[
    {
        "id": 205408,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 170,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES \n\n163 \n\nter. \"The inhabitants, from our knowledge of their character”, wrote another, \"appeared to be industrious and obliging.. They seemed in general to have been very peaceably disposed, nor did they exhibit any marked approbation, or disapprobation, on their transfer to the British sway\".8 \n\nThe Villages To-day. There are two villages, Kau Wai and San Wai—the Old Walled Village and the New Walled Village (though only the first has traces of an enclosing wall). Both have seen better days. The inhabitants no longer own the fields (they were resumed in connection with anti-malarial schemes in 1934–36) and the villages are now places where people live and go out to work. Most of the present vegetable growers live in huts beside their plots and not in the old settlements. In the Old Village most of the old houses have gone and many of to-day's dwellings are temporary structures put up on the site of old houses that have fallen into a ruinous state and thereafter have been cleared away. There used to be a temple to Pak Tai, the God of the North, but this became ruined and fell down about 50 years ago.10 The New Village, on the other hand, still retains some of its old houses which, in their present form and decoration are upwards of 60 years old. Their tiled roofs, ornamented ends, moulded plaster friezes, decorated eave-boards and granite lintels are worth a glance, as being some of the few surviving examples of this type of village architecture left on Hong Kong Island. They are typical of the better class of village dwellings of South China, many other examples of which can be found in the New Territories. Also in the New Village is the former house of Sir Shou-son CHOW's family (see below), but this was rebuilt about 1930 and it is of interest only for the photographs and paintings it contains of the CHOW family. \n\nThe Villages Yesterday. The date of settlement is not certain, though Lobscheid, the German missionary who was also an Inspector of Schools for the Colonial Government, was told by the village head in the 1850s that the first ancestor had taken a lease from \"Tang the acknowledged owner of the soil\" in 1668.1 \n\nIn 1893 a group of villagers had to appear before the Squatter Board to help determine and register legitimate holdings. From the information then recorded, and happily preserved, the following facts emerge:",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205415,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 177,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "170\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\n16 This bell is dated in the autumn of Chien Lung year (1773).\n\n17 Summary of Report of the Squatters Commission, p. 115. The same man said (p. 122) that Ap Lei Chau 'was built about 1850'.\n\n18 Hong Kong Government Gazette for 28 March 1857 p. 4, Table No. 3.\n\n19 Hong Kong Government Gazette for 1867 p. 92, Table No. 7.\n\n20 Mayers, Dennys and King. The Treaty Ports of China and Japan (London, Trubner and Co., 1867) p. 49.\n\n21 Hong Kong Sessional Papers, i.e. Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, for 1897 and 1911, pp. 484 and 103(23) respectively.\n\n22 Mayers, Dennys and King, p. 49 mention 'boat-building and general trade'. See also information given in the printed proceedings of a court case over ownership of land on Ap Lei Chau given in Sessional Papers August 1886 - September 1887 (Appendix to Report from the Land Court of 1886-87), pp. 33-35.\n\n23 For another example see my article on Cheung Chau (an island near Hong Kong that together with the rest of the New Territories was leased to Great Britain by the Convention of Peking, 1898) in Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 3 (1963), especially pp. 95-98.\n\n24 Sessional Papers 1911 and 1897 at the pp. quoted at note 21 above.\n\n25 See also the article referred to at note 23 above.\n\n26 This and the previous paragraph are based on the oral statements of three Ap Lei Chau elders born 1887, 1891 and 1897 who had belonged to the three Fongs. Their evidence helps to interpret and confirm the evidence given before the Squatter Board during a hearing to determine ownership of the Hung Shing temple in 1893. See Summary of Report of the Squatters Commission, pp. 120-141.\n\nFootnote:\n\nIt is clear from re-reading Sayer, pp. 22-23, that the Hung Shing temple was originally on a small island that was later, and before Sayer wrote in 1937, joined by reclamation to its larger neighbour Ap Lei Chau.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205860,
        "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": 166,
        "title": "RAS-1969",
