[ { "id": 205707, "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": 13, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE COUNCILS IN HONG KONG UP TO 1941\n\nT. C. CHENG, O.B.E., M.A.(LOND.)*\n\n(A lecture delivered to the Branch on 29 April 1968)\n\nOn 5th April, 1843, Her Majesty Queen Victoria granted to Hong Kong a Royal Charter which declared Hong Kong a separate Colony. The main provisions of this Charter, published in Hong Kong in June 1843, included, among other things, the following:\n\n(i) There should be a Legislative Council to be composed of the Governor and of such Public Officers within the said Colony, or of such other persons as shall from time to time be named or designated by Her Majesty for the purpose;\n\n(ii) An Executive Council should be established to advise and assist the Governor, who was authorized to summon as an Executive Council such persons as may from time to time be named or designated by Her Majesty.\n\nIt was, however, not until January 1844 that the Legislative Council first met, being composed of all officials, viz., the Governor (Sir Henry Pottinger), the Lt.-Governor (Major-General D'Aguilar) and the Chief Magistrate (Major Caine). The Clerk of Councils was the Legal Adviser to the Governor (R. Burgass).\n\nMajor-General D'Aguilar and Major Caine were also appointed members of the Executive Council.\n\nIn June 1850 the first British unofficial members were nominated to the Legislative Council. They were Messrs. David Jardine and J. F. Adger, both elected by the unofficial Justices of the Peace. Even at this early period of the history of Hong Kong, dissatisfaction was already expressed, mainly among the British community, with the small number of unofficials serving on the Council. In the case of the Chinese, they were, however, inarticulate because there were then very few Chinese who were educated through the medium of English and who could communicate adequately in that language.\n\n\"Mr. Cheng has been President of United College in The Chinese University of Hong Kong since 1963. Prior to that he was in Hong Kong Government service since 1939, his last post being Chief Assistant Secretary for Chinese Affairs.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205711, "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": 17, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF COUNCILS\n\n11\n\nfor nomination by the Governor. The new Council met on 28th February, 1884, and consisted of 6 officials excluding the Governor: the Chief Justice, the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, the Colonial Treasurer, and the Registrar General. There were also 5 unofficials: Mr. T. Jackson (elected by the Chamber of Commerce), Mr. F. D. Sassoon (elected by the Justices of the Peace), Messrs. P. Ryrie, F. B. Johnson and Wong Shing, appointed by the Governor.\n\nThus in 1884 Wong Shing became the second Chinese to serve on the Legislative Council as an unofficial member. He too was a Cantonese from Chung Shan District. In 1841 he entered, with two other Chinese boys, Yung Wing and Wong Foon, the Morrison School in Macao which was later transferred to Hong Kong. In January 1847, Dr. Robbins Brown, an American teacher in the Morrison School, had to leave China on account of ill health. He offered to take a few of his old pupils back to America for further education. Yung Wing, Wong Foon and Wong Shing signified their desire to go and, through Dr. Brown and the Morrison Education Society, expenses for two years for the three boys were arranged. They embarked at Whampoa on the ship \"Huntress\" and proceeded via the Cape of Good Hope, the journey taking more than three months. Upon arrival in the U.S.A. the three boys were admitted to the Monson Academy at Monson, Massachusetts.\n\nAs a result of ill health, Wong Shing did not manage to acquire any academic honours during his sojourn in the United States. On his return to China he was offered an appointment in the Foreign Ministry. He served with Viceroy Li Hung-chang and Marquis Tseng Chi-tze and was a member of the Chinese legation staff in Washington. He resigned later from the Chinese diplomatic service and came to Hong Kong as a merchant. He was also associated with the Anglo-Chinese College and with the London Missionary Society for which he directed its printing establishment under Dr. James Legge. When the Tung Wah Hospital was founded in 1870, he was a founder director. He was naturalized in December 1883 and was appointed to the Legislative Council in February 1884. He was described as a man of property, much-travelled, speaking good English and fully qualified to “look at Chinese affairs with English eyes and at English affairs with Chinese eyes\". His career as a Legislative Councillor was an", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205722, "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": 28, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "22 \n\nT. C. CHENG \n\nIn May 1915, Japan forced the Republic of China, then under the premiership of Yuan Shih-kai, to accept the \"Twenty-one Demands\". Four years later, in 1919, the Chinese delegation failed at the Peace Conference in Paris to prevent the \"transfer\" of Germany's \"rights