch at the ports next to the areas being fished and then moving on to the next fishing ground and the next port. The smaller vessels fished the water off their home port all year around, but were particularly busy during the migration season. Thus Stanley and Aberdeen would have been extremely busy and crowded with boats during the two short northward and southward migration periods, when huge quantities of fish would have been landed, to be dried, batched, and exported at leisure during the less hectic normal periods, when only the smaller local boats would be in port.\n\nThough the descriptions of the granite and fish trade here quoted all come from a period shortly after the establishment of British Hong Kong, by which time the salt fish trade had become, as Gutzlaff said, \"the most flourishing of all the branches\", I believe they are equally applicable to the period before 1841.\n\nIt is in connection with this seasonal migration of the fishing fleet up and down the coast that the presence of Chiu Chow, or Hoklo, groups in the little ports makes sense: they were essentially", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211621, "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-1989", "page_number": 36, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "1} \n\nAmerican missionary, the Reverend Elijah Bridgman,1 merely noted the formal possession of the island in its journal of occurrences; it gave no precise date nor any details.24 Another reference in the same journal in a historical review of events in China was only marginally fuller.25 The Canton Press, published at this point from Macao, expressed itself slightly puzzled by the lack of information about the event: 'On Tuesday last, the 26th January, the Island of Hongkong, the new settlement ceded by the Chinese to the English, was taken possession of in the name of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria. The English colours were hoisted, and saluted from the ships; we have not yet heard any further particulars of the ceremony.' Two weeks later the incident was mentioned again, but no further details were forthcoming.26 The Canton Register made no mention of the possession of Hong Kong except in the context of Elliot's treaty with Ch'i-shan; it seemed unimpressed by the terms and referred to 'the paltry island of Hong Kong'.\n\n› 28\n\nThe two groups with the most immediate interest in the acquisition of Hong Kong for the British were the merchants and missionaries. Unlike the troops, for whom the possession of the island was just one part of a long and arduous expedition in a foreign and unhealthy part of the world, the merchants and missionaries were already operating from the area and found Chinese restrictions on their movements irksome. And unlike the British government and its officials, the traders and propagators of salvation were most cognizant of the advantages that a piece of British territory in South China would afford them. They were not politically or ideologically committed to punishing China for the 'disrespect' it had shown to Britain. It is not known whether any missionaries attended the ceremony on 26 January, but some merchants who were late to have their fortunes inextricably bound up with the colony turned up to witness its official birth. According to a study of the Indian community of Hong Kong, at least four Indian merchants were present in Hong Kong at the flag-hoisting: Cawasjee Pallanjee, the representative of Cursetjee Bomanjee and Co. of Bombay; F. M. Talati; Albert Sassoon;29 and Rustomjee Dhunjee Shaw of P. F. Cama and Co. of Bombay. James Matheson of Jardine Matheson and Co.30 went from Macao to Hong Kong precisely in order to witness the hoisting of the British flag, and afterwards, as he wrote to William Jardine in a postscript to a letter of 30 January, he circumnavigated the island.32 Thus the future character of the colony can be gauged from the type of person with most to gain from its possession by the British.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 216207, "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-2002", "page_number": 506, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "440\n\n- who were very friendly and didn't mind us snapping away.\n\nAll too soon, it was time to head back for the 2.30pm ferry (and the dreaded customs hall that was rumoured to be tough-going, but in fact gave us no problems). In all, a relaxing and different weekend which was fun and gave us a sense of achievement.\n\nDetails of St Francis Xavier's life and links to St John's Island (as gleaned from a search on the Web and other sources)\n\nSt. Francis spent 10 years in Asia and became known as the Apostle of the East. He was the third son of a high official and was born in April 1506 in the Castle of Xavier in Navarre in Northern Spain. Francis was influenced by Ignatius of Loyola and his “Spiritual Exercises” while they lived in Paris. Later, while in India, Francis became a member of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, which Ignatius had been instrumental in founding. Francis left Lisbon in 1541 and travelled via Mozambique to Goa in 1542. Many were converted, inspired by his life, writings and teaching. He travelled to Malacca in 1545, translated prayers into Malay, and again won many converts. He travelled to the Moluccas, to Cochin (1548), to Kagoshima (1549) and to Kyoto (1550).\n\nIn 1551 he resolved to return to Goa and his ship called in to St John's Island in December 1551. St John's Island was a common port of call for Portuguese ships in those times. While Francis was there, a Portuguese prisoner in Guangdong, probably a smuggler who had been caught by the Chinese authorities, managed to get a letter to a friend of Francis's. The letter suggested the sending of an ambassador to China to seek help for such prisoners. Francis saw opportunities in this and set out from Goa again in April 1552. He intended to bring the news of Christ to China and, with others on board the \"Santa Cruz,\" intended to pursue the release of Portuguese prisoners. However, when they called in at Malacca, they found the Captain of Malacca, a son of Vasco da Gama, resented the appointment of an ambassador other than himself. He allowed the Santa Cruz to leave Malacca, but only without the ambassador.\n\nFrancis realised his mission was in peril but arrived at St John's Island in August 1552. The Chinese authorities forbade him to enter", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]