[ { "id": 205724, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1969", "page_number": 30, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "24 \n\nT. C. CHENG \n\nfounded a company named after himself. He was also General Manager of Chinese Estate, Ltd., and adviser to the Hong Kong and Yaumati Ferry Company. He was Honorary Adviser to the Chinese Government as well as the Kwangtung Provincial Government. In 1924, he turned down a Chinese offer to be ambassador to England. He was a member of the Legislative Council for 13 years, from 1923 to 1936, and a member of the Executive Council for 5 years from 1936 to 1941. He was created a knight bachelor in 1938.\n\nThe big strike of 1925 was followed by a boycott of British goods and shipping in China until 10 October 1926, resulting in a serious economic depression in Hong Kong. Mainly through the persuasiveness of Robert Kotewall a special loan of £1,600,000 with an interest rate of 5½%, was arranged from the British Government to assist the merchants of the Colony until normal trading was resumed. Because of this, the Chinese gave him the nickname of \"Silver Tongue\". Sir Robert Kotewall died after the war in 1949,27\n\nIn 1929, the Legislative Council was enlarged through the initiative of the Governor, Sir Cecil Clementi, who was a noted Chinese scholar. The number of officials was increased from eight to ten, including the Governor, and the number of unofficials was increased from six to eight. Of the two additional unofficial members, one was to be a Chinese and the other a Portuguese. Thus the number of Chinese unofficials was increased from two to three and the Portuguese community was represented for the first time on the Council by Mr. Jose Pedro Braga.\n\nIn addition to Sir Shouson Chow and Robert Kotewall, Dr. Tso Seen-wan became the third Chinese member of the Legislative Council in 1929. Dr. Tso, born in 1868, studied law in England. In 1896 he started his practice as a solicitor in Hong Kong together with a partner named Hodgson. In 1902, he, Dr. Ho Kai and some other Chinese leaders were responsible for the founding of St. Stephen's Boys College. He served on the Sanitary Board in 1918 and was appointed a J.P. the same year. As early as 1916, he was awarded the honorary degree of LL.D. by the University of Hong Kong, and in 1928 and 1935 was awarded the O.B.E. and C.B.E. respectively. He served on the Legislative Council from 1929 to 1937 when he resigned.\n\nPage 30\n\nPage 31", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209217, "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": 120, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "106\n\nCARL T SMITH\n\nHis trusted allies had turned against him.\n\nIn his communications with the Colonial Office he was strangely silent about the support for the Bill by the Anti Mui Tsai Society and the labour unions. It seemed to be on the opinion that the only views of Chinese to be taken seriously were those of his long-time advisers, and now they were deserting him. One of the Colonial Office administrations minuted a letter from Governor Stubbs:\n\nIt seems to me the advice we have received on the general question of mui tsai has been throughout faulty and incorrect and in certain respects misleading. It seems also the Hong Kong Government does not desire to press the Secretary of State's reform on the Chinese.12\n\nOn December 23, 1922 the Mui Tsai Bill was gazetted, and on December 28 it received its first reading in the Legislative Council as \"An Ordinance to regulate certain forms of domestic service\".\n\nThe Editor of the Daily Press, a strong advocate of abolition, felt the remarks of the Attorney General in introducing the Bill reflected the reluctance of the Hong Kong Government to implement the instructions of the Colonial Office:\n\nThe Attorney General in introducing the Mui Tsai Bill can hardly be said to have shown... fully sympathy with the object of the Bill... The attitude of the local Government to agitation for abolition has been hostile all along,13\n\n13\n\nChinese Chamber of Commerce Meeting – January 1923\n\nThe members of the Protection Society had second thoughts about the approval given by four of their representatives on the joint committee to assist in drafting a bill (three did not sign the agreement). An extraordinary meeting of the Chamber of Commerce was held early in January to air reservations about the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Li Po-kwai (1871-1963), a wealthy property owner, presided. Among the members in attendance the following were named:\n\nThe two Chinese Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr. Chow Shou-son and the Hon. Mr. Ng Hon-tsz\n\nMr. Ho Fook, a former member of the Legislative Council\n\nLo Chueng-shiu, a compradore of Jardines and brother-in-law of Ho Fook\n\nHis son Mr. M. K. Lo (later Sir Man-kam Lo), a solicitor and\n\nPage 120\n\nPage 121", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210685, "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": 36, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "19\n\nHis admission was moved by the Attorney General, Julian Pauncefote, before the Chief Justice, J.J. Smale, who in addressing Francis said \"As you have not been in England I may as well tell you that, though in this court you attain to rights and privileges equal to those enjoyed at home, you will hold yourself bound by all the practices of the court and look upon it as your first duty to aid in the administration of justice, subject to which is your other great duty of protecting your client in every way. From what I have seen of you I have no doubt your career will be a prosperous one”. Smale also observed that a good feeling prevailed