[
    {
        "id": 205170,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 126,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "OLD BRITISH KOWLOON\n\n121\n\nunreliable information concerning land tenure in the ceded area received from the Chinese district authorities the British commissioners requested them to issue a proclamation calling on the proprietors and renters of land to surrender their title deeds for examination. This was done, and in the commissioners' words \"deeds of all kinds poured in\". On comparing these with the lists already furnished by the Chinese district magistrate little or no agreement existed. Moreover the commissioners considered that there was every reason to believe that the whole of the deeds were not in; particularly those of mortgage. An attempt to enquire into boundaries made it clear that the greater part of the inhabitants were squatters of longer or shorter periods who were consequently unwilling to give much information respecting their holdings. The largest group of deeds handed in for inspection pertained to these squatters, and the commissioners described them as:\n\nan extraordinary collection of sub-leases, mortgages, and unstamped documents, ... called white deeds. So numerous, complicated and unintelligible were these, and many of them so new in appearance, that the Commissioners concluded most of them had been manufactured for the occasion\".\n\nThere were many cross-claims of all kinds and after the most careful investigation they could make the commissioners came to the opinion that the actual rights of owners, lessees, mortgagees or cultivators could only be ascertained as the land was required for use, portion by portion.\n\nTen villages were named in the report. The houses in six of them were listed and valued. This was not considered necessary in the case of the other four which were situated in the inland portion of the peninsula and were not of immediate concern to government.\n\nThe population of Kowloon, then calculated at 5105 persons, was thus composed of diverse elements. This was recognised in the proclamation made by the Hong Kong Government on 24 March 1860 on first taking possession of Tsim Sha Tsui. It reads:\n\nBe it known to you that all the old inhabitants of this site, who are indeed orderly people, will be allowed to live there for the present and follow their various occupations as heretofore, but no new comers will be\n\n**\n\n+\n\n·",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209398,
        "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": 55,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "33\n\nThis contrasts with the situation in Hong Kong, for instance, where Chinese were tried by colonial judges principally according to English law, and also with Singapore where a similar situation obtained.\n\nLand Regulations: the Constitution of the International Settlement\n\nEarlier I have made mention of the Land Regulations without clearly explaining what these were. As these Land Regulations formed the Constitution of the Settlement on which nearly the entire structure of government was built it seems proper to give some more details about them,\n\nIn the course of the Settlement's history (1845-1943) three sets of Land Regulations were issued: in 1845, 1854 and 1869. They all dealt in various degrees with the delimitation of the settlement's boundaries, the mode of renting land, the way in which foreign land-renters or ratepayers could elect a Municipal Council, the organisation of the Municipal Council and other administrative details. The way in which these sets of Land Regulations originated differed from each other.\n\nThe 1845 Land Regulations\n\nThe first set was issued by the taotai Kung Mu-chiu, on November 29, 1845. According to the preface these had been drafted by the Chinese and British authorities, meaning Kung and consul Balfour, \"in communication together\". This first Constitution had a distinctly Chinese flavour, as was to be expected. The basic principles of Chinese rulers were: first, paternalism, which held that a great number of detailed rules had to be laid down in writing and that one of the main tasks of administrators was to prevent the cropping up of unrest among the population, second, the so-called Ai-min principle (literally \"love the people\") which said that the feelings of the people should be respected, and third, the principle of mutual responsibility through the pao-chia system. In one form or another all these foundations of the Chinese state were represented in the 23 articles of the Land Regulations (the number of articles alone already indicates the Chinese obsession with detailed rules): e.g. paternalistic attitudes were to be found in articles IV, VI, IX, X, XI and others; the Ai-min rule in articles II, V, VII and IX; and the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209399,
