[
    {
        "id": 204515,
        "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-1962",
        "page_number": 147,
        "title": "RAS-1962",
        "content_text": "132\n\nMURRAY, Douglas P. NEWBIGGING, D. K.\n\nNG, Peter Y. L.\n\nNIXON, F. A., O.B.E, NOBLE, Herbert\n\nO'CONNELL, Miss S. E.\n\nPENNELL, W. V.\n\nPERESYPKIN, Oleg P.\n\nPICCIOTTO, Mrs. J. R. PRATT, Mark S.\n\nPRESCOTT, Jon A. RAE-SMITH, W. B. RICHARDS, G.\n\nRIDE, Dr. L. T., C.B.E. RIDE, Mrs. L. T.\n\nROFE, Fevzi Husein\n\nROOKE, Miss Barbara E. RUTTONJEE, Mrs. Anne RUTTONJEE, Hon. Dhun\n\nRYAN, The Rev. Father T. F.\n\nRYDINGS, H. A.\n\nSARGENT, G. E.\n\nSAUNDERS, J. A. H.\n\nSCHOYER, B. Preston SELLERS, David\n\nSHEPHARD, A. J.\n\nSHU, Dr. H. T. SHUI, Chientung\n\nSIDBURY, Henry SIDWA, Mrs. M. C. SIMPSON, R. F.\n\nSKELSON, Mrs. Margaret Clare\n\nSKELSON, Robert Ernest SMALL, C. J.\n\n41-B Granville Road, 1st floor, Kln.\n\nc/o Jardine, Waugh (Malaya) Ltd. P. O. Box 304, Kuala Lumpur, Federation of Malaya.\n\nDept. of History, Hong Kong University, H.K.\n\nRoom 42, Hong Kong Club, Hong Kong. Ying Wah College, Bute Street, Kowloon,\n\nc/o U.S. Consulate-General, 26 Garden Road, H.K.\n\nc/o S.C.M.P., Wyndham Street, Hong Kong, P. O. Box 1382, Hong Kong.\n\n46, Stubbs Road, Hong Kong.\n\nU.S. Consulate-General, Garden Road, H.K. Dept. of Architecture, H.K. University, H.K.\n\nc/o Butterfield & Swire, Union House, H.K. The British Council, 2nd fl., Buckingham Bldg., Kln.\n\nThe Lodge, 1, University Drive, H.K. The Lodge, 1, University Drive, H.K.\n\n5, Tai Hang Road, Hong Kong.\n\n3-B 3, University Drive, Hong Kong.\n\n2, Conduit Road, Hong Kong.\n\n2, Conduit Road, Hong Kong.\n\nWah Yan College, 281, Queen's Road, E., H.K.\n\nThe Library, University of Hong Kong, H.K. Dept. of Chinese, University of Hong Kong, H.K.\n\nHong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corpn., H.K.\n\nNew Asia College, 6 Farm Road, Kowloon,\n\nc/o Labour Department, 22 Ice House St., H.K.\n\nc/o Colonial Secretariat, Hong Kong.\n\nP. O. Box 1213, Hong Kong.\n\nChung Chi College, Ma Liu Shui, New Territories.\n\nJardine, Matheson & Co., Ltd. Hong Kong.\n\naddress not known yet.\n\nDept. of Education, H.K. University, H.K.\n\nc/o Hong Kong Club, H.K.\n\nc/o Hong Kong Club, H.K.\n\n34 Arundel Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204693,
        "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": 174,
        "title": "RAS-1963",
        "content_text": "158\n\nSCHWARZ, Miss M. D. * 1, Clovelly Court, 12 May Road, H.K.\n\nSCOTT, A. C.\n\nSCOTT, J. M.\n\nSELLERS, D.\n\n-\n\nSHEPHARD, A. J.\n\nSHU, Dr. H. T.\n\nSHUI, Chien-tung\n\nSIDBURY, H.\n\nSIDWA, Mrs. M. C.\n\nSIMPSON, R. F.\n\n++\n\nSKELSON, Mrs. M. C. -\n\nSKELSON, R. E.\n\nSMALL, C. J.\n\nSMITH, L. *\n\nSMITH, L. A.\n\nSMITH, S. H. *\n\nSOONG, N. -\n\nG\n\n=\n\nSPERRY, H. M. * -\n\nSTANTON, W. T. *\n\nSTANLEY, Major H. F.\n\nSTARBIRD, L. R.\n\nSTENTON, Prof. H.\n\nSTOCK, Prof. F. E.\n\nSTOKES, J.\n\nSTONEY, G. S.\n\nSTONEY, Mrs. G. S.\n\nUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison 6, U.S.A, c/o H.K. & Shanghai Banking Corpn., H.K.\n\nc/o Labour Department, 22 Ice House St., H.K.\n\nc/o Colonial Secretariat, Lower Albert Rd., H.K.\n\n70, Mt. Davis Road, G/F., H.K.\n\nMaryknoll Convent School, Kowloon.\n\nJardine, Matheson & Co., Ltd., H.K.\n\nDepartment of Education, The University, H.K.\n\nc/o Hong Kong Club, H.K.\n\nc/o Hong Kong Club, H.K.\n\n34, Arundel Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.\n\n23-A, Robinson Road, H.K.\n\n2741, SW 22nd Ave. Coconut Grove, Miami 33, Florida, U.S.A.\n\nc/o Messrs. Scott & English Ltd., P. O. Box 1555, H.K.\n\nAsia Magazine, 31 Queen's Road, Central, H.K.\n\n2 Queen's Road, Central, H.K.\n\nDina House, Duddell Street, H.K.\n\nHong Kong Tourist Association, Caroline Mansion, H.K.\n\nc/o The American Consulate-General, 26 Garden Road, H.K.\n\nDepartment of Botany, The University, H.K.\n\nHong Kong University, Pokfulum, H.K.\n\nc/o Education Department, Battery Path, H.K.\n\n301, Grand View Mansion, 1 Wang Fung Terrace, H.K.\n\n301, Grand View Mansion, 1 Wang Fung Terrace. H.K.\n\n* Life Member\n\nPlease notify the Hon. Secretary of any inaccuracy",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204889,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 192,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "167\n\nSIDBURY, H.\n\nSIKORA, F.\n\nSIMPSON, R. F.\n\nSINFIELD, G. H. C.\n\nSKELSON, Mrs. M. C.\n\nSKELSON, R. E.\n\nSLEVIN, B.\n\nSMALL, C. J.\n\nSMALL, Dr. D. H.\n\nSMITH, L.\n\nSMITH, L. A.\n\nSMITH, S. H.\n\nSMITH, Miss M. H.\n\nSOONG, N.\n\nSPERRY, H. M.\n\nSTANLEY, Major H. F.\n\nSTANTON, W. T.\n\nSTARBIRD, L. R.\n\nSTENTON, Prof. H.\n\nSTOKES, J.\n\nSTONEY, Mrs. G. S.\n\nSTONEY, G. S.\n\nSTOCK, Prof. F. E.\n\nT\n\nJardine Matheson & Co., Ltd., H.K.\n\n29 Southbay Road, H.K.\n\nDept. of Education, The University, H.K.\n\nH.K. Telephone Co., Ltd., Lane Crawford House, H.K.\n\nc/o The Hong Kong Club, H.K.\n\nAs above.\n\nc/o 1st floor, Police Headquarters, Arsenal Street, H.K.\n\n34, Arundel Avenue, Canada.\n\nOttawa, Ontario, Canada.\n\nDental Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kowloon.\n\n23-A Robinson Road, H.K.\n\n2741, SW 22nd Ave. Coconut Grove, Miami 33, Florida, U.S.A.\n\nc/o Messrs. Scott & English Ltd., P.O. Box 1555, H.K.\n\n610, King's Park House, Kowloon.\n\nAsia Magazine, 31 Queen's Road, Central, H.K.\n\n2, Queen's Road, Central, H.K.\n\nH.K. Tourist Assn., Caroline Mansion, H.K.\n\nDina House, Duddell Street, H.K.\n\nc/o American Consulate-General, Garden Road, H.K.\n\nDept. of Botany, The University, H.K.\n\nc/o Education Department, Battery Path, H.K.\n\n301, Grand View Mansion, 1 Wang Fung Terr., H.K.\n\nAs above.\n\nUniversity of Liverpool, Dept. of Surgery, Liverpool, England.\n\nSTRICKLAND, Mrs. P. G. c/o Caldbeck Macgregor & Co., Ltd.\n\nSWAN, Miss D. L.\n\nSWIRE, A. C.\n\nUnion House, H.K.\n\nChatham Galleries, 103 Chatham Road, Kowloon.\n\nMessrs. Butterfield & Swire, Union House, H.K.\n\n• Life Member\n\nPlease notify the Hon. Secretary of any inaccuracy",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208223,
