[ { "id": 204288, "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-1961", "page_number": 56, "title": "RAS-1961", "content_text": "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch\n\nRASHKB and author\n\n52\n\nVol. 1 (1961)\n\nISSN 1991-7295\n\nLibrary, sanctioned by the Trustees, shall be published, with a Catalogue of the Books, and a copy of the same be placed in the hands of all those who are admitted to the privileges of the Society and the Library.'\n\n\"The Regulations of the Library\" were published in the Anglo-Chinese Kalendar for ... 1839 and include a provision that \"Any person, who is not a member of the Society, may be admitted to the privileges of the Library, by the payment of $10 per annum, or of $5 for six months or any shorter period, (* A single contribution of not less than $25, or an annual contribution of $10 constitutes membership.)\"\n\nThe \"Second Annual Report of the Morrison Education Society\" of 3rd October, 1838, says: --\n\nThe Library, as was contemplated, has been opened in a convenient apartment in Canton, and is now of easy access to all those who desire to enjoy its benefits. The trustees recommend the early adoption of measures for its enlargement. As a public library, it ought, in the course of a few years, to rise from its present limited number of two thousand volumes to a hundred times that number, and thence to increase until it shall equal some of the best collections of books in the world.\n\nThe Society moved to Macao in 1841 and the Library containing between two and three thousand volumes was again open to those who desired to borrow books from it at the Society's house, near St. Paul's, under the care of Mr. Brown. \"The Third Annual Report\" of the Society was not published until this year, the gap since 1838 being caused by the disturbed conditions prevailing in the intervening years. By 1842 the Society had already established itself in the newly ceded island of Hong Kong.\n\nAt the fourth annual General Meeting of the Society on 28 September, 1842, it was reported that, as the result of correspondence with Sir Henry Pottinger, (the Superintendent of Trade and Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China) a site had been granted to them for a permanent headquarters on Morrison Hill, a hill which at the time of writing is quickly nearing complete demolition just over one hundred years later. One of the larger rooms of the building to be put up was designed for the Library which now contained nearly 3500 volumes. The usual vicissitudes occurred which seem to beset so many libraries run on a voluntary or partly voluntary basis. An 1843 report says:\n\nThe Society's Library requires some attention in order to preserve it, and render it of greater public utility. I believe there are not far from 3500 volumes in it; but of these, a large number, perhaps one third are so injured as to make them unfit for circulation. Some sets have been broken by", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1961.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/vd6724704", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204594, "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": 75, "title": "RAS-1963", "content_text": "64 \n\nJ. L. CRANMER-BYNG \n\nuninhabitable according to our notions, and we therefore tell the Chinese that the Minister is obliged to postpone taking up his residence until the residence is fit to receive him. Mr. Adkins is therefore charged with the task of repairs, and in March of next year or possibly earlier Mr. Bruce expects to take up his quarters there. His arrival at Peking before we quitted it was a happy hit. Formal interviews took place between Lord Elgin and Prince Kung at which the former introduced his brother and abdicated in his favour; so that before we quitted Peking Mr. Bruce had commenced his business with the Chinese authorities, while that of the Special Embassy terminated.7 \n\nSo interpreter Adkins remained alone in the Palace of Duke I-liang throughout the winter of 1860-61, until in March 1861 Bruce set out from Tientsin, accompanied by Thomas Wade, his interpreter, and Dr. Rennie, physician to the new Legation. Colonel Neale, the Secretary of the Legation, with two attachés, St. Clair and Wyndham, had gone ahead with the baggage. We are fortunate to have a detailed account of the first year at the British Legation kept by Dr. Rennie. In the Preface to his book Peking and the Pekingese he explained that \"a few months after Her Majesty's Legation had been established in Peking, a feeling began to be entertained by its members, that, with a view to future publication, some record should be kept of the various incidents which were from day to day occurring, during what may be termed the inaugural period of foreign diplomatic residence at the capital—the most important event in the modern history of Anglo-Chinese intercourse.\" Since Rennie had been keeping \n\n7 Quoted in The Life of Sir Harry Parkes by Stanley Lane-Poole, 2 vols., (London, 1894), I, 404-5. \n\nParkes was born in 1828, and came out to China in 1841 to join his two sisters who were living with their cousin, the wife of the Protestant missionary, the Rev. Charles Gutzlaff. Parkes was attached to Sir Henry Pottinger's suite in the expedition up the Yangtze in 1842 and witnessed the signing of the Treaty of Nanking. He started to learn Chinese and at the age of fifteen was attached to the British Consulate at Canton. Many appointments as interpreter and consul followed until 1865 when he was appointed Minister to Japan. In 1883 he became British Minister at Peking. He died in 1885. \n\n* D. F. Rennie, Peking and the Pekingese during the First Year of the British Embassy at Peking, 2 vols. (London, 1865) vii. \n\nPage 75\n\nPage 76", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 204746, "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": 49, "title": "RAS-1964", "content_text": "38\n\n10 Linguist purser.\n\nW. C. HUNTER\n\nSee note 39, (J.L.C-B)\n\n11 Elliot's last day. On 25 March Elliot formally requested the Viceroy that passports should be issued within three days for all the English ships and people at Canton and that if passports were not issued he would consider the men and ships of his country as forcibly detained and act accordingly. Blue Book, Correspondence relating to China, 1840, p. 367. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n12 Edward Elmslie. Secretary and Treasurer to the British Superintendents of Trade, Captain Charles Elliot and the Deputy Superintendent, A. R. Johnston, (J.L.C-B.)\n\n13 Houqua. Known to Westerners at Canton as Howqua 7. His family name was Wu Ch'ung-yüeh (1810-1863). He was the fifth son of the famous Hong merchant Wu Ping-chien whom he succeeded as head of the firm in 1843. For his biography see Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, II, 867-8. (F.L.C-B.)\n\n14 Nam Hoe. Also written Nam Hoi. This means Nan Hai Hsien #i.e. the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the western part of Canton city and the District lying to the westward of the walls which included the area in which the foreign Factories lay. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n15 Kwang Hup. The author may be referring to the Kwangchou hsieh \"the Canton brigade\", and so to its commander. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n16 The Governor. The Governor of Kwangtung province at this time was I-liang (1791-1867). For his biography see Hummel, op. cit., I, 389. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n17 K'an-ch'o (J.L.C-B.)\n\n18 An-tsou (J.L.C-B)\n\n19 Columbia & John Adams. According to the Chinese Repository Vol. 8, p. 56 the Columbia was a U.S. frigate and the John Adams was classed as a sloop-of-war. The Columbia was commanded by Commodore George C. Read. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n20 Johnston, Alexander Robert Johnston, H.M. Deputy Superintendent of Trade. When the Government of Hong Kong was set up he was deputy first to Elliot and later to Sir Henry Pottinger and in this capacity he administered the Government of the Colony on various occasions from 1841 until 1843. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n21 Pwan Kei Kua. Probably the merchant whose name was also spelt by Westerners at Canton at that time Ponkhequa and Puan Khequa. This was P'an Chengwei (1791-1850). See Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, II, 605, (J.L.C-B.)\n\n22 Saoqua. His family name was Ma Tso-liang and the name of his Hong was Shun Tai Hong A. (J.L.C-B.)\n\n23 Sturgis. Russell Sturgis (1805-1887) of Boston was first named Nathaniel Russell Sturgis, Jr., but he was always known as Russell Sturgis after his name was changed by decree of the Middlesex County Court. He graduated from Harvard in 1823, married in 1828 but was widowed four months later. After an extended tour of Europe he returned to Boston and for a while practised law. He remarried and in 1833 took his family to the orient where he became a partner of Russell & Sturgis of Manila and Russell, Sturgis & Co. of Canton. Later in 1842 when the latter firm became incorporated with Russell & Co., China, he became a partner in 1842. In May 1844 he retired to Boston, his second wife having died in Manila in 1837. Being far too young to give up work altogether he decided to return to China in 1849 but while passing through London he", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205427, "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": 189, "title": "RAS-1967", "content_text": "182\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nWeddell's foray at the Bocca Tigris in 1637 until the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty of Nanking between Ch'i-ying and Pottinger on the newly ceded island of Hong Kong in June 1843. In this short book of 232 pages the author has mainly confined himself to retelling the part played by British subjects in the growth of foreign trade at Canton and the events which finally led to the cession of Hong Kong. He emphasizes the major role played by Macao in these events but without providing much information of interest not already known. Even the picturesque details of life in Macao which one might expect from Mr. Coates' known ability as a descriptive writer are few and far between.\n\nIn the main this is a simple account of how the British eventually gained Hong Kong, and in telling this story the author has traversed, in a brief space, the same ground that was covered by H. B. Morse in five volumes. The information is so compressed that one wonders whom the author had in mind when writing this book. Two hundred eventful years for which a mass of original documents in Chinese, Portuguese and English exist cannot satisfactorily be cut down to fit such a slim volume. Moreover, the author has resolutely made no concessions to scholarly readers, since the book contains almost no footnotes and no references to support the author's statements and judgments, and no details of the documentary sources from which quotations have been made.\n\nThe style of the writing may give some clue to the public for whom this book was designed; it is one of ‘imaginative reconstruction' based on the author's own sensibility rather than on thorough historical research and evidence supported by exact references. For instance, describing a Chinese official who could speak Portuguese he writes: \"No description of this one survives, yet we see him clearly. He is obviously Chinese, yet his youthful association with foreigners has changed something of his expression.... We cannot help being amused by his subtle understanding of his own people's weaknesses and shortcomings.” (p.9) This method is admirable in an historical novel but is out of place in what purports to be a factual account. At times the style tends to be rather arch, as though the author felt it necessary to sugar-coat his narrative in order to make it acceptable to the weaker students. The following examples show the kind of tricks he employs: \"But Weddell, a weather-beaten sea dog as tough as they come, was not a man to be taken in by a civil service answer\" (p.5). \"Let us", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205612, "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-1968", "page_number": 154, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\nJARDINE, MATHESON & CO.'S FIRST SITE IN\n\nHONG KONG\n\n149\n\nAlexander Matheson told the House of Commons Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China in 1847 that his firm had, without authorisation, commenced building \"to a certain extent\" before the first Land Sale held by Captain Elliott* on 14 June 1841 in Hong Kong. It is commonly assumed that the site of this building was at what later became known as East Point, in the present Causeway Bay area of Hong Kong, where the firm was to build extensive godowns and residences. One writer, for example, speculates that by the time of those first land sales, Jardine, Matheson & Co. had already selected for themselves a \"spacious area at East Point\" and intimates that it was there that they were building in June, 1841.2 However, even on the rather scanty evidence available, it seems clear that the site of this unauthorised building was not East Point but an area on the present Queen's Way, in the old Admiralty Dockyard.\n\nContemporary evidence, in any event, makes it unlikely that East Point was the site. Pottinger, the first Governor of Hong Kong,† gives us a graphic description of East Point as he saw it, possibly in August 1841 but more likely in mid-1842, when he returned from the military expedition against China. He describes its \"wild and uncouth state being one chaos of immense masses of granite and other rocks, that it was hardly accessible by person or on foot, either on the side of the water or the land, that the firm in question, by the application of science and extraordinary labour and by an expenditure of about £100,000 (sic), have not only made it available for their vast mercantile concerns, but have rendered it a credit and an ornament to the colony.\" The site sounds at that time, to put it mildly, somewhat unattractive though it did stand at the head of the Wongneichung Valley and would be well-placed to dominate any settlement there; there is evidence that the firm conceived a plan in 1842 for building a seawall and\n\n* Administrator of Hong Kong January-August 1841 as well as plenipotentiary for the current negotiations with the Chinese authorities. See p. 16 and Appendix I of G. B. Endacott's A History of Hong Kong (London, Oxford University Press, 1958).\n\n† Sir Henry Pottinger, Administrator and subsequently first Governor of Hong Kong August 1841-May 1844. Endacott op. cit. Appx, I.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205613, "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-1968", "page_number": 155, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "150 \n\nNOTES AND QUERIES \n\ncanal which would give access to warehouses and so on built in the Valley (a plan which A. T. Gordon, the Land Officer, endorsed in the 'dream' of the future City of Victoria which he communicated to Pottinger in 1843).4 But if Pottinger's description is accurate, it would have taken a good deal of imagination to see it that way. \n\nThe East Point site was purchased, at the first Land Sale on 14 June 1841, in the name of Captain William Morgan, a ship's captain who may have been Jardine's Hong Kong manager, and the actual area purchased was not specified then or when Pottinger's Second Land Committee was attempting to settle the Land Question in Hong Kong. We learn, from a later source, that it amounted to almost 170,000 square feet (about 3.4 acres). It is, however, often overlooked that the firm also purchased three other marine lots at the same sale: numbers 26, 27 and 28 and it is here that they had already commenced building by the time of the sale. This contention is upheld by a number of contemporary accounts of the sale. The Canton Register (predecessor of the Hong Kong Register) intimates that one purchaser had commenced building before the sale,6 \n\nWe are told in an unpublished history of the early years of Jardine, Matheson & Co. that in February 1841, within a month of the naval forces taking possession of the island, that they had erected a large matshed godown above the foreshore. An anonymous correspondent of the China Mail, writing 8 years after the event, but who attended the first sale in 1841, states that Matheson, in order to avoid the expenses involved in landing goods at Macao for transhipment, resolved to land a consignment of cotton at Hong Kong. To make this possible, he sent from Macao materials for the erection of a godown. This building, he avers, was four feet above the ground at the date of the sale and was sited on what later became known as the Commissariat Stores. The fact that they were building and had ground cleared, he continues, gave additional value to adjoining lots. As will be seen, Marine Lots 26, 27 and 28 were shortly to become the Commissariat stores. If further support is needed, I may quote from Tarrant's History of Hong Kong, published in 1861 or 1862: he states that \"some months before the sale......Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co, erected those godowns which now form part of the Naval Yard, near the Canton Bazaar.” \n\nI", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205614, "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-1968", "page_number": 156, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n151\n\nEnough has been said to demonstrate that East Point was not the Firm's first building site. This leads on to a further contention that it was not the original intention to site the main part of the new city of Victoria in the Happy Valley - though it is undeniable that that idea was mooted within a year or so and building did commence there after a very small number of individuals, most of them connected with Jardine, Matheson & Co., very quickly obtained grants of much of the best land in the area.\n\nHowever, one further circumstance suggests that the firm originally intended to have their Headquarters much nearer the centre of town than was later the case. Sometime in 1841, perhaps very soon after the sale of 14 June 1841, they obtained a transfer from a Captain Ramsay of what was then Town Lot 42, and there erected a large house of which the Canton Press caustically commented that \"on entering the harbour, you perceive the most commanding site, disfigured by a hybrid erection, half New South Wales and half native production, which is a foretaste of the architectural absurdities to be perpetrated on this island.