and privileges\" in the Shantung Province to Japan. As a result of this complete disregard of China's sovereignty by the foreign powers, thousands of students took part in processions demonstrating against foreign militarism and oppression in China on 4 May 1919. In response, students, merchants, and workers throughout China also staged demonstrations and strikes, thereby sparking off in China the \"May 4 Movement\". Chinese national feelings were also stirred by the Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang (or K.M.T.), who now pressed for the abolition of extra-territorial rights and unequal treaties and the retrocession of foreign concessions. All these had serious repercussions in Hong Kong, and in 1922 the first of a series of seamen's strikes began. On 30th May 1925, certain Chinese demonstrators were shot and killed by British policemen in the International Settlements in Shanghai. This led to more serious strikes and demonstrations in Shanghai, Canton, and Hong Kong, culminating in an economic boycott which paralysed Hong Kong.\n\nDuring this period, the Chinese unofficials, viz., Chow Shou-son, Ng Hon-tsz (who died in May 1923) and Robert Kotewall (who succeeded Ng Hon-tsz), and other prominent Chinese leaders, including Sir Robert Hotung and the directors of Tung Wah Hospital, stood solidly by the Government. Some of them actually acted as unofficial middlemen in negotiations between Hong Kong and the seamen's representatives in Canton. The services rendered by Chow Shou-son and Robert Kotewall during this crisis were so valuable and outstanding that speedy recognition was accorded to them. In 1926, Chow was created a knight. Kotewall was given the honorary degree of LL.D. by the University of Hong Kong, and the following year was awarded the C.M.G.\n\nIt may be of interest to quote here the Governor Sir Cecil Clementi's remarks made in early 1926 at a Legislative Council meeting about the big strike of 1925 and the boycott that followed: \"We are determined to give full protection to the people of Hong Kong, and to put down with a firm hand any conspiracy to intimidate or otherwise to cause trouble among labourers and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205724, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1969", "page_number": 30, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "24 \n\nT. C. CHENG \n\nfounded a company named after himself. He was also General Manager of Chinese Estate, Ltd., and adviser to the Hong Kong and Yaumati Ferry Company. He was Honorary Adviser to the Chinese Government as well as the Kwangtung Provincial Government. In 1924, he turned down a Chinese offer to be ambassador to England. He was a member of the Legislative Council for 13 years, from 1923 to 1936, and a member of the Executive Council for 5 years from 1936 to 1941. He was created a knight bachelor in 1938.\n\nThe big strike of 1925 was followed by a boycott of British goods and shipping in China until 10 October 1926, resulting in a serious economic depression in Hong Kong. Mainly through the persuasiveness of Robert Kotewall a special loan of £1,600,000 with an interest rate of 5½%, was arranged from the British Government to assist the merchants of the Colony until normal trading was resumed. Because of this, the Chinese gave him the nickname of \"Silver Tongue\". Sir Robert Kotewall died after the war in 1949,27\n\nIn 1929, the Legislative Council was enlarged through the initiative of the Governor, Sir Cecil Clementi, who was a noted Chinese scholar. The number of officials was increased from eight to ten, including the Governor, and the number of unofficials was increased from six to eight. Of the two additional unofficial members, one was to be a Chinese and the other a Portuguese. Thus the number of Chinese unofficials was increased from two to three and the Portuguese community was represented for the first time on the Council by Mr. Jose Pedro Braga.\n\nIn addition to Sir Shouson Chow and Robert Kotewall, Dr. Tso Seen-wan became the third Chinese member of the Legislative Council in 1929. Dr. Tso, born in 1868, studied law in England. In 1896 he started his practice as a solicitor in Hong Kong together with a partner named Hodgson. In 1902, he, Dr. Ho Kai and some other Chinese leaders were responsible for the founding of St. Stephen's Boys College. He served on the Sanitary Board in 1918 and was appointed a J.P. the same year. As early as 1916, he was awarded the honorary degree of LL.D. by the University of Hong Kong, and in 1928 and 1935 was awarded the O.B.E. and C.B.E. respectively. He served on the Legislative Council from 1929 to 1937 when he resigned.\n\nPage 30\n\nPage 31", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205727, "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": 33, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "CHINESE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF COUNCILS\n\n27\n\nDr. Li and Hong Kong should read this very interesting book.29 Dr. Li died on 24th November 1966.