[
    {
        "id": 204454,
        "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": 86,
        "title": "RAS-1962",
        "content_text": "75\n\nTHE PATTERN OF LIFE IN THE NEW TERRITORIES IN 1898\n\nJ. W. HAYES, M.A.*\n\nIn 1898 Great Britain signed the Peking Convention which gave her the lease of the New Territories for 99 years. The world has made such material progress since that time and urban Hong Kong has itself seen so many changes that it is difficult for us to-day to imagine the rural part of the Colony as it then was, without roads or wheeled transport other than the wheel-barrow, with inhabitants who knew nothing of cars, aeroplanes, or weapons of mass destruction. But having made this effort, we must think back further still if we wish to obtain a proper appreciation of the situation, as James Stewart Lockhart told the Hong Kong Government in 1898. At the end of his report on the New Territory, as he styled it, he said \"Under Chinese rule enterprise has been at a discount, and progress has been at a standstill for centuries. The San On district of to-day must be much the same as it was four or five hundred years ago\".\n\nThe report is a valuable first-hand account of the area as it was in the year of its acquisition and covers the points in which Government would be most interested such as topography, communications, trade and natural products, population, industries and the existing civil government. It also gave its author's recommendations as to how the New Territory should be governed and looked after in future. This article, whilst making use of Lockhart's report, tries to give the background which he, of course, would take for granted. It does not pretend to deal with every part of the backcloth but only touches on those parts which seem worth mentioning for their share in fixing life in its accustomed mould: the village, the people themselves and their history, the clan system, ancestral worship, education, the district government, the background of affairs elsewhere in the province, the prevalence of disturbance and epidemic, popular religion: all factors which made for integration or disruption in a life that could never have been easy.\n\n* Mr. Hayes has been an administrative officer with the Hong Kong Government since 1956.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204591,
        "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": 72,
        "title": "RAS-1963",
        "content_text": "BRITISH LEGATION AT PEKING\n\n61\n\nacquire at Peking a site for Building, or may hire Houses, for the accommodation of Her Majesty's mission, and that the Chinese Government will assist it in so doing\". Then, when the Imperial Government appeared to procrastinate over the ratification of these treaties, another English and French force fought its way to the capital and compelled the Manchu authorities to ratify them by the Convention of Peking. This was signed by the British envoy, Lord Elgin,1 and by Prince Kung,2 the chief Chinese representative, on October 24th, 1860 in the Hall of Ceremonies situated in what was later to be called Legation Street. The second clause of the Convention stated that \"Her Britannic Majesty's Representative will henceforward reside permanently, or occasionally, at Peking, as Her Britannic Majesty shall be pleased to decide”. \n\nLord Elgin proposed that Prince Kung's own residence should be rented to the British, but Prince Kung memorialized the throne as follows: \n\nAs regards the matter of the English residing at the capital in the near future, we have been discussing it with them during the past few days. The chief barbarian official [Lord Elgin] considers that the quarters in Prince I's [Prince Kung] palace are spacious and he insists that it is to be their future residence at the capital. Moreover, he stated that there were still open spaces in the palace and that he wants to build houses there himself. It seems to your ministers that to \n\n1 James Bruce, eighth Earl of Elgin. He served as Governor-General of Canada 1846-1854. In 1857 he was appointed envoy extraordinary to China and signed the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858, returning to England early in 1859. In 1860 he was again sent to China as special envoy, and signed the Convention of Peking. He returned to England in 1861 and was appointed Governor-General of India in the same year. He died in India in 1863. \n\nHis younger brother Frederick William Bruce held the post of Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong from 9 February 1844 until 27 June 1846. In 1857 he accompanied his elder brother to China as principal secretary. He was appointed minister plenipotentiary to the Emperor of China in December 1858, but had to wait until March 1861 before actually taking up residence in Peking. He left China on his appointment as British Minister to Washington in 1865. \n\n2 I-hsin (1833-1898), the first Prince Kung, was the sixth son of Emperor Tao-kuang. When the joint French and British forces approached Peking in September 1860 the Emperor Hsien-feng fled to Jehol leaving his half-brother, Prince Kung, to make peace with the allies. When a prototype Chinese foreign office, the Tsungli Yamen, was set up in 1861, Prince Kung was in charge of it, and he played an important part in Chinese affairs for the next fifteen years.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204632,
        "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": 113,
        "title": "RAS-1963",
        "content_text": "100\n\nJ. W. HAYES\n\nNOTES\n\nThe notes are intended to amplify the text. The subjects of the longer notes are chosen rather arbitrarily and represent my particular interests,\n\nJ. W. H.\n\n1 A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. (Hong Kong Government Printer, 1960) p. 88.\n\n2 Crown Rent Rolls, District Office Islands, New Territories Administration.\n\n* Under the Convention of Peking signed on 9th June, 1898,\n\n*Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, hereafter styled Sessional Papers. (Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1911) p. 103 (22) and (26). This article is mainly concerned with the land population, but for a good short description of the life, work and general background of the boat people, see G. N. Orme \"Report on the New Territories 1899-1912\" in Sessional Papers 1912, pp. 53-55.\n\n5 The help of the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and members of the Cheung Chau Rural Committee in tracing and gaining access to these tablets is gratefully acknowledged, and the great assistance given with transcription and translation by Messrs. LO Chi-chung, LEUNG Kun-siu and LEW Pang-fei, my former colleagues in the District Office.\n\n* I have translated shue-shat as study, rather than school, since it was intended for the private use of members and their children and not for outsiders. The association became known as the Tung Kwun Wui So on 16th September, 1926 (see Land Registers), previous to which it had been registered as the Po On Shue Shat. I have presumed that with such a name, a school was operated as well as the office and ancestral temple. (See note 26 and text to which it refers.) For the distinction between the names Po On and San On see Notes and Queries, p. 146 below. The character inscribed on this tablet is a simplified form of the character.\n\nLocal trades included shipbuilding: see Orme's report in Sessional Papers 1912, p. 55.\n\n—\n\n* The number of Cheung Chau shops subscribing to the various schemes recorded on the tablets is as follows: Po On study (1866) 38; Defence Office (1863-70) 66; Fong Pin hospital (1878) 98, and Tin Hau temple (1879) 125, from the 200 odd mentioned in the Fong Pin preamble.\n\n* Many shops are mentioned on the tablets, but they are all listed by their business names and not by the names of the owners, in which custom the Chinese does not follow the English.\n\n10 The Tong has a substantial genealogical record, last produced between eighty and a hundred years ago and printed from stone blocks on hand-made bamboo paper. I am indebted to Mr. WONG Shing Yip of Cheung Chau who very kindly let me see his copy.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204651,
        "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": 132,
        "title": "RAS-1963",
        "content_text": "118\n\nA. D. BLUE\n\nthe Yangtse was now open to foreign trade and navigation for almost 1,400 miles from the sea, and access had been gained to the rich and populous province of Szechuen, of which Chungking was the chief port.\n\nThe section of the river between Ichang and Chungking was known as the Upper River, and the first steamer to navigate this section belonged to Archibald Little, whose Y-Ling had been the first steamer to navigate the Middle River. Little was a member of a well-known Shanghai family, and he was the real pioneer of steam navigation on the Upper Yangtse. He had commenced his career as a tea taster for a German firm in Kiukiang in 1859, but soon went into business on his own and was one of the first to appreciate the possibility of trade in Szechuen Province and beyond in Tibet. He settled in Chungking soon after it became a treaty port, and started up several industries connected with wool, bristles, and coal—to mention some of the more prominent, and also engaged in marine insurance, specialising in covering cargoes on the Upper Yangtse.1 The Shanghai Chamber of Commerce had sent two prominent British merchants—Alexander Michie and Robert Francis—up the Yangtse to Chungking as early as 1869, to investigate trade prospects there, but no important developments followed. In 1887 Little made a much more intensive trip from Ichang to Chungking by junk, and formed the opinion that there were great possibilities for trade in Szechuen Province and beyond. The following year he attempted to run a steamer service between Ichang and Chungking with a stern wheeler specially built on the Clyde called the Kuling. Because of a clause in the Chefoo Convention stipulating that foreign steamers could only go to Chungking after Chinese steamers had gone there, the Kuling was not allowed to go beyond Ichang. Little then sold her to the China Merchants Steam Navigation Company, who employed her on the Hankow-Ichang service.\n\nOne of his brothers was a famous editor of the North China Daily News, and another a well-known doctor in Shanghai.\n\n[Robert Swinhoe, British Consul at Amoy was sent up the Yangtse by Sir Rutherford Alcock, British Minister at Peking, in March 1869 to enquire into the trade of the Upper River. He reached Chungking in May of the same year. His account of this journey was published in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society Vol. XL (1870), pp. 268-85. It is accompanied by a folding map of the Upper River from the Tungting Lake to Chungking compiled from the charts made by two survey officers specially sent up the Yangtse for this purpose. Ed.]",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204799,
