[ { "id": 206292, "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": 109, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "CHINESE ELITE IN HONG KONG\n\n103\n\nand invest in paddy fields or shares in local firms and shops, or, if more affluent, endow or build schools or family temples or contribute to public improvements such as roads and bridges.\n\nOriginally the Christian Chinese were in the employment of the Missions, and as most of them remained so, they did not receive high wages. But as earnest Christians they did not pass their time in gambling, visiting the sing-song girls, or smoking opium. All of these activities tended to make inroads into the income of many of the other Chinese, particularly those who were in Hong Kong without families. Avoiding the temptations of money-absorbing local high life, the Christians were able to invest their small savings in real estate.\n\nWhen the London Mission Society moved to Hong Kong, the Rev. James Legge brought with him from Malacca a printer named Ho Asun † alias Ho Ye Tong and Ho Tsun Shin alias Ho Fook Tong ✰ alias Ho Yeung M. They both began to invest in Hong Kong real estate, though Ho Fook Tong became much the larger proprietor. Their first investment was soon after their arrival, but as income from rents permitted, they continued to purchase property until their deaths. Ho Asun died in 1869 and Ho Fook Tong died in 1871. At the time of their deaths their property had appreciated greatly in value, so that Ho Fook Tong's estate was $150,000. It was one of the largest estates appearing on the schedules up to that date.\n\nAlthough neither of these two Christian converts appear on the lists, their children assumed a place of leadership in the Chinese community. Of the several sons of Ho Asun, Ho Chung Shan was proprietor of the Wah Tsz Yat Po from 1886 to 1889; but his brother Ho Shan Chee (†) or Ho Alloy (*) had a more prominent career. He began as a teacher of English in the Chinese Government Schools (1855-1857), then he became Chief Interpreter in the Police Court (1857-1866). He incurred the ill-will of the English section of the community when he accepted charge of the Opium Tax Station the Viceroy of the Two Kwangs attempted to establish in Hong Kong. In the 1870s he joined the staff of the Provincial Government at Fukien, where The Daily Press correspondent from Foochow reported that the Governor of Fukien was \"happy in the possession of this peripatetic conglomeration of legal", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208928, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1980", "page_number": 90, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "58 \n\nLEWIS M. CHERE \n\nand recognized in later periods? As in so many cases of this sort, closer examination of the events leads to the conclusion that it may have been both. \n\nWhat little evidence is available at this distance points to a popular nationalistic outbreak against the French, encouraged by the activities of the Imperial authorities at Canton. There is also reason to believe that the old anti-foreignism so frequently pointed to among the coastal Chinese also had some role in the affair. Some local Chinese leadership groups, like the Tung Wah, may also have tried to make use of the incident to enhance their own position vis-à-vis the colonial administration. \n\nThe troubles of September and October 1884 were set off by two events in other parts of the China Coast. China and France had been very close to an open break over the suzerainty of Annam and the occupation of Tongking since early in 1883. When the Chinese appeared to have violated a May 1884 agreement between Li Hung-chang and Captain Ernest Fournier of the French Navy, France presented China with a series of ultimatums in June and July demanding compensation for French deaths incurred in the incident. Since the Chinese believed that it was the French who had violated the agreement they naturally were not inclined to sub-mit to the French demands.9 \n\nFrance, determined to enforce what she considered her just demands, issued one last ultimatum in August. When Peking refused to give in, the French Asiatic Squadron under Admiral Courbet, which was anchored at Foochow opposite a Chinese fleet and the shipyard, opened fire on August 22. The Chinese Foochow Fleet was utterly destroyed with much loss of life. The Shipyard was severely damaged, and the forts along the Min River were taken and destroyed as the French went back downstream. \n\nIn the competition among the governors and viceroys of the coastal provinces to demonstrate their patriotism in the furor that followed the Foochow incident, Chang Chih-tung, newly appointed Viceroy of the Two Kwangs; Peng Yü-lin, Imperial Commissioner for the Coastal Defenses of Kwangtung; and Ni Wan-yuh, Governor of Kwangtung, issued a proclamation calling on Chinese in Singapore, Penang and Vietnam (interestingly enough they did not mention Hong Kong) to sink French ships, or sell them tainted provisions. \n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211115, "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": 176, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "151\n\nplace, its very peculiar inhabitants, and most peculiar geographical position.\"\n\nEven today the “special situation\" of Hongkong is still advanced as a reason for making it an exception.\n\nBut these considerations, as important as Hongkong's spokesman felt them to be, were not the major ones. What was greatly feared was the influence a representative of the Chinese Government might have on the residents of Hongkong.\n\nSir Richard informed the Secretary for the Colonies that most of the influential Chinese merchants owned property on the mainland and members of their family were living there, and that, therefore, they would easily become the victims of “squeezing.”