Strong to Save: Maritime Mission in Hong Kong from Whampoa Reach to the Mariners' Club 9789629375348, 9789629373054

Citation preview

Strong to Save

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 1

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Studies Series Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Studies Series is designed to make widely available important contributions on the local history, culture and society of Hong Kong and the surrounding region. Generous support from the Sir Lindsay and Lady May Ride Memorial Fund makes it possible to publish a series of high-quality works that will be of lasting appeal and value to all, both scholars and informed general readers, who share a deeper interest in and enthusiasm for the area.

Other titles in RAS Hong Kong Studies Series: Ancestral Images: A Hong Kong Collection Hugh Baker Cantonese Society in Hong Kong and Singapore Marjorie Topley, Jean De Bernardi (ed) Custom, Land and Livelihood in Rural South China 1750–1950 Patrick Hase Dragon and the Crown: Hong Kong Memoirs Stanley Kwan with Nicole Kwan Early China Coast Meteorology: The Role of HK 1882–1912 Kevin MacKeown East River Column. Hong Kong Guerrillas in the Second World War and After Chan Sui Jeung Escape from Hong Kong: Admiral Chan Chak’s Christmas Day Dash, 1941 Tim Luard For Gods, Ghosts and Ancestors Janet Scott Forgotten Souls: The Social History of Hong Kong Cemetery 1845–1918 Patricia Lim Governors, Politics, and the Colonial Office Gavin Ure Hong Kong Internment 1942–45: Life in the Japanese Civilian Camp at Stanley Geoff Emerson Portugal, China, and the Macau Negotiations 1986–1999 Carmen Mendes Public Success, Private Sorrow: The Life and Times of Charles Henry Brewitt-Taylor Isidore Cyril Cannon Reluctant Heroes: Rickshaw Pullers in Hong Kong and Canton 1874–1954 Fung Chi Ming Resist to the End: Hong Kong 1941–1945 Charles Barman, Ray Barman (ed) Scottish Mandarin: The Life and Times of Sir Reginald Johnston Shiona Airlie Six Day War of 1899: Hong Kong in the Age of Imperialism Patrick Hase Southern District Officer Reports: Islands and Villages in Rural Hong Kong John Strickland (ed) The Lone Flag: Memoir of the British Consul in Macau during World War II John Reeves Watching Over Hong Kong: Private Policing 1841–1941 Sheila Hamilton

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 2

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

STRONG TO SAVE

Maritime Mission in Hong Kong from Whampoa Reach to the Mariners’ Club Stephen Davies

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 3

7/7/2017 11:12 AM

Editor

Joanna PIERCE

Book Design

LAU Wai Chun

Editorial Interns KAN Yuen Yee, CHENG Yu Yuk Cover Design

Carrie YU

©2017 City University of Hong Kong All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, Internet or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the City University of Hong Kong Press. ISBN: 978-962-937-305-4 Published by City University of Hong Kong Press Tat Chee Avenue Kowloon, Hong Kong Website: www.cityu.edu.hk/upress E-mail: [email protected] Printed in Hong Kong

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 4

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

For my father: Reverend Clifford Davies, OBE, AKC, RN (rtd), 1906–1980 Priest, Seafarer, Actor-Dramatist, Musician-Composer, Poet, Author Exemplar

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 5

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 6

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

SAILOR’S PRAYER1 Guide us, O! thou great Jehovah, Wanderers on the mighty deep; From the storm and raging tempest Deign our floating bark to keep; Lord of Heaven! Bid the breeze propitious blow

Be our safe guard thro’ the night-watch, And our guardian all the day, To our destin’d port in safety, Give us fleet and gladsome way; Strong Deliv’rer! Be thou still our strength and shield. And when life’s short voyage is over, In the haven of the blest, May we, guided by thy Spirit, Find an everlasting rest; Father hear us! For the great Redeemer’s sake.2

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 7

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 8

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Contents

Preface A Note on Organization and Building Names Prologue

xiii xvii xxiii

Part I: Making a Departure Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3

From Whampoa to Hong Kong The View from the Harbour Master’s Office A Snug Harbour in West Point

3 15 29

Part II: Church and Mission Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8

Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12

A Seamen’s Church Uneasy Berth and the Demon Drink Parting Brass Rags Meanwhile Down on the Waterfront Separate Moorings

Headwinds and Adverse Currents One Ship, but Still Two Cap Tallies An Interesting Launching on the Wan Chai Waterfront Threatening Times

57 69 78 105 120 136 154 168 180

Part III: War and Recovery Chapter 13 Destruction and Occupation Chapter 14 Recovery and the Dawning of a New World

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 9

205 221

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

x

Strong

to

Save

Part IV: Adapting to a New World Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18

The New World Dawns Cross-Currents Sea Changes Passage Planning

245 256 274 299

Part V: Definitive Moves Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Epilogue

The Mariners’ Club: Laying the Foundations Who is Captain? The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out the Wrinkles Many Shepherds, One Flock On Course for the Future

Acknowledgements Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5

A Timeline Chairmen of the Local General Committees Chaplains, Assistant Chaplains, and Readers Managers Superintendents, Stewards, Assistants, and Clerks of the Sailors’ Home Appendix 6 Launches

Endnotes Bibliography Webliography Copyright Attributions Index

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 10

319 338 353 370 389 412 424

433 447 449 455 457 459 461 547 585 591 593

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 11

7/7/2017 11:13 AM

Locations of Sailors’ Home & Missions to Seamen Premises 1865 to Present Day

Victoria Harbour shoreline in 1841

1 Sailors’ Home 1865–1930 2 Kowloon Institute 1891–1925 3 “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House 1893 –1902 “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House 1902–c.1904 4 Seamen’s Institute 1905–1910 5 Seamen’s Institute 1910–1933 6 Sailors’ Home & Seamen’s Institute 1933 –1956 7 Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen 1956 –1967 8 Merchant Navy Sports Club 1949–1975 9 Mariners’ Club 1967–present 10 Mariners’ Club Kwai Chung 1975–present

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 12

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Preface

It is a great pleasure to commend Strong to Save, a history of the first 150 years or so of the workings and deliberations of first the Sailors Home, with the addition in 1884, of the Missions to Seamen. These two organizations joined to form what was to become the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen (the Mission), the sole operator of the home away from home for the sailors and seamen who come to Hong Kong. Stephen Davies has been able to pull together a myriad of sources to describe in great detail the many characters who brought both organizations into being in Hong Kong. Much has changed in the way we support the pastoral, spiritual, and physical needs of seafarers whose ships call at the terminals and anchorages of Hong Kong harbour. However, I believe we can learn a lot from the history of any organization, in particular how it has responded to the changing patterns of life in Hong Kong both at sea and ashore. What seems to stand out is that on many occasions the Mission was just a bit behind the curve (I will let the reader uncover these facts for themselves without giving away too much of the story) but in spite of this the Mission has continued to survive and to work amongst seafarers today, providing a pastoral and spiritual home away from home in Tsim Sha Tsui and Kwai Chung. It is however, refreshing to understand that the chaplains and staff of the organization have one thing in common throughout: that is the need to constantly keep up with the changing face of the shipping industry. Changes from sail to steam, from general cargo to container, from mid-stream to terminal have all affected the way in which the

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 13

7/7/2017 11:15 AM

xiv

Strong

to

Save

Mission has operated. Whether ship visiting by launch or on land, this history shows the remarkable perseverance of Mission chaplains and staff to accommodate whatever was thrown at them. Problems of location (as the Hong Kong shoreline developed), along with limited finances, war, dealings with the Royal Navy, the proximity of the red light district, and pressure from expected and unexpected competition would have been a heavy burden for many of the chaplains. Alongside these challenges were the constant health issues of malaria and a far from fit water supply that caused many a chaplain to exit Hong Kong earlier than expected. In part, this endurance has only been possible with the help of the many who served on the Mission’s General Council, who as volunteers have given up much time and resources to serve the needs of seafarers who found themselves in Hong Kong. Particular thanks through the course of time must be extended to many of the prominent members of the Hong Kong business community whose donations made the first Sailors Home possible. Standing out above the crowd are Messrs Jardine Matheson who have been connected with the Mission almost from day one and who were instrumental by means of the first significant donation in enabling the construction of the first Sailors Home. Much praise should also go to the many and sometimes extraordinary chaplains who served in Hong Kong, often to the detriment of health and well-being. One might wonder what the early chaplains who made the long sea journey from the United Kingdom made of the early Mission in Hong Kong. Many of the first Mission chaplains would have come from the Christian Socialist school of thought with a definite temperance background, seeking to save the wayward seafarer from the demon drink, determined to meet him at the place of work and bring some of the good news of the Gospel to his downtrodden and torrid life. In many cases they would have been much more at home with their fellow British seafarers and to a greater extent would have seen their calling to that nationality alone.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 14

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Preface

xv

For the chaplains arriving before World War II there was of course the unexpected hardship of internment; life under the Japanese brought much pain and suffering both to them and to the people of Hong Kong. In spite of the massive damage done at the time, the Mission survived, probably due to the services not only of the enduring chaplains but also of the loyal local staff who get little mention in dispatches, but to whom much is owed. They were ready and willing to pick up all the broken pieces of the Mission post war and put together a viable working organization that would put right the devastation of the war-damaged Mission. In the post-war world we see the addition of more international seafarers, in particular large numbers from the Philippines and Asia. Some chaplains struggled with the paradigm shift whilst others sought a remedy by offering succor to this new breed of seafarer. The tensions this brought about we can see clearly displayed in this book. With the introduction of new patterns in shipping, crew numbers have drastically shrunk and are now approximately half of what they were 30 years ago, vessels are much bigger but turnaround times have been shortened from days to hours. All these changes took place within a relatively short period of time and the modern-day Mission has adapted its work to suit the changing environment. The use of the launch Dayspring remains pivotal in the Mission’s daily routine of ship visiting, whilst a greater presence on board ship has become essential. The challenge for us today is to try to get ahead of the curve and be able to deliver maritime ministry that is relevant and fit for purpose for the next 30–50 years. Towards the end of the book we see the beginnings of details of new plans for the Mission in Tsim Sha Tsui and those plans will hopefully become a reality in the near future. Today’s seafarer spends little time in port, often without the ability to gain shore leave. Pressures upon them at work and at home give rise to problems of loneliness and isolation. It is still the Mission’s task to bring relief and care to those who we serve, helping them to communicate with loved ones at home or just being someone to listen

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 15

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xvi

Strong

to

Save

to problems. Often through the worldwide network of the Mission to Seafarers, which has a presence in over 200 ports and 51 countries, we can help both on board and at home. The Mission in Hong Kong continues to be a human presence for seafarers in an increasingly mechanized working and living environment. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our predecessors who kept faith when sometimes all seemed lost. Without their stewardship, leadership, and perseverance there would be no Mission today in Hong Kong.

