[ { "id": 205925, "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": 5, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "CONTENTS\n\nEDITORIAL\n\nPRESIDENT'S REPORT FOR 1969\n\nHON. TREASURER'S REPORT FOR 1969\n\nTHE LIBRARY 1969-70\n\nARTICLES CONTRIBUTED :\n\n1 - More on the Yung-Lo Ta-Tien-L. CARRINGTON GOODRICH\n\n11 - Lord Elgin and the Taipings-STEPHEN UHALLEY, Jr.\n\n17 - Hong Kong Cadets, 1862-1941-H. J. LETHBRIDGE\n\n24 - Aspects of Hong Kong Marine Fauna-LAMARR B. TROTT\n\n36 - A Hong Kong Butterfly-COLONEL V. R. BURKHARDT\n\n57 - Chinatown in Hong Kong: The Beginnings of Taipingshan-DAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\n63 - Chinese Emigration and the Deck Passenger Trade-A. D. BLUE\n\n69 - Removing Some Barriers to Comprehension: A New Look at Cantonese Expletives-K. M. A. BARNETT\n\n79 - A British Maritime Chart of 1780 Showing Hong Kong—HENRY D. TALBOT\n\n94 - ARTICLE REPRINTED: Hong Kong before the British-S. F. BALFOUR\n\n128 - NOTES AND QUERIES: The J.O.P. Bland Papers-J. L. CRANMER-BYNG\n\n180 - Visit to Old Shau Kei Wan-24th May, 1969-JAMES HAYES\n\n183 - Hemp-JAMES HAYES\n\n188 - Coach Tour of Eastern Hong Kong Island—18th October, 1969-JAMES HAYES\n\n190 - The San On Map of Mgr. Volontieri―JAMES HAYES\n\n193 - A Casualty of the Cultural Revolution-JAMES HAYES\n\n196 - Pile Houses at Tai O, Lantau Island, Hong Kong-10th January, 1937-W. SCHOFIELD\n\n201 - BOOK REVIEWS\n\n216 - LIST OF MEMBERS", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205994, "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": 74, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "CHINATOWN IN HONG KONG:\n\nTHE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\nDAFYDD Emrys Evans\n\nIt seems unrealistic to talk of a 'Chinatown' in a place as obviously Chinese as Hong Kong. But for a very long time, there was indeed an area thought of by the Europeans as a part of the city into which they would not normally go. This area has, right from its inception, been known as \"Tai Ping Shan' or Mountain of Peace, after the Chinese name for the mountain the Europeans called Victoria Peak. When the British arrived in Hong Kong at the beginning of 1841, the north shore of the island was substantially unoccupied, there being nothing more than scattered huts between the village of Sai Ying Pun in the west and Wong Nei Chung in the east. The principal site for the new city lay in the present Central District of Hong Kong, and the first areas built up by the Europeans (apart from the waterside godowns and houses which extended from the Central Market to Causeway Bay) lay around the present Central Magistracy but rapidly extended within the first three years of the Colony's existence east and west of that spot. Although a small number of Chinese obtained grants of land in this area it is true to say that the town was exclusively European (with, of course, a number of Parsee merchants from British India) from the line of the present Garden road as far as the present Aberdeen Street and up the hill to Hollywood Road. At the time of the Colony's inception there were never more than a few hundred Europeans contrasted with several thousand Chinese who came as tradesmen and artisans. Where, then, did the Chinese live?\n\nApart from the small town that Jardine, Matheson & Co. built out at East Point, there were three principal areas where the incoming Chinese settled at first. It is known that in the early days after June, 1841 a good many matshed huts sprang up on the hillside to the west of the area later to be the site of the main part of the town (and these were destroyed by the great typhoon in August, 1841) and one stretch of the waterfront was 'taken over'. As early as August 1841 the 'Lower Bazaar' was forming in the area of what later became Jervois Street and Bonham", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205996, "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": 76, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "THE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\n71\n\nwhich the European had no place and was not really expected to penetrate. Two Europeans (Richard Oswald and F. J. Porter) did apparently have lots there though how they came by them is not recorded, and the American Baptist Mission Board had a school house and small chapel.\n\nA third area was Tai Ping Shan where many Chinese lived in matsheds, but it is not known how many lived there in these early days.\n\nBut one inconvenient feature soon revealed itself as the demand for building land increased in the Colony on the establishment of regular government in the middle of 1843. The town was restricted in its possibilities of development to the east by the reservation of 'Government Hill' (the area on which the Government Offices now stand) for Government purposes only. Beyond Government Hill to the east lay the military cantonment and, since the main part of the town was now inevitably fixed where the present central district stands, the only possible direction which expansion could take, other, that is, than up the mountainside, was to the west. But, between Inland Lots 43 and 10 on the Queen's Road lay the Upper Bazaar, an uncomfortable fact which not only meant that there would be a large number of Chinese-type houses in the middle of the 'European' town (with their attendant rather greater risk of fire) but that their presence would interfere with the proper development of the area with drainage and streets and so on. In terms of extent, the Upper Bazaar was occupying almost 11 acres of valuable building land for which speculators would be willing to offer far higher Crown Rents than those which the then inhabitants were paying. So almost inevitably, the suggestion came to move the Upper Bazaar lot-holders away to another location.\n\nThe story of the removal of the Upper Bazaar is of interest on several counts: it is the first 'resumption' of land for public purposes in the history of Hong Kong, a process since employed on an ever increasing scale by the Government for the improvement and redevelopment of the environment. It provides us with an insight into government practices of the day and the cumbersome manner in which decisions could be taken and implemented, and also of the role of the Press at that time. Finally, it led to the establishment, as a matter of deliberate Government policy, of a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205997, "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": 77, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "72\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\nseparate location, namely Taipingshan, for the main part of the Chinese town. This town was apparently to become separate in a way not altogether intended by its creators.