[ { "id": 204473, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1962", "page_number": 105, "title": "RAS-1962", "content_text": "94\n\nJ. W. HAYES\n\nland and the clan. The popular religion too, was but an ephemeral thing, something to meet the needs of the moment; something too that was not so respectable as the austere worship which fell within the Confucian canon. In short, the impression left by the brief excursion into the past which forms the basis of this article has left me with the firm impression that Confucianism was the dominant influence over people and government in the New Territory in 1898. I hasten to point out that in itself this is not in any way surprising: but in view of the remoteness of the area and its late settlement by Chinese of different race with their undoubted absorption of earlier inhabitants this impression of its pervasiveness and brooding presence everywhere in the Territory at this time is probably worth restating.\n\nNOTES\n\nAs far as possible the notes are designed to supplement the text and not to be a necessary part of it. I have used local source material which has come to my notice during a tour of duty as District Officer South (1957-60) and Islands (1961-62) when I have been in a favourable position to hear of, find and utilise whatever happened to come my way, besides the authorities cited in these notes. I have scarcely used the District History, the San On Yuen Chi (⛧人元誌, last edition 1820, but reprinted by Kwong Tung Printers, Canton, in 1933) nor Mr. Lo Hsiang-lin's Hong Kong and its external communications before 1842 which uses the District History extensively. (It is good to know that a translation of the latter is in the Hong Kong University Press and will appear shortly, so making available in English part of the District History). I ought also to say here that this is my first excursion in the field of Oriental Studies, with all that this implies. I wish to thank Mr. Lo Chi Chung of the District Office for his valuable help. A Cantonese form of romanization has been used throughout.\n\n1 James Haldane Stewart Lockhart (1858-1937) became a Hong Kong Cadet in 1878. He was appointed Colonial Secretary in 1895, the post he held at the time of his Report (8th October 1898) for which he received the thanks of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He was created C.M.G. in 1898 and K.C.M.G. in 1908. In 1902 he became first Commissioner of Wei Hai Wei, a territory of 285 square miles on the coast of Shantung with an estimated 330 villages and a population of 124,000 which had been leased to Britain in 1898. He remained in this quiet backwater for the next twenty years. Lockhart was a sinologue of some note in his day and wrote a Manual of Chinese Quotations (Hong Kong, Kelly and Walsh, 1903), The Currency of the Far East, 3 vols (Hong Kong, Noronha and Co., 1895, 1898) and a monograph, The Stewart Lockhart collection of Chinese copper coins, (Shanghai, Kelly and Walsh, 1915).\n\nPage 105\nPage 106", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205000, "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-1965", "page_number": 108, "title": "RAS-1965", "content_text": "GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE IN HONG KONG 1841 - 1962 99\n\nwas actually protecting local Chinese. The Colonial Office had no desire to see the indigenous population handed over to the power of the Hong Kong British business interests. It was not considered until the 1870s that the Chinese might have a part to play in the function of government, the Colonial Office believing that \"the testimony of those best acquainted with them represent the Chinese race as endowed with much intelligence but very deficient in the elements of morality\" (Secretary of State for the Colonies to Sir John Bowring). The first Chinese member of the Legislative Council was not appointed till 1880, and he, so a Colonial Office minute tells us, was a cipher. While obviously it was not practical to give much in the way of electoral power to either the British or the Chinese communities in the nineteenth century, it seems a pity that more was not done between the two world wars when it might have been feasible. There was a certain broadening of the Executive Council by greater community representation soon after the first war, and significantly, as Mr. Endacott points out, what had been the continuous representation on the Council since 1850 of Jardine, Matheson was interrupted in 1921. But the slump in Europe, its effect on the Colony's trade, and the rising militarism of Japan all discouraged progress.\n\nIt is true that the Colony has gained some measure of independence over the years from control from London. It is financially self-supporting, and since 1958 the annual estimates have no longer been submitted to the Secretary of State. Representation on the two Councils, Legislative and Executive, has been broadened, though there is still no elected element. Furthermore, an effort has been made to bring local people into the ranks of the Civil Service, though it has not met with the success of similar efforts in, for example, former African colonies.\n\nMr. Endacott notes that in 1952 for the first time a locally recruited officer was promoted to be the head of a government department; unfortunately, he does not tell us which department, or how often this has happened again in the succeeding thirteen years. For many and various reasons, the recruitment of Chinese to the Administrative Service in particular has been slow. At first sight, though a self-governing Hong Kong is an impossibility in view of the international situation, a largely Chinese territory might", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1965.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s752cj653", "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": 205966, "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": 46, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "HONG KONG CADETS, 1862 - 1941\n\n41\n\nsioners was introduced for the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong and Ceylon Civil Services; and in 1882, a combined examination was instituted, successful candidates being given a choice of colonies, so that the members of these three civil services were now to some extent regarded as interchangeable. In 1896 the examination was joined to that for the Home and Indian Civil Services; and the Federated Malay States, which had retained the nomination system, was also included. This arrangement lasted until 1932, when Sir Ralph Furse, who believed in the policy of selection by interview, finally succeeded in obtaining for his office control over the selection of candidates for Ceylon, Hong Kong and Malaya. However, university men continued to supply the vast majority of the eastern cadetships even after that date; and the Dominions Office and Colonial Office List for 1939 informs us that 'whilst a university degree is not an absolutely indispensable qualification the candidates selected for Administrative appointments in the last few years have nearly all been in possession of a University Degree, usually with honours. The few exceptions have been in cases where a candidate has had some special qualification'.23\n\nThe Hong Kong cadet scheme underwent several internal changes over time, although the principle of recruitment from England by competitive examination remained unchanged until 1932. The first three recruits, who pioneered the scheme, were given quarters in the Central School House during their probationary period and learned their Chinese, which was Cantonese, from teachers recruited locally by Government. In 1872, Sir Arthur Kennedy established a Board of Examiners, charged with the duty of examining Government officers drawing a Chinese teacher's allowance, and with issuing certificates of proficiency in colloquial Chinese to European and Indian police constables; but before that date cadets had been examined by an ad hoc committee. To save expense, Sir Arthur Kennedy, Governor 1872 - 1877, stopped the recruitment of cadets from England, and in 1875 even suggested dropping the scheme altogether; but this was not accepted by the Colonial Office. The Secretary of State arranged in 1875 for Eastern cadets to remain in England usually for a year and study Chinese at Oxford under Dr. James Legge though, as we have seen above, there were no candidates for Hong Kong at this particular time. This arrangement proved", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205976, "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": 56, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "HONG KONG CADETS, 1862 - 1941\n\nNOTES\n\n51\n\n1 Since the end of war with Japan in 1945 both Hong Kong and its Government Service have experienced major changes of circumstance and outlook. Whilst the cadet or administrative grade continues in being there are now (April 1970) administrative officers in a total permanent Civil Service establishment of there are Chinese officers, the first of whom was appointed in 1948.\n\n2 The title was later changed to \"Cadet on Probation\". In 1862 cadets received a salary of £200 per annum on arrival in the Colony and at the end of two years' study or as soon afterwards as they were declared qualified by a Board of Examiners £400 per annum. In 1924 the salary was still only £350 on arrival and £400 after passing the final examination; in 1936 the amounts were £450 and £525 respectively. Information on the Cadet Service is to be found in the various General Orders of the Hong Kong Government.\n\n3 The following books have information on the origin of the scheme: E. J. Eitel Europe in China, Hong Kong, 1895, p. 365; G. B. Sayer Hong Kong: Birth, Adolescence, and Coming of Age, London, 1937, p. 194; J. W. Norton-Kyshe The History of the Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1898, vol. 2, pp. 8-11; and Sir Charles Collins Public Administration in Hong Kong, London, 1952, pp. 126-127.\n\n4 Aucuparius: Recollections of a Recruiting Officer, London, 1962, p. 164. Major Sir Ralph Furse was Director of Recruitment, Colonial Service, 1931-48; and Adviser to the Secretary of State for Colonies on Training Courses for the Colonial Service, 1948-50.\n\n5 For a sketch of Caldwell's career see G. B. Endacott A Biographical Sketch-book of Early Hong Kong, Singapore, 1962, pp. 95-99. Daniel Richard Caldwell was of mixed blood, born at Singapore, and married to a Chinese. He was a brilliant linguist and occupied, at one time or another, various senior posts in the Hong Kong Government. His proved association with Ma Chow Wong, a frequenter of pirates, ruined Caldwell's career. Caldwell was found unfit by a Commission of Inquiry to continue in the public service. He died in 1875.\n\n6 E. J. Eitel \"Chinese Studies and Official Interpretation in the Colony of Hong Kong”, China Review, vol. 16, 1877-8, p. 5.