The Reverend Canon Stephen Miller Senior Chaplain, The Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen, Hong Kong Regional Director East Asia, The Mission to Seafarers

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 16

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

A Note on Organization and Building Names

The (Hongkong) Sailors’ Home was a secular foundation, created as an informal charitable trust in 1861, that opened its building in 1865. It was aimed specifically at providing shoreside residential and recreational facilities, including a bar, for seafarers on shore leave or temporarily without seaborne employment. In practice (not in principle) it excluded Asiatic seafarers and in both practice and principle it excluded the crew of Chinese trading junks and Chinese seafarers in western-style vessels.

St Peter’s Church, Seamen’s Church was the church built on ground to the east of the Sailors’ Home, consecrated in 1872 and, from 1885– 1913, with an incumbent provided by the Missions to Seamen. It is not clear where Mission services were celebrated between 1913 and 1933, though in 1928 a dedicated space in the Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute was in established use. St Peter’s became a Chapel of Ease of St John’s Cathedral in 1932 and its altar and bell were moved to Christ Church, Kowloon. From 1933 the building was used as the base for the Street Sleepers’ Shelter Society Trustees Incorporated until it was pulled down in 1955. Since 1967 the name has been used for the dedicated and consecrated space within the Mariners’ Club that serves as the ecumenical church for the joint seamen’s mission. Between 1933 and 1967 the seafarer’s church was the Chapel of St Peter. Chapel of St Peter was the consecrated space on the first floor of the 40 Gloucester Road, Wan Chai premises that was the seamen’s church from 1933–67.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 17

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xviii

Strong

to

Save

The Missions to Seamen was a missionary organization founded as the Society for Promoting Missions to Seamen Afloat, at Home and Abroad in 1856 and headquartered in London and in some respects, at least initially, somewhat confederate in organizational character.

The Mission to Seafarers is the name adopted by the Missions to Seamen in 2001 following a July 2000 vote by the society’s members after representations from chaplains and liaison bishops around the world. Canon Glyn Jones, the then secretary general, stated that the new name reflected the fact that there is only one mission — God’s mission — and that the society serves seafarers of all nationalities and faiths, both men and women. Today the Mission has 125 chaplaincies in ports in Britain, Europe, and around the world. In 2014 the confederate idea implicit in the early years was returned to in a reformed structure whereby the Mission’s world was divided into semi-autonomous regions, reporting to the general secretary in London, somewhat paralleling a similar structure in the Anglican Communion. The Flying Angel is the name of the flag adopted by the Missions to Seamen in 1859 and, with some adaptation to meet modern graphic art styles, still the Mission to Seafarers’ logo and flag today. The term “the Flying Angel” has for long been used as shorthand for the Mission to Seafarers and for their Seamen’s Institutes around the world.

The “Star” (Seamen’s) Coffee House was the name given to the independent Missions to Seamen establishment on Hong Kong Island in 1893, once the Missions to Seamen, strictly temperance, had decided to use alternative premises to the Sailors’ Home. A permanent building with 40 beds was erected in 1899 on the corner of Pottinger Street and Queen’s Road but closed between 1902 and 1903.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 18

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

A Note

on

Organization

and

Building Names

xix

The Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute was the Missions to Seamen’s similar establishment to the Hong Kong Sailors’ Home. Unlike the Sailors’ Home it was specifically religiously orientated providing a strictly temperance, shoreside residential and recreational facility. It was first established independently on Hong Kong Island as the “Star” (Seamen’s) Coffee House and, after a period when affairs were run from the Kowloon Institute, subsequently in 1905 in temporary premises in Wan Chai at 72 and 73 Praya East, and from 1910–30 in a purpose built building at 21 Praya East (later 18 Johnston Road) that later became government offices. The building was finally demolished in 1962. The Kowloon (Seamen’s) Institute, the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Institute (1891–95, 1896–1911, and 1923–25) was the Missions to Seamen’s premises in Tsim Sha Tsui, initially in a mat-shed building the whereabouts of which is not certain but was most likely where the later, permanent building stood. The permanent building was built in 1895–96 and stood on a corner of Haiphong Road (originally called Elgin Street) and Canton Road. It served the Mission as its residential HQ, 1896–1905, and then as the Kowloon base, though primarily for British naval and military personnel, with a break between 1911 and 1923, when it was a Freemason’s lodge. It was demolished in 1926. The Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute was the name of the jointly operated and owned premises of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong, 1930–c.1950, following the merger in 1930 that formed that legally incorporated organization. It was first located at the old Seamen’s Institute at 18 Johnston Road, moving to the new, jointly owned premises at 40 Gloucester Road (on the corner of Gloucester Road and Fenwick Street) in 1933. In the 1950s the name of the organization, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen,

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 19

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xx

Strong

to

Save

was also given to the building. The building was sold to government in 1967 becoming the headquarters of the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Hong Kong Police, 1968–70. In 1971 it began conversion to residential quarters for government officers, but in 1972 this changed to conversion as a home for trainee nurses at Queen Mary Hospital, which took its first residents in 1973. The building was renamed Harcourt House. In 1981/82 the nurses’ hostel was closed, the site was sold to Hongkong Land and the art deco building demolished.

The Mariners’ Club was and is the name of the premises opened in 1967 at 11 Middle Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, owned and operated by the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen (as the incorporated organization is still called under Cap 1042, Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen Ordinance, despite the change of name to the parent body of the Mission in 2001).

The Kwai Chung Mariners’ Club is the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen premises at 2 Container Port Road South, Kwai Chung, New Territories opened in 1975. The dedicated space for church services within the buildings is St Paul’s Chapel. Apostolatus Maris, Apostleship of the Sea, Stella Maris are three names used interchangeably for the Roman Catholic mission to seafarers founded officially in 1922, but tracing its origins to 1890. Stella Maris is the name of the organization’s holy patron, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her guise as Our Lady Star of the Sea. The Apostleship of the Sea was joint pioneer of the Hong Kong ecumenical mission to seafarers when it became part of the Mariners’ Club in 1969. In ports without a joint, ecumenical mission, as in Hong Kong, the Apostolatus Maris’ shoreside facility is often known as the Stella Maris. Dansk Sømandskirke, Danish Seamen’s Church, part of the Danish Seamen’s Church in Foreign Parts founded in 1867, became part of the

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 20

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

A Note

on

Organization

and

Building Names

xxi

ecumenical partnership in the Mariners’ Club in 1979, based mainly in Kwai Chung. It acts in Hong Kong for the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission (Sjømannsmisjonen, Sjømannskirken, Norsk kirke i utlandet — see below). Svenska kyrkan i utlandet, Church of Sweden Abroad, has been based in the Mariners’ Club since 1996. It is for all Swedish nationals in Hong Kong, a specific seafarers’ mission dating back to 1869 having been folded into the Church of Sweden’s larger remit in 1976.

Deutsche Seemannsmission, German Seamen’s Mission traces its story back to 1886. German missionary care for German seafarers in Hong Kong dates from the arrival of the Berlin Mission in 1861, especially after the building of Bethesda Church in 1880. From 1900 a Seamen’s Reading Room was in operation that, in 1908, was funded by a grant from the Deutsche Seemannsmission. All German mission activity was closed down with the outbreak of the First World War. The mission established its first, full-time presence in Hong Kong when it became part of the Mariners’ Club’s ecumenical team in 1995.

Sjømannsmisjonen, Norwegian Seaman’s Mission (Sjømannsmisjonen, Sjømannskirken, Norsk kirke i utlandet), founded in 1864 came briefly to Hong Kong in 1907 before focusing on Shanghai. With the fall of Shanghai to the Japanese in 1937, the mission came to Hong Kong where it was based in premises on Chatham Road until these were requisitioned in 1942. After re-opening in Shanghai post-war, the mission returned to Hong Kong in 1947 and in 1951 built new premises at 5 Cox’s Road, Tsim Sha Tsui. In 1983 the mission closed down in Hong Kong to concentrate efforts in Kobe and Singapore. Christian Mission to Chinese Seamen (Chinese Seaman’s Mission) associated with pastors from the London Missionary Society, was formed by Mr (Reverend) Bock Jock Tan in 1935. It first worked from

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 21

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xxii

Strong

to

Save

two locations on Hong Kong Island before finding premises on Jordan Road in 1938. Work resumed in 1947 from premises in Ho Man Tin, but the mission seems not to have survived Mr Tan and no trace can be found after c.1961.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 22

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Prologue: Missions, the Sea, and Hong Kong

The human species is overwhelmingly terrestrial. From huntergatherer through pastoralist and agriculturalist to today’s world of industrial and post-industrial era town and city dwellers, our evolutionary path has been rooted in the land and its products, in its sights, sounds, smells, and rhythms. In most societies seafaring has gone on at the margins where the land stops and the great unknown begins. Normal people don’t go to sea. The result has been that in almost all major civilizations seafarers have had low status. In China they were so far below the salt that, until the Qianlong Emperor’s day, sea people — though not all sailors — were forbidden the land. As Reverend David Abeel, one of the first seamen’s missionaries to China, put it,1 It is a singular fact, that the Chinese look upon those who dwell in boats

as a distinct race from themselves. They consider them as low people, and aliens, and refuse to intermarry with them.