\n\nThe last Chinese to hold a substantive appointment on the Legislative Council before 1941 is Mr. Thomas Tam who received his legal training in England and practised as a barrister in Hong Kong. He was appointed a J.P. in 1933 and was a member of the Legislative Council from 1939 to 1941. After the war he served as a magistrate and was awarded the O.B.E. in 1951. He has been in retirement since 1958.\n\nBesides the above, there were three persons who served at one time or another for short periods on the Legislative Council. They were Chan Kai-ming30 who acted as a Legislative Councillor in 1918, Chau Siu-ki who acted as a Legislative Councillor in 1921, 1923 and 1924 and finally Li Tse-fong32 who acted as a Legislative Councillor in 1939.\n\nA list showing the names of the Chinese Unofficials and the years in which they served in the Legislative/Executive Council is appended after the Notes which begin on the following page.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 205730, "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": 36, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "30\n\nT. C. CHENG\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nCHINESE UNOFFICIALS WHO HELD SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE COUNCILS OF HONG KONG\n\n \n Name\n Legislative Council\n Executive Council\n \n \n NG Choy\n(Dr. Wu Ting-fang)\n \n \n \n \n WONG Shing\n 1880-1882\n 1884-1889\n \n \n Dr. Ho Kai\n(Sir Kai Ho Kai, Kt., C.M.G.)\n 1890-1914\n \n \n \n WEI A. Yuk\n(Sir Boshan Wei Yuk, Kt., C.M.G.)\n 1896-1917\n \n \n \n LAU Chu-pak\n 1914-1922\n \n \n \n HO Fook\n 1917-1921\n \n \n \n CHOW Shou-son\n(Sir Shouson Chow, Kt.)\n 1921 - 1931\n 1926 - 1936\n \n \n NG Hon-tsz\n 1922 - 1923\n \n \n \n Robert H. Kotewall\n(Sir Robert Kotewall, Kt., C.M.G.)\n 1923 - 1936\n 1936 - 1941\n \n \n TSO Seen-wan, C.B.E.\n 1929-1937\n \n \n \n CHAU Tsun-nin\n(Sir Tsun-nin Chau, Kt., C.B.E.)\n 1931 - 1939\n \n \n \n LO Man-kam\n(Sir Man-kam Lo, Kt.)\n 1936 - 1941\n \n \n \n Dr. Li Shu-fan\n 1937-1941\n \n \n \n W. N. Thomas TAM, O.B.E.\n 1939 - 1941\n \n \n\nFoot-note: (1) The following served on the Legislative Council in an acting capacity at various times:\n\n(a) Mr. Chan Kai-ming in 1918.\n\n(b) Mr. Chau Siu-ki, the late father of Sir Tsun-nin Chau in 1921, 1923 and 1924.\n\n(c) Mr. Li Tse-fong in 1939.\n\n(2) Mr. Robert Kotewall served on the Executive Council in an acting capacity in 1932, 1934 and 1935.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206766, "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-1973", "page_number": 43, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "YAUMATEI TYPHOON SHELTER, HONG KONG\n\n37\n\ntime would have been a much better purchase than that which the Government had decided upon. Heated argument followed and the levels of asperity which they raised in Council proceedings was quite exceptional in terms of today's conventions.*\n\nIt is clear from the records of subsequent meetings of the Council that the unofficials had got the bit between their teeth. Work was shortly, they thought, to begin on the shelter which had been talked about for so long, money was to be spent upon it and when the question of money arose tempers were quick to boil. Various alternative proposals to that which had been agreed by the Government were demanded for further consideration, and the unofficials returned again to the attack which had previously been mounted upon the purchase of a dredger by the Government.\n\nMatters stood thus when disaster struck again on the 17th July, 1908 when a further typhoon struck the Colony. Before opening business at the first Legislative Council meeting held after that date the Governor had yet again to comment on a further disaster, owning that he had been told that the force of the wind in the last typhoon was very much greater than that which had previously been known as the great typhoon of September, 1906. He went on, as had so many Governors before him, to acknowledge the acts of heroism which had been displayed by so many people during the\n\n* The two dredgers in question were called the \"St. Enoch\" and \"Canton River\". In Council, the Honourable Mr. Slade (Marcus Warre Slade, Barrister-at-Law, b. 1865, practised in Hong Kong from 1897) said that he wished to ask for information on one particular point before the motion was put: that was with respect to the vote for $86,500 for the typhoon refuge for small craft, which he understood included the cost of the dredger \"St. Enoch\" at £15,000. He said that he was not at the last meeting and did not therefore hear the explanation given in the Finance Committee but since his return to the Colony, he had seen a statement in a prominent position in one of the morning papers in which it was stated that the purchase of the \"St. Enoch\" for £15,000 had cost the tax-payers $100,000 more than it might have done. He presumed that meant the Government might have bought the dredger \"Canton River\", at a cost of £5,000 which was the difference between the two amounts. He said that he could hardly see how that was possible because he happened to know himself about the cost of \"Canton River\" to the present owners, and could not conceive that they would be willing to part with the vessel at such a price. He said however, that the statement had been given a very prominent position and he thought that an explanation was therefore due to