        "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": 262,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "246\n\nLIST OF MEMBERS\n\nLIFE OVERSEAS MEMBERS:\n\nHUGHES, Mrs. G. M.\n\nHURT, Miss E. J.\n\nIRETON, Mrs. P. H.\n\nJOHNSTON, J. J.\n\nJORDAN, Dr. D. K.\n\nKIDD, S. T.\n\nKNOWLES, Miss Moira G.\n\nKNOWLES, Mrs. W. C. G.\n\nKURATA, Mrs. L.\n\nLINDSAY, T. J., M.B.E.\n\nLOTHROP, F. B.\n\nMANSFIELD, Miss M. B.\n\nMcBAIN, G.\n\nMcDOUALL, J. C., C.M.G.\n\nMICHAELIDES, Miss E. O.\n\nMIDDLEBROOK, R. W.\n\nMILL, Capt. C. S. Jr.\n\nMILLER, C. F.\n\nO'BRIEN, J. R.\n\nPLAG, Rev. A.\n\nPOLAND, T. D.\n\nROBINSON, Prof. K. E.\n\nROTHE, U.\n\nSINFIELD, G. H. C.\n\nc/o C.V. Starr & Co. Inc., 102 Maiden Lane, New York, N.Y. 10005, U.S.A.\n\nWoodlands School, Woodlands Drive, Scarborough, Yorkshire, England.\n\nP.O. Box 362, Langley, Washington 98260, U.S.A.\n\nP.O. Box 65, Marshall, Arkansas 72650, U.S.A.\n\nDept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92037, U.S.A.\n\nc/o Hong Kong Government Office, 6 Grafton St., London W1X 3LB, England.\n\n3, Kirkmay House, Marketgate, Crail, Fife KY10 3RF, Scotland, UK.\n\nWakes Colne Place, Nr. Colchester, Essex, England.\n\n478, Edison Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K2A 1TQ, Canada.\n\n3, Bareena Avenue, Wahroonga, N.S.W., Australia.\n\n176, Milk Street, Boston, Mass. 02109, U.S.A.\n\n31, Fairlawns, Maldon Rd., Wallington, Surrey, England.\n\nc/o Imperial Chemical Industries (Japan) Ltd., Central P.O. Box 411, Tokyo, Japan.\n\nThe Old School, Souldern, Bicester, Oxon., England.\n\nThe British Council, Halls Croft, Old Town, Stratford-upon-Avon, England.\n\n165 East 66th Street, New York 21, N.Y., U.S.A.\n\n132, Greenbriar Court, Jacksonville, N.C. 28540, U.S.A.\n\nc/o Bank of Korea, Seoul, Korea.\n\nSt. Paul's, 1 Roma Avenue, Kensington, N.S.W. 2033, Australia.\n\n7000 Stuttgart 1, Roemerstr. 41, Germany.\n\n15, Bellevue Lawns, Delgany, Co. Wicklow, Ireland.\n\nThe Old Rectory, Church Westcoat, Kingham, Oxford OX7 6SF, England.\n\nWohnstift Augustinum Apt. 778, 5483 Bad Neuenahr, Germany.\n\nHong Kong Tourist Association, 159, Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208237,
        "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": 276,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "260\n\nLIST OF MEMBERS\n\nORDINARY OVERSEAS MEMBERS:\n\nANDERSON, Dr. E. N.\n\nBERKOWITZ, Prof. M. I.\n\nBEVERIDGE, R. J.\n\nBINGHAM, Mrs. A.\n\nBRAGA, J. M.\n\nBUNGER, Prof. K.\n\nCHAR, Tin Yuke\n\nCLARK, Mrs. A. T.\n\nDANSEY-BROWNING, Mrs. S. M.\n\nEITZEN, Mrs. J.\n\nGARD, Dr. R. A.\n\nGOODRICH, Prof. L. Carrington\n\nHARRISON, Prof. B.\n\nHAYWARD, G. W.\n\nHEATHERINGTON, Mrs. E.\n\nKRAMERS, Dr. R. P.\n\nLAWTON, D.\n\nLIU, Prof. Ts'un-yan\n\nLU, Mrs. S.\n\nLYNCH, Rev. P. F.\n\nMACLEAN, R.\n\nMACPHERSON, J. A.\n\nDept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, Cal. 92502, U.S.A.\n\nDept. of Sociology, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada.\n\n13 Hartwell Hill Road, Hartwell, Victoria 3124, Australia.\n\nWelby Croft, Chapel-en-le-Frith SK12 6CY, Cheshire, England.\n\nNational Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia.\n\n53 Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Lukas-Cranach-Strabe 14, Germany.\n\n3898 Diamond Head Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816, U.S.A.\n\nWilliams & Glyns Bank Ltd., Hottsbank Kirkland House, Whitehall, London S.W.1., England\n\n155 Mount Pleasant Road, Singapore 11.\n\nThe Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, 531-2 Melville Library, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Long Island, New York 11790, U.S.A.\n\n640 West 238th Street, The Bronx, New York 10463, U.S.A.\n\n26 The White House, St. Paul's Bay, Malta.\n\nWhite Mill End, 5 Granville Road, Sevenoaks, Kents, England.\n\nc/o Col. & Mrs. Raymont, 270 Park Road, Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa K1M 0E1, Canada.\n\nOstasiatisches Seminar, Der Universitat Zürich, Mühlegasse 21, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland.\n\nTime-Life News Service, c/o Associated Press, P.O. Box 775, Bangkok, Thailand.\n\nDept. of Chinese, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia.\n\nc/o U.S. Embassy, 581 Merchant Street, Rangoon, Burma.\n\nMaryknoll Centre House, 120 San Min Road 1st Section, Taichung City 400, Taiwan.\n\nThe Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, Denmark House, Singapore 1.\n\nThe Library, Cabrillo College, 6500 Soquel Drive, Aptos, California 95003, U.S.A.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208826,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1979",
        "page_number": 283,
        "title": "RAS-1979",
        "content_text": "256\n\nOVERSEAS LIFE MEMBERS\n\nKNOWLES, Miss Moira G.,\n\n3 Kirkmay House,\n\nMarketgate,\n\nCrail.\n\nFife KY10 3RF, SCOTLAND.\n\nKNOWLES, Mrs. W. C. G.,\n\nWakes Colne Place,\n\nNr. Colchester, Essex.\n\nUNITED KINGDOM.\n\nKURATA, Mrs. Lucien,\n\n478 Edison Avenue,\n\nOttawa,\n\nOntario K2A 1TQ.\n\nCANADA.\n\nLANCHESTER, Mrs. G. W.,\n\nAlderfen,\n\nSurlingham,\n\nNorwich NR14 7AW,\n\nUNITED KINGDOM.\n\nLI, Dr. Choh-Ming,\n\n81 Northampton Avenue, Berkeley,\n\nCalifornia 94707,\n\nU.S.A.\n\nLINDSAY, Mr. T. J., M.B.E.,\n\n3 Bareena Avenue,\n\nWahroonga,\n\nNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA.\n\nLOTHROP, Mr. Francis B,\n\n176 Milk Street, Boston,\n\nMassachusetts 02109, U.S.A.\n\nMANSFIELD, Miss M. B.,\n\n51 Fairlawns,\n\nMaldon Road,\n\nWallington,\n\nSurrey,\n\nUNITED KINGDOM.\n\nMCBAIN, Mr. George,\n\nc/o Imperial Chemical Industries\n\n(Japan) Ltd.,\n\nCentral P.O. Box 411,\n\nTokyo,\n\nJAPAN.\n\nMCDOUALL, Mr. J. C.,\n\nThe Old School, Souldern, Bicester, Oxon,\n\nUNITED KINGDOM.\n\nMICHAELIONES, Miss E. O.,\n\nThe British Council, Halls Croft, Old Town,\n\nStratford-upon-Avon,\n\nUNITED KINGDOM.\n\nMILL, Capt. Charles Stuart, U.S.M.C.,\n\n132 Greenbriar Court,\n\nJacksonville, N.C., 28540,\n\nU.S.A.\n\nMILLER, Mr. Carl Ferris O.,\n\nc/o Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch,\n\nC.P.O. Box 255. Seoul,\n\nKOREA.\n\nO'BRIEN, Mr. J. R.,\n\n+\n\nSt. Paul's,\n\n1 Roma Avenue,\n\nKensington,\n\nNew South Wales 2033, AUSTRALIA.\n\nPLAG, Mr. Albrecht (Rev.),\n\n7000 Stuttgart 1, Roemerstr. 41,\n\nGERMANY (F.R.).\n\nPOLAND, Mr. T. D.,\n\n15 Bellevue Lawns,\n\nDelgany,\n\nCo. Wicklow,\n\nREPUBLIC OF IRELAND.\n\nROBINSON, Prof. K. E.,\n\nThe Old Rectory, Church Westcoat, Kingham,\n\nOxford OX7 6SF, UNITED KINGDOM.\n\nROTHE, Mr. Ulrich,\n\nWohnstift Augustinum, Apt. 778,\n\n5483 Bad Neuenahr,\n\nGERMANY.\n\nSINFIELD, Mr. G. H. C.,\n\nHong Kong Tourist Association,\n\n159 Bay Street,\n\nToronto,\n\nCANADA.\n\nSPERRY, Mr. H. M.,\n\n64 Hillbrook Drive, Portola Valley,\n\nCalifornia 94025,\n\nU.S.A.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1979.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2801w5938",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215235,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 12,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "CONTENTS\n\nPRESIDENT'S REPORT\n\nFRIENDS OF THE HKBRAS (UK) REPORT\n\nHON. AUDITOR'S REPORT\n\nHON. LIBRARIAN'S REPORT\n\nARTICLES\n\npage\n\nxiv\n\nxxix\n\nxxxii\n\nxlii\n\nNorman Miners - Industrial Development in the Colonial Empire and the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa 1932...\n\n1\n\nGöran Aijmer - Earth God Wine and the Meeting of the Fluttering Butterflies: Local Customs of Early Spring in Late Imperial Central China...\n\n25\n\nKeith Stevens - The Popular Religion Gods of the Hainanese ...........\n\n43\n\nValery Garrett - Chinese Baby Carriers: A Hong Kong Tradition Now Gone\n\n95\n\nAnthony Hedley and Alfred Lin - The Lugard Tribute...............\n\n109\n\nCésar Guillén-Nuñez - The Façade of St. Paul's, Macao: A Retable-Façade?