        "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": 56,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "34\n\nJ. H. HAAN\n\nprinciple of mutual responsibility found its way into article XII, On the other hand some articles were clearly instigated by consul Balfour, e.g. those stipulating self-government by the foreign merchants.5\n\nThe 1854 Land Regulations\n\nAfter some years it was deemed necessary to alter the 1845 Land Regulations. It has never been made clear why, the only contemporary comment being a note in the North China Herald that \"the necessity of some thorough revision of the Land Regulations and their better adaptation to existing circumstances (has) long been very generally felt”.\n\nHowever, in foreign, and especially British, circles a certain resentment was felt about Chinese obstruction in the execution of some of the treaty provisions and it is not impossible that such sentiments contributed to the decision to alter the Land Regulations. At all events, in May 1853 Rutherford Alcock, the British consul, laid a draft of new Land Regulations before the American and later the French authorities. Apart from a simplification (the number of articles was reduced to 15 in the draft and 14 in the final version), it was also suggested that there be an amalgamation of the British and French concessions. This provision, however, was never acted upon and the French concession retained its independence.\n\nIn contrast to the 1845 Land Regulations the Chinese authorities had had no say in the drafting of the new ones. Nevertheless a number of articles about the protection of Chinese feelings were incorporated. These had their origin, as I have shown elsewhere, in the New Park affair - a clash between Chinese and foreigners over Chinese graves during the construction of a new racecourse. Moreover, the draft contained a number of clauses which stipulated that the taotai had to agree before certain measures could be taken by the foreigners. In the discussions about this draft among the foreign authorities, chiefly the British consul Alcock and the American commissioner Marshall, however, these clauses went overboard so that the Chinese official position was weakened.\n\nThe final version of these Land Regulations was discussed at a Public Meeting on July 11, 1854 and passed by the land-renters.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209401,
        "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": 58,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "36 \n\nJ. H. HAAN \n\nThe assertion of selfgovernment \n\nIn some Western countries, especially Great Britain, the 19th century was the heyday of progress in parliamentary government. In Britain the 1832 Reform Act had substantially increased the number of voters, as well as redistributed them in favour of commerce and industry; the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act provided for the first time a uniform basis upon which local government was to be run, that is, through councils elected by ratepayers. By later acts (1865, 1884, 1918 and 1928) the parliamentary franchise was gradually widened, till the principle of taxation as a basis for voting rights disappeared. \n\nThe foreigners mainly British and Americans \n\n+ \n\n+ \n\n44 \n\n+ \n\n· \n\n- who came \n\nto Shanghai in the very early years were self-conscious of the fact that they ought to govern themselves, without in any way being subjected to a higher authority like their compatriots in Hong Kong. Although the 1845 Land Regulations provided for this self-government through article XII (about the building of roads and other public works: \"The Consul (i.e. the British consul — JH) will be requested by the various renters to urge the propriety of assembling together and publicly consulting about and contributing towards the necessary expenses incurred therein, .\") and through article XX (about taxation: \"the several contributors will request the Consul to appoint three upright merchants to deliberate upon and determine the amounts to be subscribed by them .\"), it was nevertheless thought advisable by some residents to express very clearly that local government rested upon a consensus of the foreign merchants themselves. The motive for these strong words was the fear of interference from Hong Kong with regard to the right to vote. At a Public Meeting of May 29, 1852, a resolution was moved which in its original form read: \"That this meeting consider the legal opinion of the Attorney General of Hong Kong respecting the qualifications of voters at this Meeting unnecessary, as the action of the body of landrenters is not governed by Law but by mutual agreement\", but after some discussion it was passed in the following form: \"That this meeting consider the action of the body of Landrenters with reference to Roads and Jetties is only governed by mutual agreement\",13",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209404,