the Council before the report of the Finance Committee was adopted. There were other points he referred to which were raised in that particular article with reference to the comparison and capabilities of the two dredgers. He expressed himself as no expert and could not comment upon that, but presumed that the Government had thoroughly well satisfied themselves", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206767, "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-1973", "page_number": 44, "title": "RAS-1973", "content_text": "38 \n\nA. J. S. LACK \n\nthat the dredger which they were buying was in every way fitted for the purposes in which it was being put. \n\n. \n\n** \n\nThe Director of Public Works said in reply that he welcomed the opportunity which was given him to contradict the gross mis-statements which appeared in the article to which his Honourable Friend alluded. The \"Canton River\" had been bought by the same firm from which the Government purchased the \"St. Enoch\". It was brought here in 1899 having been acquired as a second-hand vessel from one of the home ports to perform the work which ultimately devolved upon the \"St. Enoch\". He said that the firm in question had paid some £6,000 for repairs and work on the vessel before it was sent to the East, and he thought that in itself was a guarantee that she was not in the best condition when they purchased her. He was unable to give the relative dates of construction of the two vessels but did not think anyone could come to the conclusion that one was a more up-to-date vessel than the other. He reminded members that the \"Canton River\" had been sunk in the typhoon of November, 1900 and had lain for 8 months at the bottom of the harbour, \"a circumstance scarcely calculated to improve the condition of any vessel of that type.\" With regard to the question of price, he hoped that he was not revealing any secrets but he had ascertained that at the present moment the \"Canton River\" was being offered for sale at £22,000 as compared with the £15,000 which the Government required for the \"St. Enoch\". He pointed out that this was practically 15% more instead of $100,000 less. In regard to efficiency, he said that it so happened that the vessels had conducted operations exactly similar in kind in this harbour. The result had been that the \"St. Enoch\" was found to perform 34 trips during which she conveyed 700 tons each time, as compared with the \"Canton River's\" 3 trips with 400 tons each time, a total of 2,100 tons for the \"St. Enoch\", as against 1,200 tons for the \"Canton River\". Having in some triumph quoted these figures he concluded that it was almost unnecessary for him to speak further on the relative merits of the two vessels, but thought that some reference had been made to their inability to dredge Causeway Bay. In that connection, he pointed out that the \"St. Enoch\" drew 13 ft. 5 in. of water when loaded and the \"Canton River\" drew 1 ft. less so that in no case was either of the vessels capable of dredging Causeway Bay \"without performing a vast amount of absolutely unnecessary work\". \n\nHe finally routed the Unofficials by pointing out that the \"St. Enoch\" was capable of dredging a depth of 48 ft. as compared with the \"Canton River's\" 35 feet. It was not of course suggested that their depths would have been appropriate for the typhoon shelter which was to be built, but nevertheless, these figures appeared so to have so bemused the Unofficials that they raised no further comment. \n\nThe Governor had the last word. In the course of a speech at a following meeting, he said: \"I have alluded to the dredger. At the last meeting of Council, in answer to the question from the hon. member on my right (Hon. Mr. Slade), the Hon. Director of Public Works gave full information regarding that purchase. I think we may say it was a good bargain, and I hope that its acquisition will reduce the cost of the typhoon shelter. I may remind you that if the dredger had been sold out of the Colony we should have had to pay monopoly rates for whatever work we had to do, and I have good reason to believe it was likely to be sold out of the Colony. Indeed within 48 hours of our acceptance a firm offer was made. She was however surveyed under working conditions and found to be in every way sound and fit for our purpose. I may add to the figures given by the Hon. Director of Public Works when he contrasted the capacity of the \"St. Enoch\" with the \"Canton River\" that the maintenance of the one compared with the other is as 44 to 7 in favour of the \"St. Enoch\".* \n\n**", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208494, "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-1978", "page_number": 218, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "202\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES\n\ngilded roundels and a scholar's cap. He is clean shaven and holds a short-handled round fan in his left hand. His wife is dressed in faded robes and is bareheaded. Both have strong faces, probably adequate if not good likenesses. The images are about 12 inches high.\n\nMalacca too, has strong Fukienese connections, and again I would expect this couple to have been of Fukienese origin.