\n\nRobert Nield - Bhutan - Why Not?\n\n131\n\n189\n\nKo Tim-keung - A Review of Development of Cemeteries in Hong: 1841-1950........\n\n241\n\nLouis Ha and Dan Waters - Hong Kong's Lighthouses and the Men Who Manned Them\n\n281\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nKeith Stevens - A Tale of Sour Grapes: Messrs. Little and Mesny and the First Steamship Through the Yangzi Gorges\n\n321\n\nix",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215276,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 53,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "# ARTICLES\n\n## INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COLONIAL EMPIRE AND THE IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA 1932\n\n### NORMAN MINERS\n\nIt is generally agreed that the development of manufacturing industry in the colonial empire was very limited. A recent study of colonial development describes progress before independence as derisory.1 Joseph Chamberlain spoke of the colonies as a great underdeveloped estate that must be developed with imperial assistance for the sake of the local population and also for the benefit of the whole world. Similar sentiments were expressed by Lord Lugard, Lord Milner, Leopold Amery and many others. But development was seen primarily as the expanded production of foodstuffs, raw materials and minerals. Colonial governments encouraged the production of cash crops for export and built the roads, railways and harbours to transport produce to markets overseas, but they were unwilling to spend their limited tax revenues to assist the establishment of local industries.\n\nThe attitude of the British government was that the colonies were essentially agricultural and producers of primary commodities in a complementary partnership with the industrialised nations, chiefly the United Kingdom. The artificial encouragement of manufacturing was contrary to the prevailing ideology of free trade and the belief that the state should not intervene to distort the free play of economic forces. Expatriate trading firms were interested in the profits to be made from exports and imports rather than the processing of primary products or manufacturing for the local market. Indigenous businessmen were few and faced formidable obstacles such as the small size of the local market, unskilled and untrained labour, lack of access to long-term credit from foreign banks and competition from established imports from the metropolis.\n\nIt is said that the industrial development of the colonies was deliberately restrained by the British government, which was unduly deferential to commercial interests who objected to local manufacture displacing exports from Britain. It has also been claimed that colonial governors were reluctant to put forward schemes for industrial development because they believed they should act as trustees for the native peoples and avoid the disruption of traditional society by the social effects of industrialisation.3\n\nThe Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol.30, No.2, May 2002, pp.53-76\n\nPUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215277,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 54,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "2\n\nThere is one exception to these generalisations, a deviant case which has never been analysed by the economists who deplore the underdevelopment of the colonial empire. The amazing economic growth of Hong Kong since its liberation from the Japanese occupation in 1945 is well known, but it is widely assumed that before the war the Hong Kong economy was almost entirely based upon the entrepôt trade transporting goods to and from China and that its transformation from a trading mart to a manufacturing centre began with the post-war arrival of industrialists from Shanghai fleeing from the chaos of China's civil war. In fact, the development of industry had begun in the nineteenth century and by 1939 Hong Kong had built up a flourishing export trade in manufactured goods to China and neighbouring Asian countries and was even successfully competing with British firms in a few items in the British home market.\n\nThe growth of Hong Kong industry was accelerated in the 1930s by decisions taken at the Imperial Economic Conference which met at Ottawa in August 1932. The conference was called to find ways of combating the worldwide economic depression by stimulating trade between the countries of the empire after the British government had decided to abandon its long-standing commitment to free trade and to impose a ten per cent tariff on foreign imports. The conference was mainly occupied with bargaining between Britain and the dominions over the terms on which agricultural products from the dominions would enter the British market and the access of British manufactured goods to the dominions.\n\nThe ministers meeting at Ottawa also decided to impose stringent restrictions by tariffs and specific duties on imports of textiles and other goods from Japan which were beginning to penetrate empire markets, displacing British and Canadian manufactures. Chinese businessmen in Hong Kong took advantage of this attempt to exclude Japanese goods from dominion and colonial markets to export large quantities of cheap footwear and textiles to the empire. This provoked indignant complaints from industrialists in Britain and Canada who demanded that restrictions should be placed on the supercompetitive Hong Kong manufactures.\n\nHong Kong's successful penetration of empire markets forced the British government for the first time to consider what its policy should be towards the industrial development of the colonial empire. Two interdepartmental committees of civil servants were set up in 1933 and 1937, but no authoritative decision was reached by the cabinet before the outbreak of war in 1939. Officials at the Colonial Office defended the right of the colonies to diversify their economies by moving into manufacturing, but the Board of Trade and the Treasury were generally unenthusiastic about such schemes where they might result in a reduction of British exports.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215280,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 57,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "and batteries, canvas and rubber footwear, rattan furniture, trunks, suitcases, umbrellas and rope. Almost all these exports went to China and the nearby states of the Philippines, Netherlands East Indies, Malaya, Siam, French Indo-China, Burma and India. The only significant exports to Britain were 268 tons of lard valued at £7,000 and £50,000 of preserved ginger.