\n\nThe Hongkong Government held that any influence Chinese officials might exert on their countrymen would seriously undermine the Colony's ability to control its Chinese population.\n\nThe foreigners in Hongkong regarded the presence of Chinese among them as a necessary evil. They were needed as labourers and household servants. Without their services life would have been most difficult.\n\nFurthermore, the regular supply of fresh fruit, vegetables, fish and poultry depended on them, and a substantial part of the business of Hongkong was conducted by and through the Chinese.\n\nHongkong could not exist without the Chinese, but their presence was a source of uneasiness. They did not readily acknowledge British sovereignty.\n\nThe Governor pointed out that due to the power exercised by the officials and guilds of Canton over nine-tenths of the residents, they \"regarded the Viceroy of the Two-Kwangs as their ultimate chief who they can be forced, sooner or later, to obey.”\n\nTherefore, he advised the authorities in London that it would be \"most unwise to permit an accredited official as spy and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211120, "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": 181, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "156\n\nIn its memorial the Chamber of Commerce maintained that both foreigners and Chinese who were British subjects, when travelling or reading in China, needed the protection of a consul and the right to be tried in a British Consular Court.\n\nOn the other hand, the Chinese on the British soil of Hongkong needed no such protection. They could rest confident in the fair administration of British justice. In addition it was pointed out, \"they have an important official in the Registrar General, to whom as 'Protector of Chinese' they can always have recourse for advice and assistance.\n\nThe Chefoo Convention was never ratified by Britain. Therefore China could not claim by treaty rights the privilege of appointing a consul for Hongkong.\n\nThe question arose again in 1874 as the result of the so-called \"blockade of Hongkong.\" This development had been anticipated by Sir Rutherford Alcock, the British Minister to China, at the time China had first asked for permission to station an official in Hongkong as a check to smuggling.\n\nIn 1868 the Viceroy of the Two-Kwangs had opened customs stations near Hongkong to collect provincial duties on goods carried by Chinese junks sailing from Hongkong.\n\nTwo of them were near the eastern and western approaches to the Hongkong harbour. Another was on the island of Cheung Chau. In 1871 the stations began collecting the treaty tariff duty on opium,\n\nIn addition, armed revenue cruisers were introduced to see that the stations were not bypassed. They patrolled Chinese junks, chased smugglers and attempted to ensure that proper duties were paid. The foreign merchants in Hongkong labelled this effort of the Chinese to protect their interests as a \"blockade.”\n\nThe Chinese, however, had not given up their wish to have a consul in Hongkong. The expense of maintaining a fleet of armed vessels near Hongkong was heavy. There was always the danger", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 212723, "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-1992", "page_number": 32, "title": "RAS-1992", "content_text": "17\n\nsuccessful. He made the lengthy journey but would appear never to have achieved arranging the loan.\n\nIn 1879 Liu K'un-yi, Governor General of the Two Kuangs, was disposed to retain Mesny on his staff at Canton to take charge of the Foreign Affairs Department, and superintend the creation of a local naval force and the fortification of the coast of Kuangtung province. Mesny related a lengthy story about the local gentry in Canton requesting him to visit Peking to persuade a 'well-known prince' with a bribe of Taels 100,000 in order to gain permission to re-open the Wei-sing Lottery Offices in Kuangtung province. After being put under considerable financial and other inducements Mesny decided that he did not want to have anything to do with the lottery business and at his next interview with the Viceroy he was told that there were no funds available to build ships and forts and therefore there was no further need for his services. Mesny added that he understood the money derived from the lottery would have been entrusted to him to build ships of war and fortifications. He concluded [and this was written in 1895] that after that episode his friends deserted him and he never had an offer of really substantial employment after that day. He later added, 'I have been reduced to the lowest ebb of poverty. I have lost all my property, and been left unemployed ever since, so that I am sometimes driven to think that honesty may not be the best policy in China.' He also claimed that after Mason's trial in 1891 when his name had been linked with a major anti-imperial secret society he had never again been offered employment by [the Chinese] government.\n\nOn 7 September 1891, according to Mesny, a typhoon struck Shanghai and did much damage. He referred to the disaster when describing his precarious financial state, explaining that it had destroyed the Olympia Skating Rink in Lloyd Road, his property, thus ruining him financially.\n\nDuring the publication of his Miscellanies, in addition to his many references to his weak financial position, signs of financial circumspection are obvious: for example, Volumes 1 and 2 were produced on very cheap paper, and in No 20 of Volume 2 in 1896 he announced that the printer had not delivered the edition on time to the Editor through lack of funds to pay for printing... ‘difficulties,' he added, ‘had now been overcome.'\n\nHe recorded a loss of over $2,000 on first year's publication but", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1992.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qf85tx75x", "rank": 0 } ]