\n\nThe question of the Upper Bazaar came to a head towards the end of 1843 when A. T. Gordon, the land officer, decided to meet the demands for building land (and, thereby, augment Government revenue from Crown Rents) by putting up to auction an area which extended from Wyndham Street to Gough Street, thus including the whole of the Upper Bazaar.\n\nGordon informed Pottinger of the land which had been marked out for sale on 22 January 1844 and told him that he intended to remove altogether \"that part of the town known as the Upper Bazaar\" and had marked it out into 27 lots, \"suitable for shops and dwellings either for Europeans or respectable Chinese\". This accorded with the views which Pottinger was persuaded to hold that, as Governor Davis later put it, “it would be very advisable for the interests of the community that the Chinese should be removed, so as to prevent as much as possible their being mixed up with the Europeans.\" Pottinger replied to Gordon that the inhabitants of the Upper Bazaar would be given six months, from 15 January 1844, to remove their houses, the only question remaining being one of compensation.\n\nThough this correspondence was not, of course, public it would have become obvious what was to happen when the Land Sale was held on 22 January, 1844, as many persons bid for lots which then formed part of the Upper Bazaar and on which buildings were standing. The European residents made no comment on the proceedings until it appeared to them that they could use the plight of the bazaar lot-holders as part of the fight against Government on account of the treatment of their own land claims. The Chinese lot-holders themselves were apparently kept in ignorance and claim to have learnt only after the event that their lots had been sold over their heads.\n\nThus, some time after the lots had actually been sold, Pottinger appointed a committee consisting of Major Caine, Chief Magistrate, Gutzlaff, Chinese Secretary to Government, and Gordon, the Land Officer, to consider where the bazaar lots should be relocated and on what terms the lot-holders should be dealt with.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205998, "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": 78, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "THE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\n73\n\nIn the meantime, the lot-holders petitioned Pottinger to be allowed to stay.10 They described how Captain Mylius, the first land officer in 1842, had given them certificates to prove their holdings. The Committee met the lot-holders and endeavoured to explain to them why they were being moved. They were told that there were 'insuperable difficulties' in the way of allowing them to remain. Moreover, the permission given them by Mylius to occupy the sites in question was no more than a 'temporary arrangement' since at that date (1842) Hong Kong was not in a permanent state. Nevertheless, the Committee represented that they were to inquire into what ground could be given to them for the erection of their houses. To this the Chinese replied that what was asked of them was like \"throwing their livelihood into the sea.\" If allowed to stay, they undertook to erect houses \"in the proper manner and style\" and pay a suitable rent. But their pleas were in vain. The Committee recommended that a site be allotted to them at Taipingshan, at which place, they pointed out, a considerable Chinese population had already settled. The Committee proposed that the ground should be prepared and levelled (it was, at that time, no more than a very steep and uneven mountainside) and with streets marked out. They would be permitted to remove the materials out of which their present houses were constructed. As to compensation, they would have their arrears of rent (never paid) remitted and would enjoy a 'rent holiday' for a period of five years from the following December. In addition, each householder who could substantiate his claim would receive $50, though one member of the Committee, Gutzlaff, thought that $20 would suffice.\n\nThe area of relocation lay south of Queen's Road, between Town Lot 78 and Town Lot 44: i.e., from approximately the present Gough Street to just east of the present Possession Street. The point was specifically made by Caine, with the agreement of the other members, that this location be reserved exclusively for Chinese and that no Europeans, with the exception of police, be permitted to live there.12\n\nPottinger approved these suggestions but reserved his decision on the question of compensation. He did not favour monetary compensation, partly because some of those in the Upper Bazaar were unauthorised squatters and partly because others were keepers of brothels and gaming houses who ought to be got rid of", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205999, "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": 79, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "74\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\naltogether. Further, their settlement there had been \"perfectly voluntary\" and they had all \"enjoyed the profits of their respective callings without contributing a penny to the expenses of the colony\". If any refused to move, they were to be told that they could \"leave the Colony whenever they like.\" The Committee found that there were 112 authorised lot-holders but a further 24 were, in the eyes of the Committee, disqualified by reason of their houses \"being dedicated to disgraceful purposes\" (but who should nevertheless receive $25 compensation).14\n\nNothing was done to put the Committee's proposals into effect and when Davis arrived to succeed Pottinger, it was clearly a matter of urgency, for the Government had pledged to provide an alternative site and to give up the site to the new owners by 22 July 1844. The lot-holders clearly could not be moved until the new site was prepared and, indeed, they showed every intention of sitting tight where they were. Davis directed the work of drawing up an estimate and a contract for the work as quickly as possible. But 22 July approached still without any progress even on this, and Davis directed that the work of levelling proceed without first obtaining an estimate. The work cost $5,956.40 but Major Aldrich of the Royal Engineers certified that the money had been properly spent.15 In view of the high cost of effecting the removal, Davis decided that no monetary compensation at all should be paid and that the 'rent holiday' should only last for four years and not the five suggested by the Committee.