\n\nIn the 1930s exports to China were badly affected by a steep rise in import duties. Under the treaties imposed on China in the nineteenth century tariffs were limited to five per cent, but over the period 1926 to 1933 China achieved full tariff autonomy and soon raised its duties to gain additional revenue, and also to protect its own industries and substitute local manufactures for foreign imports. For example, the duty on rubber-soled shoes remained at five per cent until 1931 when it was raised to 17 per cent and then to 30 per cent in 1933. Similar protectionist moves were made by neighbouring countries in an attempt to combat the world depression of the 1930s. The Philippines raised its tariff on rubber shoes from 25 per cent to 100 per cent in 1933. This escalation in tariff barriers affected Hong Kong's trade and economic prosperity in two ways: the entrepôt trade through Hong Kong was reduced since China was deliberately seeking to curtail foreign imports; and Hong Kong's domestic exports of manufactured goods to China were also affected. A number of factories were forced to close having lost their markets in China. The value of imports and exports passing through the harbour dropped by 40 per cent between 1931 and 1934. Hong Kong's economy was saved from ruin by the amazing growth in its exports of manufactured goods to empire markets. This was an unintended consequence of the decisions taken at Ottawa to erect trade barriers to exclude Japanese exports.\n\nPage 17\n\nII\n\nWhen the colonies of European settlement had advanced to internal self-government it was no longer politically possible for Britain to exercise control over their trade and tariff policies. The dominions wished to protect their infant industries against imported manufactures, including imports from Britain. At imperial conferences the dominion premiers offered to grant a preferential rate of duty to British goods and asked that Britain should reciprocate by granting a tariff preference to empire produce over foreign goods. Britain refused this offer and remained committed to free trade. The dominions then acted unilaterally to make Britain a beneficiary of their tariff policies. Canada was the first to grant tariff preferences to Britain in 1897, followed by South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. In 1907 the preferences granted to Britain by Canada were extended to the West Indian colonies, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Ceylon and the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215282,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 59,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "where the territory was not debarred from doing so by treaty. In preparation for the negotiations at Ottawa the colonies were also asked to consider what preferences might be accorded them by the dominions and what preferences they might give to the dominions in return on the lines of the Canada-West Indies agreement.”\n\n34\n\nThe governor, Sir William Peel, discussed Hong Kong's position while visiting the Colonial Office in June 1932. Officials agreed with him that Hong Kong's status as a free port made it impossible to impose anything like a general tariff. Any such tariff would ruin the entrepôt trade which was vital to Hong Kong's existence and no practicable means could be devised of landing goods in bond for re-export without involving so much inconvenience as to drive the entrepôt trade to other neighbouring ports. Peel was prepared as a gesture to give a preference to empire products on articles such as spirits and tobacco which were subject to excise duty and to impose a higher rate of first registration tax on foreign motor cars than on cars imported from Britain and Canada. He did not ask for any preference from the dominions in return since in his view the bulk of Hong Kong exports consists of foreign goods the proportion of the cost of which, due to treatment in Hong Kong, was not large enough to secure a preference...” This showed a surprising ignorance of Hong Kong's growing trade in domestic manufactures which were largely exported to neighbouring Asian countries.\n\nThe Ottawa conference convened in July 1932. The British delegation was led by Stanley Baldwin, the former prime minister, and four other cabinet ministers. Canada, Southern Rhodesia and Newfoundland were represented by their prime ministers; Australia and New Zealand by former prime ministers; South Africa and the Irish Free State by their finance and trade ministers. India, which had been given the freedom to establish protective duties in 1923, was represented by Sir Atul Chatterjee and other members of the Viceroy's Council. The interests of the colonial empire were safeguarded by the secretary of state for the colonies, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister and one civil servant from the Colonial Office, G.L.M. Clauson.\n\nThe conclusions of the conference were embodied in agreements between the United Kingdom government and the governments of the dominions and India. Britain consented to continue the free entry of goods grown, produced or manufactured in any part of the empire, and to impose additional duties on specified foreign goods which would give empire produce a preferential margin higher than the 10 per cent tariff already imposed by the Import Duties Act. Britain also agreed to 'invite' the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to extend to all the dominions any preference at present extended to any part of the empire, and to increase the margin of preference or impose specific duties on a long list of items requested by the dominions. In return the dominions confirmed the existing",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215283,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 60,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "preferences granted to British goods, to increase the margin of preference on a few specific items and to review the level of existing tariffs which protected dominion manufactures against British goods. The dominions approved tariff preferences on specified colonial goods, mostly tropical agricultural products, asphalt, rum and cigars. Each dominion offered a different list of concessions to the colonies and not all were equally generous. South Africa granted preferences only on raw coffee and asphalt. Canada gave little more than the preferences already embodied in the 1920 trade agreement with the West Indian colonies.\" New Zealand was the only dominion which agreed to grant preferences at the same rates as were accorded to Britain to all the colonies and protectorates. The agreements with the dominions provided that the preferences accorded to British goods might be extended to the colonies, protectorates and mandated territories ‘if His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom so request'. All these preferences were for British manufactured goods. The development of manufacturing industry in the colonies was not anticipated by the governments represented at Ottawa. If it had been foreseen it is probable that the dominion governments would have raised strong objections to admitting goods manufactured under oriental conditions to their markets under a tariff designed to benefit British manufacturers.28\n\nAfter the Ottawa conference a circular despatch was sent to all colonies and dependent territories setting out the tariff preferences which would be granted by the dominions to colonial exports of foodstuffs and raw materials.