\n\n7 Norton-Kyshe, op. cit., vol. I, p. 579.\n\n8 January 28, 1867,\n\n9 See note 6.\n\n10 Norton-Kyshe, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 8-9.\n\n11 Ibid., p. 10. The revised regulations for Hong Kong Cadetships, published in the Government Gazette, 7 September 1872, gives the heads of examination as follows: \"(A) Obligatory — 1st. Exercises designed to test Handwriting and Orthography; 2nd. Arithmetic, including Vulgar and Decimal Fractions; 3rd. Latin, and one of the following languages: Greek, French, German, Italian; 4th. English Composition, including Précis writing; (B) Optional 5th. Pure and Mixed Mathematics; 6th. Ancient and Modern History, and Geography; 7th. Elements of Constitutional and International Law, and Political Economy; 8th. Geology, Civil Engineering and Surveying\". Every candidate was expected to show a competent knowledge of the first four subjects, but could select any two of the optional subjects.\n\n7", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206011, "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": 91, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "86 \n\nA. D. BLUE \n\n1860's, cannot have been much worse than those experienced by contemporary European emigrants to America and Australia; and may have been better than those experienced by many thousands of Irish emigrants to America during the famine years of 1846-48. In her book \"The Great Famine\", Cecil Woodham-Smith gives horrifying details of the sufferings of these unfortunate people. Two of the most tragic cases concerned the British ships Larch and Virginius, which left Sligo and Liverpool respectively for Quebec at this time. Of the Larch's 440 passengers 108 died at sea, and 150 of the remainder were landed sick; while of the Virginius' 476 passengers 158 died at sea and 106 of the remainder — including the master and mate — were landed sick. At that time American ships were superior to British, and their fares were higher than on British ships, because they applied the Passenger Acts more strictly. Also during this same summer of 1847 German ships were constantly arriving at Quebec with hundreds of healthy, robust, and cheerful passengers. It was surely a mastery of British understatement for Earl Grey, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to write that \"the desire to reach America being exceedingly strong, many emigrants are content to submit to very great hardships during the voyage\". Nor is it to be wondered that fully 90% of these emigrants later crossed over into the United States, among them the father of Henry Ford. The greatest hardships during the famine emigrations took place on ships chartered by landlords anxious to clear their estates of impoverished tenants, and some of the worst cases are said to have involved Lord Palmerston's own tenants. Lord Palmerston, who was Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister for most of the 1840's, and prominent in the campaign against the African Slave Trade, probably knew little about his tenants' misfortunes, in itself one of the most telling indictments of the Irish land system. \n\nIn all the long period of Chinese emigration and until the early years of the 20th century, very few Chinese women emigrated, a factor which has had an incalculable effect on South-east Asian history. It is said that the Chinese authorities, while comparatively lax in preventing the emigration of men, took great precautions to prevent women emigrating, and it was not, for instance, until the mid 1920s that the authorities in Hainan Island allowed women to emigrate. A Chinese woman was a rare sight in the streets of Bangkok until about 1910, but within twenty years", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206121, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1970", "page_number": 201, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "194\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nThe map was clearly of potential value for any persons travelling in or having business with the District, and Colonial Office documents now in the Public Record Office, London show that it was, in fact, used by British diplomats and administrators during the important negotiations following the Convention of Peking of 6 June 1898, which leased the present New Territories to Great Britain, and before the take-over of the leased area in March-April 1899.\n\nOn 10 February 1899 the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Henry Blake, sent a telegram to Sir Claude Macdonald, the British Minister at Peking urging him to secure the important market town of Shum Chun, just north of the leased area (an afterthought on the part of local Hong Kong officials) and advising that it could be located on the Missionary map of 1866'. This is clearly a reference to Mgr. Volontieri's map, which includes the date (May 1866) in the descriptive lettering.\n\nAgain, when Governor Blake wired to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Chamberlain, on 10 March 1899 he advised, in an accompanying 'Memorandum regarding the proposed survey of the Territory in Kwang Tung Province leased by Great Britain from China' (being Enclosure 1 to telegram No. 53): 'There is available a fairly correct map of the country, on a scale of an inch to the mile, prepared by the Jesuit missionary (sic). It shows the coast line correctly; the position of all villages, streams, roads, etc., approximately'. This memorandum was drawn up by the Director of Public Works in Hong Kong with the assistance of Colonel Elsdale, R.E.\n\nThese passages make it fairly clear that Mgr. Volontieri's map-making efforts in the early 1860s were of considerable assistance to British officials nearly forty years later.\n\nThe documents quoted above are in CO129/290 in the Public Record Office, London.\n\nHong Kong, 1970.\n\nPostscript\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\nThe notice that follows came to my attention recently. It appeared in the Hongkong Government Gazette, 26th May 1866 and is an interesting and valuable addition to our knowledge of this subject, being the original announcement of the project to the Hong Kong public.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206514, "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": 62, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "56\n\nHENRY JAMES LETHBRIDGE\n\nIn 1878, after success in the competitive examination held by the Civil Service Commissioners in London, he was appointed a Hong Kong cadet by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He had wished to join, like his friend E.D.H. Fraser,3 the Indian Civil Service but his address to the Civil Service Commissioners for service in India had been turned down. Lockhart was the eighth cadet officer appointed to Hong Kong after the introduction of Hong Kong cadetships by Sir Richard MacDonnell in 1861. Sir Richard had been concerned to recruit young men from Britain who would train to become interpreters, for there was a great need for such persons in the Hong Kong public service at that time. But Sir Richard's scheme was not, properly speaking, an innovation since it was closely modelled on the system devised in 1854 for supplying interpreters to the Consular Service in China. The practice in Hong Kong was for a successful cadet, who had to be between the age of 20 and 23 on the first day of his examination, to remain in Britain for one year after appointment, during which time he was required to begin learning Chinese and to attend a class for students at King's College, London, held by the Professor of Chinese at that institution. The cadet was also employed for some hours daily at the Colonial Office in the work of the Department. At the end of his year's study the cadet was examined in Chinese, and the confirmation of his appointment depended upon both his passing a satisfactory examination and on the performance of his duties in the Office. Lockhart appears to have had no difficulties in meeting these requirements.\n\nIt seems likely that the European public in Hong Kong first knew of Lockhart when they saw a notification from the Colonial Secretary, W.H. Marsh, in the Government Gazette of 1879 which simply stated: 'It is hereby notified that James Haldane Stewart Lockhart, Esq., has been appointed by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, to be a Cadet in the Hong Kong Civil Service, and that he reported his arrival in the Colony on Tuesday, the 18th November, 1879.' Lockhart had set out from England by P. and O. steamer some time in September 1879; and, as was the form, immediately reported his arrival in Hong Kong to the Colonial Secretary. At that date it was the custom for a newly arrived cadet from Britain to spend a few weeks in the Colony before proceeding to Canton. During his brief stay in the Colony, the cadet was quizzed by senior officials, instructed as to his future", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206525, "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": 73, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "SIR JAMES HALDANE STEWART LOCKHART\n\n67\n\nthe charge of the North Division magistrate, who was also Secretary to Government. The Secretary held a dormant commission to administer the affairs of the Territory in the Commissioner's absence. The South Division contained all the rest of the leased Territory, i.e., seventeen out of the twenty-six districts, and it was presided over by the South Division Magistrate, who also acted as District Officer. This gentleman controlled a diminutive police force of a sergeant and seven men, all Chinese; all his other staff were Chinese. Apart from the District Officer, there was only one other European official resident in the South Division, which contained 231 out of the 315 villages of the Territory.\n\nUntil 1906, however, Lockhart as Commissioner could call upon the services of the Chinese Regiment in any emergency which the police were unable to cope with. This Regiment was raised in early 1899 and owed its origin to a suggestion made by Field-Marshal Sir Garnet Wolseley, the Commander-in-Chief, that Chinese troops could be organised at Weihaiwei for use in other places. According to R.F. Johnston: 'They did good service in promptly suppressing an attempted rising in the leased Territory, and on being sent to the front to take part in the operations against the Boxers in 1900, they behaved exceedingly well, both during the attack on Tientsin, and on the march to Peking.' Johnston, it seems, over-praised their contribution for between 1899 and 1901 over 800 deserted and many of them moved straight into Chinese service after having passed through what came to be known as \"the Wei Hai Wei Military School\". As the India Office pointed out, Great Britain was in effect furnishing a \"steady annual supply of trained soldiers\" to China. At its greatest strength the Chinese Regiment numbered 1,300 officers and men but in 1906, the year the Regiment was disbanded, their numbers had fallen to about 600. A few picked men were retained as a permanent police force, and three European non-commissioned officers were provided with appointments on the civil establishment as police inspectors. In 1910, therefore, the entire Territory was policed by only fifty-six Chinese constables and three inspectors. There was no permanent garrison of British troops.