among the attorneys of Hong Kong and that they did not seek to take advantage of each other. Gaskell's death no doubt worked both ways for Francis who appears to have practised from the same office. One of his first clients was John D. MacDonald, the executor of Robert Henry Grant, a clerk in the Naval Yard. Francis advertised the fact for so long in the Gazette that I suspect it was a way of advertising that he was in practice. According to the Hong Kong Telegraph Francis soon came to the front as a solicitor and built up a remunerative practice. He brought out from England M.J.D. Stephens to act as his managing clerk. Stephens was admitted to practise in 1874. He also had working for him H.L. Dennys who was admitted in 1874, clerks called Smithers and Guttierrez and an interpreter called Mun Choy. The Chinese name for his firm was Fa Lan Shea Shi Chong Sz. In 1873 Francis decided to give up practice as a solicitor and study to be called to the Bar. He sold his practice to Stephens and in December 1873 had himself taken off the Roll. It was no doubt a courageous thing for him to do, but he had an example in the person of E.H. Pollard who was admitted as a Solicitor in 1850 and as a barrister in 1859 and elected to act as a barrister only in 1865 (in conformity with Ordinance No. 13 of 1862). No doubt also he was able to weigh the likely competition with a fair degree of accuracy; and the hazards to health in Hong Kong ensured that only the fittest survived the pressures of work.\n\nIn January 1874 Francis was admitted as a student of Gray's Inn. His witnesses were Wellington Cowper of the Inner Temple and C.W. Bardswell of Lincoln's Inn. He gave his addresses as 27, Belsize Park Gardens, South Hampstead and 14, Serle Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and described himself as late of Victoria in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210691, "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": 42, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "25\n\ntenced two soldiers to seven years penal servitude for robbing a man of ten dollars. However in a report to the Governor (Hennessy) he wrote \"if after the circumstances shall be forgotten, say a year after the Regiment shall have left the Colony, you should think it fit to remit any portion of the sentence it might be done”. In another case of robbery in which two defendants were convicted by a majority of the jury of four to three he wrote “I know the Chief Justice has expressed dissatisfaction at verdicts by majorities but the judges have found themselves bound to accept them as conclusive and the practice has been to act on such verdicts. I felt myself obliged to follow such precedents\". He recommended that they be pardoned because a co-defendant who pleaded guilty asserted that they were innocent. In September 1881 the Governor discharged them, and the two soldiers, from prison and was abused by the press for his \"capricious leniency”. (In 1894 an Ordinance provided that a majority of five to two was required in criminal cases). When criticised for hearing proceedings in camera he said \"I mean as long as I sit on this bench to continue to exercise the discretion vested in me by law to hear a case in camera when the ends of justice appear to me to require it, in entire disregard of all obloquy to which it may expose me”. When he ceased to act as Puisne Judge the Chief Justice wrote to the Governor to say that he entirely agreed with the Daily Press that Francis had earned for himself a high reputation for ability and clear-headedness. In addition he was appointed to the Commission of the Peace in 1878, and a member of the Commission to Revise the Laws and Ordinances of Hong Kong in 1887. He was also an examiner of candidates for admission as attorneys both when he was a solicitor and after his call to the Bar. He was never appointed acting Attorney General or Chief Justice, which appointments carried a seat in the Legislative Council (the latter until 1889) and that according to his obituary in the China Mail was a matter of regret to him. The system of acting appointments could have disadvantages as Francis pointed out. In 1885 there was a rumour that the Puisne Judge was going on leave for twelve months and that E.J. Ackroyd the Registrar of the Supreme Court would be appointed to act in his place. Francis wrote to the government expressing the view that officers of the Supreme Court should not be appointed to the bench and that the Registrar was a far more important official than the Puisne Judge. He pointed out that Ackroyd had been", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211354, "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": 70, "title": "RAS-1988", "content_text": "46\n\nwithout being confronted at every turn by Acts of Parliament, and systems of espionage, that seem especially designed to restrict individual enterprise and frustrate industrial endeavour.\n\nLetter of 1900 - Hong Kong Telegraph\n\n▬▬\n\nThe effects of this \"freedom\" of the individual to sell his labour but occasionally pricked the conscience of the Hong Kong resident only occasionally. A letter writer using the pen-name \"Balthasar\" observed in the Hong Kong Telegraph, 18 May 1900, that,\n\nAmong the labourers carrying bricks and lime up the Glenealy may be noticed several children whose physique is quite unequal to the toil. These poor young children gasp under their burden. One of them, on being spoken to, answered that his father had died of plague, and if he worked not had no rice. He was thirteen years of age, and yet carried two baskets of lime, usually borne by adults, and which he had to lay down several times along the way.