        "content_text": "160\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nAt the two villages of Old and New Heung Kong Wai near Aberdeen a group of villagers had to come before a Squatter Board in 1893 to help determine and register legitimate holdings. From the information then recorded, and happily preserved, the following facts emerge:\n\n(a) the New Village was built entirely by inhabitants of the Old Village;\n\n(b) two of the houses in the New Village were built 1860-70 and some earlier, some later;\n\n(c) many families owned houses in each village;\n\n(d) many families owned 2 or 3 houses;\n\n(e) none of the cultivated land in the valley was (1893) owned by outsiders.\n\nElsewhere on the island I obtained and wrote down the following account of house occupation in the small Hakka village of Tai Tam Tuk for the period before this village was removed to make way for a reservoir in 1914:\n\nSome of the houses were in a ruinous condition in 1914, which is usually the case in the smaller and poorer villages in South China where frequent typhoons and heavy rains combine to shorten the life of these simply-constructed dwellings. Perhaps in consequence, most families in the village had several houses. For instance, one of my informants, her husband, his parents and his younger unmarried brother shared three houses and one shed, but ate together as one household.\n\nThese examples seem to bear out Mr. Nelson's reinterpretation of Dr. Aijmer's figures i.e. that at that time (1911) there were about 35 households in Big Stream Village, owning on average 2.2 houses each; and that Plum Grove contained 12 households with 3 houses each.*\n\nHong Kong 1969,\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\n* Since writing the above I also recall a case at Law Uk, Pui O where, speaking of her early married life there well before 1900, a very old village woman said theirs was \"a three table household\" with something over 20 persons eating together. It was also a multi-house one.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207564,
        "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-1975",
        "page_number": 332,
        "title": "RAS-1975",
        "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES \n\n323 \n\nto the government for a lot on which to build a school. In granting the lot for charitable and educational purposes, it was stipulated that \"the school should be built on that portion of the ground furthest away from the front of the native temple which is opposite. The villagers have asked that no houses be erected immediately fronting the temple, but they could not object to a playground. The latter should be fenced around.” (C.S.O. No. 700 of 1885) In 1898, the Roman Catholic Church bought a large piece of land behind the village for a church and a school. The Canossian Sisters, however, already had two lots on Bulkely Street in 1894 where they conducted a school (No. 59 & 60).\n\n(c) The Kwun Yam (††) and Pak Tai (†) temples.\n\nAn old memorial board in the Kwun Yam Temple dated 1873-74 lists eleven individuals or shops who may tentatively be identified as the management committee.* I can only identify one, Li Shing Fat, listed as a rate-payer in 1875 and possibly as Lee A Fat on the 1867 squatter licence list. A Hop Shing shop is listed, and it is possible that the owner was Chan Hop Shing who appears on the 1873 rates list or Chang Hop Shing of the 1867 squatter list. Another possible identification might be the Kwong Lung shop with the Kwong \"Leong\" grocer in the 1884 Rate.\n\nIn 1896 the Temple Committee applied for the grant of a Crown Lease for the lot on which the building stood. It was noted that \"This Temple is a public temple, owned by the committee of Hung Hom. A notice was posted at Hung Hom on the 23rd (March, 1886) saying that anyone who objected to the issue of the proposed lease should report to the Registrar General within ten days. No communication has been made on the subject.... therefore recommend the issue of the lease.\" (C.S.O. No. 704 of 1896). In consequence, a lease was granted to Chung Kam Fuk, Chan Ying Cheung, and Ching Ki, Trustees. Of these, Chan Ying Cheung was a large property owner at Hung Hom who was also a wealthy contractor in Hong Kong. Upon his death, his will left his Hung Hom property to his sons.\n\nThe two named temples date from this early period and have survived: one of them in its original location and another on a new \n\n*The names are listed as follows:\n\n福隆號,兴有容,新順扣,勝扣廠,廣隆號,李富利,陳日新,怡興行,廣勝同,合勝號,李勝發。The board carries the large characters 法雨同沾and is dated 同治甲戌年仲春吉旦",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208899,
        "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-1980",
        "page_number": 61,
        "title": "RAS-1980",