\n\nAt the sale on 22 January, the purchasers had been promised possession of their lots by 22 July 1844 but that date arrived with the lot-holders still in situ. Bruce, the Colonial Secretary, therefore, published a Notification on 25 July to the effect that they should remove by 25 August so that possession could be given to the purchasers by 31 August. If they failed to comply with the direction, they would forfeit the materials on the sites now belonging to Crown lessees. The Notification further informed them that the ground for relocation was being marked out for them at Taipingshan and would be cleared for them free of charge, rent due would be remitted and no rent would be payable for a period of four years.16\n\nThe Press was disturbed: the Friend of China commented that \"though legally Her Majesty's representative could claim", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206000, "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": 80, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "THE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\n75\n\nevery piece of ground and every house in the island downwards, morally speaking, were they to do so, they would be little better than robbers.\" But whatever the morals of the removal of the bazaar lot-holders, the Notification of 25 July produced the desired result for, by the beginning of September, there had already been a movement to the west to the area designated. The Hong Kong Register on 3 September 1844 somewhat uncharitably, and ignorantly since they were at this time still the official Government organ, expressed dissatisfaction with the \"Chinese village rising to the westward of Victoria\", but modified their opinion on discovering that many of the houses belonged to the 'squatters' dislodged from the Upper Bazaar who were allowed to find temporary sites until they could rebuild on land allotted to them for the purpose by Government. The area referred to was being built up fast during the month of September and opposite it, on the northern side of Queen's Road, a Government Market was erected, 18\n\nEventually, Davis's expenditure on levelling the site and providing compensation was approved at home.19 But before even the reply had left the Colonial Office, Davis received a petition from the Upper Bazaar lot-holders, praying for monetary compensation in addition to the 'rent holiday' proposed. On consideration of this petition whilst Davis was absent inspecting the new consulates in the northern ports, the Executive Council decided that the rent payable on the new allotments in Taipingshan should commence in January 1849, and not in January 1848 and that the registered holders of \"decent Chinese houses\", 81 in number, should receive $40 dollars each. Two English lot-holders in the area, Oswald and Porter, were allowed compensation on a rather more liberal scale, having refused to move. In communicating this arrangement to the Colonial Office, Davis commented that if the question of the Upper Bazaar Lots had first come up during his tenure of office, he would have allowed the tenants to retain possession, not only because to do otherwise involved a violation of rights, with a consequent heavy expense for Government in compensations, but also because of the obloquy to which Government had been subjected in the Press20\n\nThat is how Taipingshan originated. Its subsequent history is interesting for, between this time and the great Plague epidemic in the 1890's, it seems to the writer that the ability of the Government", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206001, "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": 81, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "76\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\nof Hong Kong to exercise its powers in the district progressively decreased. But though it is commonly felt that Taipingshan was effectively governed by Triad societies and former T'ai Ping rebels, there is little evidence forthcoming. It is a curious fact, however, that for a period of some 40 years from the late 1840's there were remarkably few dealings in the whole of the land in Taipingshan registered in the Government Land Office. Under the Ordinance No. 3 of 1844, all transactions concerning land were required to be registered and, indeed, on the whole were registered for there were certain real benefits to be obtained. Why then are there no transactions concerning Taipingshan land registered?\n\nThe simplest answer suggests that there were no transactions to be registered but this is easily rejected for owners must have died, transferred their property, mortgaged it or sub-let it. Obviously these things must have been done yet, in the case of 44 lots, there were no registered dealings at all for a very long period, extending in most cases until the 1880's21. In the case of a further 18 lots22, there were no registered dealings over this period after about 1848. Two other significant features eventually came into Indian (mostly Muslim) hands and remained there, forming what must have been a noticeable Indian quarter23. One family, that of a man called Mahomet Arab, who first bought property in the area in the 1840's, retained it for nearly 100 years. The other feature is the movement of European ownership. In the 1840's, a number of Europeans did own lots in Taipingshan (and Europeans who could afford nothing else, such as discharged soldiers, did live there) but they sold up during and around that time24. However, it is also very noticeable that one European, Daniel Richard Caldwell, bought several lots in Taipingshan on several of which licensed brothels stood25. Caldwell's connections, even when in the employ of the Government, with the underworld were notorious and this Taipingshan property was retained by his family (his widow was Chinese) until the 1890's.\n\nBut, apart from the Indian quarter (which probably was left alone) and Caldwell's brothels (which probably paid 'cumshaw' or protection money anyway), Taipingshan became a Chinese town in which it seems little attention was paid to official requirements such as the registration of land transactions and much else. When in the 1880's, after the Land Commission's Report of 1886-1887, it was realised into what a parlous state the Land", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206002, "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": 82, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "# THE BEGINNINGS OF TAIPINGSHAN\n\n77\n\nOffice's records had fallen owing to non-registration of transactions (it being by then more or less necessary for a purchaser to take a chance on the title to land offered to him by a vendor), a strenuous effort was made to regularise the situation and much \"squatting\" without title and consequently, in most cases, non-payment of Crown Rent, came to light.