        "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": 61,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "39\n\nAs in Europe in the first half of the 19th century, it was not deemed advisable to grant the vote to all and sundry. The fear of democratic tyrannic majority rule, after the experience of the French Revolution, still worked its influence on political thinking about the franchise. If only voters had some \"respectable\" background in most cases to be measured by their payment of taxes or rates they could be expected to vote in the \"right\" way. Moreover it was argued that the government of the land should be left to those who had a real stake in it, again measured financially. In view of this train of thought it is not surprising to find that in Shanghai similar opinions prevailed.\n\n10\n\nAccording to the 1845 and 1854 Land Regulations only landowners (incidentally: legally the ground could be rented only, but to all practical purposes it was owned) could take part in the decision making process at the Public Meeting. Originally this was a very natural development because most foreign residents owned land in the new settlement. Gradually this changed and more and more foreigners rented houses on which they had to pay a housetax which did not carry with it a right to vote. Soon after the approval of the 1854 Land Regulations in July, however, there was a short upheaval at a Public Meeting held on November 10, 1854. At that meeting a resolution was moved and passed which read: \"That in addition to the qualifications for Votes now in use the payment by any Foreign resident of fifty dollars annually, or upwards, towards the Dues or assessments levied by the Municipal Council, shall entitle the individual or firm so contributing to one vote at any General Meeting (...)\".20 This motion was probably induced not so much by the house renters, but by the payers of wharfage dues, the revenues of which in the budget of 1854-55 were estimated at $14,000 out of a total of $25,000 (against $2,000 landtax, $3,000 European housetax and $5,400 Chinese housetax),21 Chinese housetax). Although the resolution was passed unanimously, it was not approved by consul Alcock, whose main argument, expressed at the Public Meeting of November 24 was that if the franchise was widened on this basis \"its application in any impartial or equitable spirit would involve the introduction of several thousand Chinese voters, to the swamping of the present small fraction of Foreign renters, in whom all power was now without dispute vested\".22",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209405,
        "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": 62,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "40 \n\nJ. H. HAAN \n\nIt was one of the first manifestations of the fact that after all the land-renters were not sovereign in taking their own decisions and that for important measures the consent of one or more consuls was necessary. \n\nFor the time being the matter was allowed to rest, but the fact of tenants not having the franchise was again broached in the mid-1860s. Amidst numerous other signs of civic disobedience, a number of tenants refused to pay taxes which they themselves had not voted. Some of them were prosecuted before their respective Consular Courts with the result that in some cases the Municipal Council was proved right and sometimes wrong.23 \n\nThere was a widespread feeling that tenants could no longer be barred from attending Public Meetings; this feeling was expressed at the meeting of April 15, 1865, by the chairman of the Municipal Council, Henry Dent: \"Hitherto the practice has been of only land-renters voting. That this system is wrong in principle can hardly admit of doubt. Ratepayers contribute largely to the taxes and ought certainly to have a voice in matters of taxation. (...)\"24 \n\nApart from the principle involved, it was doubtless also an effort to muster support for the Municipal Council from the tenant-ratepayers. \n\nThe way seemed open for a wider franchise and indeed the new Land Regulations provided for the vote by some tenants (article XIX). The basis was rather restricted, however, and during the deliberations about the Land Regulations on March 12 and 13, 1866, it became clear that many land-renters who until then had exercised sole power—wished to limit the franchise even more than had been foreseen by the Commission which had drawn up the new Constitution. \n\nThe minimum rent which gave a tenant the right to vote was, therefore, eventually put at 700 taels. The only person who pleaded the cause of the tenants was the British consul, Charles Winchester, whose opinion was \"that the article just read (XIX) did not by any means come up to his idea what the franchise should be. One description of right should not alone",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209407,