        "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": 102,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "90\n\nJ. W. HAYES\n\nIt is hoped that this account of Peng Chau will demonstrate the diversity of settlers and enterprises which appears to characterise even the smaller settlements of this part of the Kwangtung coastline. Peng Chau is a Cheung Chau in miniature, and because of its smaller size a wider treatment than was possible for Cheung Chau can be given, in an article of this length. Again, my intention is to provide no more than an outline, and an indication that, despite their size, such communities could be complex settlements in which traditional lines of division were blurred by proximity and a common environment.\n\nNOTES\n\nAny statements in respect of Peng Chau and its people which appear to be unsubstantiated are based on information supplied by various elders. I am most grateful for the assistance given by the Chairman of the Peng Chau Rural Committee, Mr. LAM Shue-chun#, and Mr. LO Chi-chung# of the District Office, South,\n\n1 See \"The pattern of life in the New Territories in 1898\" pp. 75-102 of this Journal, vol. 2 (1962) and \"Cheung Chau 1850-1898\" in vol. 3 (1963) pp. 88-106.\n\n2 See Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong—hereafter styled Sessional Papers (Hong Kong Noronha & Company, at yearly intervals, in this case 1905) p. 144 in the Report on the work of the Land Court for the New Territories for 1900-1905.\n\n3 See G. N. Orme, “Report on the New Territories 1899-1912” in Sessional Papers 1912, pp. 56-57, for significant changes in wages and the cost of living.\n\n4 A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong, Government Printer 1960) p. 83. In this article characters have not been given for any place names which appear in the Gazetteer,\n\n5 Schedules to the Block Crown Lease for Peng Chau, District Office, South, New Territories Administration. Hereafter styled BCL.\n\n6 Under the Convention of Peking signed on 9th June 1898,\n\n7 Sessional Papers 1911, p. 103(22) and (26). This figure is broken down into 434 males and 208 females, children included. The preponderance of males is noteworthy and may be due, in part, to the number of single men employed in the limekilns. The boat population are not specified separately in the Census returns and cannot be separated from the 4,442 contained in the Cheung Chau district figure. Cheung Chau with Peng Chau and Nei Kwu Chau formed a census district in 1911, but whilst the land population for each place is given separately, the boat populations are not so specified.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205183,
        "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": 139,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "OLD BRITISH KOWLOON\n\n133\n\nNOTES\n\nThe place names are all in Cantonese and can be found in the Hong Kong Government's publication The Place Names of Hong Kong and the New Territories (1960). Where not otherwise stated my authority for information given in the paper comes from the old people mentioned in note 16. The aim of this article is to recover as much of the pre-1899 past of the Hong Kong region as possible, with special reference to the nineteenth century.\n\n1. E. J. Eitel, Europe in China, London: Luzac & Co., 1895, p. 360.\n\n2. The Convention of Peking, 9 June 1898. The text can be found on pp. 198-199 of the Hong Kong Government's Sessional Papers, i.e., papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, 1899.\n\n3. Report on the Sanitary Condition of Hong Kong and Kowloon for 1864... presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty in 1865 to be found in Parliamentary Papers, China, 1861-66, p. 16.\n\n4. C.O.129/85 in the Public Record Office, London.\n\n5. The Commissioners sent an abstract of these documents to London. These were as follows:\n\n\"No. 1 | List of Red Deeds Owners not belonging to the Teng Family—contains 91 Deeds, comprising an area of 176 acres value computed at $25,865.32\n\nNo. 2 List of Deeds belonging to the Two Branches of the Teng Family contains 78 Deeds comprising an area of 276 acres value computed at $40,561.52\n\nNo. 3 List of squatters showing the number to be 222—spread over 90 acres value computed at $13,226.16*\n\nThe \"Teng\" family mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 above is the Tang (*) family of Kam Tin, who are Cantonese and are the oldest, richest and best-known of the New Territories landed families. See SUNG Hok-Pang. \"Legends and Stories of the New Territories\" Parts III-IV, Kam Tin, in The Hong Kong Naturalist, Vols. VI and VII.\n\n6. Hong Kong Government Gazette, Government Notification 41 of 1860, dated 24 March 1860. The population at this time contained a preponderance of men; 3356 to 971 women and 778 children (Hong Kong Government Gazette, 22 February 1862).\n\n7. For instance, the genealogies (##) of the Ng (吳) clan of Nga Tsin Wai and Sha Po and the Lam (林) clan of Chuk Yuen and Po Kong show that their settlement dates back to this period.\n\n8. I base this statement on personal knowledge of the fifty or more Hakka villages in the Sai Kung district of the New Territories.\n\n9. Hong Kong Government Blue Book for 1871 p. 148.\n\n10. See G. N. Orme's \"Report on the New Territories 1899-1912\" in Sessional Papers 1912 p. 55 and J. H. Stewart Lockhart in Sessional Papers 1899, p. 189. My second statement is based on conversations with families of Hakka stonecutters at Ngau Tau Kok Village, Kowloon.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205346,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 108,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "LAND AND LEADERSHIP IN THE H.K. REGION OF KWANGTUNG 101\n\nLockhart calls them in his 1898 report on the New Territories.18 He states that the council for the Eastern Tung embraced most of the leased territory and sat in the market town of Sham Chun just north of the 1898 boundary. One imagines that men such as the three who form the subject of this paper might have been members. Here I have had the benefit of conversations with a former mandarin, now deceased, who served as a Chou and then as a Fu magistrate in Hupeh for some years before the Revolution of 1911. He told me that the councils of the poorer districts were augmented by prominent non-literati of the type to be found on Lantau, the normal restrictions on scholar membership being waived in order to secure the presence of persons who carried weight in their localities. If practised in San On this realistic approach, in part occasioned by the need to obtain their help in chasing in and securing the payment of the land tax, would probably have brought in local leaders like Chan, Cheung and Kung.\n\nI must record that this is conjecture since no information on their participation in the council, their work there, and their relations with the district magistrate and the true gentry of the District has yet turned up though I am by no means sure, given local conditions, that it ever will. However an account of these men would be lacking unless one hinted at the possibility of their participation in local councils, especially as it is probable that the rural gentry of Lantau and similar fringe areas in South China and elsewhere in the Ching period were similar in origins to these three men.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 The New Territories were ceded by the Convention of Peking signed on 9th June 1898; for the text see The Hong Kong Government Gazette for 8 April 1899, pp. 552-553—but were not occupied until the following year. The boundaries were not discussed until March 1899, and some hostilities took place in March and April of that year when the Hong Kong Government took possession of the New Territory. See Sessional Papers 1899, No. 32 \"Dispatches and Other Papers Relating to the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong\" and No. 35 \"Further Papers relating to Military Operations in Connection with the Disturbances On The Taking Over of the New Territory\".\n\nThe Romanisation used in this article is in the Cantonese form. For place names see A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. (Hong Kong Government Printer, 1960).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205415,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 177,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "170\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\n16 This bell is dated in the autumn of Chien Lung year (1773).\n\n17 Summary of Report of the Squatters Commission, p. 115. The same man said (p. 122) that Ap Lei Chau 'was built about 1850'.\n\n18 Hong Kong Government Gazette for 28 March 1857 p. 4, Table No. 3.\n\n19 Hong Kong Government Gazette for 1867 p. 92, Table No. 7.\n\n20 Mayers, Dennys and King. The Treaty Ports of China and Japan (London, Trubner and Co., 1867) p. 49.\n\n21 Hong Kong Sessional Papers, i.e. Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, for 1897 and 1911, pp. 484 and 103(23) respectively.\n\n22 Mayers, Dennys and King, p. 49 mention 'boat-building and general trade'. See also information given in the printed proceedings of a court case over ownership of land on Ap Lei Chau given in Sessional Papers August 1886 - September 1887 (Appendix to Report from the Land Court of 1886-87), pp. 33-35.\n\n23 For another example see my article on Cheung Chau (an island near Hong Kong that together with the rest of the New Territories was leased to Great Britain by the Convention of Peking, 1898) in Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 3 (1963), especially pp. 95-98.\n\n24 Sessional Papers 1911 and 1897 at the pp. quoted at note 21 above.\n\n25 See also the article referred to at note 23 above.\n\n26 This and the previous paragraph are based on the oral statements of three Ap Lei Chau elders born 1887, 1891 and 1897 who had belonged to the three Fongs. Their evidence helps to interpret and confirm the evidence given before the Squatter Board during a hearing to determine ownership of the Hung Shing temple in 1893. See Summary of Report of the Squatters Commission, pp. 120-141.