        "content_text": "CHINESE MONASTERIES, TEMPLES, SHRINES, ALTARS\n\n33\n\n14 Because of the exorbitant rents for such accommodation, temples in shop houses and flats in Hong Kong are few and far between. In Singapore and Malaysia, temples in shop houses are very common indeed, though they are becoming less so as the years pass and rents in urban areas rapidly rise.\n\n15 Occasionally such a temple may be a converted private house, as in the many examples in Lo Wai village, Tsuen Wan, but more often it is a purpose-built but inexpensive hut.\n\n18 Temples containing images of the Buddhist deities Di Zang Wang, Milofu, and Guan Yin are not necessarily specifically Buddhist, as all three of these deities nowadays are also extremely popular deities in folk religion temples.\n\n17 Mahayana is Northern Buddhism and Theravada or Hinayana is Southern Buddhism.\n\n18 \"Illegal\" is a Hong Kong term for buildings which have been built on Crown Land often by squatters without Government land control or planning permission, but which have been permitted to remain standing under sufferance. In practice, they are temporary structures put up without permission, occasionally ramshackle though more often they are well-built timber, weather-board, and corrugated iron buildings, clean and well-proportioned. (Illustration 17). Some have stood for such a length of time as to have been gradually converted to concrete and brick. All are labelled on the side in rough daubs of paint with the bureaucratic abbreviations and digits prefixed by \"TEM\" (= temporary) affixed by squatter control staff of the Housing Department.\n\n19 Demons are well known to Chinese to be unable to go around corners and must travel in straight lines, hence these inner doors to prevent the demons from entering the temple. The inner doors originally were opened exclusively for influential people.\n\n20 See also James Hayes' information at JHKBRAS 6 (1966): 129-130.\n\n21 In overseas Chinese areas, this kind of large street shrine is still very common and, in Singapore alone, some four to five hundred exist in all kinds of nooks and crannies. For a Hong Kong example, see JHKBRAS 14 (1974): 203.\n\n22 Chu is one of the 28 Constellations (= xiu).\n\n** See pp. 111-113 of the Hong Kong Government's publication Rural Architecture in Hong Kong (1979) for this pagoda.\n\n24 In Imperial times, such masts were always to be seen outside the local magistrate's yamen.\n\n25 Chinese bells have no internal tongue clapper, being tolled by an external blow with a wooden mallet.\n\n26 For the Evacuation of the Coast, see Lo Hsiang-lin and others, Hong Kong and its External Communications before 1842 (Hong Kong, 1963) Chapter VI.\n\n27 For background, see Jen Yu-wen's article \"The Southern Sung stone-engraving at North Fu-t'ang\" in JHKBRAS 5 (1965): 65-68.\n\n28 Government action is through the Chinese Temples Committee, serviced by the Trust Funds Section of the Home Affairs Department.\n\n29 Temples according to this Ordinance include Miao (廟), Si (寺), Buddhist and Daoist monasteries, Guan (觀) and Dao Yuan (道院), and nunneries An (庵).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209239,
        "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": 142,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "128 \n\nTA. ACTON \n\nare organised into four regional federations, whose four elected chairmen become important people indeed, and sit on the Hong Kong Government's Fish Marketing Advisory Board. The co-operatives and the regional committees have their meetings in a friendly, informal way in the Liaison Officer's office, whose job description includes a duty to \"convince troublesome committees or members to observe the ordinance and by-laws.” — fortunately, rarely necessary. \n\n30 \n\nIn addition, the Liaison Officers encourage mechanisation, training classes (also held in their offices), sensible insurance, the \"Keep Hong Kong Clean\" campaign, and have the duty \"to assist the fishermen in the organisation of festival opera performances, dragon boat races, and other recreation activities.\" 31 \n\n32 \n\nOne major effect, however, of the development, assisted by F.M.O. loans to credit societies and individuals, of a more capital-intensive, mechanised fishing industry, is a sharp decline in the number of persons actually required to man it or make a living at fishing, especially over the past 10 years. In 1971 there were around 50,000 working fishermen in Hong Kong. *2 By 1979 that number had fallen to around 35,700,13 Those with sufficient initial capital to catch the boat of modernization have done so, and now, though working on water, actually live in houses ashore, whether in Aberdeen or new villages on remote islands. It is those who were too poor to mechanise who still live on their old, leaky boats, going ashore to work in factories, sweatshops or street markets. The Shui-sheung-yan community of the early '50s has become polarised into rich and