A description that appeared in The Boston Mercantile Journal in the mid 1830s when our story begins, reprinted in the American Seamen’s Friend Society’s the Sailor’s Magazine in 1837, catches a widely shared idea that, with periodic rewriting, has found expression in the years since and can still be found being bandied about today, that the sailor is, to put it simply, a hopeless and helpless degenerate who “too frequently divides his time between his boarding-house, […] a grog shop, and a brothel.”2 Little wonder that with this reputation in the mid 19th century western world, an influential segment of the west’s self-consciously progressive business, intellectual, and political leadership in north-

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 23

7/7/2017 11:14 AM

xxiv

Strong

to

Save

western Europe and North America sought to remedy the seafarer’s lot.3 This was a period when the idea of the mission, which had emerged in response to the twin impulses of 18th century religious revival and an increased awareness of the extent and variety of the non-Christian world, took powerful root. By the end of the 18th century there was a strong and growing Anglican and Protestant mission movement on both sides of the Atlantic. Over 20 mission societies were founded in Britain and 14 in the US and Canada in the half century between 1792 and 1842.4 This impulse to perform missionary work looked in two directions. Primarily and initially it looked outward to what were, for the western world, newly discovered lands and peoples, whose long histories were not part of the west’s Judaeo-Christian heritage and who thus, to the evangelical temper, stood in need of the universal message of Christian salvation. But it also looked inward towards the members of western societies who, to the minds of those called to mission work, seemed to be living as if apart from mainstream faith and thus similarly in need of the Christian message. These were the poor and dispossessed like the victims of slavery and industrialism or, like seafarers and prostitutes, the victims of social marginalization. The story of the Mariners’ Club in Tsim Sha Tsui goes all the way back to these twin roots. It was the second direction that gave rise to the entwined stories of the Hong Kong Sailors’ Home and the Seamen’s Institute of the Missions to Seamen, which together came to form the Mariners’ Club. As their roots might lead us to expect, these were primarily a home for and a mission to the seafarers of the western world, who found themselves temporarily adrift in Hong Kong. Asian seafarers were not wholly neglected — the organization in time became actually, as it had initially been expressly, for the sailors of all nations — but neither were they actively sought. Least of all were the myriad Chinese seafarers a focus, for all that they always constituted the overwhelming majority in port at any time.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 24

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Prologue: Missions,

the

Sea,

and

Hong Kong

xxv

That the institutions did not have a wider vision is not only because of the split focus of European and American Christian mission work. It is also because of the even more radically split categorizations of seafarers written into the very structure of the 19th century social and maritime worlds. In practice these were worlds divided into two largely separate communities that for convenience we can label “western” and “indigenous”. The first of these was itself sub-divided between seafarers in naval and commercial shipping and those engaged in fisheries. As far as the 19th century missions to seamen were concerned fishermen, in practice though not in principle, fell outside their remit, especially in non-British waters.5 Second, within the mainstream “seafarer” category there was a division on cognate lines to the split between foreign and domestic missions, particularly within the British Empire, between western and Asian seafarers. This split lasted in many respects until the Merchant Shipping, or Lascar, Act of 1823 was finally repealed — this is still a shock every time one reads it — in 1963.6 After the passage of the Lascar Act, on which there was an increasing emphasis as the 19th century with its ever more rigid racial divisions wore on, this world was itself internally divided. On the one hand were British (and more generally white European or American) seafarers. On the other were Asiatic seamen working on western ships, in the official generic the “lascars”, and their Chinese, African, or other non-European equivalents. This segregated subset was placed in the lowest category of 19th century western maritime labour. Lascars were paid less, got worse accommodation and had a different and usually less generous diet provided for them.7 Meanwhile, wholly separate and largely invisible, were the indigenous maritime worlds constituted by whatever remained of any local or regional maritime systems that continued operating on traditional lines in parallel with the imposed, economically and politically dominant, western maritime world. They would eventually

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 25

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xxvi

Strong

to

Save

be all but utterly eclipsed. For much of the 19th century in Asia, these “other” worlds touched the dominant world only tangentially in such places as Hong Kong, Shanghai and the other Chinese treaty ports, Singapore and the main ports of British India, and elsewhere in the British Empire with an indigenous maritime tradition. Here the separate worlds were lightly connected through institutions like port, port health, and customs and excise authorities that organized anchorages and berthing, issued licences, gathered statistics, and levied fees and charges. They were also linked but never fused, in Hong Kong and other Chinese ports, via the comprador system that acted as a bridge between the otherwise separate, non-interacting western and indigenous worlds.8 Of course, things on the waterfront were more complicated than that over-simplified sketch allows and the separations were never quite as utter and complete as it implies. Nonetheless, radical the divisions were, as were the mindsets they begat. They accordingly had significant effects on such aspects of the maritime world’s infrastructure as maritime missions. So not only was any seafarers’ mission in Asia caught by the ecclesiastical split between foreign missions to non-Christian communities and European domestic missions to the locally disadvantaged, it was also caught by the way in which, in the western maritime world it was founded to serve, seamen, as a disadvantaged group, were split multiple ways. There were the not-quite-seamen like boatmen and fishermen. There were the indigenous seamen, who in principle fell into the province of the non-maritime missionary — in Hong Kong the world of the Church Missionary Society and the like — insofar as any westerner was interested in the spiritual and material welfare of such people at all, which few were. There were the Asiatic seamen, banished to another spot on the far side of the same sad, racist divide, who appear in practice to have inhabited something of a grey area for the Hong Kong Missions to Seamen until well into the 20th century. And there was

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 26

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Prologue: Missions,

the

Sea,

and

Hong Kong

xxvii

the unquestioned object of the 19th century maritime mission, the western seafarer. We should not be surprised or moralistically shocked by this. As Stuart Wolfendale noted in his history of Hong Kong’s St John’s Cathedral, condemning people of a past era for not sharing our present beliefs is an anachronism.9 As Wolfendale also points out, the Anglican church in Hong Kong, of which the Mission to Seafarers has always been and is a part, has long existed in the form of two parallel universes with dichotomous purposes: on the one hand an explicitly colonial church for expatriate westerners; on the other a missionary church to bring Chinese people to Christ.10 To these we can add the trichotomous maritime gloss, with its excluded indigenous sailor and its poor Asiatic seamen, who fell between western ship and western wharf, as it were. If it took the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong until the last half of the 20th century to fully embrace Chinese and other non-western seafarers, in this it was in step with its times. But with its times, it also moved. As Hong Kong and the Mission — both in Hong Kong and in the organization’s London headquarters — sailed through the last decades of the 20th century and the colonial period dropped below the horizon astern, so all passed into wider, less culturally constricted waters. In the Mission’s entry into this wider sea there was also an added widening and brightening of the horizon ahead, as it escaped the narrow confines of Church of England exclusivity. In 1969, for the first time in its near-centennial story, the Mariners’ Club, as the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen had conjoined to be, became the base for the first of an expanding ecumenical mission that today includes an Anglican, a Roman Catholic, a Danish Lutheran, a Swedish Lutheran, and a German Lutheran mission. On this note, enquiring readers will sense a silence in the many pages to come: the absence of any significant mention of the care for the spiritual and material welfare

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 27

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xxviii

Strong

to

Save

of the seafarer in Hong Kong by other spiritual and secular agencies, especially of the world’s other great faiths: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and more. We shall look in passing at the ghaut serang and local Chinese kinship and local place networks, both boarding house recruitment systems. However, these had a lot in common with the world the Mission and Sailors’ Home systems were designed to replace because of their openness to abuse. Levels of abuse, indeed, that by the late 1950s had become of sufficient concern to result in government action in both Hong Kong and Singapore to close the systems down. It is far beyond the scope of a history of a century and a half or so of a Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen/Mission to Seafarers in Hong Kong to venture into such vast and potentially hazard filled waters. Yet not the least of the sub-texts beneath the narrative of the nearly two centuries we cover, with its cast of seafaring thousands drawn from the world’s multitudinous peoples, castes and creeds, is the simple truth that over the first 100 years of this story it was those of the Christian faith and societies from the Christian tradition that systematically concerned themselves with seafarers’ welfare. With some early exceptions, only in the last half of the 20th century were many avowedly secular equivalents to mission-led seamen’s institutes established, especially in the old Soviet bloc, and the communist regimes of Asia. It could be fairly argued that even these were modelled on secular sailors’ homes and clubs, created from the mid 19th century onwards in western and western-run ports that had themselves been foster children of religious mission. That is neither Christian nor western triumphalism, nor is it an adverse comment on other faiths and cultures. If the story of the Mariners’ Club in Hong Kong seems unduly focused on one faith and its ministry, that simple but key difference is why. It was the western Protestant and Anglican Christian churches in the 18th century that pioneered outreach to seafarers of the kind we see today. These same churches, fissiparous though they were, were what helped those

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 28

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Prologue: Missions,

the

Sea,

and

Hong Kong

xxix

missions burgeon in the 19th century, when modern Hong Kong came into being. In the nigh two centuries that have followed, the same missions have done much to drive the agenda that has helped improve, though never wholly transform the lives and working conditions of the world’s seafarers. As they have done so, so have the sectarian divisions that had for so long divided efforts, steadily diminished in importance, as the founding of the International Christian Maritime Association in 1969 testifies. In what follows we begin in 1822 with the first shipboard mission service in local waters, appropriately taken by the first Protestant missionary in China, Reverend Robert Morrison. We move on through the establishment of the first seafarers’ mission in China under the American Seamen’s Friend Society in 1829 and its fluctuating fortunes in the years following. By 1843 the story has moved to Hong Kong and the opening of a long, 40-year narrative that takes us from the establishment of the first institution geared to the welfare of seafarers, the Seamen’s Hospital, through the creation of a secular Sailors’ Home and the building of a seamen’s church in the 1860s and ’70s, to the approval of the establishment of a Hong Kong Missions to Seamen in 1884 and the arrival of a Missions to Seamen chaplaincy in 1885. Thereafter the fortunes of the Sailors’ Home and the newly established Missions to Seamen ebb and flow with the various tides that affected the life of the Mission, as shipping both in Hong Kong and the wider world went through 14 shipping cycles,11 a century and a half of civil upheaval in China, major convulsions in the local shipping industry in the strikes of the 1920s, the protracted Sino-Japanese war 1937–45, two world wars, and many lesser conflicts. Over the same time global attitudes and expectations and Hong Kong society all changed massively as the sun set on western imperialism and the once all-powerful British merchant marine, upon the spread and strength of which both the Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seamen had founded their charitable calling, dwindled to global insignificance. Throughout, the maritime world itself developed at an accelerating

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 29

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xxx

Strong

to

Save

rate. Sail to steam. Steam to diesel. Breakbulk to boxships. General purpose ships to specialist ships. Average ocean-going ships of 1,200 tons to average ocean-going ships of 19,000 tons. Sextants and flags through wireless, CONSOL, Loran, and Decca to GPS, AIS, GMDSS, Inmarsat, ARPA radar, and autopilot. Crews of 50–70 to crews of 15– 20. Primarily western crewed ships, via the world of Asiatic Articles with western officers and Asian seamen, to today’s mainly Asian crewed ships. It has been a century and a half of tumultuous change. In Hong Kong what was renamed the Mission to Seafarers in 2001 has lived through all the change and upheaval and adjusted and remodelled itself as needed if, sometimes, rather slowly. It has over time created and continued creating unique solutions to the challenges of this most singular of port cities. In doing so what is today the Mariners’ Club, in its various guises through the years, has been so much at the heart of the international side of Hong Kong’s maritime story that a history of the Mission to Seafarers in Hong Kong is also in large part the history of how one of the world’s top five ports came to be. This is that story. Before we embark on this long and fascinating voyage, however, it is important to stress an implicit but tacit distinction contained in the preceding paragraphs. Hong Kong’s maritime story through the centuries has always been, as it still is today, a majority Chinese story. The growth of the modern international port of Hong Kong, an outcome of a massive sea change in the international balance of economic and political power exercised by western imperialism, two tendentious and bullying Anglo-Chinese wars and a widely execrated trade in opium, was superimposed on a far older, more deeply rooted, traditional Chinese system of coastal and short seas trading. That system did not die with the advent of the alternative, if initially still developing,12 western shipping and trading world that British colonial Hong Kong was created to service. It perdured, as did its world of seasoned Chinese seafarers operating within social, religious, and business milieux far removed from the practices and procedures