\n\nThe end for old Taipingshan came not in the 1880's but in the 1890's when Bubonic Plague was brought to the Colony from West China. The most virulent reservoir of the bacillus turned out to be Taipingshan. The only solution, not only to the problem of stamping out the plague but also to other forms of social offence given by the district, was to remove the Chinese town physically. This was done by powers given in the Taipingshan Resumption Ordinance of 1894, and the result was wholesale demolition of much property and re-aligning of old and construction of new roads. Taipingshan had to be razed and, fortunately for Hong Kong, never rose again in its former glory.\n\nUniversity of London, 1968.\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS Evans\n\nMr. Evans is Professor of Law in the University of Hong Kong. Two of his earlier contributions to the early history of Hong Kong appeared in the Notes and Queries section of the 1968 Journal.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 The area was known as Taipingshan from the early days of the colony and its name is not derived from its function as a refuge for T'ai Ping rebels in later years.\n\n2 See Gordon (Land Officer) to Pottinger, CO129/Vol II, f. 152,\n\n3 See Gordon to Malcolm (Colonial Secretary), CO129/Vol. II, f. 138 dated 6 July 1843.\n\n4 The rents for both the Upper and Lower Bazaar Lots represented the same rate per square foot as that charged by Johnston for Town Lots.\n\n5 But the Chinese were turning to the use of brick rather than wood by the end of 1841; see Canton Press, 19 February 1842.\n\n6 Gordon to Pottinger, 19 December 1843; CO129, Vol. II, p. 445.\n\n7 Davis to Stanley 26 July 1844; CO129, Vol. VI, p. 435.\n\n8 Woosnam (Pottinger's private secretary) to Gordon, 10 January 1844: CO129, Vol. V. p. 69.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206003, "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": 83, "title": "RAS-1970", "content_text": "78\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\n\"See their petition, reprinted in Friend of China, 4 May 1844, and also below, P. \n\n10 The contents of the petition, Pottinger's reply and the lot-holders' rejoinder were all published in the Friend of China, 4 May 1844. \n\n\"I Lo Hsiang-lin, Hong Kong and its External Communications before 1842, (Hong Kong, Institute of Chinese Culture, English translation, 1963) p. 117, maintains that there had long been a settlement in the area of the present Taipingshan, The name is said to have originated from the pacification of the pirate Cheung Po-chai in 1810 who is known to have had a stronghold there. The mountain now known as Victoria Peak was renamed Taipingshan (the Mountain of Peace) and is so known in Chinese today. The Man Mo temple, standing today in Hollywood Road, is said by Lo to have been built by Cheung in the first decade of the 19th Century. There is considerable documentary evidence as to the existence of such a settlement in the early 1840s. \n\n12 Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon to Pottinger, C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 440. 13 Woosnam to Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon, 17 April 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 442. \n\n14 Caine, Gutzlaff and Gordon to Bruce, 21 May 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 444. \n\n15 Aldrich to Bruce, 20 July 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 445. \n\n16 Notification dated 25 July 1844. It appeared in the Hong Kong Register on 30 July 1844 and the gist of it was contained in the Friend of China on 3 August 1844. Only in the former, official, version, does the information about the date of possession for the purchasers appear. \n\n17 10 August 1844. \n\n18 Friend of China, 2 October 1844. The site is still occupied by a branch of the present Western Market, \n\n19 Davis to Stanley, (no. 44 of 1844), 26 July 1844 and Stanley to Davis, 3 January 1845; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 438. Under-Secretary Stephen commented on the despatch that, though the expenditure would have to be referred to the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, \"it must, however, ultimately be sanctioned \" \n\n20 Davis to Stanley, 29 October 1844; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 157. The additional expenditure was sanctioned without further comment: Stanley to Davis 1 April 1845; C.O.129, Vol. VI, p. 161, \n\n21 Inland Lots Nos. 223A, 223B, 223C, 223E, 224, 224A, 224B, 224C, 224E, 225, 226, 226A, 229D, 231A, 233, 233A, 234, 234D, 238B, 239A, 239B, 240A, 241, 242A, 243, 243A, 244, 244B, 245A, 245B, 245C, 245D, 245E, 245F, 245G, 245H, 245I, 246A, 247B, 247C, 248A, 253, 253A, 272. \n\n22 Inland Lots Nos. 213, 224D, 228, 228B, 229, 231, 232, 232A, 232C, 233E, 234B, 234C, 234E, 238, 244A, 252B, 255B, 256B. \n\n23 Inland Lots Nos. 223, 246, 246B, 246C, 247, 247A, 247D, 248B, 248C, 248D, 249C, 252C, 253B, 254, 255D, 255E, 256. \n\n24 Inland Lots Nos. 214, 234A, 223D, 227, 235A, 241A, 246C, 246B, 253B. \n\n25 Inland Lots Nos. 238C, 239C, 240, 241B, 241C, 242B, 245, 250, 255A, 256A,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206276, "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-1971", "page_number": 93, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "CHINESE ELITE IN HONG KONG\n\n87\n\nOnly a few were able to survive the perils of the business. They were not accustomed to building in the Western style and therefore often underestimated on contracts, resulting in their bankruptcy. In 1844 the Land Officer comments that \"almost all contracts hitherto entered into with Chinamen have been obliged to be finished by Government, for the works were taken at far too low an estimate, and the consequence was, when the parties found they would become losers, both contractor and security decamped, and in some instances they were imprisoned.