\n\nWeihaiwei was officially designated not as a Colony but as a Territory, which meant that Lockhart as Commissioner was head of the local government and subject only to the control of His Majesty exercised through the Secretary of State for the Colonies in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206557, "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": 105, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "REVIEW OF HOUSING CONDITIONS IN HONG KONG\n\n99\n\nby the reduction of available accommodation, that privies for common use were contrary to Chinese social habits and that no compensation was offered to property owners.7 The unofficial (appointed) members of the Legislative Council were most vociferous in their objections to the proposed measures and were successful in obtaining numerous amendments which made the Ordinance of very limited use. However, the restriction over the amount of internal living space was retained but only after heated debate and the use of the official majority vote.\n\nTwo years elapsed before the government again attempted to introduce new provisions in the form of a Building Ordinance. The matter of rear yards was included in the Bill but this was once more forced out by the unofficial Legislative Council members and had to be included in the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance. A clause was proposed whereby mezzanine floors could only be constructed if provision were made for a vertical clearance of 9 ft. above and below. This was modified at the insistence of the unofficial members so that it would apply only in cases where the mezzanine extended over more than two-thirds of a room; otherwise a clearance of 6 ft. was permitted. Another clause relating to the provision of sufficient windows was eliminated whilst the installation of privies was made optional.\n\nStiff resistance continued from property owners against further proposals put forward by the government to help improve the sanitary condition of the Colony which daily became the cause of greater concern. Nevertheless, the administration did achieve a number of major improvements recommended by Chadwick in 1882. Between 1883 and 1900, for example, over HK$2 million was spent on improving water supplies through the completion of a reservoir at Tytam; another HK$1 million was allocated for the reprovisioning of the sewerage system and the redraining of 9,957 houses; a further HK$660,000 was used for the construction of new markets, animal depots, slaughterhouses, latrines, laundries and other miscellaneous works.\n\n7Letter of 18th July 1901 to the Hon. J. Chamberlain, Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies from J. H. Stewart Lockhart, Colonial Secretary, Enclosure No. 2: Measures to Give Effect to Mr. Chadwick's Recommendations of 1882 Legislation, Blue Book Reports on Sanitation and Housing 1900-1907, Hong Kong, 1907.\n\nPage 105\n\nPage 106", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206560, "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": 108, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "102\n\nE. G. PRYOR\n\nthe Commission reported that \"there are many insanitary properties in the Colony, and dwellings which, in their present condition, are unfit for human habitation.\" The Commission came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary for the government to undertake widespread resumption but that it would be sufficient for various improvements to be carried out at the owners' expense. The principal improvements which were recommended were the provision of open spaces at the rear of premises and the prohibition of cubicles under certain conditions.\n\nIn the compilation of the Commission's report, the views of Dr. Ayres, the one-time Colonial Surgeon, were sought. He very observantly commented that:\n\nMany laws have been made in the 20 years previous to 1894 to remedy the insanitary state of the Colony, but most have remained dead letters owing to the difficulties of enforcing them and the prejudices of the Chinese especially and other sections of the community. The labours of Hercules in cleansing the Augean stables were a trifle compared with that the Government has to contend with in the near future in cleansing the City of Victoria and other inhabited portions of the Colony.14\n\nThe recommendations of the Commission were by and large incorporated in the Insanitary Properties Ordinance of 1899, the provisions of which, however, the then Director of Public Works regarded as a compromise designed to meet objections by the unofficial members of the Legislative Council and the propertied interests which they represented.15\n\nChadwick Returns and New Reforms\n\nDespite all the steps taken by the colonial government to come to grips with the problems created by the disorderly growth of the city, deep feelings of discontent were expressed by certain sections of the community against the inadequacy of the administration's efforts. In particular, the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce in 1901 went so far as to gather 1000 signatures for a petition to the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies to set up a commission to investigate, report and make recommendations on the sanitary\n\n13 Ibid., p. 12.\n\n14 Ibid., Appendix 14, p. 52.\n\n15 Letter of 18th July 1901 to the Hon. J. Chamberlain, op. cit., p. 48.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209206, "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-1981", "page_number": 109, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1920'S 95\n\ndiscussion as to whether the mui tsai system was a form of slavery.\n\nThe case awakened the conscience of several expatriates. Among these were Colonel John Ward and Lieutenant Commander Haselwood and his wife. Col. Ward on his return to England was elected a Member of Parliament. He used his position to bring the question before the House of Commons. The matter roused the interest of liberal groups in England. Not satisfied with the answer given by the Government spokesman that there was no slavery in Hong Kong, the question continued to be raised in 1920 and 1921.\n\nParliamentary Questions and Answers\n\nIn November 1920, Sir Alfred Yeo and Mr. Myers raised the question in the House of Commons. In reply, Col. Amery, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies stated,\n\nSlavery does not exist in Hong Kong. The Colony's law does not recognise the custom whereby girls are transferred on payment from parents and guardians to another household, usually for purposes of domestic service, as conferring any right or title on the employer against the girl. There was evidence that girls were frequently ill-treated, in which event, they would be protected by the law in the same way as children living with their parents.\n\nHe said he thought it best to aim at gradual reform in cooperation with enlightened Chinese. It was suggested that the Hong Kong Governor \"should persuade prominent Chinese to form a Society for the protection and improvement of the condition of these girl domestics\". This was considered a much better way to deal with the problem than introducing a system of compulsory registration. The Hong Kong Government had advised the Colonial Office that it regarded registration as impracticable.2\n\nIn January 1921 a question was again raised regarding \"this nefarious traffic in human beings\". The questioner was referred to the answer given in the previous discussion in November that \"there is no slavery in Hong Kong\". Another Member then asked, \"Is the honourable Government aware that answer given on November 4th was very unsatisfactory to those people who have information on this matter, and would he make inquiry into the allegation that slavery is carried on under British rule?”\n\nThe Under Secretary was adamant, \"I have made full inquiry.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209213, "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-1981", "page_number": 116, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "102\n\nCARL T SMITH\n\nlittle girls of tender age living amongst strangers and in where to them is a strange country, no denial of succour is possible without outraging our feelings of humanity.\"\n\nInstructions from Colonial Office to Hong Kong Government\n\nIn March 1922 it was announced in the House of Commons by Mr. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Government of Hong Kong had been instructed by the Colonial Office to consult with both the Prevention Society and the Anti Mui Tsai Society in order to draw up a scheme for abolition.\n\nAlready the Secretary for Chinese Affairs in Hong Kong had been in consultation with the Secretaries of the two societies and both groups were in the process of selecting seven of their members to consult with him.\n\nCanton had forged ahead of Hong Kong, for the same issue of the paper which carried Mr. Churchill's remarks reported an item from the Canton Times that the President of the Southern Government had issued a proclamation abolishing the mui tsai system. The Women's Union of Kwangtung were ready to establish an industrial institution to train them.\n\nNews of progress toward abolition both in Hong Kong and Canton produced an air of elation at the first annual general meeting of the Anti Mui tsai Society held on March 26, 1922, at the Chinese YMCA. Mr. J. M. (Joseph Mau-lam) Wong, an Anglican and compradore of Messrs A. S. Watson and Co., presided. On the platform were members of the Executive Committee. These included Mrs. Ma Ying-piu (1872-1957), wife of the founder of the Sincere Co., member of St. Stephen's Anglican Church and a founder of the YWCA.\n\nThe Society had invited Mr. Hui Chien, the President of the Supreme Court of Canton and a member of the Society, to address the meeting. At the last minute he was unable to attend but sent to represent him two associates from Canton. One of them read the remarks he had intended to give to the meeting. In these he observed that the Southern Government at Canton had taken steps to abolish the system, but it would find it much easier to do so if Hong Kong also moved in this direction.