\" These preferences would give the dependencies a reasonable prospect of replacing foreign imports by imports from empire sources in the dominion markets concerned. In return the dependent territories were 'invited' to grant to the dominions the preferences which the colonial secretary had negotiated at Ottawa. Cunliffe-Lister made clear that it was a matter of the highest importance that the Ottawa settlement should be put into effect as an integral whole.\n\nI should feel that I had been guilty of a breach of faith if the legislature concerned refused to grant the preference in question, unless I could put to the dominion government concerned clear evidence that there were really substantial reasons for not granting the proposed preference. It would not be an adequate ground of objection to say that the desired preference might increase the local cost of living, so long as the increase was only moderate and did not cause hardship to a particularly poor class of the community.\n\nGovernors prepared the necessary legislation for introduction into the colonial legislatures, but a number warned the Colonial Office that they\n\nPage 60\n\nPage 61",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215284,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 61,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "faced serious opposition from the unofficial members. Except in the case of Ceylon, where the elected unofficials had a majority in the legislature, governors were able to ensure the enactment of the new customs schedules by the votes of the officials and the nominated unofficial members, but they were reluctant to do so against popular opposition. The Colonial Office warned the recalcitrant colonies that if legislation were to be delayed or amended the dominions might refuse to implement the new preferences agreed at Ottawa or withdraw existing preferences; the British parliament might also withdraw the preferences granted to the colony under the 1932 Import Duties Act.\" So the legislation was eventually passed in all the colonies in spite of great popular opposition. In the Leeward Islands there were shouts of 'What happened to Judas?\" at the end of the meeting, and the residence of a nominated unofficial member who voted for the bill was destroyed by fire.\" \n\n... \n\nIn the West Indian colonies opposition focused on the clause in the United Kingdom-Canada agreement which obliged the colonies to impose a duty of one shilling per pair on rubber boots and shoes and rubber-soled canvas boots and shoes in addition to the general preferential ad valorem rate. Hosiery of cotton or artificial silk (rayon) was to be charged an additional duty of sixpence a pair and silk hosiery an additional duty of ninepence a pair. These massive tariff increases were designed to exclude Japanese competition from a market which had been a Canadian monopoly until 1929. The governor of Barbados protested that Japanese shoes were sold at one shilling and eightpence a pair with the result that many were now shod who had previously gone barefooted, reducing the incidence of ankylostomiasis (hookworm infestation); if a specific duty of one shilling were imposed the resultant price would be beyond the reach of the poor, while being still much below the price at which Canada could supply footwear.\" The governor of the Windward Islands protested that stockings from Japan cost only fourpence a pair and would rise threefold to 13 pence a pair if the new tariffs were imposed.\" Other governors of the West Indian colonies made similar complaints, but the Colonial Office was obdurate that the preferences granted to the colonies by the dominions on their exports of primary products were conditional on the full implementation of the Ottawa agreements by the colonies. \n\n13% \n\nIII \n\nThe swingeing increases in duty on Japanese canvas and rubber footwear did not achieve their intended effect of restricting the market to Canadian manufacturers. Within months of the implementation of the Ottawa agreements, canvas shoes with rubber soles produced by a factory in",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215285,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 62,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "Singapore were being exported to the West Indian colonies. In November 1932 a Canadian manufacturer of rubber shoes complained to the Canadian minister of trade and commerce that in the last two months 15,000 pairs of rubber shoes had been imported into Barbados from Singapore at prices far below that of shoes produced in Canada. The Canadian minister wrote directly to Cunliffe-Lister asking for his help. He expressed the fear that unless something was done additional factories would be erected in Singapore and Hong Kong to take advantage of the new tariff and cheap Asiatic labour. The colonial secretary replied that it would be impossible to introduce in any colony legislation discriminating against goods produced in another colony; this would cut across the principle of solidarity between various parts of the empire which had been accepted at Ottawa and would inevitably cause a serious revulsion of feeling in these colonies.35\n\nExports of rubber boots and shoes to the West Indian colonies continued to increase at an alarming rate throughout 1933. They even penetrated the Canadian home market. Factories in Hong Kong which had previously exported their boots and shoes to China and the Philippines found themselves priced out of these markets by new protective tariffs and turned to export their products to the West Indies and Britain. Canadian and British footwear manufacturers faced with the loss of markets which they had formerly monopolised claimed that the Singapore factory was owned by Japanese interests who were seeking to evade heavy duties by setting up factories within the empire. In fact all the factories in Singapore and Hong Kong were owned and managed by Chinese businessmen. The empire content of the shoes was over 90 per cent since they were made from Malayan rubber and British canvas by British subjects working in a British colony and carried to Britain in British ships. There were no grounds for denying imperial preference to Hong Kong products in accordance with the Ottawa agreements. The Canadian prime minister, R.B. Bennett, complained to Cunliffe-Lister that the importation of rubber shoes was utterly demoralising the Canadian industry; thousands of workers would lose their jobs unless action was taken to prevent the continuation of this destructive and unfair competition.\" The colonial secretary replied that it would obviously not be politically possible to invite the legislative council of the Straits Settlements to pass legislation prohibiting the manufacture of rubber shoes in Singapore or their export to markets overseas.