\n\nFootnote:\n\nIt is clear from re-reading Sayer, pp. 22-23, that the Hung Shing temple was originally on a small island that was later, and before Sayer wrote in 1937, joined by reclamation to its larger neighbour Ap Lei Chau.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205425,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 187,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "180\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nChildren's toys and games are not overlooked, and are detailed in the chapter on the Tenth Moon. This was the season for kite flying, often with aeolian harps attached. The forms mentioned include the flamingo, wild goose, and flying tiger, all painted with extreme care. Tun is fond of seeking motives for children's amusements and considers the kites beneficial in making the eyes clearer as they are strained to look after the mounting objects. He finds a similar value in shuttlecocks. These were made of a skin covering sewn over a copper coin, with a bunch of feathers attached to the top with a cord. When children kick them about it promotes the circulation of the blood, and keeps them warm. As a side-line the glass factories produced two forms of trumpet, one gourd-shaped, and the other of conventional type. By blowing these the young people were obliged to take deep breaths and filled their lungs with fresh air. Boys of the poorer class ground stones into small marble-like balls which they kicked about as footballs, so keeping the blood circulating in their extremities.\n\n\"Peace Drums\" sound like very modern propaganda. They consisted of an iron circlet over which a donkey skin was stretched. They were furnished with a handle like a fan, at the lower end of which was a loop with a number of iron rings. The drum was beaten with a rattan cane making a booming noise that contrasted with the jangling of the rings. Diabolo was a favourite toy, and the flanges were provided with a rectangular opening to produce a humming sound when sufficient speed was acquired. The cotton string which operated the reel was always given a twist, and some children were very skilful at operating a diabolo with only one flange balanced by a ball-shaped piece of wood.\n\nNothing in the local scene escapes the observant author, who describes fighting crickets and the seasonal birds, with notes on their training. He describes one autumn fruit, Tou Ku-niang as being “shaped like a small egg plant, red as coral, round, glassy and slippery.\" It was, he says, a great favourite with the young, and owes its name \"Fighting girls\" from the contention it arouses for its possession.\n\nThe book is lavishly illustrated with Chinese line drawings and several coloured plates, whilst inside the covers are skeleton maps of Peking, with conventional signs for places of interest referred to in the text. In addition, there are six most useful",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205738,
        "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-1969",
        "page_number": 44,
        "title": "RAS-1969",
        "content_text": "38\n\nR. G. GROVES\n\nMany of the points mentioned above can be further developed. What interaction was there between gentry leadership, she-hsüeh, and kinship? How were the 'catchment areas' of she-hsüeh established? Is there a relationship between these elements and marketing communities? What was the pattern of consultation which preceded the mobilization of militia? What sorts of relationships were invoked and in what order? How effective were militia as fighting units? How was logistic support provided? Such questions are relevant, not only to moments of opposition to the British, but also to a more complete understanding of social structure and organization in rural Kwangtung at this time. The resistance to the occupation of the New Territories constitutes a 'case-study' which, in conjunction with Wakeman's analysis, provides a further opportunity to attempt at least partial answers to these questions.\n\nDescription of the New Territory.\n\nThe New Territory, it was originally styled in the singular, though currently used in the plural, is an irregularly shaped peninsula jutting down from the coast of Kwangtung toward Hong Kong Island.37 The extremity of the peninsula had been ceded to Britain by the Convention of Peking, 1860. In 1898 an additional 356 square miles were added to the Colony's land (see map at rear of volume).* The territory is surrounded by water on all but its northern boundary and 33 islands account for about one-quarter of its area. Rugged hills and mountains range across the peninsula from northeast to southwest. The eastern section is, therefore, an area of hills and small valleys, while the western and northern sections comprise a large and fertile plain which extends across the Sham Chun river to the mountains in the north of the district.38\n\nJ. H. Stewart Lockhart, Colonial Secretary of Hong Kong at the time of the lease, estimated the population of the territory to be 100,000, living in 423 villages.39 This population was not evenly distributed. For instance, the western plain supported 23,020 people, living in 59 villages. The much larger eastern section of the territory is said to have had a population of only 20,870 living in 182 villages.40\n\n* Plate 21.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205742,
        "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-1969",
        "page_number": 48,
        "title": "RAS-1969",
        "content_text": "42\n\nR. G. GROVES\n\ncoterminous with the standard marketing areas mentioned above, each taking its name from the appropriate market town. The fourth tung, Sheung U, was larger. It included much of the eastern section of the territory, from San Tin and Sheung Shui in the north to Sai Kung in the southeast. Within it were the markets of Shek Wu Hui, Tai Po, and Sai Kung. The extent to which these divisions were the units of organization for the resistance movement will be discussed in the conclusion.\n\nThe Occupation of the New Territory in 1899.\n\nThe resistance to the occupation of the New Territory is one of the forgotten episodes in the Colony's history. Present-day government publications dismiss it with a line: \"the British take-over in April 1899 met with some initial ill-organized armed opposition...\"5 Major-General W. J. Gascoigne, who commanded the British forces in Hong Kong at the time, took a different view: \"I am confident that if this rising had not been so promptly met from all sides as it was, it would have assumed very formidable proportions, as it is now discovered that it had been most carefully planned beforehand.\"52 In the paragraphs below an attempt is made to reconstruct the development of the resistance movement, the sequences of events being divided, for purposes of exposition, into three phases: Prelude to Resistance; the Resistance Movement; and the Occupation of Sham Chun and its Aftermath.\n\nPrelude to Resistance — August 1898 to 27th March, 1899,53\n\nAlthough the Convention of Peking was concluded in June 1898, the take-over of the New Territory did not occur until April of the following year. In the interval there were various portents of impending British rule which can have done little to reassure the inhabitants of the territory. In August of 1898 Stewart Lockhart toured the territory and made enquiries about many aspects of social life. At about the same time agents of a Hong Kong land syndicate began to operate in the area. Their object was to acquire land which might appreciate in value as a result of either government purchase, or, the expansion of commercial activities. Unscrupulous methods were used to persuade reluctant owners to sell their land. For example, the syndicate's agents were the authors of a rumour that the Hong Kong government intended to expropriate all privately owned land. It was believed that the syndicate",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205760,
        "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-1969",
        "page_number": 66,
        "title": "RAS-1969",
        "content_text": "60\n\nR. G. GROVES\n\n* Skinner, G. W. \"Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China Part I: The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. XXIV, no. 1, November 1964, p. 32.\n\n9 Ibid., p. 5ff.\n\n10 Ibid., p. 32.\n\n11 Ibid., pp. 32ff, C. K. Yang brings out clearly the significance of the market town as the centre of a system of communication. “In times of peace and tranquility, the subjects for chatting range from the births and deaths, weddings and quarrels, conditions of crops, some strange signs in the stars, some mishaps in certain villages, to all the big things and little things that make up the interest and chores in the daily life of the village peasants. But in time of war and political upheavals, in periods when banditry runs rampant or natural calamities plague upon the countryside, from the markets wild rumours fly; seeds of fear and suspicion are sown; signs of omens are interpreted and widely scattered.\" Yang, C. K., A North China Local Market Economy. Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, 1944, p. 13.\n\n12 See, for example, Freedman, op. cit., pp. 82ff., Hsiao, op. cit., p. 423.\n\n13 Skinner, op. cit., pp. 21ff.\n\n14 Skinner, op. cit., p. 27.\n\n15 Freedman, op. cit., pp. 18ff.\n\n16 Ibid., p. 20.\n\n17 Ibid., pp. 20-21.\n\n18 Amyot, J. The Chinese Community of Manila; A Study of Adaptation of Chinese Familism to the Philippines Environment, Research Series no. 2. Philippines Studies Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago (mimeo), 1960. As will become clear, Amyot's analysis is important to the arguments of both Skinner and Freedman.\n\n19 Hsiang is commonly translated as 'township', a practice followed by Amyot. Freedman points out that both 'Hsiang' and 'township' have been used as administrative terms and proposes the more neutral 'vicinage' as an alternative translation, Freedman, op. cit., p. 23.\n\n20 Amyot, op. cit., p. 40. Quoted by Freedman, op. cit., p. 22.\n\n21 Ibid., pp. 52ff. Quoted by Freedman, op. cit., p. 23.\n\n22 Freedman, op. cit., p. 23.\n\n23 Ibid., p. 25.\n\n24 Ibid. It will be argued below that, even in the case of the Hsin-an higher-order lineages, the standard marketing area was organizationally significant.\n\n25 The New Territories formerly constituted roughly three-fifths of Hsin-an county. By the Convention of Peking, 6th June 1898, they were leased to Britain for 99 years.\n\n26 Wakeman, op. cit., p. 36. The term \"local corps\" is used by Chiang Siang-tseh in his work The Nien Rebellion, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1954.\n\n27 Wakeman, op. cit., p. 38.\n\n28 Ibid., p. 39.\n\n29 Ibid., pp. 39-40.\n\n30 Ibid., p. 63.\n\n31 Ibid., pp. 64-5.\n\n32 Ibid., p. 112.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205949,