\n\nHong Kong.\n\nOctober, 1979\n\nKEITH STEVENS\n\nMARBLE HALL*\n\nMarble Hall was a very fine private residence in Conduit Road, Hong Kong, built by Sir Catchik Paul Chater. It has since disappeared, but the photographs which this note supplements reveal how imposing and sumptuously furnished a home it once was.\n\nThe owner\n\nSir Paul Chater, born on 8 September 1846 of Armenian parents from Calcutta, arrived in Hong Kong in 1864. His career began in a bank, but he soon went into business as an exchange and bullion broker and later ventured into various successful commercial enterprises. He established the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company, having been authorised by two ordinances in 1884 to construct piers and wharves in Victoria harbour, and was a co-founder (with Jardine, Matheson & Co) of the Hong Kong Land Investment and Agency Co Ltd (now better known simply as \"Hong Kong Land\"); later he formed the Hong Kong Mining Company to exploit deposits of iron ore in the New Territories and operated coal mines in Tonking. He was a public-spirited gentleman who initiated the Praya reclamation scheme in 1887 and campaigned vigorously for acquisition by Britain of the territory where he later discovered iron. Chater served as an unofficial member of the Legislative Council for nearly twenty years, elected to that position by his fellow Justices of the Peace, and was one of the first unofficials to be appointed to the Executive Council.\n\n*Plates 24-32 illustrate this Note,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210197, "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": 168, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "147\n\nThe continued existence of a system of licensed prostitution in Hong Kong soon came to the notice of the moral reform societies in Britain which had succeeded in abolishing such houses at home and were determined to end the system overseas as well. Pressure was brought to bear upon the Colonial Office by written appeals from the societies and by questions and speeches in parliament. So in 1893 a new Secretary of State, Lord Ripon, sent instructions to Hong Kong that the registration of brothels and the periodic examination of their inmates, whether nominally voluntary or not, must cease forthwith. Once again the Governor expostulated, forwarding a petition from the leading Chinese who objected that with the abolition of registration prostitutes would have no opportunity to complain about ill-treatment and that brothels would proliferate in respectable residential areas. The Colonial Surgeon also added his views, claiming that it would be cruel to forbid the women to attend for regular examinations; they were well aware of the need for early diagnosis of venereal disease and came of their own free will. But the Secretary of State, under pressure from moral reformers in Britain, was obdurate, and a bill to repeal the 1890 ordinance and abolish the whole system of control was introduced into the Legislative Council in 1894 and passed by the official majority against the unanimous opposition of the unofficials. Hong Kong's long delaying action to avoid reform was apparently at an end.\n\nThe results of this measure were soon evident: prostitutes ceased to attend for their weekly examinations; a large number of new brothels were opened in areas of the city which had formerly been free of them; and the incidence of venereal disease in the garrison soared. In 1897 half the soldiers in Hong Kong were under treatment for venereal diseases, compared to 15 per cent ten years earlier. In Singapore, which had been given the same directive to abolish registered brothels as Hong Kong, the incidence of venereal disease among troops reached 60 per cent. Faced with this situation the governors of the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong submitted a succession of reports to London and proposed draft legislation which would broadly have had the effect of reintroducing the legal system of control that had existed before 1889. The China Association in London and its branches in Hong Kong and Singapore strongly supported the Governors' views and se-", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210198, "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": 169, "title": "RAS-1984", "content_text": "148\n\nR.J. MINERS\n\nnior officials at the Colonial Office, including the Permanent Under-Secretary, favoured a return to the old system of control.20 But because of the pressure of public opinion in Britain and the attitude of the House of Commons the Secretary of State, Joseph Chamberlain, decided that it was politically impossible to sanction the re-enactment of the contagious diseases legislation in any form. He was, however, prepared to allow the introduction of amending legislation which would make it an offence for the keeper of a brothel to permit any woman suffering from venereal disease to remain on the premises; and also an amendment empowering a magistrate to close down any brothel if an application was made by the Captain Superintendent of Police or the Registrar General.21 This change was designed to meet the complaints voiced by the Chinese unofficials about the