\"\n\nBut Jardine, Matheson & Co. were unfortunate in their choice of this site for their headquarters on two counts. It was early decided that the hill to the west of the present Albany nullah (Garden Road) should be reserved for Government buildings only. Government correspondence was as early as November 1841 datelined ‘Government Hill’.\n\nThereby restricting the development of the town in that direction into the fairly wide and gently sloping valley behind the present Murray House. But even worse was the Military's insistence that the ridge and hillside to the east of the Albany nullah should be reserved for their use; this area covered the sites of both the firm's godowns and house. The house later became the residence of Lord Saltoun, Commander of British Forces in China during the war which ended with the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. The present Flagstaff or Headquarters House, built by 1846, now stands on this site.\"1\n\nThey were able to occupy neither building for long: early in 1842, Colonel Malcolm, Pottinger's secretary, wrote to them, extending an offer to compensate them for moving away to allow the area to be used by the Military. They would be allowed to choose marine lots in any part of the island not appropriated for any other purpose and would, in addition, be given $25,000 in cash for the buildings they had erected. They had, of course, no option, and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205615, "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-1968", "page_number": 157, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "152\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nchose two lots to the west, which were designated at the time 72 and 73.12 It was at this time, however, that the firm definitely moved out to East Point and, immediately on the transaction regarding their property being settled, they proceeded to erect what became their main godowns at East Point.13 The firm had already acquired property in the area of East Point, Wongneichung and Sookunpoo, if only because no-one else seemed interested at the time and it was there cheaply for the asking. In October 1841, they instructed Morgan to obtain a grant of the hill behind East Point, which he immediately did14 and a little later obtained permission from Pottinger to purchase from its Chinese proprietors the slope on the east side of this hill.15 They also purchased from a merchant named Leighton a town lot on which he had built a godown16 and a suburban lot which he had prepared for building. Captain Morgan also secured a town lot on which a bazaar was built (Jardine's Bazaar not to be confused with Morgan's Bazaar near the barracks), and in addition he built a house on Caroline's Hill for himself which was known for a few years as Captain Morgan's Bungalow.\n\nLike most of the other large mercantile houses, Jardine, Matheson & Co. did not move their headquarters to Hong Kong from Macao until 1844. As shown above, there is ample evidence that East Point was not their first choice for the new headquarters, though the facility with which they were able to secure large areas of land at East Point may well have dictated a move even if the circumstances which I have described had not come about.\n\nHong Kong, 1968\n\nDAFYDD Emrys Evans\n\nMr. Evans, who has been on special leave of absence from the University of London, 1966-68, is a lecturer in the Department of Laws, London School of Economics and Political Science.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205616, "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-1968", "page_number": 158, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n153\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Minutes of Evidence, Q. 2260.\n\n2 G. R. Sayer, Hong Kong: Birth, Adolescence and Coming of Age, 1937, p. 99.\n\n3 Pottinger to Lord Stanley, (No. 15 of 1844), 28 February 1844, (CO129/5/£174) The occasion of this despatch was Admiral Cochrane's suggestion that East Point would make the best site for a naval depot and that Jardine, Matheson & Co. should be removed to make way: see Cochrane to Pottinger, 23 February 1844 (CO129/5/£182).\n\n4 Gordon to Malcolm, 6 July 1843 (CO129/2/f.138).\n\n5 See Friend of China, 2 November 1850.\n\n6 Canton Register, 29 June 1841.\n\n7 E. J. Yorke, The Princely House, (unpublished), p. 487.\n\n8 China Mail, 20 December 1849.\n\n9 Apparently published in 1861 or early 1862 in either Canton or Hong Kong. It was a reprint of articles written by Tarrant in his newspaper, the Friend of China, at the time when he was publishing it in Canton. For this extract, see Friend of China, 9 November 1861.\n\n10 Canton Press, 19 February 1842.\n\n11 See Hong Kong Register, 15 January 1850. The siting is amply demonstrated from maps also. And see Minute by Pottinger on the question of accommodation for General D'Aguilar, Saltoun's successor: January 1844 (CO129/5/f.93).\n\n22\n\n12 Malcolm to Jardine, Matheson & Co., 17 February 1842 (CO129/5/f.96).\n\n13 See Hong Kong Register, 15 January 1850.\n\n14 Yorke, op. cit., p. 488.\n\n15 Pottinger to Jardine, Matheson & Co., 3 June 1842 (CO129/5/f.224).\n\n16 The firm claimed later that this godown belonged to their Bombay agent, Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, without whose consent they were unable to comply with a request that it be sold to the military for use as barracks: see Pottinger to Saltoun, 26 October 1843 (CO129/5/f.524).\n\n17 Yorke, op. cit., p. 491.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205620, "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-1968", "page_number": 162, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES \n\n157 \n\nThe only study of the question which has any pretence to authority is that by Sayer in his work on the first 20 years of Hong Kong under British rule. In that study he makes use of various contemporary descriptions and accounts to fix the site of the first building to which the name 'Government House' has been given on the location of the Victoria District Court at the top of the present Battery Path. Though I do not contest that the site was so used for a period, it would appear that Sayer's conclusion is at variance with other contemporary material which should have been available to him. The problem stems partly from a failure to distinguish between the offices where the Governor performed his official functions and the residences where he lived. When Sir Henry Pottinger, the first Governor, arrived in 1841, he spent one night in a tent. When he returned to Hong Kong after the successful conclusion of the war against China, he lived in a number of houses, though there is positive evidence only about one of them. Though visual evidence from drawings of Hong Kong suggest that he may have resided in a house in the possession of Major Caine, the Chief Magistrate, there is no documentary evidence of the fact and I am not concerned with it; if he did so reside, he must have done so gratuitously, for the Government Accounts of the period do not record any rent payments which might be attributed to this.\n\nSayer is able to state confidently that \"the first Government House has disappeared without trace” as a preamble to his attempt to re-trace it. The Canton Press of January 1842 reported that “a public office to serve as a temporary residence for the head of the Government\" had just been finished. The same newspaper shortly after this referred to this building as \"Government House,\" but added that it had changed its name to the \"Record Office\" since \"the late Acting Governor has been metamorphosed into a Lieut.-Governor.\" The reference is to A. R. Johnston, who administered Hong Kong during Pottinger's absences from the Colony. Sayer concludes from this that the building referred to by the newspaper must have been the house undeniably built by Johnston at the top of Battery Path. He further supports this by pointing out that, on Collinson's Map of 1844, Johnston's House is marked 'Government House.' Lest, however, this should seem to answer the question beyond further argument, I have a few observations to offer.\n\nAs early as the end of 1841, Johnston was writing letters dated 'Government Hill' and there is no doubt that this was the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205621, "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-1968", "page_number": 163, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "158 \n\nNOTES AND QUERIES \n\narea later, and right up to the present day, reserved exclusively for Government buildings. In one such letter, Johnston informed Pottinger that the 'Record Office' should be completed and ready for occupation in 6 weeks time.3 A few months later, Pottinger was datelining letters 'Government House.' It is a fair assumption that this was the building to which Johnston and the Canton Press referred. It could not, therefore, have been, as Sayer asserted, the house built by Johnston as his own residence; not only because that house was not built until some time later, but also because of the directions which Pottinger gave to Johnston on the selection by the latter of a suitable site for his house. Sayer's assertion would necessitate Pottinger giving instructions on the siting of the house in which he already lived himself. But the contents of the letter provide the answer: Pottinger directed that Johnston's house was not to interfere with the site for the permanent Government House which, he said, would “be in front of the building erected as an office and record office and in which I am now residing.” Since the site for the permanent Government House was then that on which it was eventually erected, it follows that Pottinger was referring to a site lying lower down the hill than that in which he was living. Confirmation of the location is provided by a letter which Davis, second Governor, wrote to Lord Stanley (Secretary of State for the Colonies) in which he told him that his present residence, lately the Land Office, was \"quite commodious enough to enable me to dispense with any other until orders shall be received from Home for its erection.” \n\n5 \n\nThe documentary evidence is confirmed by two maps of the time: both Collinson's Map and that prepared by Gordon, the Land Officer, show a group of buildings just to the south of the present Upper Albert Road. On Collinson's map (the later of the two) they are marked simply 'Government Buildings,' but on Gordon's map of 1843 they are called 'Government House.' At about this time, the Friend of China newspaper described a new road which passed in front of Government House and descending to Queen's Road near Johnston's House. It must therefore be taken to be established that a collection of buildings immediately to the south of the present Government House were the first to bear the name. Though Sayer admits of the existence of these buildings on this site, he fails to relate them to the general question which he sought to answer.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205622, "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-1968", "page_number": 164, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n159\n\nNothing is known of the buildings themselves in 1842 but in the following year there was further activity on the site, partly to provide a roof for the Chinese Imperial Commissioner, Keying during his visit in the summer of that year. In April 1843, Woosnam (Pottinger's secretary) requested Gordon to draw up plans for a new Government House which would serve as temporary accommodation until Hong Kong's future was settled (ratifications of the Treaty of Nanking had not at that time been exchanged and it was thought locally that Hong Kong would be given up if they were not; in fact, the Colonial Office was disposed to treat the Colony as belonging to the Crown by right of conquest). The accommodation was to consist of two bungalows, one of three rooms and the other of four bedrooms. Gordon's return of his departmental expenditure reveals that he cut a site \"for the residence of the head of the Government,\" built a carriage road to \"Government House,\" and built a bungalow without offices.\n\n8\n\nThese buildings must be those which appear on both the maps referred to, along with earlier structures. But, though this conclusion seems beyond doubt, Sayer attempts to identify these buildings with another structure altogether: the Albany. He quotes a description of Government Hill given in the Chinese Repository which says that Government House was \"further westward and higher up the hill\" than Johnston's House. Sayer \"unhesitatingly\" identifies the reference with the Albany, a building which used to stand within the area of the Botanical Gardens at the foot of Old Peak Road. It was erected in 1843-1844 as a residence for Government servants at a reasonable rental at a time when rents on the open market were extremely high. There is no record of the Albany ever having been used for anything other than residential purposes. In view of the undoubted presence of other buildings in a place consistent with the description, it is difficult to see why Sayer confused them with the Albany.\n\nBut what of the established fact of Governor Davis's residence in Johnston's house? There is positive evidence that Johnston's house was so used: there is on record a letter from Pottinger to Johnston concerning its hire during the latter's absence on leave,10 and Martin, sometime Colonial Treasurer in Hong Kong and the Colony's most virulent critic, made a specific point of the expenditure on renting the house for the Governor. Some years later, the Friend of China commented acidly that \"the Governor, if he has", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205623, "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-1968", "page_number": 165, "title": "RAS-1968", "content_text": "160\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nnot built a palace, pays the rent of one for his own accommodation out of the public purse.\" The Government accounts for the period reveal that the rent was paid to Johnston for its hire by Government. But it is quite clear from Davis's letter to Stanley that, in August 1844, he could only have been living in Johnston's House if it were then known as the 'Record Office.' That is not beyond possibility for, if the early buildings on the site in the present Botanical Gardens were known as the 'Record Office' when Johnston lived there, his later residence may have attracted the same name to distinguish it from 'Government House.' But that conclusion cannot disturb the main argument.\n\nAs a postscript, it is worth commenting on the suggestion that Sir Samuel Bonham, third Governor, lived at Spring Gardens (Spring Garden Lane in the present Wanchai). Sayer quotes a reference from Robert Fortune's Tea Districts of China (1852) and comments that it is the first and only evidence that a Governor of Hong Kong lived at Spring Gardens. Sayer should have read his Friend of China where he would have discovered advertised, after Bonham's departure from Hong Kong, the sale of a house, doubtless one of those depicted on Murdoch Bruce's sketch of Spring Gardens, which was stated to have been lately in the occupation of Bonham. Fortune was right; or, as Sayer would have put it, he was a veracious witness,12\n\nHong Kong, 1968,\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS Evans\n\nNOTES\n\n1G. R. Sayer, Hong Kong: Birth, Adolescence and Coming of Age, 1937, Oxford University Press.\n\n2ibid, p. 211.\n\n3Johnston to Pottinger, 12 November 1841; CO129/10, f. 51 (Colonial Office Records).\n\n4c.g. Pottinger to General Burrell, 7 March 1842; CO129/10, f. 114.\n\n5Pottinger to Johnston, 26 May 1842; CO129/10, f. 204.\n\n6Davis to Lord Stanley, 16 August 1844; CO129/7, f. 20.\n\n7Friend of China, Overland Summary, 23 December 1843.\n\n8Woosnam to Gordon, 18 April 1843; CO129/10, f. 360.\n\n9Gordon to Pottinger, 10 February 1844; CO129/5, f. 141.\n\n10Pottinger to Johnston, 21 October 1843; CO129/10, f. 522.\n\n11Friend of China, 18 April 1846.\n\n12See also Friend of China, 26 December 1849. The house was erected by Messrs. Blenkin, Rawson & Co. on Marine Lot 42 and rented to Government for £500 p.a.\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205707, "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": 13, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE COUNCILS IN HONG KONG UP TO 1941\n\nT. C. CHENG, O.B.E., M.A.(LOND.)*\n\n(A lecture delivered to the Branch on 29 April 1968)\n\nOn 5th April, 1843, Her Majesty Queen Victoria granted to Hong Kong a Royal Charter which declared Hong Kong a separate Colony. The main provisions of this Charter, published in Hong Kong in June 1843, included, among other things, the following:\n\n(i) There should be a Legislative Council to be composed of the Governor and of such Public Officers within the said Colony, or of such other persons as shall from time to time be named or designated by Her Majesty for the purpose;\n\n(ii) An Executive Council should be established to advise and assist the Governor, who was authorized to summon as an Executive Council such persons as may from time to time be named or designated by Her Majesty.\n\nIt was, however, not until January 1844 that the Legislative Council first met, being composed of all officials, viz., the Governor (Sir Henry Pottinger), the Lt.-Governor (Major-General D'Aguilar) and the Chief Magistrate (Major Caine). The Clerk of Councils was the Legal Adviser to the Governor (R. Burgass).\n\nMajor-General D'Aguilar and Major Caine were also appointed members of the Executive Council.\n\nIn June 1850 the first British unofficial members were nominated to the Legislative Council. They were Messrs. David Jardine and J. F. Adger, both elected by the unofficial Justices of the Peace. Even at this early period of the history of Hong Kong, dissatisfaction was already expressed, mainly among the British community, with the small number of unofficials serving on the Council. In the case of the Chinese, they were, however, inarticulate because there were then very few Chinese who were educated through the medium of English and who could communicate adequately in that language.