[
    {
        "id": 211133,
        "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": 194,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "169\n\npublic. Its conclusions were considered not acceptable and its tone would have aggravated differences between China and Britain.\n\nIn December 1873, the Governor of Hongkong had appointed a three-man commission to investigate the alleged interference by China with the trade of Hongkong. Its members were Phineas Ryrie, a businessman and chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, H. G. Thomsett, the harbour master, and M. S. Tonnochy, his assistant. They submitted their report in April 1874.\n\nThe General Chamber of Commerce requested a copy, but it was told that as the Colonial and Foreign Offices were still considering the report, it could not be released to the public.\n\nThe merchants felt that the Government was deliberately withholding the findings of the commission. To draw attention to their views, which were similar to those expressed by the commission, the merchants encouraged a group of aggrieved Chinese to petition Her Majesty. They then followed this up with their own public meeting.\n\nThe commission had taken the position that the method China was using to enforce its revenue collection was seriously hurting Hongkong trade. The main premise of the report, that China had encroached on Hongkong's sovereignty, was rejected by the representatives of the British Government at Canton and Peking.\n\nAlthough the Foreign Office in London, Sir Thomas Wade, the British Minister in Peking, and Sir Brooke Robertson, Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, were not in complete agreement about the various points raised by the commission, they all agreed that the commission had greatly overstated the case.\n\nIt was conceded that the employment of a low type of foreigner by the Chinese was objectionable, that in the nature of the case there must have been some violation of Hongkong waters when a junk was being chased by cruisers, and that no doubt there had been instances of squeezing.\n\nIn commenting on the report of the commission, Sir Brooke",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211140,
        "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": 201,
        "title": "RAS-1987",
        "content_text": "176\n\nBefore the public meeting could be held, the Home Government changed its mind about the appointment.\n\nTHE DAY AN ADMIRAL TRIED TO STEAL THE SHOW\n\nIn an attempt to solve the blockade question, Sir Brooke Robertson, the British Consul at Canton, suggested in 1878 that a European be appointed as Chinese Consul in Hongkong. He could check on cargoes of junks and make reports to the Customs authorities in Canton.\n\nIn this way the Chinese could exercise better control over the collection of duties on goods shipped in and out of Hongkong on Chinese vessels. Presumably he would not be prone to engage in all the irregularities allegedly practised by all Chinese officials.\n\nHongkong, however, resisted such an appointment and the matter was dropped at that time.\n\nThe Opium Agreement between Britain and China signed in September 1886, provided for a Chinese Maritime Customs collecting station at Kowloon. The Hongkong Government unofficially condoned the residence of its Commissioner, a British national, in Hongkong.\n\nIn view of this arrangement and the easing of the tensions created by the Chinese blockade of Hongkong, the appointment of a Chinese Consul for Hongkong continued to lay dormant.\n\nIn 1891, however, the Colonial Office suddenly informed Hongkong that a Chinese Consul had been appointed for the port. There was an immediate outcry of indignation. The opposition hauled out the same arguments they had used against any arrangement with China that would have assisted it in collecting customs duties.\n\nIn an editorial comment, the China Mail stated that the arrangement made with China for the Imperial Customs to collect its duties directly had been mutually beneficial, for \"smuggling had been discouraged and legitimate trade promoted, and the Col-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522",
        "rank": 0
    }
]