\"16\n\nOne of the few contractors who did survive in this early period of Hong Kong's history was Tam Achoy †, alias Tam Sam Tshoy, alias Tam Shek Tsun, although he too almost went into prison for debt, escaping only through the generosity of his creditor. Achoy was generally recognized as the most prominent leader of the Chinese community when an élite was first beginning to emerge out of the hodgepodge of shopkeepers, craftsmen and traders. We have noted that he and Loo Aqui built the Man-Mo Temple where they performed in part the traditional role of village elder. He was also Trustee for the I Ts'z Temple in Taipingshan (1851) and the Temple in Queen's Road East at Wanchai (1869). In 1847 the Colonial Treasury had on deposit £185.16.8 from Tam Achoy for erecting a Chinese School in the Sheung Wan (Lower Bazaar).\n\nAchoy had come to Hong Kong at its foundation in 1841, having been formerly a foreman in the Government Dockyard at Singapore. He was granted a certificate for the easternmost of the lots in the Lower Bazaar, and soon began to buy up the interests of the adjacent property owners until he had acquired an extensive sea frontage. He built some of Hong Kong's most prestigious early buildings such as the P. and O. Building and the Exchange Building, which was bought by Government and used for many years as the Supreme Court Building. With the accumulation of increasing capital he began to broaden his interests and secured permission from Government to build and operate a market. This was a most profitable venture and when the Lower Bazaar was destroyed in the Christmas fire of 1852, he soon rebuilt it, operating it under his firm's name, Kwong Yuen. During the period after 1848, when Hong Kong became a port of embarkation for thousands of emigrants, Achoy was", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206278, "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-1971", "page_number": 95, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "CHINESE ELITE IN HONG KONG\n\n89\n\nFukienese merchants to settle in Hong Kong. Several other merchants appear on the earliest of the élite lists indicating their presence in the first decade of the Colony's history.\n\nIn 1852 \"Cun-wo A Kwi, merchant\" contributed five dollars to Dr. Hirschberg's Hospital. This is Chow Aki* of the firm Cong-wo, which had been established in the Lower Bazaar in 1842, having a branch at Canton. In 1849 he bought the lease of the Central Market, holding it until 1857. He became a large investor in real estate, but sold out most of his property in 1866 and retired to Macao.\n\nA merchant who survived the pitfalls of commerce in early Hong Kong was Wong Ping1. He is named as a silk merchant on the land-owners' petition of 1848, but he was one of Hong Kong's first industrialists in that he owned a rope walk beyond the western end of the Lower Bazaar. He was one of three trustees to hold Inland Lot 361 in Taipingshan on behalf of the Chinese community. The lot was granted in 1851 and upon it was built a temple \"for the reception of Tablets to the memory of... deceased countrymen\".22 The building was used, however, not only for memorial tablets but also as a depository for those who were about to die, following established Chinese custom. When this use came to the notice of the European community it was shocked. The reaction and public discussion which followed resulted in Government allocating a grant from the revenues of the gambling monopoly to the Chinese community for the erection of a suitable hospital to be known as Tung Wah. Wong Ping was not a member of the Organizing Committee of the Hospital, though he was on the Kai Fong Committee for 1872. He died in 1887. Wong Yue Yee alias Wong Yick Bun, of the Chun Cheong Wing Nam Pak Hong, a Director of the Tung Wah in 1872, may have been a relative as Wong Ping is mentioned in 1881 as a managing partner of the Chun Cheung Hong for some twenty years. He also was associated with the Tsui Shing firm and the Tuck Mee Hong.\n\nIn the 1850s the Taiping Rebellion upset the social and economic structures of China. The changes in China were reflected in changes in Hong Kong. The Taiping threat upon Canton created a refugee group which sought in Hong Kong more stable conditions. Some were wealthy and brought their", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206608, "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": 156, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "The Origins of Hong Kong's Central Market and the Tarrant Affair\n\nDafydd Emrys Evans*\n\nThe public market which at present stands in Queen's Road Central in Hong Kong occupies the site of a succession of older buildings of which the earliest was built as a market in 1842. The early history of this market amply demonstrates the too-seldom revealed complexity of Chinese merchants' commercial transactions at the time of the founding of the Colony of Hong Kong.\n\nHong Kong's first public market opened on the site in May, 1842.1 At the first sale of crown land in the new Colony in June, 1841, the westernmost lots were put up to auction first and the first four, designated at the sale numbers 19 to 16, were not sold but reserved for Government purposes. It was on the lot numbered 16 that the market opened, lying as it did conveniently near to the Upper and Lower Bazaars.2 The Market was, apparently, the brain-child of the Colonial Secretary of the time, Colonel George Malcolm who secured the erection of buildings at a cost of some $3,500.3 He appointed a Chinese named Hwei Aqui as Superintendent and established a fixed list of prices to be charged by the individuals to whom the stalls were let by Government.4\n\nWhen Sir John Davis succeeded Sir Henry Pottinger as Governor of the Colony in 1844, he decided that the Market could operate as a useful source of revenue for the Government and sold the market franchise to the highest bidder who was then free to charge what he could to the stallholders. The successful bidder was, in fact, Hwei Aqui and, though he had apparently given satisfaction formerly when simply in the employ of Government, caused grave dissatisfaction once he was operating the market on his own account, with prices rising far faster than they had previously and without the benefit of Government control over the state of the market.\n\nIt is the few years after the market passed into private hands that it makes its contribution to Hong Kong's history, not only on\n\n* Mr. Evans is Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong. See Journal vol. 10, 1970, for his earlier article \"Chinatown in Hong Kong: The Beginnings of Taipingshan\".", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206617, "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": 165, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "H.K.'S CENTRAL MARKET AND THE TARRANT AFFAIR\n\n159\n\nforces during hostilities against China to settle and allotted them small lots on the waterfront. The Upper Bazaar which lay in the area of Graham and Stanley Streets consisted also of relatively small areas granted to Chinese who were presumptively useful to the nascent colony as tradesmen. The Lower Bazaar was almost totally destroyed in the great fire at the end of 1851 and the Upper Bazaar was removed in 1844 and its inhabitants resettled in Taipingshan.