\n\n\"Mr. Cheng has been President of United College in The Chinese University of Hong Kong since 1963. Prior to that he was in Hong Kong Government service since 1939, his last post being Chief Assistant Secretary for Chinese Affairs.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205995, "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": 75, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "70\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\nStrand. It seems that the Chinese were encouraged to do so by the Government of the day as a matter of simple expediency, for they were required to provide food and the other necessities of life in which Hong Kong was totally deficient (many of them were said to be merchants from Macao). A. R. Johnston, who administered the island during Sir Henry Pottinger's absence in 1841 and 1842, went as far as to make grants in September 1841 to those persons who, against every obstacle (by which was meant the intimidation of the mandarins on the mainland) supplied the fleet when it could not otherwise obtain provision. It seems that Johnston 'granted' 150 lots of a size 40 feet by 20 feet at a rent of $5 per annum,2 and these 'grants' survived attempts to shift the Chinese away on the grounds that the waterfront was far too valuable to allow it to remain outstanding in Chinese hands.3 Leases were executed for most of the original lots during 1845 and after a redistribution to facilitate reconstruction consequent upon the devastating fire of December 1851 (which substantially destroyed the whole of the Lower Bazaar), the area remained much as it was, with new buildings of far greater value replacing the old structures. Whilst a good deal of the waterfront in the Central District remained through the nineteenth century in European or Parsee hands, the Lower Bazaar remained largely in Chinese hands.\n\nThe second area in which Chinese were not only encouraged but allowed to settle lay on the other side of the Queen's Road, almost opposite to the Central Market. This was the Upper Bazaar (sometimes referred to as the 'Middle Bazaar') which was built at the beginning of 1842. Its origins were similar to those of the Lower Bazaar and it consisted of two rows or streets of shops on lots about 36 feet by 14 feet. These were granted to newcomers at a time when applications from Chinese were becoming 'very numerous' and they were charged a rent of $4 per annum.4 The Bazaar was probably finished by March, 1842 and was therefore well-placed both in point of time and geographically to meet the needs of the Europeans and Chinese populations in Hong Kong's first boom period after the signing of the Treaty of Nanking which appeared to remove doubts over the future of the colony and which brought in many adventurers. This Upper Bazaar was, therefore, together with the Lower Bazaar, the first 'Chinatown' in Hong Kong in the sense that it was an area of the town in\n\nPage 75\n\nPage 76", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205997, "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": 77, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "72\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\nseparate location, namely Taipingshan, for the main part of the Chinese town. This town was apparently to become separate in a way not altogether intended by its creators.\n\nThe question of the Upper Bazaar came to a head towards the end of 1843 when A. T. Gordon, the land officer, decided to meet the demands for building land (and, thereby, augment Government revenue from Crown Rents) by putting up to auction an area which extended from Wyndham Street to Gough Street, thus including the whole of the Upper Bazaar.\n\nGordon informed Pottinger of the land which had been marked out for sale on 22 January 1844 and told him that he intended to remove altogether \"that part of the town known as the Upper Bazaar\" and had marked it out into 27 lots, \"suitable for shops and dwellings either for Europeans or respectable Chinese\". This accorded with the views which Pottinger was persuaded to hold that, as Governor Davis later put it, “it would be very advisable for the interests of the community that the Chinese should be removed, so as to prevent as much as possible their being mixed up with the Europeans.\" Pottinger replied to Gordon that the inhabitants of the Upper Bazaar would be given six months, from 15 January 1844, to remove their houses, the only question remaining being one of compensation.\n\nThough this correspondence was not, of course, public it would have become obvious what was to happen when the Land Sale was held on 22 January, 1844, as many persons bid for lots which then formed part of the Upper Bazaar and on which buildings were standing. The European residents made no comment on the proceedings until it appeared to them that they could use the plight of the bazaar lot-holders as part of the fight against Government on account of the treatment of their own land claims. The Chinese lot-holders themselves were apparently kept in ignorance and claim to have learnt only after the event that their lots had been sold over their heads.\n\nThus, some time after the lots had actually been sold, Pottinger appointed a committee consisting of Major Caine, Chief Magistrate, Gutzlaff, Chinese Secretary to Government, and Gordon, the Land Officer, to consider where the bazaar lots should be relocated and on what terms the lot-holders should be dealt with.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205998, "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": 78, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "THE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\n73\n\nIn the meantime, the lot-holders petitioned Pottinger to be allowed to stay.10 They described how Captain Mylius, the first land officer in 1842, had given them certificates to prove their holdings. The Committee met the lot-holders and endeavoured to explain to them why they were being moved. They were told that there were 'insuperable difficulties' in the way of allowing them to remain. Moreover, the permission given them by Mylius to occupy the sites in question was no more than a 'temporary arrangement' since at that date (1842) Hong Kong was not in a permanent state. Nevertheless, the Committee represented that they were to inquire into what ground could be given to them for the erection of their houses. To this the Chinese replied that what was asked of them was like \"throwing their livelihood into the sea.\" If allowed to stay, they undertook to erect houses \"in the proper manner and style\" and pay a suitable rent. But their pleas were in vain. The Committee recommended that a site be allotted to them at Taipingshan, at which place, they pointed out, a considerable Chinese population had already settled. The Committee proposed that the ground should be prepared and levelled (it was, at that time, no more than a very steep and uneven mountainside) and with streets marked out. They would be permitted to remove the materials out of which their present houses were constructed. As to compensation, they would have their arrears of rent (never paid) remitted and would enjoy a 'rent holiday' for a period of five years from the following December. In addition, each householder who could substantiate his claim would receive $50, though one member of the Committee, Gutzlaff, thought that $20 would suffice.\n\nThe area of relocation lay south of Queen's Road, between Town Lot 78 and Town Lot 44: i.e., from approximately the present Gough Street to just east of the present Possession Street. The point was specifically made by Caine, with the agreement of the other members, that this location be reserved exclusively for Chinese and that no Europeans, with the exception of police, be permitted to live there.12\n\nPottinger approved these suggestions but reserved his decision on the question of compensation. He did not favour monetary compensation, partly because some of those in the Upper Bazaar were unauthorised squatters and partly because others were keepers of brothels and gaming houses who ought to be got rid of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205999, "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": 79, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "74\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\naltogether. Further, their settlement there had been \"perfectly voluntary\" and they had all \"enjoyed the profits of their respective callings without contributing a penny to the expenses of the colony\". If any refused to move, they were to be told that they could \"leave the Colony whenever they like.\" The Committee found that there were 112 authorised lot-holders but a further 24 were, in the eyes of the Committee, disqualified by reason of their houses \"being dedicated to disgraceful purposes\" (but who should nevertheless receive $25 compensation).14\n\nNothing was done to put the Committee's proposals into effect and when Davis arrived to succeed Pottinger, it was clearly a matter of urgency, for the Government had pledged to provide an alternative site and to give up the site to the new owners by 22 July 1844. The lot-holders clearly could not be moved until the new site was prepared and, indeed, they showed every intention of sitting tight where they were. Davis directed the work of drawing up an estimate and a contract for the work as quickly as possible. But 22 July approached still without any progress even on this, and Davis directed that the work of levelling proceed without first obtaining an estimate. The work cost $5,956.40 but Major Aldrich of the Royal Engineers certified that the money had been properly spent.15 In view of the high cost of effecting the removal, Davis decided that no monetary compensation at all should be paid and that the 'rent holiday' should only last for four years and not the five suggested by the Committee.\n\nAt the sale on 22 January, the purchasers had been promised possession of their lots by 22 July 1844 but that date arrived with the lot-holders still in situ. Bruce, the Colonial Secretary, therefore, published a Notification on 25 July to the effect that they should remove by 25 August so that possession could be given to the purchasers by 31 August. If they failed to comply with the direction, they would forfeit the materials on the sites now belonging to Crown lessees. The Notification further informed them that the ground for relocation was being marked out for them at Taipingshan and would be cleared for them free of charge, rent due would be remitted and no rent would be payable for a period of four years.16\n\nThe Press was disturbed: the Friend of China commented that \"though legally Her Majesty's representative could claim", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206002, "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": 82, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "# THE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\n77\n\nOffice's records had fallen owing to non-registration of transactions (it being by then more or less necessary for a purchaser to take a chance on the title to land offered to him by a vendor), a strenuous effort was made to regularise the situation and much \"squatting\" without title and consequently, in most cases, non-payment of Crown Rent, came to light.\n\nThe end for old Taipingshan came not in the 1880's but in the 1890's when Bubonic Plague was brought to the Colony from West China. The most virulent reservoir of the bacillus turned out to be Taipingshan. The only solution, not only to the problem of stamping out the plague but also to other forms of social offence given by the district, was to remove the Chinese town physically. This was done by powers given in the Taipingshan Resumption Ordinance of 1894, and the result was wholesale demolition of much property and re-aligning of old and construction of new roads. Taipingshan had to be razed and, fortunately for Hong Kong, never rose again in its former glory.\n\nUniversity of London, 1968.\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS Evans\n\nMr. Evans is Professor of Law in the University of Hong Kong. Two of his earlier contributions to the early history of Hong Kong appeared in the Notes and Queries section of the 1968 Journal.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 The area was known as Taipingshan from the early days of the colony and its name is not derived from its function as a refuge for T'ai Ping rebels in later years.\n\n2 See Gordon (Land Officer) to Pottinger, CO129/Vol II, f. 152,\n\n3 See Gordon to Malcolm (Colonial Secretary), CO129/Vol. II, f. 138 dated 6 July 1843.\n\n4 The rents for both the Upper and Lower Bazaar Lots represented the same rate per square foot as that charged by Johnston for Town Lots.\n\n5 But the Chinese were turning to the use of brick rather than wood by the end of 1841; see Canton Press, 19 February 1842.\n\n6 Gordon to Pottinger, 19 December 1843; CO129, Vol. II, p. 445.\n\n7 Davis to Stanley 26 July 1844; CO129, Vol. VI, p. 435.\n\n8 Woosnam (Pottinger's private secretary) to Gordon, 10 January 1844: CO129, Vol. V. p. 69.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206003, "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": 83, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "78\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\n\"See their petition, reprinted in Friend of China, 4 May 1844, and also below, P. \n\n10 The contents of the petition, Pottinger's reply and the lot-holders' rejoinder were all published in the Friend of China, 4 May 1844. \n\n\"I Lo Hsiang-lin, Hong Kong and its External Communications before 1842, (Hong Kong, Institute of Chinese Culture, English translation, 1963) p. 117, maintains that there had long been a settlement in the area of the present Taipingshan, The name is said to have originated from the pacification of the pirate Cheung Po-chai in 1810 who is known to have had a stronghold there. The mountain now known as Victoria Peak was renamed Taipingshan (the Mountain of Peace) and is so known in Chinese today. The Man Mo temple, standing today in Hollywood Road, is said by Lo to have been built by Cheung in the first decade of the 19th Century. There is considerable documentary evidence as to the existence of such a settlement in the early 1840s. \n\n12 Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon to Pottinger, C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 440. 13 Woosnam to Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon, 17 April 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 442. \n\n14 Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon to Bruce, 21 May 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 444. \n\n15 Aldrich to Bruce, 20 July 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 445. \n\n16 Notification dated 25 July 1844. It appeared in the Hong Kong Register on 30 July 1844 and the gist of it was contained in the Friend of China on 3 August 1844. Only in the former, official, version, does the information about the date of possession for the purchasers appear. \n\n17 10 August 1844. \n\n18 Friend of China, 2 October 1844. The site is still occupied by a branch of the present Western Market, \n\n19 Davis to Stanley, (no. 44 of 1844), 26 July 1844 and Stanley to Davis, 3 January 1845; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 438. Under-Secretary Stephen commented on the despatch that, though the expenditure would have to be referred to the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, \"it must, however, ultimately be sanctioned \" \n\n20 Davis to Stanley, 29 October 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 157. The additional expenditure was sanctioned without further comment: Stanley to Davis 1 April 1845; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 161, \n\n21 Inland Lots Nos. 223A, 223B, 223C, 223E, 224, 224A, 224B, 224C, 224E, 225, 226, 226A, 229D, 231A, 233, 233A, 234, 234D, 238B, 239A, 239B, 240A, 241, 242A, 243, 243A, 244, 244B, 245A, 245B, 245C, 245D, 245E, 245F, 245G, 245H, 245I, 246A, 247B, 247C, 248A, 253, 253A, 272. \n\n22 Inland Lots Nos. 213, 224D, 228, 228B, 229, 231, 232, 232A, 232C, 233E, 234B, 234C, 234E, 238, 244A, 252B, 255B, 256B. \n\n23 Inland Lots Nos. 223, 246, 246B, 246C, 247, 247A, 247D, 248B, 248C, 248D, 249C, 252C, 253B, 254, 255D, 255E, 256. \n\n24 Inland Lots Nos. 214, 234A, 223D, 227, 235A, 241A, 246C, 246B, 253B. \n\n25 Inland Lots Nos. 238C, 239C, 240, 241B, 241C, 242B, 245, 250, 255A, 256A,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206273, "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": 90, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "84 \n\nCARL T. SMITH \n\ntherefore in the hands of shopkeepers, compradors and pedlars of whom there are many, though their transactions when considered as a whole are but trifling.' \n\n12 \n\nIn his remarks on native trade, Gutzlaff states that an attempt had been made by a Cantonese capitalist to establish himself in Hong Kong. He is referring to Chinam, alias Chan Akuen, who with three other partners operated under the firm name of Tun Wo *. The Colonial Treasurer, R. M. Martin, also refers to him in his report: \"One man of reputed wealth named Chinam, who had been engaged in the opium trade, came to Hong Kong, built a good house, and freighted a ship. He soon returned to Canton, and died there of a fever and cold contracted in Hong Kong. It was understood, however, that had he lived he would have been prohibited from returning to Hong Kong\",13 \n\nIn June, 1843, Chinam bought Marine Lot 54 from Richard Oswald paying $8,000. At the time it had on it a Singapore frame house14 with brick enlargements. On the lot Chinam proceeded to build a large Hong in the Chinese style, but before the building was completed, he died in July, 1844. With his death the firm closed down its operations in Hong Kong and most of the Hong stood unoccupied for a number of years. One of Chinam's partners, Chan Chun-poo, was appointed his administrator, but due to irregularities in his handling of the estate he was imprisoned in 1854, and remained in prison for two years. He petitioned the Government for his release on the grounds of his advanced age. The property of Chinam's firm was sold in 1854 to Ow Yeung Sun, a trader from the San Wui District in Kwang Tung. \n\nAnother Canton firm that established itself in Hong Kong in the early days was Akow and Company. It was not in the same class as Chinam's Tun Wo firm, but its position was above that of the shopkeepers and tradesmen concentrated in the Bazaar areas. The company was granted Inland Lot 22 located at the corner of Queen's Road and Pottinger Street in the European section. The firm consisted of five partners, of whom Cheung Kam Cheong was resident in Hong Kong. He began to speculate in real estate and bought several lots at Government land auctions. His land investments were not successful and \n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206285, "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": 102, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "96\n\nCARL T. SMITH\n\nWong Shing, newspaper editor and manager of the London Mission press; and Cheung Achew, a wealthy carpenter.29 The Rev. Ho Fuk Tong and his family lived at the nearby compound of the London Mission Society. In time this area around Peel, Graham, Gage Streets and Hollywood Road became a centre for Parsee and Indian merchants, as well as European brothels. Some of the old families stayed on, but the opening up of the area bounded by Wyndham, Wellington and Pottinger Streets by the Dents provided a needed location for the houses of the better Chinese. After the Peak was developed in the 1870s and 1880s, the wealthy Chinese moved up to Mid-levels occupying the mansions of the Europeans who moved to the Peak.