        "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": 64,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "42\n\nJ. H. HAAN\n\nThis limited franchise might be called the first characteristic of the voting structure in Shanghai. The second was the existence of proxy voting, that is voting by people present at a Public Meeting acting as agents of and voting for persons not present.\n\nNeither in the 1845 Land Regulations nor in those of 1854 had any provision for proxy voting been made, yet even before 1854 it was widely used, so we might put the question as to when it was introduced.\n\nThe first time the matter was considered at a Public Meeting was on June 14, 1851, when the problem was raised as \"to whether persons holding special powers of Attorney to deal with the land of parties absent could claim a vote on their behalf at a Public Meeting in addition to their own\" 27 It was then argued that \"such a system... had never been adopted at Public Meetings of this nature at Shanghai\" and consul Alcock was not inclined \"to admit the principle on the present occasion”.\n\nHowever, there were apparently some difficulties of a legal nature involved and Alcock thought it wise to consult the Attorney General at Hong Kong, whose advice was negative. Earlier I have drawn attention to the fact that the merchants at Shanghai were very self-conscious as to their self-government and the resolution against the interference from Hong Kong has already been referred to. At the same Public Meeting of May 25, 1852, it was decided, by resolution no. 2, \"That all holders of Land within the British limits may specially appoint an Attorney to act for them in their absence; and further that one person may act as Attorney for several renters, and be entitled to vote for each proprietor he may be duly empowered to represent\".28\n\nAs from that date proxy voting became the established practice at Shanghai and it was incorporated in article XIX of the 1869 Land Regulations.\n\nThere were evident dangers in this mode of voting. The already rather oligarchical procedure at a Public Meeting might be still more monopolized if a great number of votes were collected by some persons who might then be able to corner the meeting. Moreover, less scrupulous voters might be willing to sell their own vote to the highest bidder. It should be stressed",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209408,
        "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": 65,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "43\n\nthat irregularities of the latter kind have not come to light during my own research (they are of course difficult to discover), but a glaring and paradoxical case can be recorded of the former.\n\nIn the years after the system of proxy voting had been adopted there apparently grew up an uneasy feeling about the way it was practised. This can be deduced from the fact that the Commission for revision of the Land Regulations advised in 1866 to drop this system. One of the reasons for this was given at the Public Meeting of March 12, 1866, by one of the members of the Commission, Mr. Hogg: \"it had been foreseen that in a short time there would be very few owners of land left in Shanghai. But there lay the objection, for large numbers of Renters went to England, and naturally left their votes in the hands of some agent. It resulted that a person who had a large business of this description practically held the election of the Councillors. There was a grave objection to a man holding in his hands the turning power in such matter. It was felt to be unfair that a man residing in England should have a voice through his agent in the election of Councillors to represent the interests of ratepayers on the spot\". An amendment was moved, however, permitting the continuance of proxy voting, but this motion was rejected by 71 as against 62 votes, with two gentlemen, Mr. Keswick and Mr. Hogg together casting 51 votes at the Public Meeting. So with the weapon which he wished to abolish, Mr. Hogg defeated the opposition who wanted to retain it.\n\nNevertheless, proxy voting was included in the final Land Regulations by the foreign ministers.\n\nThe system of proxy voting made it necessary that voting lists were drawn up at each Public Meeting in order to establish how many votes each person attending could cast. Not much research has been done in this field, but it should make interesting reading to see in what measure meetings were manipulated by a minority physically present at a meeting. Up to 1866 only incidental references to the number of votes cast by one individual can be recorded. For example, on the voting list of June 6, 1861, one person appeared with 6 votes, two with 4, four with 3, ten with 2, and three with 1 vote.20 At the Public Meeting of August 18, 1864, Mr. Cowie managed to assemble 19 votes.30",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209411,
        "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": 68,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "46\n\nJ. H. HAAN\n\nlay in the Land Regulations. In those of 1845 article XX declared that \"the several contributors (of taxes, etc JH) will request the Consul to appoint three upright merchants to deliberate upon and determine the amount to be subscribed by them\". And the 1854 Land Regulations stipulated in article X “meeting of renters of land.. to appoint a committee of three or more persons to levy the said rates and dues ..