number of brothels being opened in hitherto respectable areas of the city. The minutes written on the Colonial Office file make it clear that it was foreseen in London that this discretionary power to close down any brothel would in effect allow the Hong Kong government to reintroduce the zoning of certain parts of the city as areas where brothels were tolerated, but this implication was not spelled out in the despatch since it was later to be published in a paper laid before the House of Commons.22\n\nThe Governor accepted these proposals with alacrity and informed the Colonial Office that they ought to give the government complete power to deal with the question. This was a remarkable statement in view of the Governor's previous contention that a full return to regulation and compulsory inspection was necessary. Even more surprisingly the subject of brothels and venereal disease then disappeared completely from the correspondence between Hong Kong and London for the next twenty years. The Colonial Office made no attempt to enquire exactly what the Hong Kong government was doing; ministers and officials were evidently only too glad that this politically embarrassing issue had disappeared from view and had also ceased to be raised in the House of Commons. But someone in the Hong Kong administration had realised that the discretionary power at the disposal of the government to order the closure of a brothel or to tolerate its continued existence could be used to reintroduce extra-legally the whole system of statutory control which had been dismantled by", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210699, "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": 50, "title": "RAS-1986", "content_text": "33\n\nnominated E.R. Belilios. The only way in for Francis was by election by the Justices or the General Chamber of Commerce of which he was a member. He suffered a number of handicaps one of which was that he was not a businessman. He was present at a meeting of the Justices in 1884 to elect a member and expressed regret that Justices who were officials had, at the request of the Governor, declined to vote. He said they should either use their vote or, better, have no vote. In 1886 he was a candidate for the Justices seat. He published his interest in the newspapers saying \"I honestly believe I can do the colony good and faithful service and better than any other man. I am nearly one of the oldest residents. I came here in 1859. Since 1862 I have taken a lively and I hope intelligent interest in the affairs of the colony. I have some knowledge of business and its requirements and am deeply interested in the prosperity and progress of Hong Kong as a whole. It is my home, my life's work is here and I rise or fall with its fortunes\". He referred to his practice as a speaker and training as a lawyer and said he was thoroughly independent in all things. He said he was in favour of maintaining absolute freedom of the port and improving the harbour, changing the method of dealing in land and reforming the Legislative Council including increasing the number and powers of unofficials.\n\nAn editorial in the Daily Press said “false modesty is not a failing of our eminent counsellor any more than want of courage. However the Justices may require other guarantees from their candidate. They may also object that Mr. Francis whilst perhaps independent now has not always been equally so and the tone he now takes smacks rather too much of constant and indiscriminating opposition to the Government. There is some reason to doubt whether the best interest of the colony would be best served by a lawyer. Mr. Chater would be a better member\". Francis replied “unofficial members are permanently in opposition but obstruction for the sake of obstruction is a thing I hate and detest. I pride myself on having been in all things and at all times absolutely independent in thought and word. I have spoken and acted in support of what I thought right when it was in my interest in every sense to do otherwise\". The paper responded “Nine years ago Mr. Francis and two other barristers (Ng Choy and Hayllor) arrayed with the Governor against almost every member of the British and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1986.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215284, "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-2001", "page_number": 61, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "faced serious opposition from the unofficial members. Except in the case of Ceylon, where the elected unofficials had a majority in the legislature, governors were able to ensure the enactment of the new customs schedules by the votes of the officials and the nominated unofficial members, but they were reluctant to do so against popular opposition. The Colonial Office warned the recalcitrant colonies that if legislation were to be delayed or amended the dominions might refuse to implement the new preferences agreed at Ottawa or withdraw existing preferences; the British parliament might also withdraw the preferences granted to the colony under the 1932 Import Duties Act.\" So the legislation was eventually passed in all the colonies in spite of great popular opposition. In the Leeward Islands there were shouts of 'What happened to Judas?