\n\nOf the individuals who had their family residence in the former Middle Bazaar area were two who were on the organizing committee of Tung Wah Hospital, Wong Shing and Ho Asek alias Ho Fai Yin #alias Ho In Kee. Ho Asek first appears in Hong Kong records in 1849 when he purchased a lot in Tai Ping Shan. At the time he was compradore of the opium firm of Lyall, Still and Company. It failed in 1867 and Ho Asek embarked upon his own business ventures under the firm name of Kin Nam. According to a newspaper account, he was subject to a $2,000 “squeeze” from the mandarins during the second Sino-British War.30 He traded extensively in opium as well as rice, and in 1871 held the gambling monopoly from which within a year he realized a $28,000 profit. In an action brought against him in 1871, he testified that he operated with a capital of $200,000.31 In 1868 two of his employees were brought before the court on a charge of extortion. In the evidence presented it was stated that about September 1866, some influential Chinese started a system of subscription or unofficial taxation to support district watchmen. The city had been divided into two sections, East and West. The West District was superintended by Tam Achoy and Ho Asek, \"a most respectable and honest trader”. A shopkeeper resisted the pressure put upon him to contribute and brought the charge of extortion against two of Asek's employees who had been collecting for the scheme. The court gave judgment in favour of the defendants.32 Ho Asek was still a member of the Kai Fong Committee in 1872. He died in Pang Po (likely Ping Po+), Shun Tak District in 1877. His wife was granted letters of administration on his estate, but she being blind, gave her power", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206382, "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": 199, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "THE COLONY OF HONG KONG\n\n173\n\na Convention between Captain Elliott, who was then our plenipotentiary, and the Chinese commissioner Ke-shen; and some adventurous spirits had soon after located themselves on it. Ke-shen got into disgrace with his government for the cession; but it was fully confirmed by the subsequent treaty, and the island received the status of a Colony from an order in Council dated the 5th April, 1843, its principal town to be dignified with the name of our Queen. When I arrived, it was under the government of Sir Henry Pottinger, who had brought the war to a successful close.\n\nTo give you an idea of the place as I first saw it, I had proposed to take a walk with you along the Queen's Road from the west to the east, but I found that that would take too much time. That road was marked out, in many places imperfectly, from Sae-wan on towards Aberdeen, the waters of the bay, from which so much land has since been taken, coming, in the greater part of its course between East and West points, up to it on the north, Hollywood Road, and the streets running down from it to the Queen's Road, were also indicated in a rudimentary fashion. A little beyond the present Sailors' Home, were the Naval Stores, and, south of them, all the indentation of the hill where the Reformatory now stands was occupied with tents and huts peopled by the 55th Regiment. From that eastwards all was blank to the bluff where the Civil Hospital rises, and on which was a bungalow built by Jamieson, How & Co., and occupied by Mr. Edger, belonging to that firm, and in later years a member of the Legislative Council. On the other side of the road were some godowns of the same firm, washed by the sea. The next European buildings were Gibb, Livingston & Co.'s premises, enclosed within a ring fence, and where partners and employés all managed to reside, with none of the massive godowns which now seem to serve as buttresses to the offices. Up and down, and athwart, T'ae-p'ing-shan, were thread-like paths, with a Chinese house here and there, but the ground was mainly boulder and sandy gravel. Turning to the west, where Wellington Street runs into Queen's Road, you could see a few Chinese houses on either side of the latter, and Jervois Street was in course of formation, the houses on the north side of it having the waters of the bay washing about among them. Eastwards from the same point on to Pottinger Street, Queen's Road was pretty well lined with Chinese houses;", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206383, "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": 200, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "174\n\nREV. JAMES LEGGE\n\nthe Central Market was formed; and on the other side were some foreign Stores, and a tavern or two. Looking up Aberdeen Street, you saw a few indications of building, and a house on the south of Gage Street, forming the headquarters of a Madras Regiment; and looking up Pottinger Street, you could see the Magistracy and Gaol of the day, where the dreaded Major Caine presided, and below them were two or three other buildings. On from Pottinger Street, a few English merchants had established themselves, and the house which long continued to be known as the Commercial Inn was a place of great resort. On the west of D'Aguilar Street, not then so named, building was going on, and just opposite to it, was a small house called the Bird Cage, out of which was hatched the Hongkong Dispensary. All the space between Wyndham Street and Wellington Street was garden ground, with an imposing flat-roofed house in it, built by Mr. Brain, of the firm of Dent & Co. That great firm had its quarters where the Hongkong Hotel is now, and further on was Lindsay & Co.'s house. All else on the north side of the street was blank, on to the Artillery Barracks, which were building. On the south of the street was the Harbour Master's establishment on Pedder's Hill; and as conspicuous as are now Messrs. Heard & Co.'s Offices, which have been manufactured from it, rose the house of Mr. Johnstone, who had been administrator of the island on its first occupancy. On the Parade Ground was a small mat building, which was the Colonial Church, and above it, about where the Cathedral and Government Offices now stand, were the unpretending Government Offices of that early time and the Post-Office. Far up, if I recollect aright, might be seen a range of barracks, out of which have been fashioned the present Albany residences, and beyond the site of the present Government House was a small bungalow where Sir Henry Pottinger and Sir John Davis after him held their court. Crossing the bridge from the Artillery Barracks, there were some poor buildings for military purposes where the Naval Yard now is, and the houses of Gemmell & Co. and Fletcher & Co., the former of which has since been metamorphosed into the Commissariat Offices. On the right was the General's House, looking much as it does now, and below it was the Canton Bazaar, mainly occupied by troops.\n\nFollowing the bend of the road, one met with a few Chinese houses on the bluff opposite the present Military Hospital, and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206391, "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": 208, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "182\n\nREV. JAMES LEGGE\n\nI have drawn, you probably think, sufficiently long on your attention and patience already, and yet, that we may get a sufficient view of the growth of the Colony, I must ask you to go back with me to the time at which I had arrived when the unhealthiness of 1843 led me away into all these digressions. I will try, however, to be brief in what I have further to say.\n\nSir Henry Pottinger, I observed, was governor of the Colony when I came to it, and I was surprised to find that he was not by any means popular. He was a good man, people said, to conquer China, and a bad man to rule Hong Kong. The impression which I received from my intercourse with him was of a man condensed, reticent, powerful, who would have his own way, and was able to force it. Mr. Davis, afterwards Sir John Davis, arrived and relieved him in May, 1844; and his coming was hailed with eager expectation. He had been in China before in the East India Company's time, was a Chinese scholar, and had written a book on China, which is still the most readable and entertaining work on the country up to the time to which he was able to bring it down. He, it was thought, was just the man for the place. How it came about, I hardly know; but of all our governors he left his office under the greatest cloud of popular dissatisfaction. In his time, however, the Colony made very considerable advances. The arrival of Judge Hulme was almost contemporaneous with that of Sir John Davis, and a Court of Supreme judicature was constituted. Mr. May, whom we all know, arrived in March, 1843, and the police force began to take shape. Not long after, the tax on house property was proposed, and never was there a greater clamour in the place. It was argued that it was unconstitutional, an imperilling of that palladium of English liberty that taxation must go hand in hand with representation; and the revolt of the American Colonies in the last century was alluded to. It was not my lot, however, to be in Hong Kong during the greater part of Sir John Davis's administration. I was laid down with Hong Kong fever in the autumn of 1844, which returned with other complications in the following year, till I was carried on board ship on the 18th November, to make the passage round the Cape, my friends all supposing that Hong Kong had seen the last of me.\n\nTwo days after I had left, Ke-ying, the Chinese statesman, paid a visit to the Colony, and gave a grand entertainment to", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206548, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1972", "page_number": 96, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "90\n\nE. G. PRYOR\n\nBesides their wider trading interests, the British in Canton had established a thriving trade in opium brought from India. The Chinese government regarded this trade with considerable concern, on the grounds that it was harmful to human welfare and also a serious drain on the country's finances. Early attempts by the Chinese government to stop the opium trade failed but in 1839 a Special Imperial Commissioner was appointed who forced the British traders in Canton to relinquish their supplies of the narcotic. The British Superintendent of Trade, Captain Elliot, consequently withdrew the English merchants to Macau and later transferred them onto ships anchored in Hong Kong harbour; subsequent events led to open hostilities between Chinese and British forces.\n\nIt was decided by Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, that a satisfactory settlement of the dispute would require either a commercial treaty with adequate guarantees to protect the interests of British merchants or the cession of one or more off-shore islands from which the traders could operate without restriction. A British expedition was despatched to China in 1840 to back up these demands and in January 1841 negotiations were held in Canton between Captain Elliot and Keshen, a Manchu Commissioner, whereby it was agreed by the Convention of Chuenpi that Hong Kong Island was to be ceded to the British (Figure 1).* A British naval force took possession of the island on 26th January 1841,\n\nThe Chuenpi terms were accepted by neither side. Elliot was replaced by Sir Henry Pottinger and hostilities were renewed. The war was concluded by the Treaty of Nanking on 29th August 1842 by which the island of Hong Kong was ceded in perpetuity to the Crown and four additional ports besides Canton were opened to British traders. The island was formally declared a British Colony on 26th June 1843 and Sir Henry Pottinger was appointed the first Governor. Hong Kong was declared a free port and by the Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue the Chinese were given free access to the island for trading purposes.\n\nThe Housing Problem Takes Root: 1841-1881\n\nAlmost from the day Captain Elliot raised the British flag on the northern shores of Hong Kong Island, a steady stream of artisans and labourers made their way to the Colony from the southern provinces.\n\n*Figures 1-8 will be found at the rear of the text.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206608, "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": 156, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "The Origins of Hong Kong's Central Market and the Tarrant Affair\n\nDafydd Emrys Evans*\n\nThe public market which at present stands in Queen's Road Central in Hong Kong occupies the site of a succession of older buildings of which the earliest was built as a market in 1842. The early history of this market amply demonstrates the too-seldom revealed complexity of Chinese merchants' commercial transactions at the time of the founding of the Colony of Hong Kong.\n\nHong Kong's first public market opened on the site in May, 1842.1 At the first sale of crown land in the new Colony in June, 1841, the westernmost lots were put up to auction first and the first four, designated at the sale numbers 19 to 16, were not sold but reserved for Government purposes. It was on the lot numbered 16 that the market opened, lying as it did conveniently near to the Upper and Lower Bazaars.2 The Market was, apparently, the brain-child of the Colonial Secretary of the time, Colonel George Malcolm who secured the erection of buildings at a cost of some $3,500.3 He appointed a Chinese named Hwei Aqui as Superintendent and established a fixed list of prices to be charged by the individuals to whom the stalls were let by Government.4\n\nWhen Sir John Davis succeeded Sir Henry Pottinger as Governor of the Colony in 1844, he decided that the Market could operate as a useful source of revenue for the Government and sold the market franchise to the highest bidder who was then free to charge what he could to the stallholders. The successful bidder was, in fact, Hwei Aqui and, though he had apparently given satisfaction formerly when simply in the employ of Government, caused grave dissatisfaction once he was operating the market on his own account, with prices rising far faster than they had previously and without the benefit of Government control over the state of the market.\n\nIt is the few years after the market passed into private hands that it makes its contribution to Hong Kong's history, not only on\n\n* Mr. Evans is Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong. See Journal vol. 10, 1970, for his earlier article \"Chinatown in Hong Kong: The Beginnings of Taipingshan\".", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206616, "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": 164, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "158\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\nCaine, allegations were repeatedly made of his complicity with persons of ill-repute, in particular with Daniel Caldwell, for many years a Government servant and consort of the 'Jonathan Wild' of Hong Kong, a Chinese called Wong Akee (or Machow Wong).\n\nAfter this incident of the Market extortions, which most wanted to believe anyway, Tarrant turned his attentions towards the Press, becoming—how is unexplained—the owner of the Friend of China on the departure from the Colony of the editor who had taken his side in market dispute, John Carr. Tarrant was able to use the editorial columns to pursue Caine and his subordinates on every possible occasion but in the end it was Caine who won. In 1859 he was forced out into the open and instituted a Crown prosecution for criminal libel against Tarrant. This ended with Tarrant being jailed for one year. When he was released before the end of his sentence Tarrant was a broken man and left the colony for Canton, where he continued to publish the Friend. He paid a visit to Hankow in 1861 and settled later in Shanghai but his journal never flourished thereafter.\n\nIt is, perhaps, a pity that the issue of corruption in government in Hong Kong, some of which was so devastatingly exposed by Sir Hercules Robinson, a later Governor, in 1861 in his Report to the Home Government on Civil Service Abuses in Hong Kong, was so clouded by the personalities of those who concerned themselves with the issue. The undoubted corruption which government servants like Caine permitted, even if they did not actively participate in it themselves, could have at least received a check if the then Governor, Sir John Davis, had had the courage of his own convictions and the confidence of the public and ordered a proper investigation into the Market scandal. Instead, the rumours which had started in 1841 when Caine was alleged to have allowed piratical activities for a price, rumours fed by the Lock Hospital scandal and the Tarrant affair, continued unabated until 1861, by which time most of the objectionable public servants had left the service.\n\nNOTES\n\nA Friend of China, 19 June 1842.