\n\nSince its formation the Society had vigorously promoted its cause both in Hong Kong, China and in Great Britain. It had the active assistance of Commander and Mrs. Hazelwood, who after retirement", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210166, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1984", "page_number": 137, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "116\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\nThis did not mean, however, that local villagers were not averse to minor piracy and smuggling, and generally to taking advantage of opportunities for gain. There are too many accounts of villainy from the surrounding waters for us to rule out the occasional initiative. In this connection, the remarks of a Chinese brigade general ordered by his superiors to cooperate with two young British naval officers against pirates thought to belong to villages in the present day Yuen Long area of the New Territories, has to my ears the ring of truth to it:\n\n\"Having seen these eighteen villages we have, becomingly and properly, together admonished the people thereof, and I think that they will be compliant and obey our orders. But this is merely an affair of vagabonds who rob with violence and make forays, who are not in the same category with confirmed rebels and pirates.”37\n\nThe English officer in charge commented:\n\n\"It must clearly be borne in mind that piracy in China differs from piracy elsewhere in this respect that there the pirates live on the land and only put to sea occasionally to carry on their depredations... Nor is this state of things confined in this vicinity to the neighbourhood of Deep Bay. Piratical villages exist along the whole coast wherever the native traffic is sufficient to render such an occupation remunerative.\"38\n\n+39\n\nWriting specifically of Hong Kong itself on 11th April 1846 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his annual despatch on the state of the Colony, Sir John Davis observed that “A principal obstacle to the Chinese commerce of the place is the system of piracy which infests the approaches from the east and west. In another despatch dated 26 February 1848, Davis commented on the subject as follows: \"The former prevalence of piracy has been checked (as appears best proved by the increase of native trade) through the active exertions of Captain Loring of HM's ship 'Scout', by whom nearly 300 pirates were captured in the last year, and delivered over to the Chinese government.\n\n1540\n\nWhether the Hong Kong villagers joined in such behaviour", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210203, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1984", "page_number": 174, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "153\n\nunanimously recommended the re-enactment of the contagious diseases legislation in its entirety including the registration of all brothels, the licensing of their inmates and the compulsory medical examination of all prostitutes whether working in brothels or independently. The Governor quickly accepted the conclusions of the report; a bill was drafted to implement them without delay; and both were sent home for the approval of the Secretary of State.\n\nThe draft bill immediately evoked a storm of protest. To calm the critics both inside and outside the House of Commons the Secretary of State appointed a new Advisory Committee on Social Hygiene and asked it to consider the bill and the report on which it was based. The committee included the redoubtable Mrs. Neville-Rolfe and Lady Astor. It spent little time in considering the arguments put forward in the Straits Settlements for the state control of prostitution, which it considered to be completely discredited. Its final report asserted that, quite apart from the moral arguments, periodical examinations of prostitutes was medically ineffective in checking the spread of venereal disease; no examination could guarantee that a woman was free of disease, and even if she was she could become infected immediately afterwards or be the carrier of the contagion from one client to the next; such examinations merely gave men a false sense of security and encouraged promiscuity. The committee recommended various measures to improve social conditions, better housing, education and more recreational facilities; more doctors and free diagnosis and treatment. Its main conclusion was that all known brothels should progressively be closed down commencing with those frequented by Europeans, and that all sly brothels should be closed as soon as they were detected. The committee's conclusions were unanimous and the Secretary of State, Leo Amery, had no alternative but to over-rule the Governor and direct that the recommendations of the committee should be carried out. This was done and the closure of brothels in the Straits Settlements commenced in 1927.\n\nThe Social Hygiene Committee had only been asked to consider what was to be done at Singapore, but its conclusions obviously applied equally to Hong Kong and other colonies. But no similar", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210204, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1984", "page_number": 175, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "154\n\nR.J. MINERS\n\ninstructions were sent to Hong Kong so long as the Conservatives remained in power. However, as soon as the minority Labour government of 1929 came into office, various pressure groups, such as the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene and the National Council of Women of Great Britain, set to work, writing to the Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Passfield (formerly the Fabian Society reformer Sidney Webb), demanding that Hong Kong should follow Singapore's example and suppress all its brothels. There were also more parliamentary questions from Lady Astor and other sympathetic M.P.s.32 In 1930, there was a change of Governor in Hong Kong: Sir Cecil Clementi left to govern the Straits Settlements, and Sir William Peel from the Federated Malay States was promoted to Hong Kong. Clementi had never shown himself very receptive to policy suggestions from London, and his transfer gave the Colonial Office an opportunity to initiate a change of policy. Before taking up his appointment, Peel saw Lord Passfield in London and was informed that it was the policy of the Labour government that all brothels should be suppressed, but that he should first look into the question and submit a report to London.\n\nPeel sent his views to the Colonial Office in August 1930, three months after his arrival.34 He stressed that the abolition of licensed prostitution and tolerated houses was opposed by the military and naval authorities, senior government officials, and the leading members of the Chinese community who sat on the District Watch Committee. Abolition would probably lead to an increase in the number of sly brothels and streetwalkers, and a greater incidence of venereal disease. It would also make it impossible to deal effectively with the international traffic in women: in Singapore, some measure of control could be exercised at the point of entry where immigrants arrived in a few large vessels, but this was out of the question in Hong Kong, where thousands arrived daily in river steamers, junks, and by land; so the licensing and interrogation of intending prostitutes at the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs was the only way of checking that they were entering the profession of their own free will. The Governor finally suggested that if the Secretary of State was determined upon the suppression of brothels, a start could be made by refusing to register any new prostitutes; but he would prefer to await full details of the results", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210210, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1984", "page_number": 181, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "160\n\nR.J. MINERS\n\n15 Knutsford to Des Voeux, 12 Dec. 1890 and Des Voeux to Knutsford, 13 April 1891 in Parliamentary Papers 1894 LVII pp. 26-27, nos. 5 and 6.\n\n16 See for example CO129/218 p. 487, letter to the Secretary of State from the National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, 28 March 1884.\n\n17 Ripon to Robinson, 17 March 1893 in Parliamentary Papers 1894 LVII p. 39, no. 13.\n\n18 Robinson to Ripon, 17 June 1893 with enclosures in Parliamentary Papers 1894 LVII pp. 46-52, no. 17.\n\n19 See the tabulated returns for Straits Settlements and Hong Kong in CO129/286 pp. 86-87.\n\n20 See CO882/6 Confidential Print Eastern no. 69 Correspondence regarding the Measures to be Adopted for Checking the Spread of Venereal Disease 1894-1899; Minute by Sir Edward Wingfield at CO129/276 p. 132.\n\n21 J. Chamberlain to Governor Sir H.A. Blake, 11 May 1899 in CO882/6 p. 117.\n\n22 Minute by J. Chamberlain, 25 Jan. 1898 in CO129/276 p. 132.\n\n23 This possibility had been mentioned earlier in an unpublished letter from the Attorney General; see minute in CO129/286 p. 75 dated 18 March 1899.\n\n24 Memorandum by Secretary for Chinese Affairs, 4 June 1923 in CO129/480 pp. 254-259.\n\n25 The following paragraphs are based on the S.C.A. memorandum; a long description by Dr. Wellington, Director of Medical and Sanitary Services, not dated item 5 in CO129/533/10 of 1931; and note by the Chief Justice, J.H. Kemp dated 16 May 1931, item 3 in CO129/533/10.\n\n26 Macfarlane and Aubrey: Journal of the Hong Kong University Medical Society, Vol. 1 April 1922, quoted in CO129/480 p. 260.\n\n27 In CO129/472 pp. 356-382, April 1921.\n\n28 See CO129/474 pp. 338-358; CO129/484, pp. 257-8; CO129/485 pp. 2-18 and 122-6.\n\n29 See CO129/472 pp. 603-5; CO129/475 pp. 326-331; CO129/483 pp. 66-75 and pp. 156-170.\n\n30 Straits Settlements Legislative Council Sessional Papers 1923: Report of the Venereal Diseases Committee, 17 December 1923, pp. C286-327; CO882/11 Confidential Print Eastern no. 147 Correspondence 1923-1925 Relating to Social Hygiene in Singapore.\n\n31 First Report of the Advisory Committee on Social Hygiene, August 1925 Cmd 2501. See also Report of a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to examine and report on Straits Settlements Ordinance no. 15 of 1927, March 1929, Cmd 3294.\n\n32 CO129/522/3.\n\n33 Unpublished memoir by Sir William Peel deposited at Rhodes House, Oxford. House of Commons Debates, 27 June 1930 p. 1500, speech by Dr. D. Shiels.\n\n34 Peel to Passfield, 22 August 1930 in CO129/522/3.\n\n35 Peel to Passfield, 9 June 1931 in CO129/533/10.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210705, "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": 56, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "39\n\none else. The general expectation was that May and Francis would be treated in the same way. However, whereas May was awarded the C.M.G., Francis was merely offered an inkstand. The discrepancy was made all the more apparent by the fact that inkstands were also awarded to a number of junior officials.