\" \n\nMeanwhile another industry long established in Hong Kong was causing embarrassment to the Colonial Office. The governor sent a telegram to London complaining that the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Company had tendered to build a 500 ton coaster for Australia but had discovered that it was liable to a 15 per cent duty and could not claim exemption since imperial preference was granted only to ships built in Britain. The governor",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215286,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 63,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "II\n\nasked that Britain should approach Australia to secure for Hong Kong the same tariff preference as Britain enjoyed, in accordance with article 15 of the Ottawa agreement. He pointed out that Hong Kong had granted Australian brandy a preference in the excise duty of three dollars a gallon and had received nothing in return. Cunliffe-Lister refused to take any action minuting that he was not prepared to press for equal treatment in the dominions for British and colonial industries like shipbuilding in which owing to different standards of living the levels of cost were necessarily different. This attitude shocked the civil servants in the Colonial Office. One senior official minuted, 'I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be the advocate of colonial interests.' The matter was not allowed to rest there in spite of the views expressed by Cunliffe-Lister. Officials consulted the Board of Trade and when that department raised no objection a letter was sent to the Australian High Commission asking for the grant of preference. The Australian government was most unwilling to extend preference to a territory with oriental wages even though it was part of the empire, but eventually granted all the colonies preference at the same rate as Britain in respect of vessels over 500 tons only.\n\nIn 1933 Hong Kong manufacturers followed the lead of the Singapore factory in vigorously expanding their exports. Sales to Britain grew from HK$16,190 in 1930 to HK$454,252 in 1933 and to HK$1,823,874 in 1934. British manufacturers protested to the Board of Trade about this competition in their home market and the Board of Trade passed on their complaints to the Colonial Office. Cunliffe-Lister suggested that Britain should confine its preference to primary products and that entry free of duty should be refused to colonial manufactured goods which could compete with an efficient British industry. This proposal did not find favour with the civil service. Instead officials proposed that an interdepartmental committee should be set up to consider the whole question of the industrial development of the colonial empire. The committee was composed of officials from the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office. The first meeting was held in January 1934. R.V. Vernon of the Colonial Office was the chairman and was said to have been largely instrumental in drafting the committee's report.\n\nThe committee concluded that industrial development in the colonial empire was an inevitable contingency which could not be prohibited or indefinitely retarded; but the committee saw no reason why a conscious policy of the artificial encouragement of industry should be undertaken by the institution of a tariff high enough to protect the products of local industry from imports from Britain or elsewhere. The interests of British manufacturers and of colonial consumers who would have to pay a higher price for products previously imported should also be considered. So the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215287,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 64,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "creation of protected local industries could be justified only where the colony had natural advantages for the development of an industry and where it was likely eventually to be profitable without protection. However, regard should also be paid to the principle of trusteeship and where the commercial interests of Britain and the general economic well-being of the colony were in conflict, colonial interests should prevail. These ambiguous recommendations gave the Colonial Office a considerable area of discretion to determine whether or not a colony should be allowed to institute a protective tariff or provide other assistance to a proposed new industry.\n\nThese recommendations did not affect the situation in Hong Kong and Singapore, where Chinese entrepreneurs were successfully exporting shoes and other goods manufactured from imported raw materials without the assistance of any protective tariff. Their home market was small compared to their export markets and they could easily undercut any foreign competitors. The committee regarded the invasion of the British and dominion markets by cheap rubber shoes produced by oriental labour as an evil, but it opposed the imposition of import duties on colonial manufactures since the Ottawa agreements had granted entry free of tariffs to all imports from the dominions and India; discrimination against colonial products would undermine the principle of free trade within the empire and call into question the preferences and privileges which the colonies had extended to imports from Britain. Instead of tariffs on colonial manufactures the committee recommended that efforts should be pursued to assimilate conditions of employment and factory and workshop regulations to those in force in Britain by the adoption of the International Labour Conventions by the colonies. The committee also suggested the encouragement of negotiations between manufacturers in Britain and in the colonies to divide the market by the assignment of quotas between them.\n\nCunliffe-Lister welcomed the report in spite of the rejection of his idea of protection for British manufactures against colonial competition. The report was circulated to the cabinet for the information of ministers but objections were unexpectedly raised by the secretary of state for India and the chancellor of the exchequer. The main doubt was whether the report went far enough in recommending the discouragement of new industries in the colonies. So the report was remitted for further consideration by another committee, but nothing was done for three years. In the meantime the Colonial Office proceeded to act on the principles recommended in the report. Instructions were sent to all colonies that any proposal to protect a local industry must be referred to London at the earliest possible stage and no bill to impose or increase a protective tariff should be introduced into the legislative council without prior authorisation by the colonial secretary. Telegrams were sent to the governors of Singapore and Hong Kong asking\n\nPage 46",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215288,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 65,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "them to call a meeting of the manufacturers and seek a voluntary agreement to limit their exports to Britain as the committee had recommended.