        "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-1970",
        "page_number": 29,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "LORD ELGIN AND THE TAIPINGS\n\nSTEPHEN UHALLEY, Jr.*\n\nWhen Lord Elgin, Great Britain's Plenipotentiary to China and the negotiator of the abortive Treaty of Tientsin in 1858 and of the Peking Convention in 1860, in a fit of anger and frustration at the Manchu government raised the possibility of treating with the Taiping revolutionaries instead, his colleagues quickly dissuaded him from such a drastic course. But the question, having been raised, remained to what extent was Lord Elgin's threat the revelation of an alternative policy that the British might have been considering should the recalcitrant Manchus prove in the end to be hopelessly intractable? In other words, had the British been giving secret thought to negotiating a separate or alternative treaty with the Taipings at Nanking?\n\nAside from Lord Elgin's passing remark in this regard there certainly was little in the record of relations between the British and the Taipings to suggest that any such arrangement had been given serious consideration. The early diplomatic visits to Nanking in 1853 and 1854 were never followed-up by any of the Western powers.2 Despite the features of the Taiping regime that did not set well with the foreigners it had manifested a friendly attitude toward them and did continue to exist as a de facto alternative government with which they might have dealt had they been so disposed. But they were not. Instead the powers opted to deal exclusively with the Manchus, even though this required the waging of further hostilities in order to accomplish their diplomatic objectives.\n\nStill, there does remain Lord Elgin's annoyed comment. Did it possibly signify a line of action that had been hidden? Of course, this was unlikely. Yet the best way to satisfy our curiosity on this question is to examine the record of Lord Elgin's own visit through Taiping territory. Did the Minister Plenipotentiary,\n\n*The author, a former editor of this Journal, currently Associate Professor of History at Duke University, is indebted to the Research Associates Program of the Graduate School of International Studies and the Social Science Foundation of the University of Denver for a grant which facilitated the preparation of this article. In modified form the article forms part of a chapter of the author's forthcoming book Revolutionary Taiping China and the West.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206121,
        "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-1970",
        "page_number": 201,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "194\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nThe map was clearly of potential value for any persons travelling in or having business with the District, and Colonial Office documents now in the Public Record Office, London show that it was, in fact, used by British diplomats and administrators during the important negotiations following the Convention of Peking of 6 June 1898, which leased the present New Territories to Great Britain, and before the take-over of the leased area in March-April 1899.\n\nOn 10 February 1899 the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Henry Blake, sent a telegram to Sir Claude Macdonald, the British Minister at Peking urging him to secure the important market town of Shum Chun, just north of the leased area (an afterthought on the part of local Hong Kong officials) and advising that it could be located on the Missionary map of 1866'. This is clearly a reference to Mgr. Volontieri's map, which includes the date (May 1866) in the descriptive lettering.\n\nAgain, when Governor Blake wired to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Chamberlain, on 10 March 1899 he advised, in an accompanying 'Memorandum regarding the proposed survey of the Territory in Kwang Tung Province leased by Great Britain from China' (being Enclosure 1 to telegram No. 53): 'There is available a fairly correct map of the country, on a scale of an inch to the mile, prepared by the Jesuit missionary (sic). It shows the coast line correctly; the position of all villages, streams, roads, etc., approximately'. This memorandum was drawn up by the Director of Public Works in Hong Kong with the assistance of Colonel Elsdale, R.E.\n\nThese passages make it fairly clear that Mgr. Volontieri's map-making efforts in the early 1860s were of considerable assistance to British officials nearly forty years later.\n\nThe documents quoted above are in CO129/290 in the Public Record Office, London.\n\nHong Kong, 1970.\n\nPostscript\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\nThe notice that follows came to my attention recently. It appeared in the Hongkong Government Gazette, 26th May 1866 and is an interesting and valuable addition to our knowledge of this subject, being the original announcement of the project to the Hong Kong public.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206125,
        "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-1970",
        "page_number": 205,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "198\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nknown geologist and archaeologist. A few notes and articles from his pen on Hong Kong subjects appeared in Vols. 8 and 9 (1968 and 1969) of this Journal.\n\nThese pile houses are the habitation of Tanka,(4) the boat people of South China, and Tai O has long been a considerable fishing port and market town, indeed the principal and only one of any size on Lantau Island. At the 1911 census of the Colony the land population was 2248 persons and was probably outnumbered by the floating population which stood at 5413 for the whole of Lantau. The pile huts were probably there long before the British took over the New Territories in 1899 following the Convention of Peking, 9th June, 1898. One of the early administrative reports of the District Officer, South (1911) mentions taking over responsibility from the Harbour Office for issuing licences to pile dwellers at Tai O Creek, when 221 new matshed permits were issued at $1 p.a., and in 1916 it was stated that there were still as many as 350 matsheds there.\n\nFires were always a hazard to these dwellings of wood and palm leaves. A big fire was noted in the 1916 report and it is no surprise to read in a later report of a really big one in 1926 when 300 matsheds were destroyed. Fortunately there was no loss of life, due, it was related, to it being high tide at the time of the fire.\n\nTyphoons, too, were a constant menace to these frail structures and in 1927, the year after the big fire, the District Officer notes that a typhoon caused great damage to the matsheds.\n\nThe photographs at plates 26 to 29 are by Mr. Schofield, and the plans at Figs. 1 and 2 are re-drawn from his notebook. I am greatly indebted to Mrs. Katherine M. Schofield for permission to reproduce her husband's valuable notes. The italicised sentences are my additions. The aerial view of Tai O Creek at plate 25 is by courtesy of the Hong Kong Government.\n\nMr. Schofield's Text\n\nThe accompanying plan (Fig. 1) is of a typical shed at Yee Chung (二涌) Second Creek, Tai O. It measures 9′ in width and 29′ 2′′ in depth (32′ 5′′ including the 1 metre deep veranda) and is 7′ high. It is 8′ above the waters of the creek at mid",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206392,
        "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-1971",
        "page_number": 209,
        "title": "RAS-1971",
        "content_text": "THE COLONY OF HONG KONG\n\n183\n\nthe Governor, and many members of the community, in what was long afterwards called, in commemoration of the affair, K'e-ying house. His visit, no doubt, had reference to the evacuation of Choosan by our troops, and the opening of Canton city, for at that time the Governor of Hongkong was also superintendent of trade in all China;—an unfortunate arrangement, which continued till provision was made for the residence of an ambassador in Peking by the treaty of Teen-tsin in June, 1858. The wily Manchoo was more than a match for Sir John Davis. Choosan was evacuated, but Canton was not opened. K'e-ying had promised that it should be opened on the 31st March, 1847, and that not being done, as well as to avenge other injuries, Sir John made his famous raid upon the city, and on the 5th April dictated a convention, stipulating among other things, that Canton should be opened: --not immediately, but in two years, on the 1st April, 1849. It was an unhappy concession; but Sir John Davis somehow wanted \"the stalk of carl-hemp.\" Speaking after the manner of men, the refusal to open Canton was a sufficient casus belli, and I could wish that our second war with China had been fought upon it, rather than on the affair of the lorcha Arrow, nearly ten years later. The Cantonese, from the Viceroy of the Kwang provinces downwards, were encouraged in their insolent contempt for foreigners, and various outrages were perpetrated in consequence.\n\nI may mention that in 1846 a little steamer called the Corsair began to run between Hongkong and Canton, people being doubtful whether the enterprise would pay. The foundation of the Cathedral, then a church merely, was laid in January, 1847. The old Union Church had been opened in 1845.\n\nI returned to Hongkong in the summer of 1848, and found that Sir John Davis had resigned the government of the Colony, and that his successor was Sir George Bonham, whom I had known as governor of the Straits' settlements, when I was in Malacca. I remember, as he was about to proceed in the spring of 1849 to an interview with the governor of Canton at the Bogue, asking him whether he was going to insist on the opening of the city on the 1st April. He replied, \"How can I? My instructions are to keep the peace, and by no means bring on another war with China.\" He did keep the peace,—kept it with China, and kept it among the members of the government of",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206512,
        "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": 60,
        "title": "RAS-1972",
