[
    {
        "id": 205615,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1968",
        "page_number": 157,
        "title": "RAS-1968",
        "content_text": "152\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nchose two lots to the west, which were designated at the time 72 and 73.12 It was at this time, however, that the firm definitely moved out to East Point and, immediately on the transaction regarding their property being settled, they proceeded to erect what became their main godowns at East Point.13 The firm had already acquired property in the area of East Point, Wongneichung and Sookunpoo, if only because no-one else seemed interested at the time and it was there cheaply for the asking. In October 1841, they instructed Morgan to obtain a grant of the hill behind East Point, which he immediately did14 and a little later obtained permission from Pottinger to purchase from its Chinese proprietors the slope on the east side of this hill.15 They also purchased from a merchant named Leighton a town lot on which he had built a godown16 and a suburban lot which he had prepared for building. Captain Morgan also secured a town lot on which a bazaar was built (Jardine's Bazaar not to be confused with Morgan's Bazaar near the barracks), and in addition he built a house on Caroline's Hill for himself which was known for a few years as Captain Morgan's Bungalow.\n\nLike most of the other large mercantile houses, Jardine, Matheson & Co. did not move their headquarters to Hong Kong from Macao until 1844. As shown above, there is ample evidence that East Point was not their first choice for the new headquarters, though the facility with which they were able to secure large areas of land at East Point may well have dictated a move even if the circumstances which I have described had not come about.\n\nHong Kong, 1968\n\nDAFYDD Emrys Evans\n\nMr. Evans, who has been on special leave of absence from the University of London, 1966-68, is a lecturer in the Department of Laws, London School of Economics and Political Science.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1968.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833948d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210435,
        "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-1985",
        "page_number": 42,
        "title": "RAS-1985",
        "content_text": "23\n\nChristians or Eurasians. He expressed the opinion that such groups had given up their heritage; he himself was an ardent Confucian and promoted the building of the Confucian Hall in Sookunpoo. He sarcastically added that “as people had already been admitted into the European paradise on earth, he thought it was scarcely fair to debar them from using the passage to the European paradise in heaven”. (The Weekly Press, 17 April 1909)\n\nThe Hong Kong Telegraph took up the cause; Lau Chu-pak was one of its owners. Following the April meeting of the Sanitary Board in which Mr. Lau had expressed the opinions given above, it ran an editorial entitled “More Class Legislation in Hongkong”. The editorial linked the cemetery question with what the paper regarded as a growing movement towards the enactment of class legislation. \"The fact of the matter is that this sort of petty municipal legislation is all of a piece with the policy of the Government in reserving special lands for the bon ton of the Colony. First, they decreed that in life the Chinese should not live in the vicinity of the Peak, and now in death the Chinese are not deemed fitting occupants of lairs in the public cemetery.” The editor asked for consideration for the Chinese who were seeking a better deal for their dead: “Fancy the outcry there would be among the elite if the remains of the deceased predecessors were subjected to removal at the whim and caprice of some insignificant official in a Government Department. That in itself should constitute a plea for the Chinese that they have a right of interment in the Colonial Cemetery.\" Indeed, “the Colonial or Protestant, or whatever fancy name anybody might wish to call it, the public cemetery of Hong Kong is maintained out of the rates and taxes provided by the residents in the Colony. It is no more a private institution than the public gardens. No sect or body has a right to say that it has any particular claim on the domain; as far as we can make out, all have an equal right to interment”.\n\nThe Christian Cemetery Ordinance of 1909\n\nThe Government decided to draft legislation which would create separate sections in the cemetery where only those",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x",
        "rank": 0
    }
]