\n\nOn 22 May 1895 the Governor wrote to Francis \"By the direction of the Marquess of Ripon I have great pleasure in forwarding to you the accompanying handsome inkstand. You will find engraved on it the following inscription: 'Presented by the Hong Kong Government with the approval of Her Majesty's Government to J.J. Francis Esq., Q.C., Chairman of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board, in recognition of services rendered during the epidemic of bubonic plague at Hong Kong in 1894'. For those services you have already been thanked by me, and also by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In again expressing my appreciation of the work which you then performed so willingly and so ably it only remains for me now to ask you to accept this inkstand from the Government of Hong Kong as a slight recognition of your disinterested and valuable labours during the epidemic of 1894\". Francis replied in a letter dated 27th May which he made public. After reviewing the work of the Permanent Committee and his part in it he said that the Public Committee felt that a medal or piece of plate, however valuable, was no sufficient acknowledgement for his services and in the circumstances it was impossible for him to accept the inkstand. He was perfectly satisfied with the thanks of the community and the Governor and Secretary of State and would have sufficient memorial of the plague year in the gold medal to be presented by his fellow citizens and in the state of his fee book. He would have been highly gratified if he had been honoured in the same way as May but the gift of an inkstand was so ludicrously inadequate to the services he had rendered that he could only conclude that the Secretary of State was under a false impression as to their nature. It was usual in England, or at least always had been, to award the honours of the campaign to the leader. He had done his work freely and voluntarily and without a thought, at the time, of anything beyond serving the colony but he now had a duty to speak out in justice to the Public Committee.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210723, "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": 74, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "57\n\nRoyal Asiatic Society on July 4th 1848. Mr. Gutzlaff's suggestion, in the form of a letter to the Governor, was read to the Society on August 8th of that year, resulting in the suggestion \"that a committee be appointed to make enquiries as to the best site, the probable expenses etc. etc. and to report generally on the subject”. At a meeting of the Society, on November 7th later in the same year it was proposed, \"That the Garden Committee be authorized to draw up a memorial to the Colonial Government and to the Royal Asiatic Society for assistance, either by funds or otherwise, towards establishing a Botanical Garden in Hongkong; and also to correspond with such of the Botanical or Horticultural Societies in England as may be likely to assist in furthering the object in view.”\n\nThat the idea that a Public Botanical Garden in Hong Kong was generally discussed in both government and commercial circles about this time can be gleaned from the correspondence of one C.T. Braine, an employee of Dent & Co., a property firm, who offered his house, “Greenbank”, and its attendant garden to the government both as a suitable government house and as a well-stocked garden that was ripe for development and expansion as a public garden. Braine took the unusual step of writing on June 26th 1850, with his offer direct to Earl Grey as Secretary for State to the Colonies, who redirected Braine's letter to the Governor of Hong Kong for comment. The Governor, in turn, replied to Earl Grey on September 25th, 1850 emphatically refusing to accept either the grounds or the house as being suitable:\n\n\"In reply I beg to report to your Lordship that I cannot recommend the garden in question be taken over at the expense of the State, reference being had to the financial resources of the Colony, as well as to the absence of any person to whom it would be possible to confide the charge of such an establishment: it must be remembered moreover, that independently of the original cost of the ground, a Superintendent and several Assistants must of necessity be maintained at a permanent expenditure, which, I am satisfied, would in the end prove by no means inconsiderable.\n\nFrom Mr. Braine's letter I find he has informed your", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210726, "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": 77, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "60\n\n—\n\nD.A. GRIFFITHS AND S.P. LAU\n\nand it is to be got through the Press early in the issuing year. It will form one of the series of Floras of the British Colonies published under the sanction of H.M. Government and the general superintendence of Sir W.J. Hooker.\n\nFurther, and perhaps of more relevance in getting the gardens established, it is boldly stated in answer to Query no. 4 of June 28th 1860 \"No Botanical Garden exists in the colony\".\n\nThus although the scheme to establish a public Botanical Garden had been sanctioned by the Secretary of State in 1856, the proposal was held in limbo until Nov 30th 1861 when a sum of £269..10..6 was approved \"for the formation of Public Gardens”. A further sum of £4,371..2..6 was approved by the Governor, Hercules Robinson who explained the justification for such a large sum on the difficult topography of the chosen site.\n\n\"The amount proposed to be expended in this service is large, but the only ground available for a Public Garden in a suitable locality is situated on such a steep incline as to call for very special arrangements for carrying off the water from the hills. Drainage and a boundary wall constitute the chief items of the Estimate\".\n\nIt is obvious that Governor Robinson considered the formation of a public garden both an added attraction to the rapidly expanding city and, in addition, well within the financial resources of the Colony. He continues:\n\n\"I am of opinion that a portion of the large surplus revenue at present in hand, cannot be better expended than in carrying out this undertaking, which will contribute to the embellishment of the City of Victoria and the health and enjoyment of its inhabitants.”\n\nThe Duke of Newcastle's scribbled note appended to Robinson's submission on its arrival in London states:", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211035, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1987", "page_number": 96, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "71\n\n1901 (see below).\n\n36\n\nBrewin, who was promoted to Registrar General in 1901, had also served briefly, from 1897 to 1901, as Inspector of Schools in succession to E.J. Eitel. His endorsement was, therefore, particularly valuable. He had been appointed, together with his successor as Inspector of Schools, E.A. Irving, and the Chinese member of the Legislative Council, Ho Kai, to the 1901-1902 Education Committee, the report of which contains blatant calls for the separate educational treatment of the different races and a clear recommendation, compatible with the extremes of colonialistic paternalism, that, as far as Chinese education was concerned, the Government should concentrate its efforts and finances on the education, in English, of the few who could be regarded as potential leaders. Interestingly, the Secretary of State for the Colonies at this time, Joseph Chamberlain, totally rejected this recommendation (Chamberlain to Sir Henry Blake, Governor of Hong Kong, 12th September, 1902, in CO129/311, p. 481).\n\n\"For certain individuals, this explanation is something of a euphemism since the “medical and sanitary precautions\" involved burning down their homes.\n\nThe Plague first broke out in Hong Kong in the Spring of 1894. The death rate for the first five or six months was over 2,500, and, though, it was the Chinese population which was most affected, the Europeans were not untouched. Lady Robinson, the wife of the Governor of Hong Kong, was, for example, a victim. Dr. E.J. Eitel, the Inspector of Schools, provided details of the rumours circulating among the less educated Chinese, and their effects, in a memorandum to the Colonial Secretary on 22nd May 1894. Eitel wrote to report and explain \"the panic which has suddenly decimated the attendance in the local Chinese Schools\" and noted that the rumours began to spread in districts affected by the Plague on Sunday, 20th May and reached other districts the next day. The principal rumours were (a) that \"the Government intended to select a few young Children from each School to subject them to a surgical incision of the liver in order to obtain bile, this being the only known remedy for curing the plague”; and, (b) that \"every School would be visited by officers who would examine every child and send to the \"Hygeia\" anyone having the least boil or pimple on its body\". Eitel speculated about the origin of the panic, attributing it to \"the malicious distortion of the native medical fraternity\" and concluded: “I do not think anything very effectual can be done to remove the suggestions of native malice to native ignorance and suspiciousness. Distrust of the Government is still rampant among the lower classes of Chinese. Education will remove it in time. (Memorandum No. 38 of 22nd May, 1894, by Dr. E.J. Eitel, Inspector of Schools; in CO129/263, p. 190-193). 39 In Arnold Wright (ed.), Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and the Other Treaty Ports of China: Their History, People, Commerce, Industries, and Resources (London: Lloyd's Greater Britain Publishing Company, Ltd., 1908), p. 182, for example, Mok Tso Chun, “a native of the Heungshan district\" and formerly one of the directors of the Tung Wah Hospital, is described as the Chief Compradore of Butterfield and Swire. In the Anglo-Chinese Commercial Directory of circa 1915 (Chief Editor, Jan George Chance), a Mok Jao Chuen, clearly the same person as Mok Tso Chun, appears as Compradore for Butterfield and Swire, while a Choi Kung Po and a Mok Kon Sang appear as Assistant Compradores. Mok Man Cheung acted as witness to the will of Mok Tso [or Jao] Chun and the will, itself, makes it clear that Mok Kon Sang was Mok Tso Chun's eldest son. It was certainly not unusual for Compradores at this time to find positions for younger relatives.