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 30

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Prologue: Missions,

the

Sea,

and

Hong Kong

xxxi

maturing after 1841 on the westernized side of the growing international Port of Victoria. Throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th, in terms of the number of ships using the Port of Victoria, the vessels of the “junk trade”13 always outnumbered western steam and sail. Only in the late 1920s did western style shipping finally begin to overtake traditional craft. Very gradually through the first century of our story the divide between that traditional Chinese seafaring and trading world and what is now the international maritime trading system began to dissolve, though it did not disappear. Until after the Second World or Pacific War, therefore, the worlds of the western and indigenous Chinese seafarer, and the institutions that served them, with a few official exceptions, remained distinct and separate, as did the mindsets of the vast majority of those who lived and worked within each of them. For most of our story the Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seamen lived in only one of those worlds, the minority, dominant, and colonial one. Throughout the pages that follow the reader should bear that in mind. The title of this history is taken from the first verse of what is popularly known as the Sailors’ or Naval Hymn, written by the Church of England priest, William Whiting (1825–78). As a young man Whiting had nearly been the victim of shipwreck in a storm. He wrote the hymn in 1860 when he was headmaster of Winchester College Choristers’ School, inspired by Psalm 107, which begins, “They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.”14 The aim was to help one of his students, who was about to cross the Atlantic to America and had described his great fear of the sea. The hymn went through several revisions, today’s text dating from 1874. The Reverend John Bacchus Dykes (1823–76) set the hymn to the wonderfully moving tune “Melita” in 1861,15 the year it became part of Hymns Ancient & Modern.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 31

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

xxxii

Strong

to

Save

Eternal Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bidd’st the mighty ocean deep Its own appointed limits keep: O hear us when we cry to thee For those in peril on the sea.

00_Strong to Save_prelims.indd 32

6/7/2017 6:26 PM

Part I

Making a Departure

01_Strong to Save.indd 1

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

01_Strong to Save.indd 2

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

1

From Whampoa to Hong Kong

he story of caring for the social and spiritual welfare of western sailors, whose ships were temporarily in the Pearl River Delta waters that include Hong Kong, formally begins in either November or December 1822. Robert Morrison’s own version, written quite close to the actual occasion, reads:1

On Sunday, 10 November 1822, a Bethel flag, prepared by Mr Oliphant [sic], a pious American Gentleman of the Presbyterian Church at New York, was

hoisted at Whampoa, at the mast-head of the ship Pacific, of Philadelphia,

belonging to Mr Ralston, a veteran foreign Director of the London Missionary Society.2

A later version by Mrs Eliza Morrison written in around 1839, transcribing a letter from the good reverend two days after the above event and probably resulting in a copyist’s or typesetter’s muddle, places the event almost a month later on 8 December 1822.3 Just to muddy the waters comprehensively, in the first issue of the Sailor’s Magazine published by the newly founded American Seamen’s Friend Society in 1829, a letter from Robert Morrison states that the Bethel flag was hoisted in the year 1826.4 Although it has been the later, 1826, date that has come down to us, the earlier, probably November, date is correct for the commencement of a mission to seafarers in the Pearl River Delta. But however we date that first raising of the Bethel flag in our waters, that Robert Morrison was the prime mover of mission work

01_Strong to Save.indd 3

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

4

Strong

to

Save

amongst seafarers in China is attested by the American Seamen’s Friend Society’s recollection in 1908 of the first 80 years’ of its mission.5 No doubt sailors had been reached out to before Robert Morrison first helped raise the Bethel flag, but no institutions existed that ensured their social and spiritual needs were cared for. Western sailors were not in general allowed to go ashore in Canton, which meant that they could not attend the church services in the foreign factories. Runs ashore for recreation were strictly limited to once in the two or three months ships spent discharging and loading, and their results were often anarchic; drunkenness on samshoo featuring large.6 Medical care was entirely dependent on whether a sick seaman’s ship had an embarked doctor or if not, whether he had access to a ship that did have one. And for social and spiritual care, for the most part they had to shift for themselves. As Morrison put the matter in his brief “Proposal” of 1826, The assistance that sailors in China require, is medical attendance for many

of them; and for all of them instruction concerning their duties as moral and religious beings.7

To meet those needs, after he got back to Britain in 1824, Morrison put together a book, A Parting Memorial Consisting of Miscellaneous Discourses Written and Preached in China; at Singapore; on Board Ship at Sea, in the Indian Ocean; at the Cape of Good Hope; and in England that was published two years later. In one of its articles he proposed a floating seaman’s hospital and a floating seaman’s church, explicitly linking them to the provision of similar facilities that were being planned in London.8 Robert Morrison’s “Proposal” can therefore quite reasonably be called the foundation document of a mission to seafarers in the Pearl River Delta area. It accordingly becomes by extension the founding document of the mission in Hong Kong, since all that it commends was in time instituted. As our story unfolds we shall see that not long after the British annexed Hong Kong, the first establishment to be founded for the

01_Strong to Save.indd 4

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

From Whampoa

to

Hong Kong

5

care of seafarers, in September 1843, was a seamen’s hospital, not floating as Morrison had suggested, but solidly built above the Wan Chai waterfront.9 The second of the commended institutions for caring for the welfare of seafarers was established in 1865 and was a sailors’ home.10 The third, which came about in two phases, was St Peter’s, the Seamen’s Church. It was consecrated in 1873, but only received its first Missions to Seamen chaplain in 1885 and thus only at that point did it complete the third element of Morrison’s hoped for institutional structure for meeting the material, moral, educational, and spiritual needs of seafarers. It is interesting how the order in which the welfare of sailors was catered for in Hong Kong is an echo with variations of what took place in Whampoa. In Whampoa the first step was hoisting the Bethel flag aboard a host ship. Second came a seamen’s hospital.11 Last came a church and welfare establishment — a floating Bethel-cum-reading/ relaxation room. However, Morrison’s “Proposal” can be seen as far more than a simple programme for caring for the welfare of seafarers, whether in Whampoa or in a newly founded, colonial Hong Kong. For in its fewer than four short pages, if unwittingly, Morrison effectively outlined not only what in his view the welfare of sailors demanded, but also revealed every problem, explicit and implicit, which the Mission to Seafarers has, one way or another, found itself having to come to terms with over the last 150 years. One route to understanding this nexus of problems is to begin with the companion piece to the “Proposal”. It is the next piece in the book and entitled “Tract, addressed to Sailors”.12 The sailors he addresses here are “the crews of those English and American ships” and he speaks at some length about the dangers of “the rascally Chinamen” and the various threats, both spiritual and physical, that plague the sailors. He goes on to argue in favour of a floating Bethel on the grounds that whilst looking after a sailor’s health is an undoubted

01_Strong to Save.indd 5

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

6

Strong

to

Save

good, the improvement of his mind is equally important. To that end, Morrison offers a single solution, namely the provision not of prayers, which might well be on offer aboard their own ships, but of general religious and moral instruction, the two in his mind being inseparable. The function of a floating Bethel is therefore clear. With “sermons twice a day”, it is to “…furnish the means of rational occupation, and of religious and moral instruction to as many of the seamen as chose to avail themselves of it…”. However, although it would appear to be the Scotsman Robert Morrison, who was the first mover of active mission work amongst visiting British and American seafarers in China, it was the Americans who took up the baton for the next 30 years.

*** It was in 1829, two years after Robert Morrison had raised the Bethel flag for the second time, that the Reverend David Abeel arrived in Canton to establish the first formal seaman’s mission on behalf of the American Seamen’s Friend Society founded only a year previously in New York.13 The history of the mission after David Abeel’s departure for Southeast Asia in 1830 is poorly documented. We know that the Reverend Edwin Stevens, another American Seamen’s Friend Society missionary, succeeded him two years later. What happened to seamen’s mission work after the Reverend Stevens’ departure from Canton is not clear. However, by the late 1830s devout Americans in the spirit of the Second Great Awakening, and British traders influenced by such Christian social reformers as the Clapham Sect, were an influential presence in Canton.14 Piety and a concern for the ordinary seaman, though never before complete strangers in the western trading community in China, were in the ascendant. One result was that on 3 January 1839 the first formal seamen’s welfare — and in practice mission — society was founded in China. It called itself the Seamen’s Friend Association in China. An announcement to this effect appeared in the Sailors’ Magazine and full

01_Strong to Save.indd 6

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

From Whampoa

to

Hong Kong

7

details appeared in the Chinese Repository,15 including the constitution of the new organization. The fuller report also indicated that the new organization had been established following the foundation of such homes in Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, and Penang. If the “parent” society was in Whampoa, based in American No. 2 Factory,16 it nonetheless recognized the wider area in which western ships operated in Guangdong waters and established agencies in Macao and at Lintin. The third gathering of this protracted meeting then agreed a constitution, the first article of which stated explicitly that its object was “to promote the welfare of foreign seamen of all nations coming within the [sic] Chinese waters.” Reading between the lines therefore, and given the leading role in this organization of the Reverend Elijah Coleman Bridgeman, who was not a seamen’s chaplain, no one had followed Edwin Stevens and the seafarers’ side of the China missions was being neglected, hence the initiative being taken by Bridgeman and the private merchants supporting him.17 But the initiative was being taken at precisely the wrong moment. Within two months Commissioner Lin Zexu would arrive and his campaign to eradicate the opium trade would begin. In short order that would lead to war and by the time the guns finally fell silent, the annexation of Hong Kong by the British and the establishment of the five treaty ports would have founded a wholly different context for missions to western seamen.18 For the next six or seven years the record is silent until, in 1847–48, the American Seamen’s Friend Society’s mission in Whampoa was revived with the arrival of the Reverend George Loomis in the ship Candace from New York.19 By 1849 he had raised the funds to have a floating Bethel built, at last fulfilling the plans that Robert Morrison had spelled out a generation previously. The new vessel, believed to be modelled on the chop boat that carried cargoes up and down the Pearl River and built locally in Whampoa, was launched on 7 February 1850.20 It was moored at Whampoa the better to serve the western ships berthed there while discharging and loading. On 19 March it