\" at the end of the meeting, and the residence of a nominated unofficial member who voted for the bill was destroyed by fire.\" \n\n... \n\nIn the West Indian colonies opposition focused on the clause in the United Kingdom-Canada agreement which obliged the colonies to impose a duty of one shilling per pair on rubber boots and shoes and rubber-soled canvas boots and shoes in addition to the general preferential ad valorem rate. Hosiery of cotton or artificial silk (rayon) was to be charged an additional duty of sixpence a pair and silk hosiery an additional duty of ninepence a pair. These massive tariff increases were designed to exclude Japanese competition from a market which had been a Canadian monopoly until 1929. The governor of Barbados protested that Japanese shoes were sold at one shilling and eightpence a pair with the result that many were now shod who had previously gone barefooted, reducing the incidence of ankylostomiasis (hookworm infestation); if a specific duty of one shilling were imposed the resultant price would be beyond the reach of the poor, while being still much below the price at which Canada could supply footwear.\" The governor of the Windward Islands protested that stockings from Japan cost only fourpence a pair and would rise threefold to 13 pence a pair if the new tariffs were imposed.\" Other governors of the West Indian colonies made similar complaints, but the Colonial Office was obdurate that the preferences granted to the colonies by the dominions on their exports of primary products were conditional on the full implementation of the Ottawa agreements by the colonies. \n\n13% \n\nIII \n\nThe swingeing increases in duty on Japanese canvas and rubber footwear did not achieve their intended effect of restricting the market to Canadian manufacturers. Within months of the implementation of the Ottawa agreements, canvas shoes with rubber soles produced by a factory in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215289, "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-2001", "page_number": 66, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "14\n\nCanadian products. To counter this competition the British government in 1934 instructed the colonies to institute a system of quotas for 'piece goods containing 50 per cent or more of cotton or of artificial silk, or of cotton and artificial silk combined'. The annual quota allowed in any colony should be the average imports over the years 1927 to 1931.\" This covered the period before Japanese textiles began to flood into colonial markets. British textiles and empire textiles were excluded from quota, provided that they had 50 per cent imperial content. This measure aroused considerable opposition in many colonies since the poorest customers would be deprived of their only source of cheap clothing for the benefit of the British textile industry. The official majority was used to carry the bill through the colonial legislatures in the face of opposition from the unofficial members. In Ceylon, where elected unofficials had a majority in the legislative council, quotas were imposed by an Order in Council issued by the British government. In spite of its long history as a free port Singapore agreed to impose quotas on imports retained in the colony. Hong Kong refused because of possible damage to its entrepôt trade, much to the annoyance of the colonial secretary, Cunliffe-Lister.52\n\nIn 1936 the Colonial Office asked for reports from all colonies on the effects of the quotas imposed two years earlier. The replies from governors indicated that quotas had been generally successful in excluding Japanese and foreign textiles, but this had had very little effect in increasing the trade of Britain and Canada. As happened when discriminatory duties were imposed on rubber shoes the chief beneficiary was Hong Kong. Imports of shirts, singlets and hosiery from Hong Kong had made their appearance for the first time and were now the dominant supplier at the cheaper end of the market.\" The governor of Jamaica complained that imports of ready-made apparel were driving the local garment industry out of business and suggested specific duties or quotas on Hong Kong textiles on the same lines as the restrictions against Japan.\n\n34\n\nAfter the Ottawa conference other Hong Kong goods besides rubber footwear began to appear in the British market. The Import Duties Act 1932 had allowed free entry into Britain to imports provided that at least 25 per cent of their value was derived from materials grown or produced or from work done within a part of the empire. This provision enabled a number of small manufacturers in Hong Kong who had previously exported their products to China and Asian countries to turn their attention to the British market. Exports of wearing apparel to Britain increased from HK$2,000 in 1932 to HK$498,000 in 1933, and HK$1,169,000 in 1935. Exports of electric torches went up from none in 1932 to HK$30,000 in 1933, HK$128,000 in 1934, and HK$131,000 in 1935.\" The Board of Trade feared that foreign manufacturers such as Japan were shipping goods substantially", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 } ]