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211097, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1987", "page_number": 158, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "133\n\nIn the opinion of the speaker, carrying a lamp was no check to crime. The measures for securing a peaceful community lay elsewhere. He asked: \"How can a lamp prevent robbery? Cannot a thief carry a lamp? Is it because one case of robbery with violence has occurred in the course of a few years that the lamp law has been enforced?\" He clearly felt the law did not achieve its purpose.\n\nCurtailment of crime could not be expected from carrying lamps and passes. This was the responsibility of the police. Ho A-mei said bluntly: \"I think the police are more to blame, because they failed to arrest those who committed the robbery. (Applause). The police do not give us sufficient protection; that is why we have our own district watchmen, in Wing Lok Street for instance, and yet we have to pay for the police as well.”\n\nThe speaker then launched out to describe the way the regulation had affected business since a policy of rigid enforcement had been inaugurated: \"Considerably fewer people visit the eating houses at night and, of course, as the business decreases so the supply of sharks' fins, etc, by the Nam Pak Hongs decreases; in fact, there is a general deadlock in every branch of trade.\" The enforcement not only curbed social activities, it also had adversely affected business.\n\nHe suggests that if no action on the matter was forthcoming from the Hongkong Government, then the matter must be put directly to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, “and we must ask that in future all ordinances passed in the Colony shall have a general effect and that they shall not aim at the Chinese alone.”\n\nThe meeting had been called to rally support for Mr. Ho Tung's petition against the regulations. No reply to the petition had been received, and Ho A-mei said that he had heard “that it was suggested to the Government that the movement was only an agitation on the part of a few members of the community, and that the petition was signed only at their request.”\n\nThis the speaker denied. “But, I say, Gentlemen, you did not sign the petition simply at the request of Mr. Ho Tung; you signed it in the public streets knowing what the contents were.”", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211183, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1987", "page_number": 244, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "219\n\nand not the mists rising from the swampy areas.\n\nThough the cause of the fever had not been identified properly, the drainage of the valley was a way to remove it. If the valley was to be drained it meant that the rice growing must stop.\n\nFor generations the valley had been cultivated by the Ng and Yip families. They lived in the village at the head of the valley. Their village and that of the Chau family at Little Hongkong near Aberdeen were the oldest agricultural settlements on the Island.\n\nOver the years the villagers had built up some resistance to malaria, but the newly-arrived Europeans were easy victims. To safeguard the health of the foreigner the villagers were told they must give up their ancestral fields. The Government notified them of this in March 1844.\n\nTo justify this expenditure when the British Government was begrudging every penny spent on Hongkong unless it was for military purposes, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies that it was expedient to drain the valley, \"as its vicinity to the town, and the natural advantage of this spot make it not only desirable as a residence, but likewise as a place of recreation for the inhabitants.\"\n\nIts use for recreation is still of great importance. The air of death still lingers, however. The hillsides to the west of the valley were laid out as cemeteries for the Moslem, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Parsee communities.\n\nBehind the village of Wongneichong, near the present stables of the Jockey Club, was the Jewish Cemetery, and on Caroline Hill to the east was a very large Chinese cemetery.\n\nIn 1844, the major improvements proposed were the raising of the level of the lower portions of the valley which were covered with water at high tide, enlarging the course of the stream which flowed through the valley and digging suitable ditches to facilitate drainage.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211199, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1987", "page_number": 260, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "235\n\nAnother speaker rose to suggest that it would be appropriate to have a statue of one of the Chinese gods in the library. He suggested that of Tze Tso, the founder of Chinese literature. Ho A-mei objected. There were Chinese temples for the gods. The proposed building was not a suitable place for them.\n\nThe chairman of the meeting then suggested that as there seemed to be no opposition to the proposal, it be formally placed before the meeting.\n\nHo A-mei proposed: \"That the celebration of the Queen's jubilee, by the Chinese residents of this colony, take the form of the building of a Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Public Library and Reading Room.” Mr. Wei Yuk seconded it and the meeting unanimously approved it.\n\nA committee of thirty-seven was chosen. The president was Ho Kwan-shan (Ho A-mei), the vice-president was Wei Yuk, the treasurer Lee Yuk-hang (Li Shing), and the secretary Ho Yuk-shang (Dr. Ho Kai)\n\nThe meeting ended amid satisfaction over the harmony that had prevailed. With enthusiasm the committee set about its task of soliciting funds.\n\nCHANGING FACE OF CHINESE SPORT\n\nThe decision by the Chinese to mark 1887, the jubilee year of Queen Victoria, by building a hall for a Chamber of Commerce, as reported in the Daily Press, “really put an extinguisher on the projected Victoria Park.”\n\n\"The coup de grâce to the scheme\" came when the acting Governor informed the committee that he could not approve of the public taking up a project which had been accepted as a Government scheme by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.\n\nTwo letters which appeared in the press before the project had to be abandoned are interesting commentaries on life in Hong Kong at that time.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211366, "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-1988", "page_number": 82, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "58\n\nGovernment, but the Government had not at present a plan to create a post of Factory Inspector.\n\nThe Problem publicised in Britain\n\nMiss Pitts and Mr. Bowley both left Hong Kong for leaves in England in June 1919. During their stay they might have pushed the matter of child labour in Hong Kong, for in May 1920 there was published an article in the Child Guardian setting forth the situation of children in Hong Kong. This magazine was the organ of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The recommendations proposed by Mr. Bowley at the meeting of the Church of England Men's Society already referred to were published on the first page of an issue of the magazine. These were accompanied by the comment, “Judging from the necessity of bringing such proposals forward, it may be imagined this British Colony is a long way behind in its treatment of children”. It was noted, however, that a great many influential people in Britain were worrying the Colonial Office on the subject. The editor surmised, \"the Governor must be having quite a busy time answering the inquiries of the Colonial Office in regard to these questions“.\n\nIn November 1920 a Director of the British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children asked the Secretary for the Colonies for an interview with Mr. Claude Severn, the Hong Kong Colonial Secretary who was on leave in England, to discuss with him the matter of the welfare of children in Hong Kong.\n\nParliamentary question\n\nDecember 1920\n\nMr. A. Davies in December 1920 asked in a Parliamentary Question if there was any legislation in Hong Kong controlling the type of work done by children, the hours they worked, or their employment in work injurious to their health. The Government spokesman replied that there was none, but the Governor was being asked for a report on the subject of child labour.\n\nAnother question was raised at a session soon after. Mr. Cope asked if the Secretary of State for the Colonies was aware that the resolution of the Sanitary Board passed in May 1919 regarding child labour had", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213092, "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": 160, "title": "RAS-1993", "content_text": "141\n\nwith some happier notes.\n\nJuly 23rd\n\nBy this time we had broken down the opposition and matters began to run smoothly\n\nAnd after a long gap, the final entry,\n\nSeptember 3rd\n\nI left for Japan about this time spending all September in Colony In Japan the guest of the Japanese Government and made a national hero Valuable presents numerous and suite of rooms in the Imperial Hotel\n\nThis red-carpet treatment must have been recommended by Kitasato in appreciation of the help given him by Lowson in making the discovery that earned him international fame\n\nHaving read the diary, I learnt more about the situation as it developed from day to day but it came as a surprise to me that so much had gone on behind the scenes arising from clashes of personalities The three important people whose responsibility in the fight against the Epidemic was no less onerous than that of Ayres or Lowson were called: fools, cowards and nonentities. They were the Governor, who was in overall charge as head of the administration, the Colonial Secretary, who was the Governor's principal assistant, and the Chairman of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board which was set up to recommend on legislation Were the accusations justified? We do not know, but it would be interesting to find out something about these three.\n\nSir William Robinson was Governor of Hong Kong from December 1891 to January 1898. His governorship covered a most difficult period in the history of Hong Kong, during which 'misfortunes after misfortunes assailed the colony in swift succession', to quote from Sayers. The year 1894 was a particularly bad one for Robinson and Hong Kong. His wife died but not from plague. Two very severe typhoons struck Hong Kong in September and October, causing much devastation and many casualties. Above all, there was the Epidemic with its effect on the economy and other aspects of life in the Territory. Robinson reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that 'Without exaggeration, I may assert that so far as trade and commerce are concerned the plague has assumed the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214431, "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": 289, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "255\n\nLaya and to assist in the Korean War. In 1957 the Royal Artillery lost one of its major stations in the colony described as \"the last of the great Gunner bastions on the island,\" when 27 Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment RA, which was stationed at Stanley Fort, was sent back to the United Kingdom for reorganisation. From then up to the handover to the Hong Kong Government in 1994, Stanley Fort was occupied by British infantry battalions on 2-year tours of duty. In 1997 it was handed over to the People's Liberation Army who are the present occupants.