\n\n3 See Gordon to Pottinger, 10 February 1844 [CO129/V/f.141].\n\n+ Evidence given by Colonel Malcolm to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China, answer to question 4633.\n\n5 Davis sought to let as many monopolies go as possible to private individuals for what they were prepared to give. Thus, in addition to the markets, he let out also opium, salt, and quarrying monopolies.\n\n6 Lease Register Volume C, f.94. The lot was leased as Marine Lot 38. The lease registers referred to are the Registers of the Land Office in which all dealings in crown land were recorded. The actual transactions themselves are also recorded separately as 'Memorials' and reference is made to them by number. The numbering was done according to the order in which they were registered. I am indebted to the Registrar General of the Government of Hong Kong for allowing me access to the records of the Land Office and for permission to publish material derived from that source.\n\n7 Memorial 122.\n\n8 Memorial 143.\n\n9 Memorial 258.\n\n10 Friend of China, 7 July 1847.\n\n11 Memorial 383.\n\n12 In this article, the romanisations found in the Land Office records are used even where they do not correspond to those either in the Wade-Giles system or current usage.\n\n13 Memorial 304.\n\n14 Ibid.\n\n15 Memorial 345.\n\n16 Hong Kong Register, 27 July 1847.\n\n17 Friend of China, 14 July 1847.\n\n18 And in so doing, incidentally, infringing the provision of the Treaty of Nanking, 1842, which allowed British subjects to proceed only to the \"Treaty Ports\" and to nowhere else in China.\n\n19 Friend of China, 14 July 1847. Tam Achoy's market was known as the Kwang Yuen and in the disastrous fire in December 1851, the fifty-one houses which comprised the market were destroyed: see Hong Kong Register, January 1852. Tam was referred to a few years later as the \"most respectable Chinaman\" who made a practice of going into the witness box to speak for the character of accused persons. He remained in Hong Kong until his death in the 1870's and was one of the founders of the Tung Wah organisation, a charitable body still functioning in Hong Kong.\n\n20 Hong Kong Register, 27 July 1847.\n\n21 Hong Kong Register, 19 October 1847; Friend of China, 23 October 1847 and 18 December 1847.\n\n22 The Editor of the Friend (John Carr) claimed to have seen Hwei's accounts and that they revealed the \"squeeze\" payment.\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206618, "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": 166, "title": "RAS-1972", "content_text": "160\n\nDAFYDD EMRYS EVANS\n\n23 A writ of fieri facias (abbreviated to fi. fa.) is the means whereby a judgment is executed against the property of a person found liable to another in damages in a civil suit. It enables his property to be sold to meet the sums awarded against him. The writ was frequently employed at this time in suits for arrears of Crown Rent.\n\n24 Memorial 359.\n\n25 When property is mortgaged to secure sums advanced by the mortgagee to the mortgagor, the latter is said to have an 'equity of redemption'. The purpose of this is to make certain that his interest in relation to that of the lender is kept in balance, so that the lender can always be forced to release the security when the reasons for giving it are no longer present, i.e., when the sums advanced are repaid. The equity of redemption is treated as an item of property which the mortgagor is free to dispose of—it is the right to reconveyance when the security is discharged or repayment of the loan.\n\n26 Under the Ordinance No. 3 of 1844, all transactions in and concerning land, as well as judgments, wills and so on which involve land, must be registered in the Land Office. A transaction is quite effective even if the Ordinance is not complied with but subsequent purchasers or persons having dealings with property automatically have notice of any registered transaction which will therefore take precedence even over prior unregistered transactions.\n\n27 Ong Chok may in fact have been Ong Lok. The latter frequently dealt in property and is described in Memorials as a 'compradore'. He had extensive property interests in the Taipingshan district.\n\n28 Memorial 384.\n\n29 Memorial 385.\n\n30 Memorial 418.\n\n31 The Chinese used then and still do use to a certain limited extent a lunar calendar.\n\n32 Friend of China, 23 June 1849.\n\n33 Memorial 541.\n\n34 Lease Register Vol. C, f. 219.\n\n35 Lease Register Vol. F, ff. 38 and 47.\n\n36 It was suggested that Chinese merchants were not averse to bribery because they were accustomed to bribing Chinese Government officials.\n\n37 But it should be noted that there are a good many lots in the Taipingshan area in which there were no recorded dealings for a good many years. It is unlikely that there were no dealings at all. It is more likely that the dealings were simply not recorded.\n\n38 Towards the end of the 1840's and in the early 1850's the number of non-residents investing in property in the colony rose markedly, most of them coming from those districts of Kwantung Province adjoining Hong Kong and Macao. The Taiping rebellion may have caused some part of the flow of capital.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 207147, "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-1974", "page_number": 218, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "212\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\nsurvey. Sir E. Belcher, accordingly, landed on Monday, January 25, 1841, at the foot of Taipingshan, and on the hill, now occupied by the Chinese Recreation ground, Captain Belcher and his officers, considering themselves the bona fide first British possessors, drank Her Majesty's health with three cheers, the spot being thenceforth known as Possession Point. The Point remained an open space and came under the management of the Chinese Recreation Ground Committee created in 1890.\n\nIn 1887 there was a rearrangement of streets to the south of the Recreation Ground. With the change there was a renaming. The western terminus of Hollywood Road was shifted from the present Possession Street to what was known as Gap Street, so that Hollywood Road emptied into Queen's Road on the south side of the Recreation Ground rather than on its east side.