\". \n\nWith 10 out of the 29 articles of the Land Regulations of 1869 referring to the Municipal Council, this set of Regulations were far more elaborate as to the election and functioning of the Municipal Council than their predecessors. This was mainly caused by the problems several councils had faced in the 1860s as a result of which it was decided to strengthen the powers of the executive. Article XIX laid down the qualifications for a Municipal Council member: \"And no one shall be qualified to be a member of the said Council unless he shall pay an annual assessment, exclusive of licenses, of fifty taels, or shall be a householder paying on an assessed rental of one thousand two hundred taels per annum\". \n\nFrom this it is clear that the qualification for membership of the Council was even more restrictive than that for voting (the threshold for Council membership as suggested by the Commission of 1865-66 was even higher at Taels 1800, but this was changed by the foreign ministers). This was in sharp contrast to the earlier constitutions by which it was theoretically, and even in practice, possible for non-landrenters to sit on the Municipal Council, whereas only landrenters had the vote, thereby indicating that, at that time, the qualification for membership of the Council was more liberal than that for the franchise. In the records of the Settlement's early history (until 1865) two cases have come to light in which a non-landrenter was elected as a member of the Municipal Council, but in both cases there was some opposition from part of the foreign community. \n\nAt the Public Meeting of June 14 1851 three gentlemen were proposed for membership of the executive then still called the Committee of Roads and Jetties, a name it kept until 1854 — William Seton Brown, Clement D. Nye and Edward Langley,37 viz:",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209412,
        "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": 69,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "47\n\nOnly the first two belonged to houses which had property in the Settlement, but Mr. Langley was the manager of the Oriental Bank which was not registered as a landrenter. At some time during the meeting \"the fact of Mr. Langley not being a land-holder and his being disqualified in consequence, was then argued\", but most of those present thought that it was \"competent for the Landholders to elect at a Public Meeting any person they might choose to take charge of their affairs”.\n\nThus the affair was closed, and during the following ten years there were only renters on the Municipal Council; but in the edition of June 29 1861 a letter to the editor of the North China Herald was printed, which drew attention to the fact that a non-renter was allegedly a member of the Municipal Council. This letter, by \"A Landrenter\" partly read:\n\n\"Sir. It is a generally received axiom that the possession of landed property renders its owner conservative; and on this good principle I was always under the impression that the Municipal Government of this Settlement was founded. Much then was I surprised to find the meetings of landholders purporting to be convened for them alone were attended by non-renters and from amongst them one of our Municipal Councillors was chosen My only reason for troubling you with this letter is to ascertain the opinion of my fellow-landholders as to the eligibility of non-renters to hold Municipal offices .\". The person referred to was probably Mr. William Howard, manager of the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China, who resigned as from June 28 1861.38\n\nThe opinion of the \"fellow-landholders” was aired at a Public Meeting of March 31 1862, during which the stand of a decade before was reversed in a resolution passed unanimously: \"That before choosing gentlemen for the Municipal Council for the coming year it be resolved that non but bona fide foreign Renters of Land shall be able to become members of the Municipal Council.\"30\n\nThus the matter was after all decided in favour of the landowners, the final Constitution only adding a very high threshold, to bar anyone who might not be considered “respectable”.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209416,
        "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": 73,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "51\n\nThe result of this was that a Municipal Council sometimes sat for more, and sometimes for less, than a year.\n\nIn 1865, however, the way in which the Municipal Council was chosen was changed according to a resolution that had been passed at a Public Municipal meeting of April 15, 1865,4% and which provided that a separate poll spread over several days should take place for the election of the Municipal Council.\n\nSome days later the elections were held after the new system and in the final Land Regulations of 1869 this mode was adopted (article IX, X, XVIII and XIX). There it was also laid down that the Municipal Council should be elected in February or March of each year.\n\nNo reasons were given why it was deemed necessary to alter the rules for choosing a Municipal Council, except that “it was being urgently called for\", but it may be imagined that with the growth of the population and the number of land-renters, the old procedure was becoming increasingly unwieldy.