01_Strong to Save.indd 7

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

8

Strong

to

Save

was dedicated in a service taken by the Reverend Peter Parker and the Reverend Dr Legge, and attended by Sir John Davis and other worthies amongst western traders.21 The Reverend Loomis returned to America in late 1851 or early 1852. There was then either an interregnum or a new chaplain whose name has been lost, an interregnum being most likely.22 The next chaplain whose name we know, the Reverend James Chaplin Beecher, only arrived in 1856. Under James Beecher the floating Bethel carried on its missionary work until 21 January 1857 when, during the Second Opium War, the position of a western missionary in Whampoa became untenable and he and his wife left for Hong Kong. Although a contemporary report claimed that Chinese forces had captured the Bethel, Beecher attested it was sunk by gunfire after he and Mrs Beecher had left for Hong Kong.23 With the Beechers’ mission relocated to Hong Kong, a local shipyard built a new floating Bethel to replace the lost vessel. It is said to have stayed in Victoria Harbour, though we do not know where it was moored, until it returned to Whampoa in 1860 or, according to other reports, the winter of 1861. At least, that is one story.24 In support of this view of things is a very clear affirmation of the existence of a floating Bethel in Hong Kong in 1859. This appears in The Hong Kong Directory with List of Foreign Residents in China for that year. Under the listings for “Hospitals and receiving ships at Hong Kong” is listed “Seamen’s Chapel”. The personnel of this beacon of hope are listed as Reverend Jas Beecher, Dr G. Brice, and C. Brunstedt.25 Backing up that version of events and what is evidently Beecher family and American Seamen’s Friend Society lore, there is a naïve watercolour of the new Bethel, that from topographical clues would seem to be in Victoria Harbour.26 Certainly the hills in the left background, and the trading junk and auxiliary steam vessel in the right background could suggest Victoria Harbour, although it is just as probably a generic Chinese coastal hill. And yet despite what would appear to be the evidence, what

01_Strong to Save.indd 8

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

From Whampoa

to

Hong Kong

9

happened may have been quite different. For a story appeared in The China Mail on 15 March 1862 that casts considerable doubt on anecdote, directory, and image:27

It may perhaps be in the recollection of our readers that the Floating Bethel at Whampoa was destroyed by the Chinese soldiers in January 1857. […]

The claim upon the Chinese government for its destruction has recently been paid in full, and the Trustees of the Fund have purchased a hulk at

Whampoa, which has been fitted up in a suitable manner for holding divine

service, with adjoining rooms for the accommodation of the resident

Chaplain. […] The Trustees have also engaged the services of the Reverend J. Griffith Schilling, one of the American missionaries, who will live on board,

and take temporary charge of the Bethel in connection with his labours among the Chinese.

How do we explain this? The probability is that both accounts may be true. There may have been a Hong Kong-built floating Bethel that proved either short-lived or inadequate. One way or another, however, what this episode offers us is the first concrete, if ambiguous evidence of missionary activity exclusively for seafarers in Hong Kong.28

*** Meantime in Britain there was a spreading movement to tend the spiritual needs of seafarers that dated back to the founding of the Naval and Military Bible Society in 1779.29 There was not a lot of progress beyond the more or less energetic distribution of Bibles and other religious literature until the first decade of the 19th century and the emergence onto the scene of the “father” of the modern seamen’s mission movement, George Charles “Boatswain” Smith (1782–1863), who wrote letters to Royal Navy sailors he heard were practising Christians and thus established a Naval Correspondence Mission. These early stirrings prepared the way for what was to come next; the founding of the first missions to seamen in general, something that seems to have happened more or less simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic. The first stirrings in America had been felt in New

01_Strong to Save.indd 9

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

10

Strong

to

Save

York in 1816. A year later in Britain the first Bethel flag was hoisted on the brig Zephyr on the Thames; an inspiration for what some have styled a subsequent “Bethel Movement”.30 This was the beginning of a plethora of initiatives amounting to almost one or two every year in Britain and on the European continent, on both sides of the Atlantic and in Asia, from 1816 through until 1849. Most of them sprang from roots in Methodism, Presbyterianism, and other strictly Protestant denominations.31 Smith’s own work carried on until his death in harness, though latterly to one side of a national seamen’s mission following the collapse of his British and Foreign Seamen’s Friend Society in 1845. What took up the running on its founding in 1833 was what Smith saw as a rival institution, the resolutely nondenominational British and Foreign Sailors’ Society. Its approach to its mission work provided a model that was to have a partial echo in what happened in Hong Kong. For on the one hand, it vigorously continued the creation of specific seamen’s churches in ports. On the other, it created a more lay-orientated, albeit Christian principled, locus for the “intellectual and social improvement” of seafarers. It was a “duel fuel” model of wide appeal.32 While all that was going on, the Anglican Church was, if slowly, also moving into the field.33 Its first efforts had borne fruit with the founding of the Liverpool Mariners’ Church Society in 1825. But the Anglican Church was the United Kingdom’s established church with, amongst its hierarchy, a rather top-lofty attitude to “low church”, potentially radical evangelism. This meant a more coordinated, nationwide approach to maritime mission was not taken. Much the same was still the case a decade or so later when, in 1835, the Reverend John Ashley began his pioneering work in Bristol, visiting sailors aboard their ships. Two years later he founded the Bristol Channel Mission following guidance from the archbishop of Canterbury, and in 1841 he had the cutter Eirene built specifically for this purpose. With that move, John Ashley had begun what is felt by

01_Strong to Save.indd 10

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

From Whampoa

to

Hong Kong

11

many to be a defining characteristic of what became the Missions to Seamen some 15 years later: the ship visit.34 That is, the taking of the mission directly to the seamen on their ships afloat where they may be stuck, unable to come to a church or sailors’ home ashore. Due to ill health and faltering financial support, Ashley’s mission ceased in 1850. However Ashley’s influence had been great and within five years the Bristol Missions to Seamen was not only up and running, but was expanding its reach to the English Channel. Under the energetic leadership of William Kingston a national seamen’s mission organization was rapidly forged. On 11 April 1856, the first all-embracing Anglican seamen’s mission organization, The Mission to Seamen Afloat, at Home and Abroad was founded.35 With that work done, Kingston resigned,36 by which time he had recruited a full-time secretary, Reverend Theodore Augustus Walrond (c.1814–73) who, supported by a strongly Royal Naval committee, set about turning the promise of a coordinated, national mission to seamen into a fact.37 The key to the nature of the new body is to be found in that first, prolix version of the Mission’s name — a mission to seamen afloat. Although as Kverndal reminds us, the Missions to Seamen was neither the first nor the only organization to stress the ship visit, it is this aspect of the organization’s work that retains its importance to this day.38 In 1858, at the behest of Kingston, when the new London society finally merged with its Bristol-based predecessor, the earlier organization’s name was adopted as “shorter, more free and open…”,39 and three years later adopted the flying angel flag and symbol.40 Although to begin with the Missions to Seamen’s efforts were mostly in British home waters, it soon stretched its wings. Chaplaincies overseas tended to follow where Bethel union societies had been established.41 That many of these had been in ports of the seemingly ever-widening British Empire left it open whether the nondenominational British and Foreign Sailors’ Society (BFSS) or the Missions to Seamen would gain a foothold in Hong Kong. Exactly why the former organization did not establish itself in Hong Kong instead

01_Strong to Save.indd 11

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

12

Strong

to

Save

of its rival is not clear. The most likely explanation is probably that the non-Anglican BFSS had no patrons in early Hong Kong’s commercial, ecclesiastical-cum-missionary, or government leadership. But whatever the reason, it was the Missions to Seamen that was to take the lead in mission work to seafarers in Hong Kong as of 1885.

*** The reasons for Britain and Europe being the early locus of missionary effort are not hard to seek. A brief description of the most prominent of them will help establish what orientated mission work amongst seafarers in this formative period, what remained the key foci at the time the Mission to Seafarers sent its first chaplain to Hong Kong, and what remained a permanent but vital subtext to maritime mission work thereafter. All will help us understand the trajectory that the work of the Mission to Seafarers followed in Hong Kong in the subsequent decades. Kverndal’s helpful discussion neatly breaks the broader issue into a number of salient elements of the mid 19th century western sailor’s lot that excited the compassion and interest of those concerned with his material and spiritual welfare. He points out that they lacked any means of self-improvement through education or recreation either when aboard ship and off watch or when their ship was in port. There was therefore a need for the provision of libraries and reading rooms to provide beneficial and “healthy” occupation for sailors whether ashore or afloat. There should be efforts to establish formalized seamen’s educational institutions to improve literacy and numeracy, as well as professional knowledge and skills. There should be welfare initiatives to care for distressed and injured seamen, or for those otherwise down on their luck as well as for any dependents they may have, or may have left in need. And there should be much effort aimed at offering the seafarer ashore in port resorts other than “prostitution, intemperance, profanity, sabbath breaking” for his entertainment. From this sprang various initiatives we shall see recurring in the story of Hong Kong’s mission.

01_Strong to Save.indd 12

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

From Whampoa

to

Hong Kong

13

In the western context there were also great efforts made to ameliorate the often-shocking systems of recruitment and service — if they can properly be so described — that prevailed. These included the notorious practice of “crimping”,42 but also touched on the conditions of life afloat — especially the extraordinary brutality of much shipboard discipline — and the lack of legal protection the sailor enjoyed. As much to the point, It is the only form of service stipulated to be rendered by a free man of full age, known to the common law, in which the employer, by his own act, can

directly inflict a punishment on the employed, for neglect of duty or breach of obligation.43

The results in Britain were two kinds of institution with a more-orless official third running in harness. On the one hand, there was the more or less secular, or at least lay, sailors’ home that, even if run with “Christian discipline”,44 was not itself a religious institution, though one might be attached or nearby. On the other was the mariners’ (or seamen’s) church, afloat or ashore; a specifically targeted religious institution where the seaman of the (usually narrowly denominationally identified) Christian faith could worship or, if he did not belong to a church, could find religious instruction. Somewhat to one side, and initially a private enterprise endeavour that was first begun in the Scottish port of Leith, was a Seamen’s Register Office, at which a sailor could register his particulars, and to which a ship’s master or a shipowner could turn when looking for crew. This in turn was connected to a growing government involvement in the organization and regulation of shipping in British and British colonial waters emanating from the increasingly important work of the Board of Trade.45 The resulting missionary effort, precisely because in contemporary eyes it rested indivisibly in a broadly religious concern for spiritual enlightenment and nourishment conjoined to secular betterment (the one begat the other begat the one), inhered in it an essential tension

01_Strong to Save.indd 13

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

14

Strong

to

Save

that we shall see being played out, sometimes prominent, sometimes dormant, in the story of the Mission to Seafarers in Hong Kong.