\n\n2 The Lower Bazaar, located in the present Bonham Strand area, came into existence when A. R. Johnston, who had control of the administration of the island when Sir Henry Pottinger was absent from the colony prosecuting the war against China, allowed Chinese who had helped the British", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206617, "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": 165, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "H.K.'S CENTRAL MARKET AND THE TARRANT AFFAIR\n\n159\n\nforces during hostilities against China to settle and allotted them small lots on the waterfront. The Upper Bazaar which lay in the area of Graham and Stanley Streets consisted also of relatively small areas granted to Chinese who were presumptively useful to the nascent colony as tradesmen. The Lower Bazaar was almost totally destroyed in the great fire at the end of 1851 and the Upper Bazaar was removed in 1844 and its inhabitants resettled in Taipingshan.\n\n3 See Gordon to Pottinger, 10 February 1844 [CO129/V/f.141].\n\n+ Evidence given by Colonel Malcolm to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China, answer to question 4633.\n\n5 Davis sought to let as many monopolies go as possible to private individuals for what they were prepared to give. Thus, in addition to the markets, he let out also opium, salt, and quarrying monopolies.\n\n6 Lease Register Volume C, f.94. The lot was leased as Marine Lot 38. The lease registers referred to are the Registers of the Land Office in which all dealings in crown land were recorded. The actual transactions themselves are also recorded separately as 'Memorials' and reference is made to them by number. The numbering was done according to the order in which they were registered. I am indebted to the Registrar General of the Government of Hong Kong for allowing me access to the records of the Land Office and for permission to publish material derived from that source.\n\n7 Memorial 122.\n\n8 Memorial 143.\n\n9 Memorial 258.\n\n10 Friend of China, 7 July 1847.\n\n11 Memorial 383.\n\n12 In this article, the romanisations found in the Land Office records are used even where they do not correspond to those either in the Wade-Giles system or current usage.\n\n13 Memorial 304.\n\n14 Ibid.\n\n15 Memorial 345.\n\n16 Hong Kong Register, 27 July 1847.\n\n17 Friend of China, 14 July 1847.\n\n18 And in so doing, incidentally, infringing the provision of the Treaty of Nanking, 1842, which allowed British subjects to proceed only to the \"Treaty Ports\" and to nowhere else in China.\n\n19 Friend of China, 14 July 1847. Tam Achoy's market was known as the Kwang Yuen and in the disastrous fire in December 1851, the fifty-one houses which comprised the market were destroyed: see Hong Kong Register, January 1852. Tam was referred to a few years later as the \"most respectable Chinaman\" who made a practice of going into the witness box to speak for the character of accused persons. He remained in Hong Kong until his death in the 1870's and was one of the founders of the Tung Wah organisation, a charitable body still functioning in Hong Kong.\n\n20 Hong Kong Register, 27 July 1847.\n\n21 Hong Kong Register, 19 October 1847; Friend of China, 23 October 1847 and 18 December 1847.\n\n22 The Editor of the Friend (John Carr) claimed to have seen Hwei's accounts and that they revealed the \"squeeze\" payment.\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206743, "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-1973", "page_number": 20, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "14\n\nH. A. RYDINGS\n\nbut moved with it to Morrison Hill where it reopened on 1st June, 1843. As already mentioned, he went home in June, 1845. This was because of the illness of his wife, who died on the journey (5). More details of Dr. Hobson's career may be found in a biographical sketch by Dr. K. C. Wong (6). It is interesting to note that prior to his return to China in 1847, Hobson married Mary, daughter of Dr. Robert Morrison, at Bath. Hobson's successor as Secretary, George K. Barton, was a partner with Thomas Hunter in the Victoria Dispensary. This also had premises in Macao, where Hunter was located. James H. Young was the junior partner in the Hongkong Dispensary in Queen's Road, the others being Peter Young (afterwards Colonial Surgeon in succession to Francis Dill on the latter's death in 1846), Samuel Marjoribanks (who was at Canton) and K. M. Kennedy. Dr. Young resigned as Treasurer and from membership in November 1845. Lastly Henry Holgate, according to Eitel, was appointed Colonial Surgeon in August 1841 by Sir Henry Pottinger, but his appointment was subsequently disallowed by the home Government, and his name does not appear in the official list of holders of that office. He presumably remained in Hong Kong in private practice (8).\n\nThese, then, were the men who guided the China Medico-Chirurgical Society during its brief existence. Of the six, Drs. Tucker and Dill died before the end of 1846, and Dr. Hobson had gone back to England, whilst Dr. J. H. Young had resigned.\n\nThe China Medico-Chirurgical Society came into existence at a meeting held at the residence of Dr. Dill on 13th May 1845, attended by eleven \"Medical Gentlemen of Hongkong.\" The objects of the Society were set out as\n\n\"1st—The bringing into more intimate intercourse [of the] Medical brethren in China, for the sake of giving and receiving information on Medical and Surgical subjects;\n\n\"2nd—The formation of a Library, where all the best periodicals and the most valuable standard medical works of the day can be had;\n\n“3rd—The discussion of topics relating more particularly to the diseases prevalent in China, and to the Native Materia Medica.\"\n\nThe annual subscription was $12. The Committee consisting of the three officers and three other members was to be elected half", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206747, "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-1973", "page_number": 24, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "18\n\nH. A. RYDINGS\n\narrangements can be made for the Society's house) one, and the same building.” Amongst the reasons which he adduced for this was that the former Governor, Sir Henry Pottinger, had reserved a plot of land \"between the Chinese Hospital [where Hobson worked] and the Gap\" for an object of this kind. A special meeting was called on 8th July (14) to consider Dr. Hobson's proposal; two supporting resolutions were unanimously adopted, and the Society expressed its gratitude to Dr. Hobson for the zeal and ability with which he had performed his duties as Secretary, and its regret on his forthcoming departure.\n\nAs befits a medical missionary, Dr. Hobson believed in actions as well as words. The Chinese Hospital where Hobson worked, as already mentioned, was moved in 1843 from Macao to the vicinity of Morrison Hill in Hong Kong, and was thus close to the Morrison Education Society's school, from which Hobson attracted pupils to further studies in scientific and medical fields (15). In this he was following a practice established by Dr. Peter Parker, the first American medical missionary who started an ophthalmic hospital in Canton in 1835. Of Hobson it is said that the attention which he gave \"to the education of young men as his assistants was amply repaid in the benefit derived from their intelligence. Some of those under his care were able to perform various operations, and one, more especially, had acquired so great an amount of professional skill that some of the European surgeons of the Colony of Hong Kong, by whom he was examined, expressed their admiration of his training\" (16). These efforts may be considered the beginnings of medical education in China and Hong Kong, though it was not until 1887 that Hobson's vision of a College of Medicine for Chinese in Hong Kong was fulfilled, long after his death, and many years later than the establishment of other medical schools in China.\n\nThe idea of a medical school was linked quite sensibly in the minds of the members of the Medico-Chirurgical Society with that of their own premises, in which could be kept a museum for specimens of natural history and morbid anatomy, and their library of medical textbooks and journals. The problem of obtaining suitable premises seems to have dogged both the immediate and the latter-day successors of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (for which however it was solved by provision of a room in the Court House, presumably through the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206876, "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-1973", "page_number": 153, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n147\n\nThe Note was written to accompany a reproduction of Monsignor Volontieri's map of Hong Kong: see Plate IX of this issue of the Journal. This map appears to be an individual production additional to the map of San On noticed in the Journal several years ago: see Journal Vols 9(1969) and 10(1970) pp 141-148 and 193-196 respectively.\n\nThe right hand bottom corner of the map bears the legend 'Milano Stab. Flli Tensi'. The legend and placenames are given in French, mostly with Chinese characters in addition, making it a bi-lingual map, like the main production on which it is probably based.\n\nThe Note itself is of some interest, giving a brief contemporary account of Hong Kong, as seen through foreign eyes. It is not accurate in all particulars. I have drawn attention to some misprints and strange renderings of names and placenames; but have otherwise reproduced it as in the original. Ed.\n\nNOTES GEOGRAPHIQUES\n\nCHINE\n\nL'ILE DE HONG-KONG\n\nNous publions aujourd'hui une carte de l'île de Hong-Kong. Elle a été dressée par Mgr Volontieri, de la Congrégation des Missions Étrangères de Milan, vicaire apostolique du Ho-nan.\n\nL'île de Hong-Kong est située au sud de l'empire chinois, entre 22° 9' et 22° 1' de latitude nord, et 114° 5' et 114° 18' de longitude est (méridien de Greenwich), vis-à-vis des bouches du fleuve de Canton, le Tchong-kiang ou Tigre chinois, dont elle domine l'embouchure principale. Elle est séparée de la grande île de Lan-tao, à l'ouest, par le canal Lamma, et isolée de la terre ferme par la rade qui la baigne au nord, et le petit détroit de Ly-ce-moon, qui n'a qu'un demi-mille de largeur. La plus grande longueur de l'île de Hong-kong ne dépasse pas onze milles géographiques; elle en a cinq dans sa plus grande largeur; la superficie totale est d'environ vingt-neuf milles carrés.\n\nFormée de roches granitiques presque nues et qui s'élévent en cimes escarpées, sans passage praticable de l'une à l'autre, dont la plus basse, le Pic de Pottinger, a 1,020 pieds d'élévation, et la plus...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206878, "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-1973", "page_number": 155, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n149\n\nragés par le gouvernement, y accouraient en grand nombre. Beaucoup de Chinois venaient s'y établir et y construire des maisons. C'est ainsi que furent jetés les fondements de la nouvelle ville de Vittoria, avant la ratification du traité de Nankin, qui porte la date du 5 avril 1843.\n\nL'administration de l'île, comme il fut arrêté à cette époque, est confiée à un gouverneur. Il est assisté d'un conseil exécutif composé du secrétaire de la colonie, du commandant de la garnison et du procureur de la couronne, et d'un conseil législatif dont le gouverneur est le président. Ce conseil est composé d'un juge, du secrétaire de la couronne, du trésorier, de l'auditeur général, de l'inspecteur général et de trois des principaux négociants de l'île, nommés par la couronne, sur la présentation du gouverneur.\n\nLa police emploie 60 Européens, 382 Indiens et 180 Chinois qui forment un personnel respectable de 550 personnes.\n\nSous les cinq gouverneurs qui se sont succédé depuis 1843 jusqu'à 1863, la colonie s'est formée et accrue comme par enchantement, en sorte que, sur ces rochers, presque déserts en 1839, on comptait, en 1863, 3,080 habitants européens ou américains, et plus de 121,900 Chinois, dans la ville et dans les villages, avec une entrée de 120,028 livres sterling et une sortie de 121,880 livres. Elle avait un grand palais pour le gouvernement et un autre palais pour le gouverneur.\n\nLa nouvelle ville de Vittoria, avec ses édifices somptueux, offre tout le confort de la vie, toute la propreté et tout le luxe anglais : des rues larges et souvent bordées d'arbres, des trottoirs, des portiques. Elle renferme des hôpitaux, des casernes, des théâtres, des clubs, une cathédrale protestante, une loge maçonnique inaugurée anno lucis 5854 (1852), des mosquées, des pagodes et des chapelles réformées. Toutes ces récentes constructions s'échelonnent, du rivage de la mer au sommet de la colline, sur une étendue de plus de cinq kilomètres. La mer elle-même, refoulée sur plusieurs points,\n\n3 Gouverneurs de l'île:\n\nSir H. Pottinger, du 28 juin au 7 mai 1844.\n\nSir John Davis, de mai 1844 au 1er mars 1848.\n\nSir George Bonham (sic) de mars 1848 à avril 1854.\n\nSir John Bowring, d'avril 1854 à mai 1859.\n\nSir Hercules Robinson, de septembre 1859 au 15 mars 1865. Sir F. MacDonnell (sic) de 1865 à 1872.\n\nSir A. Kennedy.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207161, "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": 232, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "226\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nthat the premises be used for the Kowloon British School (now King George the Fifth). During the occupation of Hong Kong, the Japanese used the School for a military hospital.\n\nThe School has had a succession of able Headmasters. Mr. George Piercy served from 1878 to 1918. He was succeeded by the Rev. W. T. Featherstone who saw through the building of the Kowloon premises and published The Diocesan Boys' School and Orphanage, Hong Kong, The History and Records 1869-1929 (Hong Kong, 1930). In recent years several Old Boys have been heads of the School, the Rev. George (Shee) Zimmern and the present Headmaster, Mr. S. J. Lowcock.\n\nThrough the education the Diocesan Boys' School has provided for the Eurasians of the Port Cities and Hong Kong, it has made a significant contribution to the shaping of the distinctive quality of life in these places over the years. It also has educated students from many other Asian countries. The present student body, which numbers about 1,000, is preponderantly Chinese. In 1952, a Preparatory School was opened. It is now located next to Christ Church on Waterloo Road.\n\nLa Salle College\n\nThe origins of the present La Salle College extend back to 1845, when the Roman Catholic Church had a school for Europeans. It was closed in 1847, but the next year a school for the education of Portuguese boys in the English language was opened, but by 1857 Catholic education in English had almost withered away. A new effort was made in 1860 and the Church opened both an English and a Portuguese school. In 1863 a new school building was built next to the Church of the Immaculate Conception on Pottinger Street near Wellington Street. Here the English, Portuguese and Chinese Schools were reorganised in 1865 as St. Saviour's College. The school provided a training in commercial subjects preparing students to serve as interpreters and clerks. The arrangement of the school into three branches was not altogether successful, and in 1875 the Chinese section was eliminated. Portions of the Portuguese community were also dissatisfied with the school.\n\nThe school had been conducted by lay teachers. It was thought that the school would be more satisfactory if it were under the charge of a Religious Order. Both the French Sisters in Wanchai and the Italian Sisters on Caine Road had been providing for some", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208800, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1979", "page_number": 257, "title": "RAS-1979", "content_text": "230\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nThe years following the change-over were not peaceful. The western relations with China were not, on the whole, harmonious. This was largely because a tradition-bound and conservative bureaucracy, loosely ruled from Peking, was reluctant to allow contact with outsiders except within the long established tributary relationship by which the \"middle kingdom\" dealt with foreigners.\n\nProfessor Graham uses mainly western (and almost completely British) sources in his research. His extensive use of Foreign Office, Colonial Office, Admiralty and Indian Office Records in London and New Delhi has given him the expertise with which to assess British policymaking and the multifarious problems arising in its implementation in the imperial period of the nineteenth century. He uses private papers to complement official sources, delving into such well known collections as those left by the \"actors\" of the story, among them Palmerston, Wellington, Russell, Pottinger, Aberdeen, James Matheson, William Jardine. And he does not neglect the less well known diaries and journals left by common seamen and admirals who were participants in the action of the book.\n\nThe purpose, then, as the author admits, is to see the conflict between China and the west \"through European eyes” (p. viii). But here the author is rather modest for he does make excellent use of the best available translated sources to attempt to understand the conflicts from Chinese views.\n\nThe chapters are roughly chronological, beginning with a discussion of the Canton \"system\" of trade in tea, silk, opium and silver, and tracing the \"campaigns\" of the naval skirmishes in 1839-41 and 1856-60. Inserted, at appropriate places, are chapters on the founding of Hong Kong as a colony, the problems of administration and command in the Royal Navy (the China Station was not actually established until a division of the East Indies Station occurred in 1844), and the impact of the Crimean War, Russia and the Indian Mutiny upon events in China.\n\nIt is curious that rather limited naval skirmishes leading to consular treaties should be denominated by historians as “wars”. Professor Graham defines three separate Anglo-Chinese Wars, viz. 1839-41 (\"the Opium War\"), 1856-58, and 1860. These limited campaigns were found necessary, according to the preponderant British view, because Chinese officialdom was largely ignorant of western armed strength and must be shown by a demonstration of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1979.