\n\nThe period of small town politics was partly closed with this separate voting procedure. One of the consequences might have been that the composition of the Municipal Council would rest on a broader basis, as generally more people thought it worthwhile to vote, which took only an instant instead of going to a Public Meeting which might take a whole afternoon or evening. Other things being equal, there might even have developed a kind of election campaign and for 1866 it seems that something of the kind was indeed held, witnessing the remark that \"the usual number of placards decorated the walls of the settlement, some conveying rather happy hits\".44\n\nBut any developments in this direction were nipped in the bud by the provision in the Land Regulations of 1869, article XVIII, that \"should the number of names proposed for election be exactly nine or less than nine and more than four, it shall not be necessary to have a poll..\". In such a case, anyone opposed to one of the candidates could not vote against him.\n\nNo doubt sometimes the elections were really contested, but later it was often complained that they amounted to nothing but ritual affairs: \"the stage will be set for the annual election-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209421,
        "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": 78,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "56\n\nJ. H. HAAN\n\nthe fact that so many foreigners came from countries in which one form or another of representative government was part and parcel of the political structure, in Shanghai it was hard to speak of democracy apart of course from the Chinese having practically no official say in it.\n\nIn the very early days there was a real form of direct democracy in the Settlement. There were few people, few enough to make this kind of democracy feasible; nearly all were land-renters and there was a widespread feeling of doing something positive when introducing representative government into part of the Chinese empire.\n\nSometimes there were fierce clashes between the land-renters and the Municipal Council, as in 1852 when the Municipal Council even decided to resign because a Public Meeting had rejected their drainage plan, a decision which was only reversed when another Public Meeting repealed the rejection;55 or in 1854 when a large number of renters objected to the expense of police barracks and the increase in taxation, and the newly established Municipal Council was threatened in its very existence; or in 1864 when the whole budget was rejected and a new one had to be drafted.57\n\nDiscussions at these meetings were often very spirited affairs, with letters to the editor appearing in the columns of the North China Herald.\n\nGradually, however, the meetings seem to have become \"cut and dry affairs\"; sometimes debate became more heated, but lethargy prevailed, as became clear when the very important proposal to restrict Child Labour came up for discussion in April 1925, when not even the quorum to make a decision binding was present.\n\nOne of the defects of the system was that it was not really a representative one. There were in the 1930s over 3500 rate-payers with the right to attend Public Meetings. If every one of them had wished to make use of this right, the meeting would have been turned into a complete Babel.\n\nAny person speaking at a Public Meeting was only speaking for himself, and it was difficult to be clear as to whether he had",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212214,
        "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": 156,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "133\n\n1935, and probably exceeds 30,000 today\n\nthe Japanese secured a\n\nsecond seat in 1927 and since that date, with one or two exceptions, the proportion of Foreign Councillors has been five Britons, two Americans, and two Japanese,''\n\nIt was from amongst the managers of the large firms that the foreign Municipal Councillors were selected, by a process of back-stage negotiation. There was, it is true, a form of straw vote through which nominations could be contested, but as the large firms could swing the votes that process was not democratic in operation. In point of fact the suggestion that the Council was a democratic body had long been discarded. The Council represented the interests of the large firms and, while it had to explain its actions to the foreign land-renters of the Settlement, it preferred, as such committees will, to avoid having to make explanations, by doing its work away from the limelight. That was, indeed, a necessary precaution, in so far as the delicate political negotiations in which it was frequently involved with the Chinese, and Japanese, authorities were concerned.\n\nThe Council was an international body, a diminutive League of Nations, incomparably more effective, though on a small scale, than that larger body at Geneva. The comparison lends it international significance and underlines the importance that men, who are appointed to such positions of responsibility, should be carefully selected.