\n\nOn the south side of old Gap Street across from the Chinese Recreation Ground the original St. Stephen's Anglican Church opened in 1866. Here also the Baxter Memorial School was built in 1872 in memory of Miss Sophia Harriet Baxter. She had come to Hong Kong in 1860 and until her death five years later established schools for Chinese, Eurasians and orphans. St. Matthew's Anglican Church now occupies a part of the original site granted to the Church in 1864.\n\nThe neighbourhood could have been regarded as a good missionary area for it was dominated by establishments devoted to pleasure. Nearby was a theatre, and the present Possession Street was lined with brothels in the nineteenth century. It was also, however, near a more sobering district.\n\nThe hillside between Possession Point and West Point was used as a Chinese burial ground. The I-tsz Temple, built to house commemorative tablets for Chinese residents who died without a family to remember them, and, temporarily, for those whose families were in their home villages in China, was behind Possession Point on Tai Ping Shan Street. It adjoined the burial ground and thus, in accordance with Chinese practice, was in a convenient location to be used as a depository for those who were about to die. Publicity regarding conditions at the temple started a movement to provide better medical services for the Chinese community. This resulted in the formation of Tung Wah Hospital. It was opened officially in 1872 across the street from the I-tsz Temple, occupying land that was a part of the old burial ground.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208073, "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-1977", "page_number": 112, "title": "RAS-1977", "content_text": "96 \n\nK. G. STEVENS \n\npasted up on the upper lintel of the altar, or across the sides, where they remain until Spring-cleaning, or just drop off with time. They are called petitions, Pang (#). Another form of charm connected with the Green Horse is a simple postcard-sized piece of rice paper, block-printed in three colours, depicting a galloping green horse and his groom, on which is the petition (****). This is only used during the lunar New Year and, too, is burnt. One temple keeper very carefully folded such a paper inside a piece of red paper, producing a package no larger than a cigarette, ready for devotees to burn. \n\nOccasionally, green and red paper cut-outs are pasted on the Under Altar, or tied to the Green Horse's nose, head or back. These are said to represent \"messages\" from humans to the Gods asking for general benefits, and passed directly on by the Green Horse without going through a spirit medium or being dispatched by incineration. These \"messages\" without inscription are entrusted to the Green Horse at all times of the year. Although borne aloft to the Gods by the Green Horse, he is never expected to bring back a reply; the general benefits doubtless will manifest themselves in time. \n\nPaper charms obtained from the temple keepers, bearing printed prayers and pictures begging the Gods for safety, protection and blessings, are thrust into the belt or hands of the Local Wealth God or again tied to the back of the Green Horse. \n\nThe slips themselves go under the generic title for red ones of \"the Nobleman\", and for green ones of “Green Horse\". These are also regarded by many as charms to ward off demonic influence and not as messages, and are therefore pasted on certain altars and figures. \n\nOccasionally street shrines, such as the one on the corner on Taipingshan Street and Pound Lane, dedicated to the local Earth God (), have a further role as an Under Altar. The roof of the shrine and wall above it are heavily coated in red and green Green Horse and Nobleman slips which normally should be burnt. Many of the slips of paper are, in this case, pasted over the top of white or black cut-out papers which represent the Mean Ones, the Hsiao Jen. These appear in two forms; as individual human figures with large ears in black paper, and as white or black cut-out slips which look like carnival masks for a man with five eyes!", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209436, "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-1982", "page_number": 93, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "71\n\nriot, the Council passed several resolutions. Among them were the following:\n\n(1) That an order be given to the police to bring up the rioters arrested by them, that afternoon if possible, and that the Police Magistrate be requested to deal with them at once,\n\n(2) That the sentences passed on the rioters be placarded\n\nin Taipingshan and the Chinese parts of town, and,\n\n(3) That His Excellency the Major-General Commanding the Forces be requested to send a picket of one hundred men to be available for the assistance of the police, and to remain until the police reported that they were no longer required.2\n\nIt is obvious that the Government felt itself under siege.\n\nIn accordance with the resolutions, twenty-eight rioters were brought before the Magistrate at 4 that afternoon. Of these, eight were immediately found guilty. The sentences were harsh, even by the standards of the day. Six were given 12 months' prison, and two, who were boys of 15, were given six months each. There is little doubt that these sentences were imposed for their deterrent effect.29\n\nThe \"Buffs\" were called out and were given permission by the Committee of the Tung Wah Hospital to be picketed in the Hospital's hall.30\n\nYet, although order was apparently restored, the strike continued, and, indeed, intensified. The cargo boats did not return to work, and rice pounders, coolies, artisans and workmen of all descriptions joined the strike. Rumours that the city would be set on fire at night undermined confidence. Admiral Sir William Dowell even undertook to land a party of men from the Audacious in the event of a fire.31\n\nThe fact that it was the night of the mid-Autumn festival, and that a lantern procession previously planned had to be called off, added to the already tense atmosphere. In the end, a rather low-key procession did take place, without incident.\n\n1", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210896, "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": 247, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "230\n\nCARL SMITH\n\nplague, the Hongkong Government cleared most of the district of Taipingshan. This had been the city's most congested area, and its removal displaced a large number of people.