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2801w5938", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208802, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1979", "page_number": 259, "title": "RAS-1979", "content_text": "232\n\nbut at page 349, read,\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\n\"Indeed, the Chinese garrison troops fled their strongholds en masse, before the assault forces reached the shore.\"\n\n\"... the Chinese defenses simply folded up....\"\n\n- and later, page 350,\n\n\"Once they (Chinese) had recovered their astonishment of seeing ships moving against wind and tide, they ranged along the banks, some performing kowtows as the gunboats passed.\"\n\nAnd see also numerous instances in Chapter II.\n\nBut the lapses do not greatly detract from the sound scholarship which this study represents. It is well documented and well articulated; it is written in a most elegant style; and this reader was greatly absorbed in the moving narrative. In more than one place one seems to hear strong echoes of Somerset Maugham relating the piques and barbs and jealousies and smoldering antipathies among colonial officials and merchants in the field. Certainly Napier and Pottinger were not universally loved; and Elgin and Admiral Seymour must have disliked each other intensely.\n\nThe book must be one of the most readable scholarly works on the period, and it makes excellent use of many specialist studies of some narrower issues and individual episodes, such as Peter W. Fay's The Opium War, 1840-42 (University of North Carolina Press, 1975), and Jack Gerson's excellent Horatio Nelson Lay and Sino-British Relations, 1854-60 (Cambridge, 1972), as well as all the now standard works on the nineteenth century opening of China.\n\nUniversity of Hong Kong, May 1980.\n\nLEIGH WRIGHT\n\nTHE IMPACT OF CHINESE SECRET SOCIETIES IN MALAYA--A HISTORICAL STUDY. Wilfred Blythe, pp. XIV, 566, maps, ill, app. Oxford University Press, 1969.\n\nAs befits the complicated, extensive and important nature of the subject, this is a long book (566 pages). It carries an introduction by the Right Hon. Malcolm Macdonald who, rightly in my", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1979.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2801w5938", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209606, "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-1982", "page_number": 263, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "241\n\n# APPENDIX\n\n## THE HONG KONG AMATEUR DRAMATIC CLUB AND ITS PREDECESSORS Significant Dates and Performances.\n\n(Authors and dates of first publication or production from A. Nicoll, A History of English Drama, \"Handlist of Plays\".)\n\n(Note: only ADC productions are noted here: professional performances, and performances by Garrison groups or other amateur groups not detailed here).\n\n### 1844/45\n\n18 Dec. 1844 proposed to form a dramatic company of amateurs under patronage of H. E. Governor Davis.\n\n### 1845/46\n\n3 Jan. 1846 Tues. last performance given by \"Corps Dramatique\" at Aqui's Theatre in the Lower Bazaar.\n\n27 Jan. 1846 party of Amateur Performers presented \"The Lady and the Devil\" followed by \"Fortune's Frolic\" Aqui's Theatre.\n\n24 Mar. 1846 Amateur Performers Wed. last, \"The Midnight Hour\" and \"The Sleep Walkers\" Theatre.\n\n28 Apr. 1846 Amateur performance Mon. evening at Aqui's.\n\n27 June 1846 - Amateur Performers fifth and last performance at Aqui's Theatre.\n\n8 Jan. 1846 at length a fair prospect of a Theatre being erected in Hong Kong. Idea suggested last year. Half of funds needed already subscribed.\n\n9 Feb. 1846 Meeting of shareholders of proposed Theatre at house of Mr. Just, corner Queen's Road and Pottinger Street.\n\n### 1848/49\n\n1 Nov. 1848 first public performance by amateurs in new theatre (the Victoria) erected by Mr. Duddell. \"The Weathercock” (J. T. Allingham, 1805) followed by a comic song, concluded with farce \"Rival Valets\" (J. Ebsworth, 1805).\n\n1 Dec. 1848 - Amateurs second performance. \"Fortune's Frolic\" farce (J. T. Allingham, 1799) \"Bambastes Furioso\" burlesque tragic operetta (W. B. Rhodes, 1810) \"The Weathered\" farce\n\n### 1852/53\n\n8 Nov. 1852 meeting at City Hall of persons interested in the revival of drama in Hong Kong. To take measures for preserving the Victoria Theatre to the community for purpose it was originally erected. Committee of four to organize Theatrical Company.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210823, "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": 174, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "157\n\nHongkong.\n\nIn November 1842, the Morrison Education Society School had moved over from Macau. After some months it occupied its newly built quarters on what became known as Morrison Hill.\n\nThe society had been organised after Dr. Robert Morrison's death by the merchants of Canton to honour his memory. Recognising his intense interest in education for the Chinese, the society was devoted to this purpose.\n\nDr. Legge welcomed the idea of a merger with the Morrison Education Society School. He realised that he would not be able to bring many students to Hongkong from Malacca, that it would be costly to build a school building and that its administration would make a heavy demand on his time.\n\nThe London Missionary Society held a conference in Hongkong in August 1843, to discuss strategy now that Hongkong and six ports in China were open to foreign residence. Among the topics discussed was the future of the Anglo Chinese College.\n\nThere were a variety of opinions expressed. Some wished to turn it into a theological school to train church workers, thus abandoning the liberal and open policy laid down by Dr. Morrison.\n\nAn article in the Colonial Gazette advocated the reorganisation of the school on broad principles, suggesting it should provide instruction “in the useful and ornamental arts, the sciences, and above all medicine.”\n\nSome of the missionaries thought the best location for the school would be on Chinese soil. If the school was at a Treaty Port, there would be a better class from which to draw students. There would also be a more abundant supply of qualified scholars to teach Chinese language and literature. Hongkong at this time had no settled respectable Chinese, let alone literati.\n\nThe idea was soon abandoned when Sir Henry Pottinger, the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210826, "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": 177, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "160 \n\nCARL SMITH\n\navail themselves of the intended boon, will be totally superfluous.\"\n\nAnother blow to those planning for the school was the transfer to the Morrison School of the annual grant it had been receiving from the British Government. The unfavourable action and views of Sir Henry Pottinger, the Governor, provoked considerable ill-will among the missionaries. The cutting off of the annual grant without prior notice put them in a difficult position.\n\nDr. Legge had already drawn upon the fund in anticipation of the grant. The matter became entangled in red tape upon the death of John Morrison in August 1843. He had been the transmitting agent. Now the executors of Morrison's estate were calling for repayment of the advance drawn by Dr. Legge, as it had not been officially authorised by the Government.\n\nFunds for the repayment were not immediately available to Dr. Legge,\n\nIn a letter he explained the matter to the Governor, but he did not receive a reply. After half a year passed, he again wrote. This time there was a reply stating the matter had been referred to London and patience must be exercised while awaiting a reply. Dr. Legge waited.\n\nIn the meantime Sir Henry Pottinger had been replaced as governor by Sir John Francis Davis. After another half year, Dr. Legge presented the matter to the new Governor. His Excellency replied he had no power to make a payment for a period before his incumbency unless it had been actually sanctioned by his predecessor or the Home Government. Neither had been done. Dr. Legge despaired of getting the affair unravelled from the red tape and dropped the matter.\n\nHe did not, however, drop his plans for finding a site and opening a school. In January 1844, the first land sale was held following the suspension of land grants. Dr. Legge bought two lots obligating himself to pay the annual Crown rent of £50 per year. The Governor, on learning that the lots were to be used for educational and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 212395, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1990", "page_number": 337, "title": "RAS-1990", "content_text": "314\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nPeter Hopkirk, The Great Game, On Secret Service in High Asia. (Oxford University Press 1991) 524 pp. illus., index.\n\nWhere Britain and other Western powers extended their colonial influence by the sea-routes, Russia's empire was achieved overland, first into Siberia and then east and southeast into Central Asia. Inevitably this brought Russian armies and officials nearer the frontier with British India, causing alarm in London; and throughout the nineteenth century a continuing system of intelligence-seeking and diplomatic nursing of local chiefs occupied some of the brightest and most adventurous of Russian and British officers and agents.\n\nThis was the Great Game of Hopkirk's title, a phrase popularised by Kipling but first coined by young Lt. Connolly of the 6th Bengal Native Light Cavalry fifty years earlier. It was certainly not a game for the soft-hearted, the difficulty being that any Briton found making maps or gathering information in the wild kingdoms north of the Himalayas was suspected of plotting a British invasion and would certainly risk death.\n\nThe story begins after the defeat of Napoleon when the Russians were strong and confident and felt that Central Asia was their rightful sphere. Russian troops fought their way southwards through the Caucasus, then inhabited by fierce Muslim and Christian tribesmen, towards northern Persia. Then the pressure switched eastwards, and by the middle of the century, as one after another of the cities and khanates of the former Silk Road fell to Russian arms, it looked part of a grand design to bring the whole of Central Asia under Russian control. Once that was achieved, strategists in London feared, the final advance would be on India.\n\nAs the gap between the two frontiers gradually narrowed, the Great Game intensified. Despite the dangers, there was no lack of young officers ready to risk their lives, filling in the blanks on the map, reporting on Russian movements. One of the earliest in the field, in 1810, was young Lt. Henry Pottinger, who would become Hong Kong's first Governor thirty-odd years later. He was bright, brave and self-confident. And there were just as courageous operators on the Russian side.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213162, "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-1993", "page_number": 230, "title": "RAS-1993", "content_text": "212\n\nIn 1914, the opium concession had been taken over by the Hong Kong Government and a policy for the discontinuance of the trade was pursued. But its use was not fully prohibited until after World War II,\n\nIt must be stressed that much of the information recorded in this short paper was by word of mouth. Over time facts can, of course, become distorted.\n\nHong Kong was affected directly but little by the First World War. 'But there were great celebrations, a two-day public holiday, a victory parade and a fireworks display (which cost HK$2,000) when it was over,' Mr. Lee told me.\n\n'We lived on the first floor of a three-storey building in Pottinger Street. There was a printing workshop on the ground floor.'\n\nAccording to Mr. Lee, his home was not far from the old Victoria Theatre, which stood in Pottinger Street. This was sometimes attended by Sir Francis May, the then Governor of Hong Kong (1912 to 1919). There were more street traders in those days, shouting out and advertising their wares.\n\nTo give a further idea of what Hong Kong was like in 1920, during World War One, the number of sedan chairs peaked at 1,215; whereas the number of rickshaws did not peak until 1924, with 3,411. In 1920, private cars numbered 351, up from 24 in 1914.\n\nI have always complimented Mr. Lee on his English. He, in turn, gives credit to his Chinese primary school teacher in Hong Kong. 'He was strict. But I learned my English grammar from him. Americans do not teach grammar,' he insists.\n\n‘I used to delight in taking a sentence to pieces and analysing it. We also studied the 'Four (Chinese) Books.'\n\nBecause his father, as a businessman in the fields of jewellery and cosmetics, spent 10 years in Australia as a young man, there was only one other child, Mr. Lee's elder sister. Mr. Lee's father was one of the two founders of the Sincere Department Store in Hong Kong. Father died at the age of 36, and filial Mr. Lee gives great credit to his mother, ‘a remarkably capable woman. She brought us up. I owe her a lot,' he told me.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213500, "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": 96, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "64\n\nwhich this path ended was naturally called by this same name. But among the Hakkas, the Island of Hong Kong or rather this northern portion of it, is to the present day called by the same name \"Kwantailou\" (Eitel, 1895, P.134)\n\nAs early as 1841, a shoreline road was planned in the northern part of the Hong Kong Island. It was pegged out by the Chinese labourers and made to connect Sai Ying Pun to East Point, a distance of nearly four miles. It was finished in early 1842 and was named Queen's Road. The road was so cut as to leave generally enough space between it and water and at a safe height above sea-level for the erection of godowns.\n\nThe possession and occupation of the Island in the first instance was largely due to military reasons, especially as the Chinese mainland was so near at hand. There were two Chinese forts on the tip of Kowloon peninsula. Military establishments were therefore quickly set up on the northern coast in order to prevent the Chinese from recapturing Hong Kong.\n\nIn the early days of February 1841, the navy had already laid claim to Navy Bay (Belcher's Creek) lying due east of the bluff then known as Belcher's Point and was already running up store houses on the sloping foreshore.\n\nThe Army had established two camps on the northern shore, one on Cantonment Hill (later known as the Victoria Barracks and the Seven-and-six Penny Hill) and other at Sai Ying Pun, on the long slope which now carries on its shoulders the Hong Kong University and at its foot, the old Reformatory Building (Sayer, 1937, P. 99) and above the present Pokfulam Road. On the site in Third Street where the St. Louis School now stands was a small battery, called the West Point Battery or Elliot's Battery. (A similar battery, East Point Battery or Pottinger's Battery was mounted on the site of Wellington Barracks)\n\nThe barracks at that time were of a more or less makeshift nature. Owing to unstable political situation, it was said that Lord Saltoun, then Commander-in-Chief, would not take upon himself to erect permanent and suitable barracks and officer quarters for the troops. The soldiers were encamped in flimsy structures of bamboo, cane, palm leaves and canvas. The so-called barracks at Sai Ying Pun were", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214054, "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": 122, "title": "RAS-1997", "content_text": "89\n\ncarriage roads and by the end of 1915 Pok Fu Lam, Aberdeen and Deep Water Bay were all accessible by car, to be followed by Repulse Bay in 1917, Shek O in 1923 and finally, in 1924, direct vehicle access to the Peak itself. After this date road construction on the Island was usually limited to road improvement, for instance to Kellett Road in 1928 and in the following year to Barker Road.\n\nThe timing of the development of much of the road network can be readily deduced from the names of streets named after Governors, military leaders and other prominent residents, for example on the Island Pottinger Street, Bonham Strand, and Kennedy, Hennessy, Chater, Sassoon and Stubbs Roads, and in Kowloon - Robinson (later renamed Nathan), Mody, Cameron and Ho Tung Roads, Kadoorie Avenue and Braga Circuit.\n\nIn Kowloon by 1887 a fairly comprehensive road system was in place south of Austin Road. The first 850 metres of the 30m-wide Robinson (Nathan) Road from Middle Road, some 1.1 kilometres of MacDonnell Road (later Canton Road), and Des Voeux Road (later Chatham Road) were all started. Many of the intersecting roads, for example Granville and Kimberley Roads, were already built. To the north of Austin Road the road network was concentrated in the southern Yau Ma Tei district with the 15m-wide 1.6km-long Station Road (later Shanghai Street) reaching Mong Kok Tsui. A small independent road system was already constructed in the Hung Hom area near the docks, for example Bulkeley Street and Gillies Avenue.\n\nBy the turn of the century there were some 35 kilometres of roads in Kowloon which included the first two original direct links into the newly-leased New Territories, that is those to Kowloon City and the Tong Mi area. In particular the road network in the new development at Yau Ma Tei was well under way and the Hung Hom road system had been enlarged and connected to the extension of Des Voeux (Chatham) Road. In order to relieve pressure on Victoria's densely built-up areas with their unhealthy conditions and at the same time to provide an easy access to facilitate opening up of the New Territories, the Harbour Master in 1901 proposed the construction of a cross-harbour bridge between Pottinger Street on the Island and Robinson (Nathan) Road, there being no engineering difficulty or \"any practical obstruction or even inconvenience to shipping\", the deck being 12 metres above high", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1997.