\n\nOn the expiration of my home leave I was appointed to Shanghai, where I arrived in July 1939. The betrayal of Czechoslovakia that Spring had increased international tension, and a series of incidents was bringing it home to the optimists, who had so cheerfully accepted the Japanese influx, that their early anticipations were so much smoke. Apart from a number of local outrages, including the bayonetting of a Briton, named Tinkler, inside the grounds of his own mill, there was the case of the British Military Attaché, who had been arrested in May in Kalgan, and was still held incommunicado, the mob attacks on the British consulate at Tsingtao, the heavy bombing of British property and shipping at Ichang, and the degrading treatment to which British nationals were being exposed at the barriers, erected by the Japanese to the exits of the British Concession in Tientsin.\n\nI was sitting on the verandah of the Country Club one day in September, after a game of tennis, when the boy called me to the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214153,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1998",
        "page_number": 11,
        "title": "RAS-1998",
        "content_text": "Gillian Bickley, Ph.D., B.A. (Hons.), Cert. Ed., M.Litt., F.R.S.A., is an Associate Professor in the Department of English, Hong Kong Baptist University. She has previously held posts in Hong Kong at the University of Hong Kong, Longman Far East, the British Council, St. Stephen's Girls' College, and the Hong Kong Examinations Authority. She has taught at the University of Lagos, Nigeria and the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She has lived in Hong Kong for 23 years.\n\nPaul Bolding, works as a financial journalist at the news and information organisation Reuters in London. He has been with Reuters since 1974. He lived in Hong Kong from 1993 to 1997 and has travelled widely in Asia. Mr Bolding has previously worked in Europe and the Middle East including Brussels, Berlin and Nicosia. He has a special interest in the silk route and is a co-author of the Insight Guide to Turkey.\n\nB.C. Fawcett, was born in the Far East where his father served with the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation. He also joined the bank and served from 1961 to 1978, being based in Hong Kong from 1971 to 1978. During that time he was also a volunteer with the Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force, now the Government Flying Services. He is a life member of the HKBRAS.\n\nRichard J. Garrett, M.A.(Cantab), C.Eng., F.I.C.E., F.I.Struct.E., F.H.K.I.E., is a director of an international firm of Consulting Engineers and based in Hong Kong since 1973. He has been a collector of antique arms and a member of the Arms and Armour Society of the U.K. for over 30 years. He has published a number of articles on the subject of early firearms.\n\nSheilah E. Hamilton, B.Sc., M.Soc.Sc., Ph.D., is a long-time resident of Hong Kong and former forensic scientist with the Hong Kong Government from 1968 to 1988. Her passion for Hong Kong history began in 1992 and areas of interest include historical fires, forensic issues and security.\n\nR.G. Horsnell, is a Chief Property Services Manager with the Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong Government, and a ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214368,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1998",
        "page_number": 226,
        "title": "RAS-1998",
        "content_text": "192\n\nfunded for the temple.\n\nA logical progression, though always thought impossible in Mainland China, has been the deification of the late Chairman Mao. In Taiwan we have seen images of Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen on altars, revered as are the scores of historical worthies and heroes, but the thought that one day an image of Mao Tse-tung would grace the altar of a Chinese temple was so far fetched as to be ludicrous. None the less, Reuters printed a picture of a peasant in a rural temple in northern Shansi in early 1996 standing before a life-size image of Mao on the altar. Another sighting, of the small white bust of Mao on a household altar in a village on the banks of a river in the upper reaches of Yünnan province during the summer of 1997, was easily explained. The altar bore no other images and it was through this village and across the village's bridge, during the Long March, that the Chinese Red Army passed leaving behind a strong folk memory.\n\nMao, it must be remembered, was revered as a god in his lifetime, with cadres and Red Guards bowing before his image during the Cultural Revolution, and reporting the day's activities. And it has not been uncommon for taxi drivers in some of the major cities during the late 1980s and early 1990s to carry pictures of Mao suspended from their rear-view mirror as a protective amulet, though this has been more of a gimmick, but the idea of a statue of Mao on the altar in present day China is still astounding.