01_Strong to Save.indd 14

6/7/2017 6:27 PM

2

TheView from the Harbour Master’s Office

o far the main actors in our Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta story have been church and lay charitable organizations concerned with the material and above all spiritual welfare of the seafarer. But such people and organizations live in a particular society with its specific governmental system, public policies, and resulting legislation: in the case of the institutions that are our concern from this point forward, Hong Kong. It follows that, just as understanding the world of a foreign enclave in Whampoa/Guangzhou trying to cope with western seafarers’ problems is an essential foundation for understanding what developed later in Hong Kong, to fully understand the chequered histories of Hong Kong’s main maritime welfare organizations that then emerged, we need to take on board the new and raw British colonial government context and its polyglot maritime society within which the later secular and religious seafarers’ welfare organizations were founded, developed, and met with the problems that they did. Before either the Sailors’ Home or the Missions to Seamen appeared on the scene, the Hong Kong Government quite swiftly adopted an approach to the welfare of seafarers that was and remained largely “hands off” and reactive. Consonant with Hong Kong’s founding principle that it was a free port,1 the authorities left market forces

02_Strong to Save.indd 15

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

16

Strong

to

Save

to satisfy market demands, stepping in only where a clear need for regulation or prohibition could be shown. To see how this worked out regarding seafarers’ welfare will help us get into perspective a number of things characteristic of Hong Kong’s early maritime welfare story. There is the virtually complete neglect of Asian seafarers until the mid 20th century by the two organizations that are this book’s main focus. And there are the constant financial problems of both bodies, as they seemingly failed ever to appeal to sufficient seafarers to ensure that they could pay their way, or to either the shipping industry or government to attract adequate funding. And there is, finally, the comparatively slight and always fluctuating salience of both the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s Institute in the world of government policy. *** This part of the story starts once the embryo British administration had more or less settled down and begun to deal with the nitty-gritty of the maritime world of the new port city over which it held sway. Part of this was typical colonial paternalism mixed with something that would characterize the government of Hong Kong for a century and a half to come: a desire to keep government expenditure and responsibilities to the minimum and at best, a distant condescension towards and at worst, a wholesale neglect of those who were not westerners. The colonial paternalism involved dealing with non-Chinese Asian seafarers, who formed a large part of the crew of ships. Like most merchant seamen these sailors, “lascars” in the argot and by far and away mostly from the Indian subcontinent, from time to time found themselves cast ashore because, although Asiatic Articles, as their shipping agreements were called, were supposed to ensure voyages returned them to their port of origin, these were ill-policed and of equivocal legal standing.2 If, for whatever reason, they found themselves ashore in Hong Kong, they then had to find somewhere to stay while they found another ship. Above all they stood in need

02_Strong to Save.indd 16

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

The View

from the

Harbour Master’s Office

17

of some means to expedite their search for a new berth, usually as a group rather than as individuals. The established system providing this service, called the ghaut serang, had started life in British India, though on extremely old roots,3 had spread all over Southeast Asia, and been imported to Macao in 1840.4 Its first appearance in Hong Kong would appear to have been very shortly after the British occupation in 1841. It is important to realize that tucked in alongside this separate seamen’s shoreside management system, resting as it did on regulations made by the East India Company,5 was a quite different set of British domestic laws governing ships’ crew as this related to western shipping. This explicitly discriminatory approach remained the basis of British maritime law as it related to crewing until 1963.6 Within Hong Kong, as in the wider maritime world, there was an unresolved definitional issue over exactly who was and who wasn’t a lascar. Strictly it was supposed, as indicated by the title of the British committee charged with looking into the issue, that there was a difference between “lascars” and “other Asian seamen”. However, both in practice and in some respects in law, lascar was a portmanteau word that embraced all Asian (though interestingly not African or Caribbean) seamen. So looked at one way, a lascar was by definition not Chinese and therefore the introduced Hong Kong ghaut serang system could not and should not apply to or be used by Chinese seamen. But looked at another way, when we contrast lascar (i.e. Asiatic) seamen with European seamen for the purposes of ships’ articles, then Chinese seafarers, along with Malays and Manila men (as Filipinos were called in the mid 19th century), are lumped into the lascar category. This muddle was to have interesting consequences for the market provision and regulation of shoreside boarding facilities for seamen in Hong Kong. Literally translated ghaut serang means “quay(side) boatswain” and was also used as shorthand for the seamen’s boarding house he operated.7 In its various forms this was derived from the common

02_Strong to Save.indd 17

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

18

Strong

to

Save

practice in much traditional seafaring whereby a senior shoreside middleman (the ghaut serang who lived ashore and did not go to sea) or senior crew member in a given ship (the serang — boatswain in English, and equivalent term in other languages), or the ghaut serang with the shipboard serang as his gang boss, was responsible for recruiting the crew of a small ship, or of a department of a larger ship, usually from his own village, region, or network. The serang, either as the ghaut serang’s gang boss or on his own recognizances, was then responsible both for protecting “his” gang aboard, and in representations on their behalf to the agent or the ship’s captain, as well as for the lascar gang’s conduct aboard and for tracking them down if they deserted or otherwise defalcated. For these services he usually took a cut of his gang’s wages but in return — though not always — the ghaut serang provided shelter for members of “his” lascars between ships.8 Although frequently compared to crimping,9 provided it was properly regulated and not fixed by either unscrupulous ghaut serangs or by shipping interests, in principle the system could be both a costefficient and a culturally sensitive way of dealing with seamen from different cultural backgrounds when ashore between ships, especially in ports far from home. Such an approach might especially apply with seafaring peoples who, like the lascars from India or, closer to home, China’s myriad of seafarers, were more rigidly divided subculturally by caste, diet, local affiliations, dialect, or language. A set of arrangements sympathetic to such a mixed maritime world would enable such seafarers to find a base ashore that was aligned with their culturally specific needs, thereby providing for them if not exactly a home from home, at least a less alien and anonymous refuge than one that, in seeking to be all things to all men, inevitably ended up either imposing a dominant set of practices, or being a home only to the deracinated. It would also give them the means to find a crew position in a gang with fellow crew from the same part of the world, familiar food, and so on.

02_Strong to Save.indd 18

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

The View

from the

Harbour Master’s Office

19

Whether this was a fully reasoned starting point for what happened in Hong Kong cannot be disinterred from the record. More probable is that the few personnel of the early administration, who had many other issues on their minds, were initially inclined to let the waterfront look after itself. Certainly the trajectory of legislation over the first near half century would suggest that the waterfront came up with its answers, and usually somewhat later as a result of some prompting or other, the government then provided a set of regulations to try to ensure that seafarers were not victims of the sort of outrages that had inspired the mission movement in the western world. We can therefore see, by interpreting successive legislation starting with the ghaut serang looking after lascars, how Hong Kong’s waterfront and government between them created a system for caring for the material welfare of seafarers that was in place and, at least in government eyes, working satisfactorily a decade or more before the Hong Kong Sailors’ Home was founded. Hong Kong’s first ghaut serang was established as a private initiative but it is unclear exactly when. Within four years, the government had decided to bring the ghaut serang within its regulatory remit. We should note in passing that provision for a ghaut serang in Hong Kong was only reluctantly made. Contemporary concerns in the western world about crimping saw the ghaut serang system as simply a variant on the theme and not to be encouraged. However, in the absence of an alternative, a properly regulated ghaut serang was seen as the least bad option.10 The Ghaut Serang and Lascars Ordinance was passed in order, as the ordinance put it, “that lascars resorting to the said Colony (of Hong Kong) should have, according to usage, the aid and superintendence of a ghaut serang.” It provided for licensing the ghaut serang, for him running one or more boarding houses, for the supervision of his fees for board, lodging, and shipping services (i.e. putting gangs together for ships’ captains), for the registration of all lascar residents’ names, for the harbour master’s supervision of shipping agreements and for

02_Strong to Save.indd 19

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

20

Strong

to

Save

a scale of fines for infringements. Most important for what followed, perhaps through loose wording, the boarding houses permitted by section 2 were for “any lascar, or other seaman”. At this stage therefore the boarding houses, which would presumably increase as demand grew, were able to service seafarers of any ethnicity in need.11 That loophole was rapidly closed, an amendment to the ordinance in 1846 specifying that the word “lascar” referred to all Asian seamen except Chinese.12 By 1848 four names are associated with the provision of ghaut serang services in lascar boarding houses. The ghaut serang proper was Shaikh Moosden whose lodging house was on Queen’s Road and named Shaikh Moosden’s.13 Subordinate to him at this stage, in a relationship that is nowhere spelled out, were three deputy ghaut serangs with lodging houses known as Mahomet Arab’s (we know Mahomet Arab was present when the British flag was raised on Possession Point in 1841) along with Hassan’s and Cawdor’s.14 Mahomet Arab was one of the early Muslim settlers in the Upper Bazaar and is later identified as a licensed ghaut serang, so there are circumstantial grounds for supposing him to be amongst the earliest, if not himself the earliest provider of such a service.15 In the same year, however, the earlier ghaut serang monopoly was modified to allow for two or more ghaut serangs, so evidently an earlier relationship of subordination shifted during 1848 to one of potential competition.16 At the same time we also have intelligence of other private sector provision. In Tarrant’s Hong Kong Almanack & Directory for 1848, four people are listed as being “Licensed shippers of Manila Seamen”. From their names, Mariano Chavez, Pedro Ignacio, Leonardo Golardo, and the slightly less obvious Pedro Matthews, all would probably have come from the Philippines. And in the same volume are listed five “European Seamen’s Boarding Houses”. Three, on Queen’s Road, were run by John Wilson, William L. Washington, and John Brown. William Kelburne’s was in the Circular Buildings on the same road. Not far away in the Lower Bazaar was William Griffith’s lodging house.17

02_Strong to Save.indd 20

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

The View

from the

Harbour Master’s Office

21

What caused the next move by government had nothing to do with the ghaut serang system per se, but more with Hong Kong’s rather free-wheeling waterfront and the very rough world of mid 19th century shipping.18 By the early 1850s an embarrassing problem Hong Kong’s authorities were facing was desertion. This was especially problematic with non-British ships — often run with even less regard to seamen’s welfare and worse paid — the crews of which would jump ship, hoping to sign on to a better ship, try their luck at some other, better paid and easier job,19 or use Hong Kong as a springboard for emigration to pastures new. The result was pressure from foreign consuls in Hong Kong, especially the French,20 for the government to do something about the problem. In conformity with the pattern we have observed, the first effort was made in 1850 with the Desertion of Seamen Ordinance,21 which narrowly focussed on the problem of seamen from foreign vessels jumping ship and trying to sign on to some other ship or hide ashore. The Desertion of Seamen Ordinance of 1852 was a very different beast. The new ordinance set out a comprehensive system to keep track of merchant seamen when ashore. One of the means of doing this was to require all seamen to carry either signed tickets of leave or proper certificates of discharge when ashore, and to make it obligatory for these documents to be processed by the harbour master and, where applicable, the relevant foreign consul.22 However, the key to the whole system was to confine sailors, when ashore on other than business or a short few hours leave, to specific places so that they could be kept track of. To that end section 6 of the ordinance gave legal status to an entity we have seen already existed, the seamen’s boarding house. The new legislation specified the basic standards that had to be met amongst which included the provision that no boarding house could sell alcohol and further, must be separated from any establishment that did “by at least one intervening house on either side of it.”