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/wp98g7579", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214833, "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-1999", "page_number": 248, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "215\n\n \nquarrel with China was always stated to be with the Chinese Government, and not with the Chinese people. The British plenipotentiaries and commanders on land and sea always made this distinction, and tried to make it clear in proclamations and public notices addressed to the people of the various parts of China in which they were conducting their operations. The most striking example was probably at the Bogue, where the war steamer Nemesis had flown a banner with large Chinese characters, declaring that Britain was making war only on the Imperial government. Such attempts were repeated throughout the War. Before the army left Shanghai in 1842, Sir Henry Pottinger had issued a proclamation of this kind, once more reminding the inhabitants that the British were in fact fighting not the Chinese people but the Imperial government.\n\n \n13\n\n \nBesides taking this general approach to their operations, the naval and military officers of the Expedition were motivated by the traditions of their branch of the armed services, and by the laws, customs and usages of war as recognized in Western Europe of the day. They expected to apply these in China, embracing such considerations as recognition of flags of truce, humanity towards a defeated enemy, the fair treatment of prisoners, and the protection of the civilian population.\n\n \nBritish officers were quick to note acts of courage by Chinese or Tartar soldiers during engagements, and they accorded posthumous honours to brave commanders. They tried to curb looting and rapine by their soldiers and camp followers, and were particularly anxious to spare women and children. They regretted the suicide of Chinese and Manchu commanders in defeat and were dismayed by the self-destruction of many families who took their own lives at Chapu and Chinkiang, rather than fall into their hands. Many examples of their chivalrous outlook can be cited from their accounts of the War, and some will be noted below.\n\n \nProblems of Control\n\n \nBut war is war. Despite the best efforts of their commanders and their officers, British troops behaved badly at times. Drink was responsible for some of the excesses. Wyndham Baker is very implicit on this point. After the capture of Amoy, he wrote:", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214835, "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-1999", "page_number": 250, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "217\n\n \nwar, did his best to maintain control of his forces and to restrain the troops. Indeed, the more I read about Gough and his conduct, the more I admire the way in which he sought to conduct his operations. A few indications of his undoubted humanity may be given here:\n\n \nAt Amoy, Sir Hugh had published an Order of the Day, that \"private property was to be held inviolable, and that which in England obtains the name of robbery deserves no better name in China.” Camp followers who did try their hand at looting in Amoy were condemned to death on the spot.\" Such condign punishment is confirmed by an account from the Chinese side. The poet Chu Shih-yun of Chinkiang area mentions that the British executed two sepoys and put up a placard warning against rape and looting.22 Sir Hugh was equally solicitous in smaller matters. After the capture of Chenhai, he had stopped sailors who were hacking off Chinese prisoners' pigtails with their jack knives.23 In a more serious intervention, and with the Admiral in full support, he sharply opposed Sir Henry Pottinger's wish to plunder Ningpo “as a reprisal for the maltreatment there of British prisoners.”24\n\n \nSir Hugh's behaviour at Ningpo must indeed be regarded as exemplary. Anxious to save the place from the looting from which Amoy had suffered (from the Chinese rabble as much if not more than from his own force) as soon as the city was occupied he had called together some of the principal inhabitants and enlisted their cooperation in organizing a corps of Chinese police to protect private property. He was especially insistent that the troops should take good care of the buildings in which they were given sleeping quarters. \"When the Royal Irish and a company of the Westmorelands were stationed in a temple, he gave orders that they must not use the painted and gilded central hall, where examinations were held, for fear it might be spoilt.\"\n\n \n925\n\n \nUnfortunately, Gough's hopes for the city were dashed. Following the unsuccessful Chinese counter-attack on Ningpo, Chinese looters had taken advantage of the confused situation to loot the city with disastrous results. Sir Hugh wrote home, \"When I look at this place, I am sick of war.”26\n\n \nBrigadier Colin Campbell\n\n \nOther senior British officers also had scruples and set high standards", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214842, "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-1999", "page_number": 257, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "224\n\nseemingly well prepared for paying imperial honours. Surgeon Cree relates in his diary that upon the signature of the Treaty of 1842 on board the British flagship on 29 August, a plain yellow flag was hoisted at the main and saluted with twenty-one guns. On September 14 following he noted that \"all ships of the Expedition hoisted the yellow flag at the main - the royal standard of China - and at noon fired a royal salute of twenty-one guns.\"\n\n50\n\nThere was a distinct awareness of the fineness of the country itself. Of Central China, Sir John Davis declared that “it yields to none in the whole world, and is equalled by very few.\"5 Lieutenant Wyndham Baker of the Madras Artillery also waxed lyrical on the subject.52 Even Sir Henry Pottinger, the Plenipotentiary responsible for forcing the Treaty of Nanking upon the Chinese, had called China \"this superb country,” in his despatch to the British Foreign Secretary announcing the event. Several decades earlier, Sir Henry Ellis, member of the Amherst Embassy in 1816, had written that \"it was impossible to travel through the Emperor of China's dominions without feeling that he has the finest country within an imperial ring-fence in the world.\"54\n\n53\n\nNone of the books and letters consulted contains the derogatory or offensive terms for Chinese in use later in the century. British sailors jocularly used the term “Fokies\" for their opponents,55 and referred to the mandarins as “mad-marines,\"56 but the Chinese themselves are not here dismissed as “Chinks,” “Chows,\" \"Heathen Chinee” or “Mongolians\" (as they so often were at a later time, in those English-speaking countries to which they had gone in search of gold or employment) but invariably as \"the Chinese\" or \"Chinamen.\" Indeed, many of the authors pay tribute to the honesty and good manners of the ordinary people.\n\nIn short, our naval, military and civilian writers of the period were still generally respectful of China, its Court and its inhabitants.57\n\nThese facts are worth keeping in mind when considering the Opium War. We should be careful to view the conflict in the context of its own time, and not of that later period when Western attitudes towards China had changed for the worse.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214845, "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-1999", "page_number": 260, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "227\n\nChinese, except as regards the use of Opium, are exceedingly temperate in their habits and we cannot account for the immense distilleries which have been discovered here.\"\n\n19 Captain Sir Edward Belcher, Narrative of a Voyage Round the World, performed in Her Majesty's Ship Sulphur, During the Years 1836-1842. Including details of the Naval Operations in China, From Dec. 1840, to Nov. 1841 (London 1843, Dawsons of Pall Mall reprint, 1970, Vol.II, p.152.\n\nWyndham Baker, p.156. Commenting, he had added, \"The British common soldier in fact is a strange compound, for they are very kind to their prisoners when once the excitement ceases.\"\n\n21 Beeching, p.136.\n\n22\n\n24 Beeching, p.152. Another British placard recorded by Chu warned that there was to be no more commandeering of goods without payment: ibid. However, despite good intentions, according to another Chinese diary, this time from Shanghai in 1842, rape and looting did occur there, and impressment of civilians for forced labour for such heavy work as shifting gun emplacements and gunpowder [ibid., p.149]. Wyndham Baker, when landing his guns before Chin Kiang Foo, refers to \"about 100 helpless natives to assist in carrying the shot boxes.\" Baker, in Blackwood's 1964, pp.161-2.\n\nBeeching, p.139.\n\nThe British Foreign Secretary, Lord Aberdeen, had agreed, minuting: “The worst proposal I have seen from Mr. Pottinger....It ought not to pass unnoticed\": Beeching, pp.139-140. But Pottinger deserves credit for preserving the famed Porcelain Pagoda at Nanking from British soldiers and sailors who, armed with chisels and hatchets, were intent on obtaining souvenirs by stripping tiles from the tower. \"Sir Henry Pottinger was very indignant at this gratuitous vandalism; a guard was stationed to keep off intruders, and no one was thenceforth allowed to visit the tower without a permit from the Admiral or Commander-in-Chief.\" Parkes wrote, \"Such an act as this is shameful and a disgrace to the British name.\" From Stanley Lane-Poole, Sir Harry Parkes in China (London, Methuen & Co., 1901), p.32. Alas, the Porcelain Pagoda was destroyed by the Taipings not long after, in 1856.\n\n25 Edgar Holt, The Opium Wars in China (London, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1964), p.139.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214967, "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-2000", "page_number": 63, "title": "RAS-2000", "content_text": "18\n\n'purge' as a requisite for good health.\n\n29 Chong Su-see: The Foreign Trade in China. 1919.\n\n21 Elliot lasted until replaced by Pottinger in August 1841; he was then sent as Consul to the new Republic of Texas, \"a British diplomatic posting equivalent at the time to Turkestan.\" (M. Booth)\n\n22 M. Booth: Opium: A History, London 1996, p.136.\n\n23 Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801-1885), great reformer and philanthropist.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215869, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 168, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "101\n\nSURVEY OF THE DEVIL'S PEAK REDOUBT\n\nAND\n\nGOUGH BATTERY\n\nLAWRENCE LAI WAI CHUNG, DANIEL HO CHI WING AND LEUNG HING FUNG\n\nPurpose of this note\n\n1\n\nThis short note presents the key land and building survey findings about the existing physical forms of the sites and building structures for the redoubt (the Devil's Peak Redoubt) and Gough Battery on Devil's Peak,1 an ex-British military site in Hong Kong. It elaborates from a surveying point of view on pioneer works of Bard (1988); Ko and Wordie (1996); and Ko (2001) known to the authors.\n\nBackground of survey\n\nConducted in June, July, August, and November 2002 by a local chartered land surveyor, the said survey was sponsored by a grant obtained by the first two authors from the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust. This grant has been awarded for a study of the disused military sites on Devil's Peak as part of the heritage of Hong Kong and to promote their conservation and better future use.\n\nPart of the study is the detailed land surveying and filming2 of four clusters of sites. They are the Devil's Peak Redoubt on the highest ground of Devil's Peak (generally at about 222m), which has a satellite pentagonal pillbox3 with loopholes of the same design adopted for the firing walls of the redoubt; a site at 196 m further down (possibly an observation and fire command post) along the ridge line of Devil's Peak; the Gough Battery (at about 160 m); and the Pottinger Battery (at about 81 m). Figure 1 shows the present environment of Devil's Peak, Figure 2 shows a bird's eye view of the redoubt, the 196 m site, and Gough Battery.\n\nA dugout connects the redoubt and the 196m site and there was an old military path that linked the latter site with the Gough Battery. The Kwun Tong District Board has re-paved this path, converted the mud track from Gough Battery to the redoubt into a cement path, and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215870, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 169, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "102\n\ncleared vegetation and debris from the dugout. The project, “The repaving of the walking trail leading to Pau Toi San,” commenced on January 28, 2002, and was completed on May 17 of the same year. The total cost was HK$560,000.* Most unfortunately, such a recent repaving endeavour completely destroyed the old military path that linked the Gough Battery and the 196m site by widening and resurfacing the old path with cement. The repaving work also removed the original stone retaining walls that were used to stabilise part of the slopes along the path. To reach Gough Battery today on foot, one may follow what is now designated Section 3 of the Lord Wilson Trail from an access road to the Tseung Kwan O Chinese Permanent Cemetery. Before upgrading in connection with the development of the cemetery, this access road was part of the old Anderson Road, the only metalled road in East Kowloon until the urbanisation of the area. The Pottinger Battery is located below a platform formed during the period 1973 to 1978 below the access road to the cemetery.\n\nThis note shall confine itself to the first and third sites, as the other two sites merit further archive and on-site research. The major survey findings of these two sites are presented here in the form of two measured drawings (Figures 3 and 4, reproduced with dimensions omitted).\n\nIt should be noted that better information on the physical forms of the sites and the military structures exists beyond that found in the existing literature or public documents locally deposited in the Public Records Office and the survey plans and aerial photographs produced or possessed by Lands Department.\n\nGeneral history of the military sites on Devil's Peak\n\nA chronology of events relating to the Devil's Peak is provided in Appendix 1. As early as 1899, the idea of developing three batteries on Devil's Peak at three levels was expressed in military drawings. The highest site, 'Battery for 6-inch', eventually became Devil's Peak Redoubt, whereas the middle, 'Battery for 9.2-inch,' and the lowest site became Gough Battery and Pottinger Battery, respectively.\n\nAccording to Rollo (1992), the Gough Battery, like the Pottinger Battery, had been proposed by the British Committee on Armament on", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215871, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 170, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "103\n\n6\n\nCertain Stations at Home and Abroad shortly before the taking up of the New Territories by the British in 1898. The War Department had a scheme, drawn in 1902, to develop the \"low promontory\" between Yau Tong and Chong Lui (which has become the present Lei Yue Mun Typhoon Shelter) into a barracks area. This promontory is now the Yau Tong industrial and residential zone. The proposed military reserve was extended to cover the entire Cha Kwo Ling promontory (\"Rocky Hill\"). Neither the barracks scheme nor the reserve has ever been implemented. However, there is no doubt that the British military attached great significance to the Lei Yue Mun and Devil's Peak area in the late 19th Century. The leasing of the New Territories definitely had a clear military intention, because it had the French, Russian, or Imperial Chinese forces in mind.\n\nThe Gough Battery was definitely in place as early as 1900. The Pottinger Battery was likely erected at the same time, and not later than 1902. The Duke of Connaught was said to have observed the firing practices of both the Gough and Pottinger Batteries in 1907 (Rollo 1992: 83). The approved establishment for the Gough Battery in 1914 was one officer plus 15 soldiers (Rollo 1992: 96).\n\n[The Pottinger Battery had two 9.2-inch BL (Breech-Loader) Mark X guns. The Gough Battery originally had two 6-inch BL Mark VII guns. However, one of the gun emplacements was later enlarged to accommodate a 9.2-inch BL gun no later than 1910. The approved establishment strength of the Pottinger Battery in 1914 was one officer plus 26 soldiers (Rollo 1992: 96).]\n\nThe Devil's Peak Redoubt was the location of the Eastern Fire Command. It was definitely in place by 1914. Though it could accommodate at least 150 soldiers in action, the approved establishment of the Redoubt in 1914 was only one officer plus 10 soldiers (Rollo 1992: 96).\n\nThe 6-inch gun at the Gough Battery was removed as early as 1912. The three 9.2-inch BL guns at Devil's Peak were subsequently relocated to the batteries on Hong Kong Island South. The 9.2-inch calibre Mark X gun at Gough Battery, originally on a Mark V mounting (Rollo 1992: 187), was removed in 1936 to Stanley Fort and placed on a Mark VII mounting (Horsnell 1998/1999: 249), and the two guns at", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215872, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 171, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "104\n\nPottinger Battery were relocated to Bokhara Battery, Cape D'Aguilar in 1939 or 1940 (Rollo: 201). The batteries' arc of fire at Devil's Peak in 1938 reached the southwestern tip of Lamma Island and the south of the Po Toi Group of islands, whereas those at Stanley reached beyond the southwestern part of the Lema Islands (Dangan Liedao).\n\nThus, before the Japanese invasion of Hong Kong on 8th December 1941, there were no guns at either the Gough or Pottinger Battery. However, the sites at Devil's Peak had become part of the Gin Drinker's Line in the 1930s. This Line runs from Gin Drinker's Bay (Kwai Chung) in the west to Port Shelter in the east. The Devil's Peak was a crucial component of the Kowloon segment of the Line. The Japanese had good maps about the location of the defences of Hong Kong. Some remarks on the defence works at Devil's Peak are registered in a map produced in 1939/1940 (Empson 1992). Defensive positions in the military sites on Devil's Peak were taken up by the 5/7 Rajputs of the Hong Kong Garrison on 12 December, after the fall of the Shing Mun Redoubt in the western part of the Line three days before.