        "content_text": "54\n\nJ. L. CRANMER-BYNG\n\nCouncillors at Jehol at this time: Mu-yin; K'uang-yüan; Tu Han; Chiao Yu-ying. Information on all these officials can be found in Hummel, Eminent Chinese, especially in the biography of Su-shun. Their power relationships are discussed in Banno, China and the West, passim, but especially 55-56. The term \"minister of the imperial presence\" (yü-ch'ien ta-ch'en) is rendered by Brunnert and Hagelstrom, Present Day Political Organization, p. 28, no. 101, as adjutant-general.\n\nII Tengchow is on the northern side of the Shantung promontory. In fact it was not opened to foreign trade which was carried on at Yen-tai near Chefoo. S. Wells Williams, The Chinese Commercial Guide, 211-212. Ch'aochow was the old name for Swatow; Ch'iungchow is in Hainan. Taiwan City and Tamsui were ports on the island of Taiwan which came under the administration of Fukien province.\n\n12 Ch'ung-hou was appointed to this post by an edict of 20 January with the designation superintendent of trade for the Three Ports, with his headquarters at Tientsin. Hsueh Huan, governor of Kiangsu and acting imperial commissioner at Shanghai, was made responsible for the newly opened ports along the Yangtze and the coast to the south of it, by the same edict. As far back as 1844 the imperial commissioner at Canton was currently designated imperial commissioner for the Five Ports. With the addition of new ports it was made a concurrent post of the governor of Kiangsu in 1861, until 1868 when it was made a concurrent post of the governor-general of Liang Kiang residing at Nanking. In 1870 the post of superintendent of trade for the Three Ports was raised to an imperial commissionership and held concurrently by the governor-general of Chihli. It is not clear when the commonly used designations for these two posts viz: superintendent of trade for the southern ports and superintendent of trade for the northern ports were first used. Meng, The Tsungli Yamen, 40-41; Banno, China and the West, 233-5.\n\n13 Article 3 of the Convention of Peking between Britain and China refers. See W. F. Mayers, Treaties Between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers, 8. The phrase to avoid complications arising is a euphemism for 'to avoid peculation'.\n\n14 Tentatively we have translated the Chinese phrase hui-tan as counter-foil. Note 19 also refers.\n\n15 The term is fuyin. See Brunnert and Hagelstrom, Present Day Political Organization of China, 793.\n\n16 See Frank H. H. King, A Research Guide to China Coast Newspapers, 1822-1911.\n\n17 Translated in collaboration with Mr. Vei-Tsen Yang. Chinese text in Ch'ow-pan wu shih-mo, Hsien-feng, 72: 2-3. A second edict was issued on the same day, and on the same subject, to the Grand Secretariat. This edict was translated by T. F. Wade along with the six-point memorandum. Note 2 above refers.\n\n18 Not to be confused with the Russian Hostel nor with the language school for the Russians in Peking, both of which were often referred to in Chinese documents as O-lo ssu-kuan, thus making confusion likely with the Russian language school referred to here. See Meng, The Tsungli Yamen, 111, note 48.\n\n19 Lit. 'draw up a joint document'. Glossed by T. F. Wade as a paper signed by both parties showing that the amount deducted is in due proportion to the collection'. Translation of Peking Gazette in F.O. 17/352 p. 42.\n\n20 Presumably referring to Robert Hart, the Inspector General of the Chinese Maritime Customs Service, and the westerners serving under him. On the general subject of foreigners taking part in the administration of China after the middle of the nineteenth century see Fairbank, The Chinese World Order, 273-5; also Fairbank \"Synarchy under the Treaties\" in Fairbank (ed.) Chinese Thought and Institutions, 204-231.\n\nPage 60\n\nPage 61",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206550,
        "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": 98,
        "title": "RAS-1972",
        "content_text": "92\n\nE. G. PRYOR\n\nwith the law particularly, also, as the government lacked sufficient staff of adequate competence.\n\nThis situation became a source of some concern to Dr. Murray, the Colonial Surgeon, who in 1859 reported that:\n\nHong Kong presents no feature either in climate or position which should make it peculiarly unhealthy. Because of its situation, its natural advantages and its weather, Hong Kong should be the best drained, the best watered, and in every way, the best regulated of towns from a sanitary point of view.... Ordinance No. 8 of 1856 makes it unlawful to construct or reconstruct a house without a sufficient water closet and ashpit to the satisfaction of the Surveyor General. Houses recently built have been allowed to be erected without the slightest regard to any one of these particulars. The fact is there is legal machinery enough to enforce any and every reasonable requirement and to ensure the sanitary condition of the Colony but there exists an unaccountable objection to putting that machinery into action.\n\nIn 1860, the Kowloon Peninsula up to Boundary Street came under British sovereignty under the Convention of Peking (Figure 1) and this provided more room for urban growth which the prospering trade of the port had stimulated. Yet more Chinese came from the Mainland to seek employment in Hong Kong and, after a few years, to return to their families. Despite the continual outflow of people, the newcomers arrived in such numbers that by 1865 the population had increased to some 125,500 persons of whom 63% were adult males, which reflected the \"frontier\" character of the Colony. Demand for accommodation became more acute and, in the continued absence of the adequate enforcement of building regulations and the general lack of satisfactory water supplies and other public utility services, the general sanitary condition of the Colony became the cause of some concern particularly to Dr. Murray who, during his term of office from 1858 to 1872, repeatedly drew attention to the exceedingly unhealthy state of Hong Kong.\n\nMcCoy took over as Colonial Surgeon in 1872 but died soon after, and his place was filled by Dr. Phineas Ayres in November 1873. Ayres was outspoken over the state of the Colony's public\n\n1 Quoted in Wellington A. R., Public Health in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1930, p. 13.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207044,
        "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-1974",
        "page_number": 115,
        "title": "RAS-1974",
        "content_text": "THE HONG KONG REGION\n\n109\n\nplexities of local settlement and the absorption of the aboriginal dwellers of the area in the past thousand years. For a general account, readers are referred to the works by Lo Hsiang-lin (1959, 1963), K.M.A. Barnett, (1957, 1967) and the earlier writings of Krone (1859), G.N. Orme (1912) and S.F. Balfour (1941) cited in the references to this article.\n\nIntroduction*\n\nFor present purposes the Hong Kong region is defined as the present British Crown Colony of Hong Kong (403.7 square miles)1 and the immediately adjoining parts of Kwangtung province with which there has been intermittent official concern following the establishment of Hong Kong 134 years ago. This takes in the districts round the market town of Sham Chun north of the present Sino-British frontier, occupied by British troops between 16th May and 13th September 18992, and the areas of Mirs and Bias Bays to the east of the Colony that were often visited by British naval forces in their suppression of piracy in local waters during much of the 19th century and well into the 20th3. (See map).\n\nAt the time the British occupied Hong Kong island in 1841, the whole of this area, less Bias Bay, formed part of the Hsin-an district of the Kuang-chou prefecture of Kwangtung province. The place names and geographical features of the region are shown in many contemporary and earlier Chinese sources, whilst the large scale European map produced in 1866 by Msgr. Volontieri, an Italian missionary of the Propaganda, provides rather more local detail4.\n\nIn time the British came to occupy a greater part of Hsin-an district. Their occupation of Hong Kong island in January 1841 was converted into possession by the Treaty of Nanking in August 1842. British territory was extended by the lease in perpetuity of Kowloon under a deed dated 20th March 1860 and the cession of the same area by article VI of the Convention of Peking 24th\n\n1 CR1971, p. 204; this figure includes recent reclamations.\n\n2 See Groves, pp. 52-55.\n\n3 For the early period see Fox and Dalrymple Hay. Two expeditions to Bias Bay in March and September 1927 were noted in AR1927, K16: and as late as 1947 piracy in Mirs Bay kept Hong Kong fishermen in port; CR1947, p. 46.\n\n4 The KTTS of 1865 provides more detailed maps of Hsin-an and its adjoining areas than are given in the district and prefectural histories (HNHC and KCFC); see the general chart at pp. 1-2 of the opening volume. For the Volontieri map, which includes Chinese characters, see Ronald C. Y. Ng (1969) pp. 141-148 and Hayes (1970) pp. 193-196.\n\n* For the place names of Hong Kong see A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, Hong Kong Government Printer, 1960: hereafter styled Gazetteer.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207046,
        "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-1974",
        "page_number": 117,
        "title": "RAS-1974",