\n\nWhat is less strange, perhaps, is the description of a Mao image being carried at the head of a religious procession in Fukien province, providing \"legality\" for this ritual procession of deities. Posters portraying the main Central political leaders were also borne aloft at the head of the procession.3\n\nNo doubt there have been zealous cadres carrying out the anti-feudal, iconoclastic purges following the party line and, recalling the clue provided in the report on Hupei, it would seem more than likely that the large number of illegal temples and shrines destroyed are in fact the small rural shrines dedicated to the Earth God which farmers have in their fields. By and large, it has been quite obvious that in general people will continue to go to temples to offer prayers and incense, and that temples and the deities will thrive, or possibly simply survive.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215668,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2001",
        "page_number": 445,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "397\n\nNayar had been a journalist on the The Statesman Calcutta before the outbreak of the Second World War. He was appointed a temporary delegate to the United Nations Commission in Korea, replacing another Indian member who was ill, and was in Korea only a few weeks before he was killed. Buckley was 47 and married with no children. He had begun life as a schoolmaster and then turned to freelance journalism. He had joined The Daily Telegraph shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War.\n\nThe Times was informed of Mr. Morrison's death on the same day by Reuters agency, and on August 15 the British Legation in Korea provided a more detailed account of the events leading up to the tragedy:\n\n'I have the honour to report on the tragic accident on the 12th August, which led to the deaths of Colonel M. K. Unni Nayar, the Indian delegate on the United Nations Commission on Korea, and the two British War Correspondents, Mr. Christopher Buckley, of the Daily Telegraph and Mr. Morrison of the “Times”, in so far as the facts are known to me. A South Korean engineer officer also met his death at the same time.\n\n*At about 2.30 p.m., I saw Colonel Nayar off from my house in one of the United Nations Commission's Jeeps. He said that he was going up to the Republican First Division Sector in the Waegwan area. At that time, he was alone. He must have proceeded to the Press billets to pick up two correspondents.' I understand that a North Korean tank was lying knocked out in front of the South Korean line and it is surmised that the party were going forward to...\n\nThe Kimch'on\n\nProbar\n\nKYONGI\n\nTAEQU\n\nUlsan\n\nChangwin\n\nChimuva Kimhae\n\nChanhap\n\nKYONGSANG\n\nMAMIC\n\nPUSAN\n\nWaegwan area, South Korea",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215726,
        "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": 25,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "CONTRIBUTORS\n\nAndrew Abraham, is a noted Singaporean academic.\n\nPaul Bolding, works as a financial journalist at the news and information organisation Reuters in London. He has been with Reuters since 1974. He lived in Hong Kong from 1993 to 1997 and has travelled widely in Asia. Mr Bolding has previously worked in Europe and the Middle East including Brussels, Berlin and Nicosia. He is a co-author of the Insight Guide to Turkey (pbolding@onetel.net.uk)\n\nJulia Chan, is the Hon Librarian of HKBRAS and a member of Council (jlychan@hkucc.hku.hk).\n\nChohong Choi, obtained a B.A. in History from Queens College of the City University of New York, and an M.Phil. in History from the University of Hong Kong. He is currently a research assistant in the Department of Real Estate & Construction at HKU.\n\nThe late Arnold Graham, was an old China hand. He was well known for his steady stream of Letters to the Editor in Hong Kong under the pseudonym Ancient Gweilo (a play on his initials). He donated a large number of books to the Library of HKBRAS in 1994. He ultimately relocated to New Zealand where he passed away in 1996.\n\nPeter Halliday, was formerly an assistant commissioner with the Hong Kong Police Force and its chief information officer for over six years. He now heads his own information technology consulting and training company, Elite IT Services Ltd. He is the Hon Editor of HKBRAS and a member of Council (Peter.Halliday@e-liteitservices.com).\n\nPeter Hansell, is an active member of the Friends of HKBRAS in Great Britain.\n\nPaul Harrison, started his conservation career as a volunteer at Leicester Museum, U.K., in his school holidays. He has a B.Sc. in Archaeological Conservation and a M.Sc. in Archaeometallurgy from the Institute of Archaeology, now part of University College London. He has also worked for the Scottish Urban Archaeological Trust, the British School at Athens in Crete, studying an ancient Minoan City - Palaikastro - and Bradford University's Department of Archaeological Sciences. He was formally with the Central Conservation Division (Metals), Museum of History, Leisure and Cultural Services Department. He now heads his own conservation company, Phoenix Conservation Ltd., (paulehar@netvigator.com).\n\nxvi",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    }
]