02_Strong to Save.indd 21

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

22

Strong

to

Save

With the exceptions of seamen setting up homes, and ships’ masters and mates, who were permitted to lodge elsewhere, all seamen staying ashore, whether on shore leave or between ships, were obliged to stay in a seamen’s boarding house. That “all” was what was intended is shewn by the requirement that all the rules for the operation of boarding houses and the scale of charges, which had been decided by the harbour master, had to be displayed in each boarding house “in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindostanee, and Chinese”.23 At this point, with the formal removal of recognition of the ghaut serang system from law, the ambiguities of “lascar” were left to ships’ articles and as far as shoreside provision was concerned, a seaman was a seaman. Any separation into subsets was left to the discretion of individual licensees and market demand. Only people licensed to keep such houses were permitted to take in seafarers and strict duties were laid on them to ensure they kept a full register and communicated the names of all residents daily to the harbour master. He in turn was given broad supervisory functions to ensure that licensees toed the line. Finally, all the provisions of the Desertions Ordinance were added. The resulting law sought to make sure that the lives of seafarers within the confines of Victoria Harbour were comprehensively governed, both in terms of ensuring that known problems were addressed and that the solutions were not only workable, but in the process also did something towards protecting the seafarer from known shoreside abuses associated with the perils of the waterfront — hence the provisions about alcohol. That grog shops and seamen’s boarding houses were huggermugger is revealed in William Tarrant’s Almanack.24 Shortly after his listing of the various seamen’s lodgings, he lists the taverns and inns. There were 14 listed in 1848, dwindling to 12 in 1850. The names of many of them give away rather vividly who the clientele was expected to be: Britannia Tavern, Crown and Anchor Tavern, Neptune Tavern, Pilot Boat Inn, King William Tavern, Nemesis Tavern, and Ship Tavern.25 All 14 were on Queen’s Road in 1848 and all 12 in 1850,

02_Strong to Save.indd 22

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

The View

from the

Harbour Master’s Office

23

exactly where all of the seamen’s boarding houses were, whether for lascars or Europeans. The next move, the first sign of which enters the records on 24 January 1855, seemed to be intended to eradicate the ghaut serang or equivalent gang recruitment systems. There is no explanation of what prompted this, though the general anti-crimping sentiment and the western view that traditional Asian seafarer recruitment systems were indistinguishable from crimps must have played a part. Nor is it clear when discussions were begun or by whom. But on that day W.T. Mercer, the colonial secretary, published a government notification that seamen can and should sign on with ships only at the Harbour Master’s Office. The punch came in the last sentence, “…the Harbour Master has received directions to disallow all Fees to Shipping Agents, in whatever form that they may appear, on accounts between Boarding House Keepers and Seamen.”26 That must have caused a furore and one surmises proved unworkable, or at least, perhaps, to have led to disputes and threats of legal action. Such an outcome would explain why in mid-July 1856 a draft Ordinance for Seamen was published in the Hong Kong Government Gazette. It was evidently aimed at some sort of compromise — yes, there could be shipping agents but no, they could not be conducted as with traditional ghaut serangs or equivalents. A slightly revised version of the proposed ordinance was published two weeks later on 31 July, but that is where it seems to have stopped. There is no record of the ordinance ever having been presented in the Legislative Council for a first or subsequent reading. It exists in no list of the laws of Hong Kong. Clearly it died a death, though whether done for by the shipping interest, or the ghaut serangs and those running boarding houses for Chinese seamen, or some combination is unknown. There is no reliable data on the number of boarding houses that had been established under the ghaut serang system but by 1856, under the system established in 1852, thanks to the one and only published

02_Strong to Save.indd 23

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

24

Strong

to

Save

list still extant, we do know there were 16 licensed seamen’s boarding houses. They had capacity for 592 seafarers. The average boarding house was able to offer a room or cabin to 37, with the smallest housing 20 and the largest 60. The proprietors ran the gamut, though one is inevitably guessing from names as to their nationality. From them there would appear to have been three houses run by British, American or possibly German or Scandinavian licensees (Messrs Frank, Mitchell, and Sage), eight by either Portuguese, Italian, Filipino or Spanish licensees (Messrs Chavez, M Flores, V Flores, Lopez, Richi, Suicar, Terribio, and Ribera), four from the sub-continent, Esmail, E Ali, M Agab (probably an misspelling for the original Mahomet Arab, which was almost certainly not his real name) and one by a Chinese licensee, Awang.27

*** There was one further regulatory change introduced in 1857, a year that placed a high premium on operational fitness in the British military. This was because the British forces were overstretched. The demanding Crimean War with its 21,097 deaths from incompetent leadership and maladministration had only been over a year. The Indian or Great Rebellion (once known as the Indian Mutiny) was in full spate.28 And following the Arrow Incident and the choleric reaction of the British acting consul in Guangzhou, Harry Parkes, backed by an opportunist governor of Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, the Second Opium (Anglo-Chinese) War was in a brief lull before major action would begin the November. Disease had always been a major problem for the British forces in Hong Kong. What made things worse was that there was little for the garrison to do when off duty except drink and fornicate, and one consequence of the latter was the rapid spread and high prevalence of venereal diseases. The main reason for this was simple. In its early decades Hong Kong had a markedly imbalanced demographic especially in the Chinese community. Women were few in relation to

02_Strong to Save.indd 24

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

The View

from the

Harbour Master’s Office

25

the number of men, and it followed that the demand for prostitution outweighed the sources of supply. By 1857 this had begun to make a signal impact on the fitness for duty of the garrison. Given that at the peak of the Second Opium War the number of British military personnel passing through Hong Kong would reach 14,000, if venereal disease amongst the available women were not checked, and if the sources of infection of the women were not controlled, British military potency would be diminished. One statistic shows that in 1857 34.7% of the garrison was infected.29 Not surprisingly, it was the military leadership in Hong Kong that brought pressure to bear on the government to take action part of which, inevitably, would be aimed at seafarers since they were a transient population, who visited other ports where infection was rife, so were the obvious vectors of new infection.30 The result was the passing of an Ordinance for Checking the Spread of Venereal Diseases on 24 November 1857.31 Section 17 required licensees of seamen’s boarding houses to furnish to the Harbour Master, once in every week, a list of seamen then

resident in his house, and shall report in such list as to the state of health of each seamen so far as he may be able to ascertain the same.

Obviously this was something of a weak reed. Unless a seaman has entered the secondary stage of syphilis, which only comes four to ten weeks after infection, or if he had gonorrhoea, there would be next to no visible signs in a fully clothed man. In any case, the generally low levels of personal hygiene and relatively high levels of cutaneous diseases in the tropics would mean rashes and pustules were not uncommon. So the licensee’s chances of accurately identifying someone who was suffering from venereal disease were not high. The government’s response to that problem was to make the boarding house keeper financially liable for his errors. The test of the licensee was that the colonial surgeon and his staff were to judge whether “the disease with which (the seaman) maybe affected is of

02_Strong to Save.indd 25

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

26

Strong

to

Save

such a nature as that the keeper of the boarding house could, with ordinary and reasonable observation, have ascertained its existence.” If that judgment went against him, it was assumed that he had either deliberately failed to report, or deliberately covered up the case. He was then liable to pay the costs of curing the seaman in the Lock Hospital.32 Section 19 empowered the master of any ship taking on a new seaman to require the man to be medically examined for infection. If he was clear, then the colonial surgeon issued a certificate to that effect, the 50-cent cost of which had to be paid for by the ship’s master or the ship’s agent. If the sailor was infected, he had to pay the costs incurred and then go to the Lock Hospital. Once he had been cured a similar certificate would be issued to him, which would cost him another 50 cents. This was a curiously obtuse provision that would almost certainly have encouraged ships’ masters to look the other way. In a very Hong Kong fashion, with fines and fees paid by seafarers, ship’s masters, boarding house licensees, brothel keepers, and prostitutes, the aim was to try to get solving the problem of venereal disease as much as possible to pay for itself. *** So as 1857 became 1858 Hong Kong had 16 or so seamen’s boarding houses that could accommodate nearly 600 sailors. Eleven of them were on Lascar Row, three on Queen’s Road, one on Queen’s Road West, and one on Hollywood Road. All were governed by fairly comprehensive regulations. Although we have no idea how well these were enforced, common sense suggests that blatant disregard will have invited adverse attention from the authorities. Perhaps more to the point, given that the harbour master set the charges, any licensee who gave significantly poor value for money would fail to attract clientele and would probably be reported to the harbour master anyway.