        "content_text": "THE HONG KONG REGION\n\n111\n\nOctober 1860, and again by the lease of the New Territories by the Convention of Peking in June 18981.\n\nThe population of the region was probably around 100,000 in 1898, including boat people. These persons inhabited — in round figures — a thousand villages and a number of market centres. Seven hundred of these settlements were located within the present New Territories of Hong Kong, with many others around Sham Chun and in Hong Kong island and Kowloon. The Punti or Cantonese-speaking element accounted for rather more than half the land population, with Hakka speakers comprising most of the remainder. The boat population, mainly Tanka, lived afloat in the main.2\n\nDescriptions of the geography and climate of the present British Crown Colony are generally applicable to the Hong Kong region. They have long been given in the Hong Kong annual reports. The most recent is supplied in the opening sections of chapter 18 of the report for 1974.3\n\n1. The Hong Kong Region in the wider scene: some historical and geographical considerations\n\nIn Ch'ing times Hsin-an was one of the 14 hsien of the Kuang-chou prefecture. The designation fu or 'prefecture' was adopted only at the start of the Ming dynasty but the area of Canton and the Delta had long been administered under various designations that changed through the centuries and with dynastic change. The oldest of its hsien, Nan-hai, was established in the Sui dynasty in the year 590-591; the next, P'an-yu in 703-704 during the Tang; with the rest becoming separate districts at various times until the first year of Wan Li of the Ming (1573-1574) when, finally, Hsin-an was created from one of the former commanderies of Tung-kuan district (a hsien of 973-974) established in the 27th year of the first Ming ruler (1394-1395).\n\n1 The relevant documents are given in Alabaster, III, pp. 2-4 and 6-8. 2 See Baker 1968: 3-4. Also the Colony Census for 1911 in SP1911: 103(27-36) and (37-38), though it does not list all the villages of the Southern District of the New Territories or of New Kowloon.\n\n3 CR1974, pp. 176-178.\n\n4 See e.g. TCITC 41/1 and KCFC 6/10.\n\n5 KCFC 6/1-10 and YCKC 4/1-9.\n\n6 KTTC 2/93 and KTKKCY 1/1. The administrative areas to which the Hsin-an district belonged from the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 B.C.) onwards are shown in KCFC 6/24 and in HNHC 1/1. The date of the establishment of the commandery is given as Hung Wu 27 in HNHC 1/3, KTKKCY 1/1, TCITC 41/3 and KTTC 2/93, but as Hung Wu 14 in KCFC 6/24.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207797,
        "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-1976",
        "page_number": 185,
        "title": "RAS-1976",
        "content_text": "170 \n\nA. D. BLUE \n\ndays later rumours of an ambush by Chinese and Shan tribesmen led to Margary deciding to go in advance as scout, and he left the main party on 19th February with five Chinese companions. Three days later word came back that he had been murdered at Manwyne, with rumours that 4,000 Chinese troops were on their way to annihilate the whole expedition. Before Browne had time to recover from this blow, the camp was attacked by an advance guard of the Chinese force, but was beaten off by the Sikh and Burmese soldiers. Next day confirmation of Margary's murder came from the King of Burma's commercial agent at Bhamo, and on 20th February Browne's whole expedition retraced its steps to Mandalay and Rangoon.\n\nMargary's murder, and deteriorating relations between the British and the King of Burma, prevented further expeditions from Burma; but ironically led to further progress on the Yangtze,\n\nSir Thomas Wade, British Minister at Peking, took advantage of the Chinese government's failure to protect Margary to press for further trade relaxations, and the result was the Chefoo Convention of 1876 between Wade and Viceroy Li Hung-chang. This provided for the opening of five more ports to foreign trade, and of the 400 miles of the Middle Yangtze to foreign shipping. Among the new treaty ports was Ichang, located at the upper end of the Middle Yangtze and 400 miles below Chungking, the main port of Szechwan. When the Convention was ratified in 1885, a supplementary clause provided for Chungking to become a treaty port; but not for free navigation on the 400 miles of the Upper Yangtze between Ichang and Chungking. This was granted after the Treaty of Shimonoseki between China and Japan on the conclusion of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95.\n\nMore than ten years before this, however, the remarkable Archibald Little had appeared on the Yangtze scene. Little began his career as a tea taster in Kiukiang in 1859, but soon started up business on his own. He was attracted to the possibilities of trade in Szechwan and West China, and fascinated by the problems posed by steam navigation through the famous gorges of the Upper Yangtze. He made a trip by junk from Ichang to Chungking in 1883 to investigate trade and navigational prospects, and in 1887 attempted to run a steamer service between Ichang and Chungking, by the Kuling. This was a Clyde built stern-wheeler of 450 tons",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1976.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/hq382988q",
        "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
    },
    {
        "id": 210999,
        "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-1987",
        "page_number": 61,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "35 \n\nKong except for a short interval between 1867 and 1871, was a major attraction of Kowloon City.” Gambling houses fronting the beach offered free launch services and carried on a thriving business. This caused so much consternation in Hong Kong that, after a series of stunning embezzlement cases and a connection with the gambling \"hells” of Kowloon had been established, the Hong Kong government passed an ordinance making it an offence for civil servants to visit Kowloon for the purpose of gambling. Under pressure from the Hong Kong government in the late 1890s, Chinese officials actually suppressed gambling. Ironically, it was under “British rule” in the twentieth century that gambling was re-introduced. But it was only after the Second World War, when Hong Kong prohibited brothels and opium that the Walled City was transformed into the squalid enclave of vice for which it later became notorious.\n\n36 \n\nThe City had other attractions. Both the Walled City and the fort had been frequently visited by foreigners since the 1850s. It was the terminal point of several interesting walks on the mainland popular with European residents. They were not required to produce passes or go through other kinds of formalities normally required in a garrison town. Often at the end of an excursion, visitors took a quick walk around the wall, snapped a few pictures of \"this curious and particularly dirty town\", and left for the Island by launch from the Lung-chin jetty.\n\nThe great change came in 1899. In the previous year, the Convention of Peking had been signed between China and Britain leasing territory south of the Shumchun river to Britain. However, in face of strong Chinese insistence on retaining jurisdiction in the Kowloon Walled City, the British agreed to include a clause that \"within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials now stationed there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirement to the defence of Hong Kong.\" This reservation of Chinese jurisdiction upset many sectors of British interest, not least of all, foreign residents in Hong Kong, all seeing this Chinese enclave in the midst of a British administered territory a security risk.\n\nThe matter came to a head in 1899. The Hong Kong govern-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211000,
        "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-1987",
        "page_number": 62,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "37\n\nment, when attempting in April to occupy the New Territory (as the New Territories were then called), encountered much more ferocious resistance than anticipated. At this juncture, 600 men were sent into the Kowloon Walled City by the Governor-General of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, and the British authorities, convinced that they were there to support the resistance, demanded their withdrawal. The Colonial Office went so far as to threaten starving out the garrison at the City until troops were removed.41 The Chinese, however, claimed that the troops had been sent by special request of the Hong Kong government to preserve order, and though some of the men were withdrawn, by 4th May, 200 were still stationed in the City.42\n\nThis prompted the British to take action to attack Shumchun and Kowloon City as punishment for the Governor-General's duplicity in abetting the local resistance. On 16th May, at 3:00 p.m., a force of 300 men consisting of Royal Welsh Fusiliers and 100 Hong Kong Volunteers proceeded to Kowloon and occupied it, apparently meeting little resistance.43 All Chinese civil and military officials were ordered to depart as the British claimed that their continued presence and the retention of Kowloon Walled City in Chinese hands had proven inconsistent to British military requirement. To “legalize” the situation, an Order-in-Council was issued in December, announcing British jurisdiction over the Walled City which was to be administered in the same manner as the rest of the Colony.44 Yet this remained a unilateral revision of the Convention which the Chinese government never recognized.\n\n44\n\n45\n\n46\n\nThe Chinese naturally responded bitterly to the development. T'an Chung-lin, the Governor-General, protested vehemently to the court of the undignified manner in which the military officers and soldiers were cast out.45 At Peking, the Tsungli Yamen complained to the British Minister.46 Chinese eagerness to recover jurisdiction at Kowloon is best revealed in the letters from Lo Feng-lu****, Chinese Minister at St. James, to the Foreign Office.Yet, paradoxically, this eagerness was not accompanied by action; no attempt was made by the Chinese to reinstate an administration in the Walled City.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211007,
        "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-1987",
        "page_number": 69,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "44\n\n37 Krone, p. 132.\n\n18 Bruce Shepherd, The Hong Kong Guide (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1982; 1st published, Shanghai, 1893) pp. 117-118; R.C. Hurley, Tourists' Map of 8 Short Trips on the Mainland of China (Neighbourhood of Hong Kong) including Principal Places frequented by Sportsmen (Hong Kong: R.C. Hurley, 1896) enclosed in Blake to Chamberlain, April 28, 1899, #107: CO129/290, p. 7.\n\n39 Shepherd, p. 117.\n\n40 The Convention is appended in Wesley-Smith, Unequal Treaty, pp. 191-192. The negotiation of the Convention is dealt with in detail in the book.\n\n* Colonial Office draft telegram to Sir H.A. Blake, enclosed in Colonial Office to Foreign Office, April 27, 1899, despatch #130: CO882/5/66, p. 136.\n\n42 Blake to Chamberlain, May 4, 1899, telegram: CO882/5/66, p. 140; Consul Mansfield to Bax-Ironside, April 20, 1899, enclosed in F.O. to C.O., July 13, 1899: ibid., p. 304.\n\n43 Wesley-Smith, Unequal Treaty, p. 73.\n\n44\n\nThe Order-in-Council, dated 27th December, 1899, is appended in ibid., pp. 196-7.\n\n45\n\nT'an Wen-chin kung tsou-kao, XUSA (Memorials of Tan Chung-lin) 2 volumes, (Taipei: Ch'eng-wen Co., based on 1911 edition) vol. 2, 248-26a.\n\n46\n\nTranslation of a telegram from the Tsungli Yamen, dated Peking May 20, 1899, enclosed in F.O. to C.O., May 22, 1899: CO882/5/66, p. 160.\n\n47 Lo Feng-luh [sic] to the Marquess of Salisbury, October 17, 1899, enclosed in F.O. to C.O., October 28, 1899: CO882/5/66, p. 364; Lo Feng-luh to the Marquess of Salisbury, November 14, 1899, enclosed in F.O. to C.O., November 25, 1899: ibid., p. 369.\n\nPeel to Cunliffe-Lister, January 9, 1934, confidential: CO129/546.\n\n49 Stubbs to Amery, June 26, 1925, despatch #275: CO129/488.\n\n50\n\nSheng San-i l'ang tsuan-hsi t’e-k'an 1890-1965 ——A (Special bulletin to commemorate the diamond jubilee of the Holy Trinity Church, 1890-1965) (Hong Kong: the Church [1965]) p. 34.\n\n51 Ibid., p. 33.\n\n52 Ibid., p. 34.\n\n$3\n\n$4\n\nHong Kong Government Gazette, 1901, p. 1401,\n\nPeel to Cunliffe-Lister, January 9, 1934, confidential; Chiang-shan ku-jen, \"feng-t'u\", parts 106-107.\n\n55 Stubbs to Amery, June 26, 1925, despatch #275; Chiang-shan ku-jen, “Pen-ti feng-kuang\" (Local sights) part 163. These are articles appearing in the Hua-ch'iao jih-pao in 1931 and an album of them is in the University of Hong Kong Library, Jarrett, vol. 3, p. 609.\n\n56 Stubbs to Amery, June 26, 1925, despatch #275.\n\n57\n\nPeel to Cunliffe-Lister, January 9, 1934, confidential: C. Van Leo, “A Little bit of China in the Heart of Hong Kong\", Hong Kong Telegraph, January 18, 1937. R.C. Hurley, Handbook to the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong and Depen-\n\n58\n\n¦",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211117,