\" This was not an easy matter. If the industry in Hong Kong had been established by Jardine Matheson, Swire or one of the other leading British trading firms, the governor could have spoken personally to the directors and appealed for restraint; but the rubber shoe manufacturers were small Chinese firms which were most reluctant to co-operate.\" Before they would agree to limit their exports they demanded guarantees that the quota would be large enough to keep their factories operating at a profit; that no new footwear firms should be allowed to open in Hong Kong; and that there should be a comprehensive agreement between Canadian, British, Singapore and Hong Kong manufacturers to divide up the British market and exclude any new entrants from India or elsewhere. The British manufacturers suggested a quota for Hong Kong of 1,500,000 pairs. Hong Kong said this was far below the current rate of exports to Britain, and asked for at least 2,500,000 pairs. Negotiations between the British and Canadian manufacturers to divide up the British and Canadian markets between them broke down when one of the largest firms, Bata, refused to join the cartel.\n\nThis failure left Hong Kong manufacturers free to expand their exports to Britain without a limit. The largest manufacturer in Singapore went bankrupt in 1935, enabling Hong Kong firms to penetrate further the British market. They exported 2,403,900 pairs of canvas and rubber shoes to Britain in 1935, 3,309,088 pairs in 1936, 4,849,324 pairs in 1937 and 7,007,604 pairs in 1938. These figures do not include exports to British colonies, which were also substantial. In 1939 a representative of the British manufacturers went out to Hong Kong to negotiate directly with the Chinese firms before going on to Canada. Agreement was reached for Hong Kong to have a quota of 6,600,000 pairs in the British market provided that the colony agreed to raise its prices to British levels. The Hong Kong government foresaw considerable administrative difficulties in implementing such an agreement. Legislation would need to be enacted to licence factories and to regulate exports, which would be extremely unpopular. The outbreak of war in September 1939 caused the agreement to be suspended indefinitely.\n\nPage 50\n\nIV\n\nThe imperial preferences agreed at Ottawa and the additional specific duties on footwear, hosiery and textiles failed to achieve their intended objective of excluding Japanese competition and leaving the colonial markets free for British and Canadian textile manufacturers. The Japanese had little difficulty in absorbing these additional costs and undercutting British and",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215289,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 66,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "14\n\nCanadian products. To counter this competition the British government in 1934 instructed the colonies to institute a system of quotas for 'piece goods containing 50 per cent or more of cotton or of artificial silk, or of cotton and artificial silk combined'. The annual quota allowed in any colony should be the average imports over the years 1927 to 1931.\" This covered the period before Japanese textiles began to flood into colonial markets. British textiles and empire textiles were excluded from quota, provided that they had 50 per cent imperial content. This measure aroused considerable opposition in many colonies since the poorest customers would be deprived of their only source of cheap clothing for the benefit of the British textile industry. The official majority was used to carry the bill through the colonial legislatures in the face of opposition from the unofficial members. In Ceylon, where elected unofficials had a majority in the legislative council, quotas were imposed by an Order in Council issued by the British government. In spite of its long history as a free port Singapore agreed to impose quotas on imports retained in the colony. Hong Kong refused because of possible damage to its entrepôt trade, much to the annoyance of the colonial secretary, Cunliffe-Lister.52\n\nIn 1936 the Colonial Office asked for reports from all colonies on the effects of the quotas imposed two years earlier. The replies from governors indicated that quotas had been generally successful in excluding Japanese and foreign textiles, but this had had very little effect in increasing the trade of Britain and Canada. As happened when discriminatory duties were imposed on rubber shoes the chief beneficiary was Hong Kong. Imports of shirts, singlets and hosiery from Hong Kong had made their appearance for the first time and were now the dominant supplier at the cheaper end of the market.\" The governor of Jamaica complained that imports of ready-made apparel were driving the local garment industry out of business and suggested specific duties or quotas on Hong Kong textiles on the same lines as the restrictions against Japan.\n\n34\n\nAfter the Ottawa conference other Hong Kong goods besides rubber footwear began to appear in the British market. The Import Duties Act 1932 had allowed free entry into Britain to imports provided that at least 25 per cent of their value was derived from materials grown or produced or from work done within a part of the empire. This provision enabled a number of small manufacturers in Hong Kong who had previously exported their products to China and Asian countries to turn their attention to the British market. Exports of wearing apparel to Britain increased from HK$2,000 in 1932 to HK$498,000 in 1933, and HK$1,169,000 in 1935. Exports of electric torches went up from none in 1932 to HK$30,000 in 1933, HK$128,000 in 1934, and HK$131,000 in 1935.\" The Board of Trade feared that foreign manufacturers such as Japan were shipping goods substantially",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215295,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 72,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "20\n\ntax incentives and other government assistance? Apart from its superb harbour Hong Kong had no natural advantages. Almost all the raw materials for industry had to be imported. The population (840,000 at the 1931 census) was wretchedly poor and could not provide the purchasing power to support large-scale industry. But Hong Kong was well-placed to export cheap manufactured goods to the vast market of China and the neighbouring countries of Asia where until the 1930s tariffs on imports were low. The world depression led China and other Asian countries to erect high tariff barriers which threatened to cripple Hong Kong's burgeoning industry. The colony was saved by the decisions taken at the Ottawa conference to adopt the policy of imperial preference. This handicapped its main competitor, Japan, by imposing high tariffs and later quotas designed to exclude Japanese manufactures from markets in the British empire. This created a vast imperial free trade area embracing Britain, its colonial territories and New Zealand. Traders and businessmen in the African or Caribbean colonies could have seized the opportunity to exploit it, but it was only the energetic and adaptable Chinese entrepreneurs of Hong Kong who did so. The decisions taken at Ottawa which were designed to help industry in the dominions gave an unintended boost to Chinese factory owners in the back streets of Kowloon.