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 Lord Stanley, Edward Henry, 15th Earl of Derby, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1845.\n\nREFERENCES\n\n\"Stanley, Hong Kong - The First Three Years\" by Lieut. G.P. Shearer, R.E., Royal Engineers' Journal, June 1938.\n\n\"British & Indian Armies on the China Coast 1795 - 1985\", by Alan Harfield, A&J Partnership, 1990.\n\n\"The Guns & Gunners of Hong Kong\", by Denis Rollo, The Gunners Roll of Hong Kong 1992.\n\n\"Eighteen Days\", by Col. D.R. Bennett, R.A.P.C., The Royal Army Pay Office, Hong Kong, 1976.\n\n\"Lyemun Barracks: 140 Years of Military History\", by Phillip Bruce, 1987.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215281, "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": 58, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "6\n\nStraits Settlements, but not to Hong Kong. The governor protested to the Colonial Office at Hong Kong's exclusion in 1907, 1910 and 1912 but the Canadian government refused to include Hong Kong within its preferential tariff on the grounds that goods from China might be shipped through Hong Kong's open port and fraudulently obtain the benefit of Canada's preferential tariff.\" So Hong Kong's exports of cement and refined sugar were taxed at the highest rate and soon lost their market in Canada. In 1912 a trade agreement was negotiated between Canada and the West Indian colonies whereby Canadian exports were granted preferential tariffs in return for Canadian preferences on Caribbean cane sugar, cocoa beans and lime juice. The West Indian colonies negotiated this trade agreement directly with Canada and the secretary of state for the colonies raised no objection. These preferences were increased by a new trade agreement in 1920 and were generalised to benefit goods from all empire sources.20 The Colonial Office invited all colonies and protectorates to consider the practicability of introducing preferential rates of duty for goods of imperial origin. But most of the colonial empire was prevented by international treaties from imposing discriminatory tariffs. Northern Rhodesia, Kenya and Uganda, being part of the Congo Basin, were forbidden to discriminate by the Convention of St. Germain (1919); Nigeria and the Gold Coast by the Anglo-French treaty of 1898; and Tanganyika, Togoland, Cameroons and Palestine were mandated territories of the League of Nations which prohibited discrimination. By 1932 the only colonies which were free to adopt imperial preference but had not done so were Somaliland, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong and certain islands in the Pacific.\" Canada and New Zealand were the only dominions which granted any preferences to the colonial empire before 1932. Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland, Southern Rhodesia and India granted none.\n\nThe world trade depression which began in 1929 convinced British politicians that the liberal principles of free trade which had been followed for the past 70 years must be abandoned. The National government elected in 1931 quickly passed the Import Duties Act which imposed a general duty of 10 per cent ad valorem on all imports. Section 5 of the act granted an entire exemption from the general duty to imports from all colonies, protectorates and mandated territories, provided that at least 25 per cent of the value was derived from materials grown or produced or from work done within a part of the empire.\" Imports from the dominions and India were exempted from duty only until November pending the outcome of an Imperial Economic Conference.\" A circular despatch was sent by the Colonial Office to all colonies and protectorates drawing attention to the great advantages extended to the colonies by the Import Duties Act and inviting them to give similar preferences to United Kingdom manufactures", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215282, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2001", "page_number": 59, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "where the territory was not debarred from doing so by treaty. In preparation for the negotiations at Ottawa the colonies were also asked to consider what preferences might be accorded them by the dominions and what preferences they might give to the dominions in return on the lines of the Canada-West Indies agreement.”\n\n34\n\nThe governor, Sir William Peel, discussed Hong Kong's position while visiting the Colonial Office in June 1932. Officials agreed with him that Hong Kong's status as a free port made it impossible to impose anything like a general tariff. Any such tariff would ruin the entrepôt trade which was vital to Hong Kong's existence and no practicable means could be devised of landing goods in bond for re-export without involving so much inconvenience as to drive the entrepôt trade to other neighbouring ports. Peel was prepared as a gesture to give a preference to empire products on articles such as spirits and tobacco which were subject to excise duty and to impose a higher rate of first registration tax on foreign motor cars than on cars imported from Britain and Canada. He did not ask for any preference from the dominions in return since in his view the bulk of Hong Kong exports consists of foreign goods the proportion of the cost of which, due to treatment in Hong Kong, was not large enough to secure a preference...” This showed a surprising ignorance of Hong Kong's growing trade in domestic manufactures which were largely exported to neighbouring Asian countries.\n\nThe Ottawa conference convened in July 1932. The British delegation was led by Stanley Baldwin, the former prime minister, and four other cabinet ministers. Canada, Southern Rhodesia and Newfoundland were represented by their prime ministers; Australia and New Zealand by former prime ministers; South Africa and the Irish Free State by their finance and trade ministers. India, which had been given the freedom to establish protective duties in 1923, was represented by Sir Atul Chatterjee and other members of the Viceroy's Council. The interests of the colonial empire were safeguarded by the secretary of state for the colonies, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister and one civil servant from the Colonial Office, G.L.M. Clauson.\n\nThe conclusions of the conference were embodied in agreements between the United Kingdom government and the governments of the dominions and India. Britain consented to continue the free entry of goods grown, produced or manufactured in any part of the empire, and to impose additional duties on specified foreign goods which would give empire produce a preferential margin higher than the 10 per cent tariff already imposed by the Import Duties Act. Britain also agreed to 'invite' the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to extend to all the dominions any preference at present extended to any part of the empire, and to increase the margin of preference or impose specific duties on a long list of items requested by the dominions. In return the dominions confirmed the existing", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215286, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2001", "page_number": 63, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "II\n\nasked that Britain should approach Australia to secure for Hong Kong the same tariff preference as Britain enjoyed, in accordance with article 15 of the Ottawa agreement. He pointed out that Hong Kong had granted Australian brandy a preference in the excise duty of three dollars a gallon and had received nothing in return. Cunliffe-Lister refused to take any action minuting that he was not prepared to press for equal treatment in the dominions for British and colonial industries like shipbuilding in which owing to different standards of living the levels of cost were necessarily different. This attitude shocked the civil servants in the Colonial Office. One senior official minuted, 'I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be the advocate of colonial interests.' The matter was not allowed to rest there in spite of the views expressed by Cunliffe-Lister. Officials consulted the Board of Trade and when that department raised no objection a letter was sent to the Australian High Commission asking for the grant of preference. The Australian government was most unwilling to extend preference to a territory with oriental wages even though it was part of the empire, but eventually granted all the colonies preference at the same rate as Britain in respect of vessels over 500 tons only.\n\nIn 1933 Hong Kong manufacturers followed the lead of the Singapore factory in vigorously expanding their exports. Sales to Britain grew from HK$16,190 in 1930 to HK$454,252 in 1933 and to HK$1,823,874 in 1934. British manufacturers protested to the Board of Trade about this competition in their home market and the Board of Trade passed on their complaints to the Colonial Office. Cunliffe-Lister suggested that Britain should confine its preference to primary products and that entry free of duty should be refused to colonial manufactured goods which could compete with an efficient British industry. This proposal did not find favour with the civil service. Instead officials proposed that an interdepartmental committee should be set up to consider the whole question of the industrial development of the colonial empire. The committee was composed of officials from the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office. The first meeting was held in January 1934. R.V. Vernon of the Colonial Office was the chairman and was said to have been largely instrumental in drafting the committee's report.