        "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-1987",
        "page_number": 178,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "153\n\nclaimed: “We believe that such a creation of an imperium in imperio would produce alarm and dissatisfaction among the Chinese residents here; and by unnecessarily pressing on the Chinese the adoption of such a measure, Her Majesty's Government would be taking the surest course to develop, during times of peace, the worst vices of Chinese rule in a population under British protection; and, on the other hand, in the event of approaching disturbances, or the cessation of friendly relations with Peking, we would be creating in our midst a dangerous centre of rebellion, plots and hostile actions.”\n\nThe basic insecurity of a small group of colonials dwelling in the midst of a large population, whose customs and language were unfamiliar and strange, welled up at the prospect of the approval by Britain for a Chinese consul to assume duties in Hongkong.\n\nPressure from Hongkong and from merchants in Britain interested in the China trade caused the matter to be dropped.\n\nIt was revived in 1875 and again in 1891. It was in the latter year that Ho A-mei spoke out on the matter.\n\nCONSUL NEEDED ‘FOR FAIR TREATMENT\n\nThe suggestion that a Chinese consul be appointed for Hongkong reappeared periodically. The idea was first advanced in 1868.\n\nAt that time the Governor, Sir Richard MacDonnell, sent a strong protest to England.\n\nTwo years later the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce expressed its views on the subject.\n\nThe Treaty of Tientsin between Britain and China was signed in 1858. It contained a provision that it should be reviewed after 10 years. These revisions were embodied in the Chefoo Convention.\n\nThe Foreign Office asked the various Chambers of Commerce",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211631,
        "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": 46,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "21\n\nto be regarded as such by mankind and to be revered only as the representation of that power. However, over the centuries, he has developed into a god in his own right, depicted as a gilded image of an emperor sitting on a throne, and is accepted by the masses as the ruler of the Heavenly bureaucracy.\n\nIn T'aishan in Shantung province it was claimed that the Jade Emperor in mortal life had been merely a learned doctor of medicine who had lived during the 12th century AD at the Sung court in Kaifeng. He attended the emperor Hui Tsung during a serious illness and saved his life with a miraculous cure. He was known as Chang Yu-huang, but, on his death, he, like many a hermit, was deified by imperial decree.\n\nBritish representatives met the imperial representative, Li Hung-chang in 1876 in the temple (Yuh Huang T'ing) dedicated to the Jade Emperor to the west of Yent'ai (Cheefoo) in Shantung province to arrange the Chefoo Convention. Another incident involving the British in North China and connected with the Jade Emperor concerned Sir Meyrick Hewlett of the China Consular Service at the turn of the century during the clearing up after the siege of the British Embassy during the Boxer Rebellion. He found in the house of Sir Ernest Satow, HM Ambassador in Peking, a tablet with a background of sky-blue, framed in rich gold and inscribed with the four characters in gold — 'Huang T'ien Shang Ti'. Prince Ch'ing identified it as an item from the Temple of Heaven which had been missing for more than a year. When Sir Ernest asked how to restore it to its rightful place, the Prince begged the Ambassador not to send it round to his palace as should it be placed in the entrance he could neither leave nor enter his home without kowtowing twenty-seven times before it. Another more enlightened official helped out by bearing it off at dead of night in a Peking cart to the vaults of a European bank where it awaited a favourable day for restoring it to the Temple of Heaven. Some thirty-five years later, Sir Meyrick, paying his farewell visit to Peking, visited the Temple of Heaven and asked the attendants whether he could see the tablet, kept with the other tablets sacred to the emperors of the Ch'ing dynasty in a small temple opposite the Altar of Heaven. They replied that this was quite impossible, since even in post-imperial Kuomintang days no-one was allowed to see it. Sir Meyrick related the story of its recovery, upon which the attendants agreed to show him the tablet together with the tablets to the 28 Major Constellations, to Thunder and Lightning, and to the other forces of nature, but said that the tablets to the emperors were all lost after their",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 213261,
        "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-1994",
        "page_number": 83,
        "title": "RAS-1994",
        "content_text": "63\n\nIn another case a post-graduate Chinese student told the author:\n\n'Before, I thought it was all superstition. But now I realise it makes sense to proceed in harmony with nature. In life, one of the most important things is to maintain harmony. Although Mother is a Catholic she also believes in fung sha.\n\nThe author, years ago, personally knew young Hong Kong Chinese teenagers who did not believe in, or were not convinced about the efficaciousness of fung shui. But now, after becoming middle-aged or elderly, they have become firm followers. 'A woman who did not believe nearly died,' the author was informed. 'After recovering, she became convinced.'\n\nAs Hong Kong has become more developed and affluent, people have had more money to spend on 'luxuries', such as fung shui. Certainly, modern education alone seems not to deal the final blow (Freedman, 1976:235). Yet it is more likely that a New Territories' villager, who lives close to nature and is a member of a tightly knit group, is more likely to believe in fung shui than his urban cousin. Urban society is divorced from close, everyday contact with mother earth and her cycles. For the urban dweller the modes of thought which underly the practise of fung shui have to be consciously cultivated in order to comprehend them. There are, of course, some New Territories' villagers who do not believe in fung shui in spite of the close web of relationships in rural life.\n\nEugene Ho (who one assumes is Chinese although he could be Eurasian) wrote in the South China Morning Post letters to the editor columns, on 25 May 1987- 'I find the whole theory of fung shui wholly devoid of cognitive content.' He went on to say that many of the casual 'laws' of fung shui, (if they are really \"laws\" at all) are no more than half a probability.\n\nNonetheless, when the British took over the New Territories on a 99-year lease in 1898, they promised to respect the then existing (Qing Dynasty) religious rites, ceremonies and social customs. The Hong Kong Government Gazette of October 7, 1899, published (one year after the New Territories were taken over) as a supplement to the Convention of Peking, said that graves in the leased Territory were never to be removed. Some law lecturers at Hong Kong University feel, however, that, because",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 213468,
        "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-1995",
        "page_number": 64,
        "title": "RAS-1995",
        "content_text": "31\n\n* These powers of the Land Officer sprang from the New Territories (Land) Ordinance, 1905 (No. 36 of 1905).\n\n1 Such powers were originally conferred on District Officers by the New Territories Small Debts Court Ordinance, 1908 (now repealed). By agreement of the parties, District Officers, by virtue of the proviso to that section, could determine suits with subject matter up to $5,000 in value ($1,000 HK is the approximate equivalent of £62-1st in 1962 - Editor).\n\nBy the Convention of Peking, 9th June 1898 vide Laws of Hong Kong, Allibone's Edition 1913, Vol. III, pp. 6-7.\n\nibid, pp. 8-9.\n\n* § 7, Supreme Court Ordinance 1873 (now s. 5 of Cap. 4).\n\nExtracts from a Memorandum on some Legal Aspects of the Hong Kong Extension, by W. Meigh Goodman, Attorney General of Hong Kong, dated December 1898, in Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1899, p. 209 at p. 210.\n\n19 Mr. Chamberlain (then Sir Joseph) to Sir Henry A. Blake, Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1899, p. 177 at p. 178, para 5.\n\nTranslation of the Chinese Proclamation dated 9th April 1899, being Appendix IX to Sir Henry A. Blake's Report to Mr. Chamberlain dated 19th February 1900, in Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1900, p. 280.\n\nvide my article \"The Choice of Chinese Customary Law in Hong Kong\" (1962) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 231 at pp. 232-233.\n\n\"Chinese Law and Custom in Hong Kong\" Hong Kong 1953, (hereinafter cited as Committee Report 1953) Appendix 1A at p. 122.\n\n1bid, Chap. II, para. 13 at p. 8.\n\n15 Memorandum of the District Commissioner, New Territories, to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, dated 20th March 1958. It would appear that the 17th April 1899 was the date intended (vide the Governor's Proclamation of 8th April 1899 which appeared as Appendix XX to the Governor's Report in Hong Kong Sessional Papers 1900 at pp. 291-292) to bring the Colony's laws into force in the New Territories with effect from 17th April 1899.\n\n18 (1962) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 231.\n\n17 loc cit para. 6.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214052,