\n\nAfter describing these conditions, the writer asked, \"Is there no law in Hong Kong to regulate the employment of minors?\" The answer, as he well knew, was \"No\".\n\nIt was not that there was no money in Hong Kong for charitable purposes. He reminded the community that a Colony \"that can exceed all expectations in its contribution to the War Fund [the Boer War] may well look to the relief of its own stricken poor\".\n\nBowley's Articles on \"The Children's Charter\"\n\nMr. Francis Bulmer Lyon Bowley, a solicitor practising in Hong Kong since 1893, published a series of articles in a Hong Kong newspaper in 1911 on \"The Children's Charter\", that is, the British Children's Act of 1908. He contrasted its provisions with the situation in Hong Kong. The Attorney General took the matter up and two provisions were subsequently introduced into the laws of the Colony.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213441, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1995", "page_number": 37, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "then considering whether the New Territories should be exempted from the application of any legislation in force in Hong Kong in 1898. The Attorney General apparently took the view that as regards any English law in force in the Colony such an exemption would not arise, since it would be exempted from application to the New Territories by the first provision of section 7 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, 1873, even though that particular law might not be inapplicable to the circumstances and the inhabitants of the Colony of Hong Kong. In other words, he does not appear to have been looking at the theoretical needs of the inhabitants of the area along the south bank of the Shum Chun River in 1843, which area later became the New Territories in 1898, but at their requirements at the time he considered the matter in December 1898.\n\nA former Solicitor General of Hong Kong has drawn attention to the distinction between the provisions of what is now section 17 of the New Territories Ordinance and of what is now section 5 of the Supreme Court Ordinance. To this matter, it will be necessary to revert later when we consider the customary law on particular subjects. It is, however, fitting to observe at this point that the legislature in enacting section 17 of the New Territories Ordinance did not specify the date for the recognition of \"Chinese custom or customary right affecting such land.” The plain meaning of the words, it is submitted, leads one to the conclusion that the Chinese customary law to be so recognised and enforced is that which affects the land at the time of the hearing of the proceedings. The legislature must be presumed to have been logical; it would be unlikely to select modern Chinese customary law for application in land cases and the Law of the Manchu Ts'ing Dynasty obtaining in the Province of Kwangtung in 1843 or in 1899 for application in other proceedings arising in the New Territories. Here again, it is submitted, is an additional argument in support of the view that in all types of proceedings, both those involving land and otherwise, the Chinese customary law applicable, if it is to be applied, is modern Chinese customary law obtaining in the New Territories.\n\nHaving so defined the date for recognition of Chinese customary law, the question then arises as to what that Chinese customary law comprises. In 1911, that question was difficult to answer, and we may with advantage digress a moment to consider the words of the Chief Justice delivering the judgment of the Full Court in the case of LI", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213472, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1995", "page_number": 68, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "35\n\nTU\n\n=\n\n\"Egg families\" or \"Egg people”— an expression used by the land-dwellers but never used by the Tanka to describe themselves as they regard it as derogatory (vide Barbara E Ward's article “A Hong Kong Fishing Village” Journal of Oriental Studies, Vol 1 No 1 (January 1954) p. 195, and Reports, DCNT, 1955-56, para 8, and 1959-60 para 48) They prefer instead to refer to themselves as \"Nam Hoi Yan” (= “people of the southern sea”) or \"Shui Sheung Yan\" (= \"water-borne people\") (Reports, DCNT, 1955-56 and 1959-60, loc cit)\n\n71 Report, DCNT, 1954-55 para 8\n\nTH\n\nReport, DCNT, 1955-56, para 8\n\nReport, DCNT, 1954-55, para 8\n\n24 Report, DCNT, 1954-55, para 9\n\nTA\n\n&\n\nT\n\nReport, DCNT, 1959-60, para 48\n\nop cit p 332\n\nReport, DCNT, 1955-56, para 8, vide Ward, loc cit\n\nTH Reports 1959-60, DCNT, para 46.\n\nTo Balfour states \"The word Hoklo is a dialect variation of Fukien and the Hoklo are the Fukienese fishing people of our region, but there is another term for them always used in literature, Man. We have already seen that the Tanka are considered a branch of the Man tribe. The word is very ancient and is used synonymously for \"barbarian\" or \"uncouth\". From the name alone you can judge that the Hoklo were once considered by the Chinese as barbarians\" (op cit p. 332)\n\nEXOD\n\nReport, DCNT, 1954-55, para 8\n\n* Report, DCNT, 1959-60, para 47\n\n* Report, DCNT, 1954-55. para 8.\n\nop cit p 336\n\n*For example, I have omitted the subjects of house-building and names, which appear in Wilson's Notes (vide footnote 35 supra)\n\n**That was the view taken by the late Mr. G.E. Strickland, Solicitor General of Hong Kong, and his view was endorsed by the 1948 Committee vide Committee Report, 1953, Appendix IX p 120 and Chap. II para 13. (Section 25 of the New Territories Regulation Ordinance, 1910 has now become Section 17 of the present Ordinance (Cap. 97) vide supra)", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 } ]