\n\nUniversity of Hong Kong\n\nNOTES\n\n1. M. Havinden and D. Meredith, Colonialism and Development: Britain and its tropical colonies, 1850-1960 (London, 1993), 1. D.K. Fieldhouse, Colonialism 1870-1945: An Introduction (London, 1981), 51–108. David Meredith, \"The British Government and Colonial Economic Policy 1919-1939', Economic History Review, 28 (1975), 484-99. Louis Nthenda, 'From Trade to Manufacture: Britain's Dilemma in the Face of Colonial Industrialization 1931-1938', Journal of Social Sciences, 1 (1972, University of Malawi), 95-112.\n\n2. Leo Amery in 1926, quoted by Meredith, 495.\n\n3. Meredith, 494. The only supporting evidence for this theory in the Colonial Office files is a letter from the governor of Uganda, 22 Dec. 1934, who warned that any large-scale industrial development which caused rural depopulation would result in a serious increase in sleeping sickness. CO323/1298/10, Public Record Office, London (PRO).\n\n4. See for example J. Riedel, The Industrialization of Hong Kong (Tubingen, 1974), 5-6; F. Welsh, A History of Hong Kong (London, 1993), 451; D. Lethbridge, The Business Environment in Hong Kong (Hong Kong, 1980), 1–2. A contrary view is given by Frank Leeming, \"The Earlier Industrialization of Hong Kong', Modern Asian Studies, 9 (1956), 337-42, who cites evidence from Hong Kong and Macao Business Classified Directory (1940, in Chinese).\n\n5. Minute by G.L.M. Clauson, 7 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8. Memoranda and Draft Report of Interdepartmental Committee 1937, CO852/164/6 and T160/763/F14811/1 and 2, PRO.\n\n6. According to D.J. Morgan, The Origins of British Aid Policy 1924-1945 (New Jersey, 1979), 9, the proportion of general revenue in the colonies derived from customs duties in 1933 was:",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215297,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 74,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "22\n\n22. The requirement of an empire content of 25 per cent to qualify for preference was set in consultation with the Board of Trade, which pointed out that some British manufacturers using foreign sources of raw material would not qualify for preference if the empire content was set at 50 per cent. CO323/1192/11.\n\n23. L.M. Drummond, British Economic Policy and the Empire 1919–1939 (London, 1972), 92; Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Industrial Development of the Colonial Empire, Colonial Office Confidential Print 445, CO885/40.\n\n24. Secretary of State to all colonies and protectorates, 4 Feb. 1932, DO35/242/4, PRO.\n\n25. Minutes of a conference at the Colonial Office, 27 June 1932, CO323/1193/2.\n\n26. The texts of the agreements are in Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa Cmd4175 (London, 1932), 19–76.\n\n27. Canada agreed to extend to the colonies and protectorates the preferences accorded to Britain, but in practice raised objections when requested to do so by the British government. See for example CO323/1099/16, CO852/51/9 and CO852/251/10. Cunliffe-Lister minute, 22 Oct 1933, CO323/1232/8, 'Canada has done less than nothing to implement the most essential part of the Ottawa accords.'\n\n28. See the comments in paragraphs 18 and 30 of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee.\n\n29. Confidential Circular Despatch, 29 Sept. 1932, CO854/174. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister is better known by his later title, Viscount Swinton.\n\n30. Secretary of State to Governor of Ceylon, 27 Sept. 1932; S. of S. to High Commissioner, Federated Malay States, 30 Sept. 1932; S. of S. to Barbados, 24 Oct. 1932; S. of S. to Jamaica, 10 Oct. 1932; S. of S. to Windward Islands, 24 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5. A clause was drafted for inclusion in the 1933 Finance Bill to allow Britain to withdraw preferences from any colony if it did not grant the Ottawa preferences to empire products, CO323/1230/3.\n\n31. Officer Administering Government, Leeward Islands to Secretary of State, 19 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n32. Governor Barbados to Secretary of State, 17 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n33. Governor Windward Islands to Secretary of State, 21 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n34. Stevens to Cunliffe-Lister, 17 Nov. 1932, CO323/1193/11.\n\n35. Cunliffe-Lister to Stevens, 8 Dec. 1932, CO323/1193/11.\n\n36. Hong Kong Trade Returns show exports of rubber shoes to the British West Indies as follows: 1932 - HK$4,894; 1933 - 116,670; 1934 - 643,337; 1935 - 574,376; 1936 - 1,071,932; 1937 - 1,427,634.\n\n37. High Commissioner for Canada to Cunliffe-Lister, 15 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n38. Cunliffe-Lister to High Commissioner, 27 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8. Canada later succeeded in excluding Singapore shoes by setting a fictitious high rate of exchange for the Singapore dollar. See minute by Calder, 8 June 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n39. Peel to Cunliffe-Lister, 13 Nov. 1933, CO323/1231/16.\n\n40. Minute by Vernon, 21 Dec. 1933, CO323/1231/16. R.V. Vernon was an Assistant Secretary who joined the Colonial Office in 1900. He had previously expressed his disapproval when Cunliffe-Lister refused to approach India and South Africa to ask for imperial preference for Hong Kong's rubber shoes: 'The Secretary of State is placed practically in the position of a trustee who is bound to act with the sole regard to the interests of the colonies and is not at liberty to abstain from any claim on the account of the interests of U.K. industry or the susceptibilities of dominion industrial interests.' Minute, 9 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/3. The attitude of Cunliffe-Lister may be contrasted with that of Alan Lennox-Boyd (Colonial Secretary 1954-59) who threatened to resign if Hong Kong was forced to accept a limitation on its textile exports to Britain. Harold Macmillan, Riding the Storm, 1954–1959 (London, 1971), 739-43.\n\n41. CO323/1294/3.\n\n42. Hong Kong Trade Returns 1932, 1933, 1934.\n\n43. Minute by Cunliffe-Lister, 7 June 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n44. Edgcumbe (Department of Overseas Trade) to Eastwood (Colonial Office), 18 April 1936, CO323/1298/10.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    }
]