        "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-1997",
        "page_number": 120,
        "title": "RAS-1997",
        "content_text": "87\n\nof the Island This was completed in 1904, partly with filling material obtained from Chinese territory. The limits in Victoria of these two earlier major reclamations are marked by Des Voeux Road and Connaught Road respectively. During the next 30 years reclamation continued on the Island, the largest schemes being those at Tai Koo for the dockyard (21ha which included 13ha of land site formation, completed 1908), Wan Chai (36ha, completed 1929) and around North Point (nearly complete before the Pacific war), together with a smaller reclamation at Shau Kei Wan.\n\nSoon after the cession of Kowloon under the Convention of Peking in 1860 there was some reclamation adjoining deep water in Tsim Sha Tsui, primarily for wharfs, and at Hung Hom for the dockyard, to be followed by extensive reclamation in Tai Kok Tsui and Yau Ma Tei and, to a lesser extent, at To Kwa Wan, Sham Shui Po and Lai Chi Kok, the latter two both lying just to the north of Boundary Street. Subsequently an important reclamation was formed by the Kowloon-Canton Railway in Tsim Sha Tsui and Hung Hom bays (16ha, completed 1910) primarily for its own use which included three deep sea berths on the extreme south-east tip of the Kowloon peninsula. In the period after 1922 there was considerable reclamation in and near Kowloon just as there was in Wan Chai on the Island. Large areas were reclaimed at Sham Shui Po (26ha, completed 1928), Kai Tak (83ha, completed 1931) and Lai Chi Kok (c35ha), all these areas lying in the New Territories close to the old Kowloon/China boundary with much of the filling being obtained from Kowloon Tong, then being developed as a garden city. Just before the Pacific war, reclamations were also started in three other areas of Kowloon Bay, at Ma Tau Kok, Ngau Tau Kok and Kwun Tong.\n\nRoadworks\n\nConstruction of Queen's Road in Victoria was started in May 1841, only four months after the British landed on the Island, by the Royal Engineers following the alignment of a narrow bridle/tow path high above the beach which extended some 7 kilometres from the water's edge at Kennedy Town on the west to within a short distance of Happy Valley on the east. Another road, from Wong Nei Chong to Shau Kei Wan was built at the same time, a causeway with two bridges being constructed to carry it across what is now known as Causeway Bay.\n\nPage 120\n\nPage 121",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1997.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/wp98g7579",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214326,
        "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-1998",
        "page_number": 184,
        "title": "RAS-1998",
        "content_text": "148\n\nMore than a year later, on 25 July 1860, French and British forces combined prior to proceeding to Peking to enforce the treaty of Tientsin. On 18 September, a small group of diplomats, civilians and soldiers, led by Mr (later Sir) Harry Parkes, of the British Consular Service in China, left the main body of troops to make certain arrangements with the Chinese Commissioners. They were taken captive on their way back to rejoin the troops. Given the nature of their mission at the time of their capture, great indignation was felt.\n\nMr Harry Parkes was held for ransom. Other prisoners were treated with great cruelty. This again caused great indignation.\n\nBy way of reprisal and on Lord Elgin's deliberated orders, the Imperial summer palace at Peking was razed to the ground. On 24 October 1860, the Treaty of Tientsin was finally ratified and the Convention of Peking was annexed to it as a make-weight.\n\n6\n\nThe arrival of full news on these and related events gave rise in Britain to several months of heavy press coverage on China and the Chinese in early 1861. The London Illustrated News, with its combination of illustrations and narrative, is a useful case study to illustrate both the extent and the variety of this coverage.\n\nThe Illustrated London News\n\n8\n\nOn 5 January 1861, The Illustrated London News was full of news from China. It carried three illustrations \"by our special artist\": two double-spread half-page illustrations of \"Street Scene in Pekin: A Crowd of Celestials Contemplating the Barbarians\" and \"An-tin Mun, the Gate of Pekin in Our Possession\"; and one full-page double-spread illustration, showing \"The Earl of Elgin's Entrance into Pekin on the 24th of October Last to sign the Treaty of Peace Between Great Britain and China\". The Illustrated London News also gave the text of the Convention and a description of the ceremony of the signing of the Convention.\n\n11\n\nThe same issue also contained part of Mr Harry Parkes's detailed and circumstantial narrative of his own imprisonment, and an account by the Daily News correspondent of the fate of the whole number...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214330,
        "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-1998",
        "page_number": 188,
        "title": "RAS-1998",
        "content_text": "152\n\nIn the next issue, there is again coverage of Chinese events and background. On 19 January 1861, two half-page illustrations show, \"The Peace with China - Reading the Treaty at Pekin\"27 and \"Close of the War with China: Graves of Lieut. Anderson, Private Phipps, and Messrs. De Norman and Bowlby, in the Russian Cemetery, Pekin.\"2\n\nA brief account of a lunch meeting between Lord Elgin and Prince Kung (the two signatories of the Convention of Peking) highlights what British readers would have perceived as the need for the geography lessons which Frederick Stewart was to introduce into the Hong Kong Government Central School by 1870,29 and which - by 1889 - his successor reported as increasingly being adopted into the Hong Kong Village Schools.30 (Prior to this, according to Stewart, there was no geography taught in Hong Kong's traditional Chinese schools.)31 Apparently, Prince Kung commented that until very recently he had not known, \"that India was merely a province of the British empire; they formerly believed Great Britain to be a very small island, the population of which was so large that more than half were obliged to live in ships.\"32 Even as late as 1902, some students in Hong Kong's \"Vernacular Schools\", influenced by a different set of political circumstances, were reported as being, “at the last examination ignorant that Hong Kong was a British Colony: a number hazarded the opinion that it belonged to Russia.”33\n\nIt seems that the withholding of geographical teaching and its content when given were both decisions coloured by politics, whether on the Chinese or the British side.\n\nIn spite of Prince Kung's tenuous respect for the British land mass, the Editor of The Illustrated London News, as published on 19 January 1861, felt that there was sufficient reason for the expression of cautious optimism for the solidity of the peace that had been won: \"There seems to be good grounds for believing that we have at length fairly impressed the Chinese Government with the necessity of good faith in their dealings with us, and a reasonable hope that the treaty will be rigorously observed, leading to an interesting feeling of good will and confidence between our people and the Chinese.\"\n\n34\n\nOn 26 January 1861, the view that the Chinese were now respecting their promises was supported by a full double page spread showing \"The Chinese Bringing to the British Headquarters the 300,000 Taels [approximately one hundred thousand pounds sterling]35 as Compen-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 216437,
        "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-2003",
        "page_number": 196,
        "title": "RAS-2003",
        "content_text": "146\n\nA contemporary comment in a western journal explained that ‘the Concert of Powers, that powerful instrument which Lord Salisbury compared to a steamroller, gravely assented to the theory of China's neutrality in principle, and did nothing else in practice. Japan's reply to the Russian charges was to cite a number of flagrant breaches of neutrality which the Russians themselves had committed. Japan, too, gravely warned China, and entered various solemn protests. These were not without effect, for by this stage of the war the Chinese were beginning, perhaps more alertly than most western nations, to be awake to the fact that the Japanese were the coming race.\"\n\nOne of Japan's protests to China was that ammunition for the Russian Army at Mukden was being transported there by way of Tientsin (Tianjin), and in one instance as many as three and a half million rounds were seized by Tientsin Customs while awaiting shipment. Peking took the only course open to it in telegraphing to local Chinese authorities that they must end these practices.\n\nA Russian breach of neutrality\n\nOn 4th October 1904 a body of Russian infantry of the 3rd Regiment of Sharpshooters, all wearing Chinese uniforms, attacked the Japanese on the road to Mukden. 'There had been a number of reports of Russian soldiers dressed in Chinese uniforms having approached Japanese troops and even attempted surprise attacks. It was also reported that the Russian Army was continuing to purchase an enormous number of Chinese uniforms. This was not only contrary to the rules of war but exposed innocent Chinese to danger owing to the impossibility of distinguishing at a distance between Russian soldiers and the real Chinese. As the Hague Convention stipulated that unlawful use of uniforms of the enemy, and the Chinese were not the enemy, the Russians deemed it a legal stratagem xüli\n\nAnother major breach of China's neutrality occurred in early January 1905 when Russian General Mistchenko determined to violate Chinese neutrality to get his army to Newchwang without danger to himself. A British correspondent’s description reads:\n\nThe Russians had no intention of playing the game fairly; the rules had been made for the Japanese and not for their own observance.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2003.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2v242g390",
        "rank": 0
    }
]