\n\nThe sites at Devil's Peak witnessed heavy defensive fighting by the 5/7 Rajputs and the First Mountain Battery of the Hong Kong and Singapore Artillery. The latter expended 400 rounds with their four 3.7 inch field guns before the evacuation of the defenders to Hong Kong Island on the morning of 13th December. The defenders destroyed all equipment before they crossed the Harbour during the night. Thereafter, the Japanese used the sites to bombard the Island and the defenders' gun returned fire.\n\nAfter the defeat of Japan, the Devil's Peak sites were abandoned by the British, although the batteries on the Island side of Lei Yue Mun Pass were reoccupied and put into active military use until the mid-1980s. Before 1997, there had been little news connected with British military activities at Devil's Peak, save for an air accident in the 1950s. In March 1956, two Royal Navy Sea Hawks struck fog-shrouded Devil's Peak, killing the pilots and an elderly lady (Eather 1996).\n\nA surviving example of the 9.2-inch guns that were deployed on the batteries at Devil's Peak can be seen at the Buyu Battery (Siu 1997: Plate 6 at p.76) that guards Humen (The Bogue). This battery was modernised in 1883 with the assistance of British and German military experts.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215896, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 195, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "1864\n\nThe terra \"Kowloon Battery\" appears right to the north of the expression \"Lei Yue Mun\" in the Sun On Gazetteer, referred to as the \"Sun On District Gazetteer Map.\"\n\nEmpson, 1992, p.113 (Plate 1-25)\n\n1876\n\nThe name Devil's Peak appears in a sea defences map of 1876.\n\n1888\n\n1895\n\n27 May 1898\n\nThe name Devil's Peak appears in Stanford's Map of Hong Kong and Kowloon.\n\nThe Chinese translation \"Kwei Shan,\" literally \"devil hill,\" appears alongside Devil's Peak in the revised Collinson Map.\n\nThe Committee on Armament on Certain Stations at Home and Abroad decided on 27 May 1898 that two 9.2-inch Bl. Mark X and two 6-inch QF guns were to be mounted on Devil's Peak at sites to be called Pottinger Battery and Gough Battery, respectively, to strengthen Eastern defences.\n\nEmpson, 1992, p.134 (Plate 2-3)\n\n(Plate 2-4)\n\nEmpson, 1992, p.135\n\nEmpson, 1992, pp.136-137\n\nRollo, 1992, p.70\n\nThe Kowloon Battery is universally associated with the fort outside the south gate of the Kowloon Walled City.\n\nSee p. 187 Rollo, 1992 for a drawing of a 9.2-inch BL Mark X on a Mark V mounting\n\nJune 1898\n\nJanuary 1899\n\nThe leasing of the New Territories for 100 years by the British with effect from 1 July 1898, Devil's Peak became part of British Hong Kong.\n\nConference on Armaments regarded Hong Kong as a dockyard, port, and naval base of great importance.\n\nThe 6-inch guns proposed by the 1898 Committee took shape in the form of BL guns on Centre Pivot Mark II mountings instead of QF guns,\n\nThree batteries proposed for Devil's Peak.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.72\n\n128\n\nPage 195\n\nPage 196", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215897, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 196, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "1900\n\nGough Battery first mentioned with two 6-inch BL Mark VII guns.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.187\n\nGough Battery was in existence as early as 1900:\n\n1901\n\nA compass sketch drawn by Colonel L. Brown, C.R.E. in China, and dated 13.0.1901 shows the \"Plan of Proposed Site for New Barracks: Devil's Peak\" at the present Yau Tong industrial zone. The plan had the annotation \"new road to batteries.\"\n\nCO129/305\n\nIt had a history of more than a century by the date of production of this paper.\n\n1902\n\n1902\n\n6 October 1906\n\nA compass sketch of ground to north of Devil's Peak showed land to be acquired by the War Department, with the locations of Gough and Pottinger Batteries indicated as \"New Batteries.\" Signs of quarrying at the present Lei Yue Mun Valley were shown.\n\nThe construction of Taikoo Docks at Quarry Bay on the island of Hong Kong commenced.\n\nAugust 1902: a 9.2-inch gun was delivered to Pottinger Battery.\n\nOwen Committee Report dated 6 October 1906 stated that Hong Kong was the principal naval base of the British fleet in the Far East and a commercial port of great importance liable to a Class A Attack by Battleships.\n\n[Therefore, one of the 6-inch guns proposed for Gough Battery by the 1898 Committee was replaced by a 9.2-inch BL Mark X gun by 1910.]\n\n6 February 1907 Royal visit by Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, who arrived at the Colony on 6 February 1907.\n\nLater, the Duke observed firing exercises for the 9.2-inch guns at Pottinger Battery and the 6-inch guns at Gough Battery.\n\nPRO219\n\nEastern District Board 1994, p.25\n\nRollo, 1992, p.70, p.79\n\nRollo, 1992, p.79, p.80, 187\n\nRollo, 1992, p.83\n\n129", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215898, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 197, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "March 1909 \n\nJune 1909 \n\nDecember 1909 \n\nTaikoo Docks completed. \n\nVisit of the Inspector General of the Forces (Inspector of Royal Garrison Artillery). \n\nThe Committee of Imperial Defence came to the view that the three 9.2-inch guns at Devil's Peak could well be opposed by 12x12-inch, 12x8-inch, and 18x7-inch guns of three battleships in the event of hostility, \n\nA report stated that the new emplacement for the 9.2-inch gun, originally earmarked for Pottinger Battery, was nearly ready and the pedestal was in position. \n\nThe gun was a 9.2-inch BL Mark X on a carriage Barbette Mark V. \n\nRollo, 1992, p.85 \n\nRollo, 1992, p.87 \n\nRollo, 1992, p.83, p.85, p.187 \n\nThe 6-inch BL Mark VII was still there but was recommended for removal. \n\n1910 \n\nThe third 9.2-inch gun for Devil's Peak was completed (for Gough Battery). \n\nRollo, 1992, p.89 \n\n22 November 1910 \n\nService instructional practice at Pottinger Battery \n\nRollo, 1992, p.86 \n\n8 January 1912 \n\nWar Office Approved Armaments for Devil's Peak: Pottinger Battery: two 9.2-inch BL MX guns \n\nRollo, 1992, p.91 \n\nApril 1912 \n\n28 July 1914 \n\n5 August 1914 \n\nGough Battery: one 9.2-inch BL MX gun \n\nThe 6-inch gun at Gough Battery was removed. \n\nColonel L. Robertson, Chief Engineer of the South China Command signed the 1:120 sketches \"Devil's Peak: Copy of the Original Design prepared by Lt. A. F. Day and coloured by him to show progress up to 1.7.1913,\" and \"Devil's Peak Redoubt as constructed\" showing progress up to 1.7.1914. \n\nDeclaration of war against Germany by Britain. \n\nThe establishment for the Eastern Fire Command at Devil's Peak: \n\nPost at Redoubt: 1 officer + 10 soldiers Gough Battery: 1 officer 15 soldiers \n\nRoilo, 1992, p.187 \n\nPRO central reference 441 (1 & 2) \n\nRollo, 1992, p.96 \n\nA stone inscription showing the year 1914 can be found \n\nin the redoubt. \n\n130", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215899, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 198, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "Pottinger Battery: 1 officer + 26 soldiers\n\n3 February 1920 The Chief of Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, considered that Hong Kong could resist Japanese attack for 3 months before relief from Singapore arrived.\n\nWashington Treaty\n\n1920/1921\n\n1922\n\nThe Admiralty informed the Committee of Imperial Defence that it was the authority to advise the scale of attack on ports and that for Hong Kong, the \"status quo applies.\"\n\nRollo, 1992, p.98\n\nRollo, 1992, p.101\n\nRollo, 1992, p.102\n\n1924\n\n\"Devil's Peak Sheet No.3,\" Ordnance Survey 1904, corrected and printed at the War Office 1924, shows road access, including \"roads suitable for man-handled guns\" and detailed land uses in the Devil's Peak area, with boundaries of War Department lands delineated. However, the locations of batteries and the Redoubt are not shown.\n\nPRO100(2)\n\n1927\n\nAerial Photograph No. H19 15 taken by HMS Pegasus.\n\nThe Joint Overseas and Home Defence Committee review.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.104\n\n1928\n\nSteel choke caused problems to the 9.2-inch guns at Devil's Peak.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.105\n\n1929\n\nAugust 1930\n\nFebruary 1931\n\nChinese writer/composer, Tien Han, visited Hong Kong and was impressed by the scenic views of Lei Yue Mun, as stated in his poem \"Good Bye Hong Kong.\"\n\nThe 12th Heavy Battery replaced the 9-inch guns with anti-choke pattern.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.105\n\nThe 12 Heavy Battery fired new guns at Gough Battery. \"Gough Battery fired over Hong Kong Island and Repulse Bay.\"\n\nRollo, 1992, p.105\n\n1933\n\nAnnual Review of the Defence of Ports.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.105\n\n22 October 1934 The 12 Heavy Battery practised indirect shots at Pottinger Battery.\n\n1934\n\nA letter from the Military Operation Branch of the War Office indicated plans to modernise two 9.2-inch guns at Devil's Peak in 1936/37 with 35-degree mountings.\n\n1936\n\nThe Hong Kong Defence Scheme\n\nRollo, 1992, p.107\n\nRollo, 1992, p.108, 109\n\nRollo, 1992, p.110, 112\n\n131", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215900, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 199, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "indicated the establishment for the battery observation post (BOP), battery plotting room (BPR), and Eastern Fire Command. A total of 88 officers and soldiers were proposed.\n\n30 December 1936 The 12 Heavy Battery dismantled the 9.2-inch gun at Gough Battery (The two 9.2-inch guns at Pottinger were left for the moment).\n\n23 October 1937\n\n1939/1940\n\nJoint Overseas and Home Defence Committee considered re-fortification or de-militarisation of Hong Kong, assuming that it took 90 days for the fleet to relieve Hong Kong. Bokhara Battery constructed.\n\n1940\n\nThe guns at Pottinger Battery removed.\n\nA Japanese military map shows the details of defence deployment at Devil's Peak. It states that for the Devil's Peak defence works, \"underground passages have been altered and barbed wire added.\"\n\n12 December 1941 During the early hours, the 5/7 Rajputs and 1 Mountain Battery took up positions at Devil's Peak. The six 3.7-inch howitzers of the 1st Mtn Bty fired 400 rounds at the advancing Japanese, who were at Black Hill.\n\nThe 5th Anti Aircraft Regiment also moved to Devil's Peak with 6 Lewis Guns\n\nAt 1800 hours, the garrison received orders to withdraw to Hong Kong Island. The evacuation took place the next morning.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.119\n\n2\n\nRollo, 1992, p.113\n\nRollo, 1992, p.120, p.201\n\nEmpson, 1992, p.146 (Plate 2-12)\n\nThe arcs of fire of Devil's Peak's batteries can be found in Rollo, 1992, at p.123\n\nRollo, 1992, p.130, p.171, 173\n\nPRO 16947\n\nPRO 17849\n\n15 December 1941\n\n13 December 1941 Coast defence batteries on Hong Kong Island shelled Devil's Peak, now in Japanese hands.\n\nPak Sha Wan Battery hit by Japanese light artillery fire from Devil's Peak.\n\nRollo, 1992, p.131\n\n18 December 1941\n\nPak Sha Wan Battery fired at Devil's Peak Village.\n\n1944\n\nA USAAF aerial photograph shows Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, including the Devil's\n\nRollo, 1992, p.133\n\nRollo, 1992, p.135\n\n132", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215901, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 200, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "Peak headland.\n\n11 November 1945 RAF aerial photograph Aerial Photograph no. 0286 (F63/58A/RAF/775) showing Devil's Peak taken.\n\nSometime before Systematic destruction of disused military structures in Hong Kong by government. 1949\n\nMarch 1956\n\n1959\n\n25 January 1963\n\nTwo Royal Navy Sea hawks struck Devil's Peak in fog, killing the pilots and an old lady.\n\nLocal writer Hsu Hong Shing wrote the essay \"The fogs at Lei Yue Mun.\" RAF aerial photograph No. 4037 showing Devil's Peak taken.\n\nAerial photograph No. 5244 (2700 feet) taken on 25 January 1963 by Hunting Surveys Ltd.\n\nAerial Photograph No. 0286\n\nBather, 1996, p.115\n\nAerial Photograph No. 5244\n\n1:600 Survey Plan No. C-198-NW-15\n\n1973\n\nFormation of a cut platform above Pottinger Battery commenced.\n\nPublication of 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-4D,\n\nJune 1975\n\nJuly 1975\n\nPublication of 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-9B.\n\nMarch 1976\n\n1976\n\n13 July 1977\n\nPublication of a revised edition of 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-9B.\n\n\"Plan of the Proposed Site for Public Park, Devil's Peak, Sai Kung District,\" Drawing No. SKG1405, File no. LNT52/SGS/59, Survey Sheet No. 11-SE-B1,2,3,4 showed the Redoubt as a \"water works reserve;\" the borrow area above Pottinger Battery.\n\nDr. S.M. Bard inspected the fortifications on Devil's Peak.\n\nThe record in the A&M file dated 13.7.1977 states:\n\nDevil's Peak, Kowloon\n\nArea A:\"lower fort,\" this is within the area proposed for a public park. Fortifications in reinforced concrete, underground shelters, and cement/concrete gun-platforms (2 large ones).\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-9B\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-4D\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-9B\n\nAM77-0101\n\nRollo's work has revealed the complete history\n\nof the Redoubt, Gough and\n\n133", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215902, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 201, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "June 1978\n\nApril 1981\n\n29 September 1983\n\nOctober 1985\n\nArea B: \"upper fort\": This is the Devil's Peak. Mostly cement and reinforced concrete, but also utilising normal rock formations and old stone walls. Very formidable arrangement of fortifications; possibly of two periods - stone and concrete. between 1st and 2nd World War. There is a tract leading from A to B. With cemented walls. Inspection of maps revealed that in the sheet printed in 1954, Area B is shown as \"fort ruins,\" but in the sheet printed 1924, it is not shown.\n\nFormation of cut platform and road to Chinese cemetery completed.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-4D.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-4D,\n\nA letter from Dr. S.M. Bard to A&M Office states that the \"Tung Lung Volunteer Team\" found a 25cm x 25cm stone inscription \"40 Coy, RE 1914\" in a passage inside the Redoubt. Dr. Bard explained that \"RE\" stands for \"Royal Engineers.\" \"That is, the fort was constructed by the 40th Company of the Royal Engineers in 1914.\"\n\nThe letter also states that in 1977, he \"could not find many facts about the 'Area B' (upper fort), beyond the fact that it was of British origin. Enquiries at the PRO and the Headquarters British Forces were also negative. In particular, the date of construction of the fort could not be ascertained.\"\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-9B.\n\nH\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-4D\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-D\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-9B\n\nPottinger Batteries.\n\nArea A is Gough Battery; B is the Redoubt.\n\nThe concealment of the Redoubt on maps is probably due to security consideration.\n\nOctober 1987\n\n1988\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan Survey Plan 11-SE-4D.\n\nThe Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club funded the repair of a footpath to Gough Battery,\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-4D\n\n134", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215903, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 202, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "March 1989\n\nJuly 1990 August 1990\n\n15 January 1995\n\nNovember 1995\n\nMarch 1998\n\n12 August 1999\n\n16 August 1999\n\nNovember 1999\n\nNovember 1999\n\nDecember 1999\n\nPublication of the Metroplan Landscape Strategy for the Urban Fringe and Coastal Areas by the Strategic Planning Unit, Lands and Works Branch. Appendix 8 shows a Lei Yue Mun Rural Park proposal.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan 11-SE-4D.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan 11-SE-9B.\n\nThe earth breaking for the construction of the Wilson Trail. Devil's Peak (Gough Battery) became included as part of Section 3 (Lam Tin (formerly Ham Tin) to Cheng Lan Shue) of the Trail.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan 11-SE-4D.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan 11-SE-9B.\n\nCirculation of Kwun Tong District Board 1999 Environmental and Health Improvement Committee Paper No. 29/99.\n\nTechnical Report 3 dated 16 August 1999 by Environmental Resources Management Study on Village Improvement and Upgrading of Lei Yue Mun Area, Agreement No. CE108/98 states the \"much of the fortifications still survive and provides opportunities for tourist development.\"\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan 11-SE-9B.\n\nPublication of a revised 1:1000 Survey Plan 11-SE-4D.\n\nA pedestrian link was proposed in Reprovisioning Working Paper December 1999 in Study On Minimization of the Impacts of Western Coast Road on Lei Yue Mun Village (commissioned by the Territory Development Department) to connect the Pottinger Battery and Lei Yue Mun Point.\n\nA tunnel option was proposed as an alternative to the Western Coast Road to Tseung Kwan O New Town in Feasibility Study on the Alternative Alignment for the Western Coast Road, Tseung Kwan O Final Report-Executive Summary November 1999 Agreement No. CE46/96 by Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd (in association with Environment Resources Management Hong Kong Ltd; Hassel Ltd and MVA Asia Ltd.).\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-4D Survey Plan 11-SE-9B\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-9B\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-4D Kwun Tong District Board (1999)\n\nERM, 1999, p.94\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-4D\n\nSurvey Plan 11-SE-9B Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited 1999\n\nMaunsell Consultants Asia Ltd 1999\n\n135", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]