\n\nTo provide needed housing, Ho A-mei explained that the Fuk Tin Co was building houses across the harbour, where it was still rural. There would be fresh air, wide streets and better sanitary conditions.\n\nSome several scores of houses were almost completed and site formation for others was in progress. The houses were of brick with tile roof, two storeys high and with ample room between the blocks. The intention was to build several hundred. Built in bulk, the properties could be sold at a bargain price, at the same time the promoters could realise a substantial profit.\n\nThe hope was that \"many respectable Chinese will buy land and houses over the way as family residences and that thus many well-to-do Chinese who have houses in the interior will find it convenient and pleasant to 'pitch their tent' in the neighbourhood of this thriving colony.\" Nor need there be any anxiety about security as there were military personnel at the Chinese custom's station at Laichikok.\n\nBut looking ahead only a little farther, there was the prospect of the area becoming British, for as the interviewer stated, “such an extension of Hongkong has long been needed, and, I am glad to say, the day when it will be un fait accompli is now within measurable distance.\" The distance was three more years.\n\nOPIUM MONOPOLY AND HO CONNECTION\n\nSomehow Ho A-mei became involved in a Chinese scheme to solve the opium question. Some background will aid in understanding his role in the scheme.\n\nIn 1875 the British took the opportunity presented by the murder of a member of a British exploratory expedition in the province of Yunnan to press China for a treaty revision. As a consequence, the Chefoo Agreement was negotiated the following year.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211099, "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": 160, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "135\n\nIn the past, he claimed, the Chinese community was too divided to act in opposition to a measure it felt was objectionable. But now the Chinese were more vocal, more public-spirited and more conscious of their rights. It was time to take a stand, for “if we tolerate this ordinance and say nothing about it, other ordinances may be passed aiming at the Chinese, and if we keep quiet the Home Government will not know our grievances.”\n\nHo Tung took up the previous speaker's charge against the police: “If the police and the detectives would do their duty, we should have no robberies in Hongkong.” Perhaps he was somewhat too optimistic in this view.\n\nHe remarked about certain ways in which the Chinese were treated as an inferior group in the community. Chinese theatres had to close at 11 pm. At the City Hall, patronised by foreigners, functions could continue to 1 am.\n\nThere was also the matter of provisions for recreation. Ho Tung charged that “the Government gave all sorts of recreation for the European community. What have they done for the Chinese? They gave them a recreation ground in Taipingshan (at Possession Point). What kind of a place is that for recreation while latrines and urinals are there?”\n\nDiscrimination had an economic as well as social aspect: “We are the principal ratepayers in Hongkong; we pay more taxes than the Europeans, and derive the least advantage.\n\nBut not all the fault for the situation was Government's. Ho Tung reminded his audience that “if we have suffered any hardship before, it is we who are to blame for being silent. We should always bring our complaints to the notice of the Government in order to have them remedied.”\n\nHe concluded by stating that he did not wish those present to get the idea that the weight of wealth or position as represented by Ho A-mei and himself — should influence their decision on this public issue.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214389, "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": 247, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "213\n\nWatchmen and six Assistant Head District Watchmen. In 1900 the Force became even more entwined with the Government when the latter, after several years of deliberation, finally granted a site for a Central Watch-house on the Taipingshan Resumption Area and promised a contribution of $1,000 towards the cost of its construction. Whilst this house was intended to accommodate the Watchmen of Districts 3, 4, 5 and 6, the premises were to include quarters for two European sergeants. When the building was completed in August 1902, far from being merely a house to accommodate the Watchmen, the quarters on the top floor were described as being 'sufficient for the accommodation of one married European Police Sergeant or for two unmarried Sergeants, who will be placed there by the Captain Superintendent of Police.' In 1903, two years earlier than anticipated by Mr A. M. Thomson, the allocation of an annual Government Grant of $2,000 was resumed and remained in force until 1936 when it was reduced to $100 p.a. because this was 'considered sufficient.'\n\nIn 1904 a further thirteen District Watchmen's posts were added and the reasons behind this increase illustrate, once again, the influence which the Hong Kong Government exerted over this force of supposedly private security men. According to the section of the Registrar General's Report of 1904 dealing with the performance of the District Watch Force, 'During the year 1904 the Force had been increased by thirteen men consequent on an understanding come to with the Government by which a piece of land in the Eastern part of the town was given as a site for a District Watchmen's House on condition that the number of the Force was increased.' Stripped of the convoluted language, this meant that the District Watch Committee had to agree to the employment of more Watchmen if they wanted the extra space. The cost of building the quarters in Stone Nullah Lane near Wanchai Market was to be $4,000 and a contract to that effect was drawn up. In the same annual report the Registrar General noted rather critically that the condition of the Force during the year was not quite satisfactory. Because of the difficulties in attracting and retaining good men, a pay rise was introduced in August 1904 which brought the pay scale into line with that of the Chinese Police. Problems concerning remuneration were nothing new. In April 1897 an allowance of $2 per month was awarded to each Watchman because of the high price of rice but even this was insufficient to entice good quality men into the Force during 1901. By 1908 the total number of personnel in the Force ex-", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 } ]