\n\nThe committee concluded that industrial development in the colonial empire was an inevitable contingency which could not be prohibited or indefinitely retarded; but the committee saw no reason why a conscious policy of the artificial encouragement of industry should be undertaken by the institution of a tariff high enough to protect the products of local industry from imports from Britain or elsewhere. The interests of British manufacturers and of colonial consumers who would have to pay a higher price for products previously imported should also be considered. So the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215287, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2001", "page_number": 64, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "creation of protected local industries could be justified only where the colony had natural advantages for the development of an industry and where it was likely eventually to be profitable without protection. However, regard should also be paid to the principle of trusteeship and where the commercial interests of Britain and the general economic well-being of the colony were in conflict, colonial interests should prevail. These ambiguous recommendations gave the Colonial Office a considerable area of discretion to determine whether or not a colony should be allowed to institute a protective tariff or provide other assistance to a proposed new industry.\n\nThese recommendations did not affect the situation in Hong Kong and Singapore, where Chinese entrepreneurs were successfully exporting shoes and other goods manufactured from imported raw materials without the assistance of any protective tariff. Their home market was small compared to their export markets and they could easily undercut any foreign competitors. The committee regarded the invasion of the British and dominion markets by cheap rubber shoes produced by oriental labour as an evil, but it opposed the imposition of import duties on colonial manufactures since the Ottawa agreements had granted entry free of tariffs to all imports from the dominions and India; discrimination against colonial products would undermine the principle of free trade within the empire and call into question the preferences and privileges which the colonies had extended to imports from Britain. Instead of tariffs on colonial manufactures the committee recommended that efforts should be pursued to assimilate conditions of employment and factory and workshop regulations to those in force in Britain by the adoption of the International Labour Conventions by the colonies. The committee also suggested the encouragement of negotiations between manufacturers in Britain and in the colonies to divide the market by the assignment of quotas between them.\n\nCunliffe-Lister welcomed the report in spite of the rejection of his idea of protection for British manufactures against colonial competition. The report was circulated to the cabinet for the information of ministers but objections were unexpectedly raised by the secretary of state for India and the chancellor of the exchequer. The main doubt was whether the report went far enough in recommending the discouragement of new industries in the colonies. So the report was remitted for further consideration by another committee, but nothing was done for three years. In the meantime the Colonial Office proceeded to act on the principles recommended in the report. Instructions were sent to all colonies that any proposal to protect a local industry must be referred to London at the earliest possible stage and no bill to impose or increase a protective tariff should be introduced into the legislative council without prior authorisation by the colonial secretary. Telegrams were sent to the governors of Singapore and Hong Kong asking\n\nPage 46", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215297, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2001", "page_number": 74, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "22\n\n22. The requirement of an empire content of 25 per cent to qualify for preference was set in consultation with the Board of Trade, which pointed out that some British manufacturers using foreign sources of raw material would not qualify for preference if the empire content was set at 50 per cent. CO323/1192/11.\n\n23. L.M. Drummond, British Economic Policy and the Empire 1919–1939 (London, 1972), 92; Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Industrial Development of the Colonial Empire, Colonial Office Confidential Print 445, CO885/40.\n\n24. Secretary of State to all colonies and protectorates, 4 Feb. 1932, DO35/242/4, PRO.\n\n25. Minutes of a conference at the Colonial Office, 27 June 1932, CO323/1193/2.\n\n26. The texts of the agreements are in Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa Cmd4175 (London, 1932), 19–76.\n\n27. Canada agreed to extend to the colonies and protectorates the preferences accorded to Britain, but in practice raised objections when requested to do so by the British government. See for example CO323/1099/16, CO852/51/9 and CO852/251/10. Cunliffe-Lister minute, 22 Oct 1933, CO323/1232/8, 'Canada has done less than nothing to implement the most essential part of the Ottawa accords.'\n\n28. See the comments in paragraphs 18 and 30 of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee.\n\n29. Confidential Circular Despatch, 29 Sept. 1932, CO854/174. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister is better known by his later title, Viscount Swinton.\n\n30. Secretary of State to Governor of Ceylon, 27 Sept. 1932; S. of S. to High Commissioner, Federated Malay States, 30 Sept. 1932; S. of S. to Barbados, 24 Oct. 1932; S. of S. to Jamaica, 10 Oct. 1932; S. of S. to Windward Islands, 24 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5. A clause was drafted for inclusion in the 1933 Finance Bill to allow Britain to withdraw preferences from any colony if it did not grant the Ottawa preferences to empire products, CO323/1230/3.\n\n31. Officer Administering Government, Leeward Islands to Secretary of State, 19 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n32. Governor Barbados to Secretary of State, 17 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n33. Governor Windward Islands to Secretary of State, 21 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n34. Stevens to Cunliffe-Lister, 17 Nov. 1932, CO323/1193/11.\n\n35. Cunliffe-Lister to Stevens, 8 Dec. 1932, CO323/1193/11.\n\n36. Hong Kong Trade Returns show exports of rubber shoes to the British West Indies as follows: 1932 - HK$4,894; 1933 - 116,670; 1934 - 643,337; 1935 - 574,376; 1936 - 1,071,932; 1937 - 1,427,634.\n\n37. High Commissioner for Canada to Cunliffe-Lister, 15 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n38. Cunliffe-Lister to High Commissioner, 27 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8. Canada later succeeded in excluding Singapore shoes by setting a fictitious high rate of exchange for the Singapore dollar. See minute by Calder, 8 June 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n39. Peel to Cunliffe-Lister, 13 Nov. 1933, CO323/1231/16.\n\n40. Minute by Vernon, 21 Dec. 1933, CO323/1231/16. R.V. Vernon was an Assistant Secretary who joined the Colonial Office in 1900. He had previously expressed his disapproval when Cunliffe-Lister refused to approach India and South Africa to ask for imperial preference for Hong Kong's rubber shoes: 'The Secretary of State is placed practically in the position of a trustee who is bound to act with the sole regard to the interests of the colonies and is not at liberty to abstain from any claim on the account of the interests of U.K. industry or the susceptibilities of dominion industrial interests.' Minute, 9 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/3. The attitude of Cunliffe-Lister may be contrasted with that of Alan Lennox-Boyd (Colonial Secretary 1954-59) who threatened to resign if Hong Kong was forced to accept a limitation on its textile exports to Britain. Harold Macmillan, Riding the Storm, 1954–1959 (London, 1971), 739-43.\n\n41. CO323/1294/3.\n\n42. Hong Kong Trade Returns 1932, 1933, 1934.\n\n43. Minute by Cunliffe-Lister, 7 June 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n44. Edgcumbe (Department of Overseas Trade) to Eastwood (Colonial Office), 18 April 1936, CO323/1298/10.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215537, "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": 314, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "264\n\n10. Chekiang and Kiangsu\n\n11. Hopeh and Shantung\n\n12. Pentecostal\n\n13. Christian\n\n2. Distribution of lots at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery:\n\nCoffin section:\n\n1. General\n\n2. Chiu Chow\n\n3. Fukien\n\n4. Yan Ping\n\n5. Wai Hoi Wai\n\n6. Pentecostal\n\n7. 7th Day Adventists\n\nUrn section:\n\n1. General\n\n2. Chiu Chow\n\n3. Toi Shan\n\n4. Hoi Ping\n\n5. Ka Ying\n\n6. Tung Kwun\n\nThe very large number of indigenous villagers' burial sites/graveyards, some of considerable size, will not be dealt with in this study.\n\n2 Prior to 1926, Hong Kong's official spelling was 'Hongkong.' In September 1926, under instructions received from the Secretary of State for Colonies, 'Hong Kong' was adopted as the official form. See Hongkong Government Gazette (hereinafter HKGG) Notification 479 of 3 September 1926.\n\n3 The name of Wan Chai was not in use in the early 1840s, the area around the burial ground was described as 'that part of the town fronting upon Howwan Bay' in Friend of China of 19th May 1842.\n\n4\n\nOxley, D.H. (ed) (1979), Victoria Barracks 1842-1979. Hong Kong: Headquarters British Forces Hong Kong, p. 25.\n\n5 The barrack area of the present Hong Kong Park site.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215551, "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": 328, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "278\n\n10TH TO 12TH, 1956, TOGETHER WITH COVERING DESPATCH DATED THE 3RD DECEMBER, 1956, FROM THE GOVERNOR OF HONG KONG TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.\n\n152 HKGG Notice 727 of 28th September 1934.\n\n153 HKGG Notice 698 of 13th September 1935.\n\n154 HKGG Notice 571 of 16 May 1941.\n\n155 HKGG Notice 784 of 11 October 1935.\n\n156 HKGG Notice 852 of 4th November 1938. This cemetery was probably the same cemetery as Diamond Hill Urn Cemetery (New Kowloon Cemetery No. 8), however, no reference in regard to the renaming is found yet.\n\n157 HKGG Notice 534 of 9th May 1941.\n\n158 The present St. Raphael's Catholic Cemetery. A few headstones in this cemetery could be traced back to the early 20th century which may be the result of reburials.\n\n159 According to the information supplied by the Rev. Carl T. Smith, the earliest graves in this cemetery dated back to June 1941.\n\n160 HKGG Notice 616 of 1947.\n\n161 There is no reliable record on the number of deaths particularly among the civilians during the invasion and the occupation period. A chief factor was the very large number of refugees arriving in Hong Kong between 1938 and 1941, which might have been as high as 800,000.\n\n162 HKGG Notice of 23 March 1946.\n\n163 HKGG Notice of 723 of 16th September 1947.\n\n164 HKGG Notice of 724 of 16th September 1947.\n\n165 Site of present Tsan Yuk Hospital.\n\n166 HKGG Notice 722 of 16th September 1947.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 } ]