poor, between well-to-do active fishermen, living on land, and poor ex-fishermen, living on boats until they can secure resettlement. \n\nThe F.M.O. schools system, by making available alternative careers to the children of fishermen, has facilitated, and lessened the pain of this reduction of manpower. \n\nIn all other fields, however, the commitment of the F.M.O. is to active fishermen rather than ex-fishermen. Little connection is made between their work and that of the poorest Shui-sheung-yan. Indeed, Government spokesmen, talking of the poor boat-dwellers often refer to them as \"squatters\", implying that they are not true \"Shui-sheung-yan\" at all, but land-people who have moved into leaky boats typhoon shelters like Yaumatei simply to find somewhere to live or perhaps even to jump the queue for public housing. (This view was not, however, borne out by a survey carried out by students for a community \n\n¦ \n\n¦",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209897,
        "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-1983",
        "page_number": 156,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "134\n\nBoard (in manuscript), p. 121 kept in the Public Records Office, Hong Kong as Hong Kong Record Series 206. Pages 120-141 of the Proceedings relate to a hearing held on 6th June 1893, \"Claim to a Temple at Apleichau\".\n\n10 The same man also said that Ap Lei Chau 'was built about 1850' (ibid, p. 122). However, as stated in my text, the Hung Shing temple on the island appears to date from the 18th century and another local resident (b. 1825) who gave evidence to the Squatter Board (ibid, p. 132) said that it was enlarged in 1847. The temple originally stood on its own little island, later joined by reclamation to Ap Lei Chau. See JHKBRAS 7 (1967) p. 170, footnote.\n\n11 W.F. Mayers, N.B. Dennys and C. King - The Treaty Ports of China and Japan (London, Trubner & Co., 1867) p. 49. 'Boat building and general trade' are listed as the principal concerns. The \"Ap-le-chow\" and \"Shek pai wan\" (Aberdeen) entries in this work are bracketed. The latter had 160 houses and 205 boats and the total recorded population for the two places, together with the boat people, was 1,664. See also information given in the printed proceedings of a court case over ownership of land on Ap Lei Chau given in Sessional Papers August 1886 - September 1887\" (Appendix to Report from the Land Commission of 1886-87) pp. 33-35.\n\n1* See the Hong Kong Government's printed Sessional Papers for 1897 and 1911, pp. 484 and 103 (23) respectively.\n\n1 Sessional Papers 1901, No. 39 of 1901. pp. (6), (18) and (20). Of the 947 vessels, 787 were fishing boats. At that time, there were 2,799 land persons living in and round Aberdeen-Ap Lei Chau.\n\n11 Sessional Papers 1897 and 1911 at pp. quoted at note 12 above. For similar organizations of M. Freedman's article \"Immigrants and Associations: Chinese in Nineteenth-century Singapore\", Comparative Studies in Society and History, III (1960-61), 25-48; and for other coastal market centres in the Hong Kong region, Hayes 1977, chapters 2 and 3 dealing with Cheung Chau and Tai O respectively.\n\n10 See the account given in the printed Ap Lei Chau Hung Shing Festival brochure for year (1983) now in Hong Kong Collection, University of Hong Kong Library,\n\n10 Squatter Board proceedings, p. 138. The word \"Kaifong\" (#) or street association was commonly used in South China to describe (a) all the inhabitants of an area (b) the voluntary organization of leading residents which managed the affairs of that community, e.g. the Kaifeng looked after the interests of all kaifongs. On Ap Lei Chau, the Kaifong and the Fongs' leaders seem to have been one and the same. For Kaifongs in the Hong Kong region see Hayes 1977, pp. 64-69, 81-84, 96-98, 171-172 and 218 note 27. Also, Hayes 1983, pp. 45-46 and 56-59.\n\n18 For divining blocks, see J.J.M. De Groot, The Religious System of China (Ch'ing Wen reprint, Taipei 1976) Vol. VI, pp. 1285-1287.\n\n1o See Hayes 1977, p. 219, note 41, for similar honours paid to leading office bearers reported from Canton (1902).\n\n* The shopkeeper petitioners who came to see the Registrar General in 1893, as recorded in the Squatter Board proceedings, stated that \"The temple is the property of the inhabitants of Ap Lei Chau and the boatpeople who subscribe”.\n\nThe Ap Lei Chau section of this article is based mainly on the oral statements of Messrs. CHENG Kam-kwu ($##) b. 12.10.1887, CHENG Lim () b. 17.12.1891 and LUN Shing-fun () b. ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209898,
        "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-1983",
        "page_number": 157,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "135\n\n14.8.1897, all three Ap Lei Chau residents belonging to the old Luk Hing, Sau Hing, and Fuk Hing Tongs respectively. Their evidence enlarges and confirms the information obtained from the record of the Squatter Board's proceedings.\n\n\"Hayes 1977, pp. 99-101. The Tai O information is more explicit on this point, but the Cheung Chau practice was the same.\n\n** See E.G. Pryor, Housing in Hong Kong (Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983) pp. 15-17. These new urban districts were very susceptible to contagious disease. It is well to recall Governor Des Voeux's report of 1889 in which, describing the City of Victoria, he wrote: \"Going ashore our visitor would see in the Chinese quarters houses, constructed after a pattern peculiar to China, of almost equally solid materials, but packed so closely together and thronged so densely as to be in this respect probably without parallel in the world.. It is believed that over 100,000 people live within a certain district of the City of Victoria not exceeding 1⁄2 square mile in area. It is known that 1,600 people live in the space of a single acre.\" (Sessional Papers 1889, pp. 303-304).\n\n15\n\n** Victoria had seven officially-approved sub-districts in 1857, as listed and described in the Hong Kong Government Gazette for 9 May 1857, GN No. 69. They included \"No. 1, or SEI-YING-POON — From the small village westward, called Cowee-wan, to the end of Circular Buildings, including all the houses on Bonham Strand, west of No. 1 Police Boat Station. The historical development of this area is given by Revd. Carl T. Smith's note at pp. 211-218 of JHKBRAS 14(1974) in \"Programme Notes for Visits to Older Parts of Hong Kong Island (Urban Areas....)\n\nSee also Chapter 3, Sheung Wan, of Frank Leeming's Street Studies in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Oxford University Press, 1977) pp. 45-66.\n\n24\n\nSheung Fung Lane itself is situated between Second and Third Streets in that section bounded by Centre Street to the East and Western Street to the West.\n\n** An account of pao wui at the Tam Kung festival in Shau Kei Wan from a Secretariat for Chinese Affairs' file of 1958 is typical: \"There were about 15 Kaifong elders in the Tam Kung temple who were enrolling pao wui (K), there were about 18 pao wu's from the sea and about 10 from the land. The wul's who brought their own roast-pigs with them had to pay \"oil money\" and \"worshipping fees\" from $10 to $30 to the elders before entering the temple. It is learned that the worshippers have no objection to pay these fees. In addition the temple keeper also charged $5 or $10 for each roast-pig brought into the temple plus $5 to $10 \"oil money\".\n\n20 A recent account of the proceedings at Sheung Fung Lane is given in the article \"Everyone's festival\" in The Asia Magazine issued weekly by Asia Magazines Ltd., Hong Kong, Vol. 21, Number V7, 4th January 1981, pp. 3-6.\n\n3-6. For a very well illustrated account of a similar old neighbourhood in Singapore, and its community festivals, see \"Singapore's Vanishing Chinatown\" by Joan Ogden in The Asia Magazine 25th July 1976.\n\n* \"No. 3, or TAI-PING-SHAN From the end of Hollywood Road near Circular Buildings, to Gough Street steps, including all the houses on the south side of the Queen's Road between these two points.\" See the plan opposite p. 124 of Marjorie Topley (ed) Some Traditional Chinese Ideas and Conceptions in Hong Kong Social Life Today (Hong Kong, Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch 1967). This was drawn in 1882 (ibid, pp. 123-124).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210160,
        "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": 131,
        "title": "RAS-1984",
        "content_text": "110\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\nthat every spot in the varied surface of the isle is either reduced beneath the government of industry, or made tributary to the beauty of the landscape.\n\nTurning to the inhabitants of the villages I will say something about the boat people below; they were, it seems, both Cantonese and Hakkas. The former occupied the larger, longer settled villages like Little Hong Kong and Wong Nei Chung. The latter were to be found in the smaller villages and hamlets such as the Chai Wan villages and Tai Tam Tuk. The Cantonese are the older and more numerous inhabitants of the Kwangtung province, but the Hakka constituted a numerous and distinct secondary body, speaking their own dialect; some would say language, which is quite different from Cantonese. The two groups appear to have occupied separate settlements in the island of Hong Kong, though the population of the larger coastal fishing and market villages was mixed.\n\n18\n\nThe village people of that time were generally members of either a single or a few clans, descended from founding ancestors who had come to the area in the preceding century or even before. For instance, the ancestor of the Chow clan of Little Hong Kong—in 1841 it shared the settlement with at least two or three others—came into the area in the mid-17th century. According to a letter I received from Mr. Y.K. Chow, J.P., in 1967, the founding ancestor's son Yuc-tsun (†Œ) was born in Hong Kong in 1667. By 1841 their descendants had been settled for seven to eight generations and were clearly well rooted in the local soil. In Pokfulam, the Chan clan had been there since the eighteenth century. At a hearing on 6 July 1893 of the Squatters Board, set up to examine the claims of villagers in 1890, a man of 71 stated that he had been born and lived there ever since. \"I claim 15 and 4/10th mows of fields. They are all together in one place. This land was left to my ancestors. My father and ancestors have been there 100 years.\" The Wong Nei Chung families, which belonged to several clans, were probably longer settled still. A woman, Ip Chan Shi, giving evidence before the Squatter Board in 1891 about various properties belonging to her late husband, who had died the previous year aged 55, said that he had four houses in the village altogether and that his family had been in the village for \"many generations\".\n\n+19",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210186,
        "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": 157,
        "title": "RAS-1984",
        "content_text": "136\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\np. 78. There was a custom-made school building on the edge of Wong Nei Chung village which is shown on maps from Collinson's survey onwards.\n\n13 By \"town\", Collinson means village.\n\n14 The Last Year in China by a Field Officer actually employed in that Country (London, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 2nd edition 1843) p. 75.\n\n15 Cited from the Canton Press for January 1842 by G.R. Sayer op. cit., p. 121. For information on present day So Kon Po, see the Notes by Revd Carl T. Smith and myself in JHKBRAS, Vol. 23 (1983) p. 7-77.\n\n16 Wright and Allom, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 17 and again at p. 33, \"Bamboo Aqueduct at Hong Kong\".\n\nFor a fuller account see J.W. Hayes The Hong Kong Region 1850-1911, Land and Leadership in Town and Countryside. (Hamden, Conn., Anchor Books, 1977) pp. 25-32.\n\nE A copy of this letter from Mr. Chow Yat-kwong, JP, dated 30 March 1967, is now in the Public Records Office, Hong Kong,\n\n19 This statement can be found in the manuscript volume Summary Report of the Squatters Commission 1891-1906 in the Public Records Office, Hong Kong, under the date of hearing 6 July 1893. By \"100 years\" is meant \"from before anyone now alive can remember,\" as normally in local village usage.\n\n20\n\n21 Ibid, hearing of 26 January 1891 of claims at Wong Nei Chung.\n\nReport of the Hong Kong Mission, Vol. 23, June 1843, November 6, p. 157, in American Baptist Board of Foreign Missions Archives, Valley Forge, Pa., by courtesy of Revd Carl T. Smith.\n\n22 American Baptist Mission Archives, folder of Revd I.J. Roberts, No. 1 — China, also by courtesy of Revd Smith.\n\n23 Captain A.A.T. Cunynghame, quoted in Sayer, op. cit., p. 104.\n\n24 Stanley and Aberdeen in 1841 would seem to have been very similar in size and composition to the New Territories Market Towns in 1898 and earlier. Thus, Sai Kung had 50 shops and 150 houses in 1898 with a population of 512 (cf. C. Fred Blake Ethnic Groups and Social Change in a Chinese Market Town. (Hawaii, 1981 p. 27-28), Tai Po New Market had 38 shops within eight years of its foundation (J.W. Hayes The Hong Kong Region, op. cit. p. 36 and n. 78), and Yuen Long Old Market had about 160 buildings of which at least 100 were shops (see unpublished Report 24 (Yuen Long Kau Hui) produced by Antiquities and Monuments Section, Hong Kong Government). 100 shops specifically noted as being from the Yuen Long Old Market donated to the restoration of the Tai Wong Temple there in 1837. At the Yuen Long Old Market many of the families working in the Market lived in the adjacent villages of Nam Pin Wai and Sai Pin Wai. As well as the 100 shops donating in 1837, 7 residents in the Market, 52 in Nam Pin Wai, and 22 in Sai Pin Wai donated, suggesting a total community of about 200 families, about half of which had shops. Tai O must have had more than 100 shops: 119 shops donated to the restoration of the Tin Hau temple there in 1838, 98 to the restoration of the Hung Shing temple there in 1841, and between 105 and 126 to the restoration of the Man Mo temple there in 1852 (in each case counting \"workshops\" and \"ferries\" as shops).\n\n科大衛,陳總集,吳倫電位,合術 香港碑靠藥衚\n\nMOMSKOM * (D. Faure, B. Luk, A. Ng The Historical Inscriptions of Hong Kong) (Hong Kong Urban Council 1986), pp. 86-90, 90-93, 95-97, 103-107,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572",
        "rank": 0
    }
]