02_Strong to Save.indd 26

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

The View

from the

Harbour Master’s Office

27

Working out numbers beyond the one concrete statement we have in 1856 is impressionistic and derived from the annual statements of revenue and expenditure published in the Blue Book and the known licence fees of $24–25 a year. The figures are occasionally a bit odd, but allowing for that, it would seem that numbers of seamen’s boarding houses rose from 1 in 1852 until a peak of about 25 in 1861 and 1862, before falling to 12 in 1874 and then to a steady 6–8 until the mid 1890s, at which point the data becomes so incoherent it is hard to come up with even a ballpark number. What we don’t know is whether their sizes stayed the same or whether as their number decreased, the available bed spaces increased, so keeping overall provision more or less constant at between 600 and 800 beds.33 This is the state of affairs that reigned when the first prompting is recorded for the creation of a sailors’ home in Hong Kong on the lines of similar institutions in London and New York, among other leading ports. From the perspective of Hong Kong’s decision makers, it probably seemed that the combination of government regulation and market provision had resulted in a satisfactory amount of reasonable quality accommodation for seafarers that protected them from crimping, from the ravages of venereal disease, and of booze on the premises. There was no provision for religious observance, but by the late 1850s there were two cathedrals and a number of churches covering most normal Christian denominations, a mosque for Moslem lascars, and for Chinese seafarers, insofar as anyone in authority was paying much attention to them, there were temples galore. This had all been managed at no cost to public revenue or, where costs were incurred, with systems in place aimed at recovering what could be recovered to help to defray them. And yet, despite this fairly ordered and satisfactory view from the Harbour Master’s Office in the late 1850s, to those looking at maritime Hong Kong from elsewhere on the colony’s waterfront, far from there being a satisfactory provision for the material and spiritual welfare

02_Strong to Save.indd 27

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

28

Strong

to

Save

of seafarers, the situation was in dire need of remedial action. The tension between those two views is what we shall see being played out in the chapters to come.

02_Strong to Save.indd 28

6/7/2017 6:28 PM

3

A Snug Harbour in West Point1

ollowing James Matheson’s lead with the Whampoa Seamen’s Friend Society in 1839, one of the moving forces behind the financing of the Canton floating Bethel had been Joseph Jardine of Jardine, Matheson and Co. We learn from its founding in 1850 that Joseph Jardine had been nominated as one of the board of trustees of the venture along with leading Canton merchants Paul Siemen Forbes, H.G. Lamson, John Dent, R.P. Dana, and T.W.L. MacKean.2 This early interest in the welfare of seafarers in China heralded the lead Jardine, Matheson and Co. was to take in seamen’s welfare in Hong Kong. Little seems to have happened on the spiritual front after Joseph Jardine’s support for the floating Bethel and his board of trustees’ membership. The probable reason for this is to be found in the utterly condemnatory attitude towards the denizens of the Hong Kong waterfront of the 1840s that one finds in so many commentaries. Secular observers, as John M. Carroll notes, seemed unanimous in their views that both average European and Chinese members of the population were rogues unhung. The Canton authorities were thought to be exporting to Hong Kong “every thief, pirate and idle or worthless vagabond.” While the European population were characterized as “outlaws, deserters, reckless adventurers and speculators”, “scapegoats and scoundrels from the purlieus of London, creatures that only missed Botany Bay by good fortune.”3 Indeed, so reprobate were the inhabitants that the Reverend George Smith, the man who

03_Strong to Save.indd 29

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

30

Strong

to

Save

was later to become the first bishop of Hong Kong, declared Hong Kong quite unsuitable for a Christian mission. Perhaps not surprisingly, support for seafarers’ corporeal concerns was thus the first collective, rather than private business move in caring for western seamen in British Hong Kong’s early days. For Europeans early Hong Kong was an unhealthy place, little helped by the sanitary practices of the day, such as they were. Between May and October 1843, fever — mainly malaria — killed 24% of army and navy personnel and 10% of European civilians.4 Eitel mentions that in that same “dreadful year” the average member of the garrison was in hospital, sick, five times in the course of the year.5 In 1845 53.6% of the garrison's strength had either died or were on the sick list.6 By 1850 things had not much improved. Out of the 59th Regiment’s strength of 568 on the muster roll, 136 men died, mostly from fever.7 And so the dreadful toll ran on through the following decade. It can be assumed that merchant sailors were not spared and for ship owners, given a general shortage of available seamen, caring for the health of ships’ companies was not only morally desirable but commercially prudent. On 10 August 1843, a seamen’s hospital — sometimes, though erroneously, referred to as Victoria Seamen’s Hospital8 — was built above the Wan Chai waterfront more or less where today’s Ruttonjee Hospital stands. In those days Wan Chai Road, which ran along the bottom of the hill, was the waterfront and there was a small jetty there at which sick sailors were landed.9 Although $6,000 had been raised by public subscription, the main financial support for this came from Jardine, Matheson and Co., led initially by David Jardine, taipan of the company from 1846 to 1856.10 Jardines remained the chief financial supporter of the hospital until its finances became increasingly burdensome and it was clear that some other solution was needed. The result was that in 1873 it was taken over by the Royal Navy. That the Seamen’s Hospital was a hospital in demand and in a fairly rough part of a rough town is evident from a series of reports in The

03_Strong to Save.indd 30

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

31

Friend of China in the months immediately after it was opened. An early requirement was to establish pretty clearly who was and who was not eligible for admission. Within a week of the hospital’s opening it was necessary to promulgate new rules because, evidently, seamen without a ship, claiming the recently legislated status of “distressed British seamen” were turning up and demanding treatment.11 This mattered because the hospital did not provide free treatment. As the regulations pointed out, serving seamen could only be admitted to the hospital on the recommendation of the harbour master and with a guarantee of payment from their ship’s captain. Any “distressed British seaman” could also gain treatment, the payment being legally the obligation of the Hong Kong marine authorities. The new rule closed off a way of gaining treatment without a ship’s master, or owner, or the seaman himself having to pay up. We also learn from the same source that at the Victoria Hospital the majority of cases were what one might style the sailor’s “self-inflicted wounds” since in the first report from that hospital some 40% of those treated were treated for venereal disease, which might explain the temptation to seek free treatment at the Seamen’s Hospital.12 It was the refocussing of that Jardine concern for seamen’s welfare towards more practical measures, and the definitive move of the company’s headquarters from Macao to Hong Kong in 1844 that helped pave the way for the next step in the private but collective concern for seamen’s welfare ashore.13 Nothing happened particularly quickly. That was almost certainly because between the first and second opium wars shipping in Hong Kong, bar the coming and going of opium clippers and the Royal Navy, was somewhat in the doldrums until the late 1850s.14 However, once the entrepôt trade began, especially the sudden rise in passenger traffic, with first the coolie trade and then the emigrant trade, particularly following the passage of the British Chinese Passengers’ Act of 1855 and the consequent Hong Kong Chinese Passenger Ships Ordinance in 1859,15 the port began to develop rapidly.16 With the rapid increase in numbers of

03_Strong to Save.indd 31

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

32

Strong

to

Save

ships and ships’ crews and therefore of seamen ashore between voyages or on liberty the same issues that had vexed those who cared for the welfare of seamen in Britain began to make themselves felt in Hong Kong and voices increased their calls for a sailors’ home. Throughout the years that follow therefore, as first a sailors’ home, then various answers for destitute seafarers, and finally a mission to seamen arrive in Hong Kong, a congeries of other market solutions to the same demand also flourished and adapted to the changing world of shipping. These were accompanied, as with the Ghaut Serang and Lascars Ordinance of 1845, by a regular trickle of legislation and regulations, amendments and revised regulations aimed at ensuring that the seafarers, on whose work, availability and health the colony’s trade and communications depended, were not ruthlessly ripped off, could be looked to for a reliable supply of ship’s crew, and had access to care when sick. The aim, though usually unstated, was to try to prevent Hong Kong’s waterfront descending to the worst excesses of the crimps in other major ports like London, New York, Liverpool, and San Francisco. But if the government was happy with the idea of market provision followed by regulation if the market looked like misbehaving, not all were as sanguine. To them, although they were circumspect about saying so, the risk was always that the market was Mammon, and whatever it might do for the seafarer’s physical welfare, it would do nothing for him morally or spiritually. Even before the Second Opium War’s drums had ceased sounding and the 1860 Convention of Beijing had ratified the Treaty of Tientsin (Tianjin, 1858), calls for a sailors’ home were being made as something evidently different to and better than the existing boarding houses. According to the China Mail, two Hong Kong clergymen, the Reverend James John Irwin and the Reverend William Roberts Beach, had begun canvassing support for a sailors’ home sometime around 1857. But if the general push for a sailors’ home in Hong Kong was a concern for both spiritual and material welfare, contributory at

03_Strong to Save.indd 32

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

33

government level will also have been changes to the way the maritime world was coming to operate. These had been ushered in and were to continue to be driven by a succession of regulatory changes, beginning in the 1834, and culminating 40 years later in the 1876 British Merchant Shipping Acts as reflected, usually the most part of a generation later, in Hong Kong’s equivalents. These in turn had been and would continue to be outcomes of constant pressure from both religious and lay organizations concerned with the welfare of seafarers.17 So in Hong Kong on the government’s side there was a constant interplay, where providing for sailors was concerned, between pressures from their British overlords, problems with local market provision on Hong Kong’s waterfront, and what local ship owners and operators would bear by way of public or private demands on their funds or regulation of their activities. In the western world on both sides of the Atlantic there was mounting concern at the conditions in which seafarers served, the way they were treated aboard by too many ships’ officers, the terms and conditions of their employment and what happened to them when ashore, especially between voyages. This trend to regulate, where the untrammelled market was thought to exploit and consume, not only gave caring for sailors when ashore greater salience, it also, in requiring officers to be certificated and in imposing legal obligations on port authorities with respect to the supervision of maritime labour, could be read to endorse a need for institutions and places orientated specifically to this service. The result in Hong Kong was the institution of the first element of what became Hong Kong’s unique, two-in-one philanthropic, as opposed to commercial, solution to caring for both the spiritual and the material welfare of seamen who are far from home. *** The first concrete evidence we have of more than Irwin and Beach’s reported initiative was an advertisement in the China Mail of 31 January 1861. This announced the holding of a public meeting “for the

03_Strong to Save.indd 33

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

34

Strong

to

Save

purpose of establishing a Sailor’s [sic] Home.” The meeting had been called on 20 January by Reverend W.R. Beach and Mr C. Murray and was to be held in The Hong Kong Club on 2 February.18 That the meeting was a success is shown by the fact that it was very fully reported the week after it had been held as being “attended by the most influential members of the mercantile community, to adopt measures for the establishment of a ‘SAILORS’ HOME’ in the colony — an institution loudly called for.” Irwin opened the meeting with a sensible appeal for the welfare of seamen. He was evidently speaking to the converted. As soon as he had sat down the Honourable Alexander Perceval of Jardine, Matheson and Co. stated that the sum of $20,000 had been placed in his hands by his partners, Messrs Joseph and Robert Jardine, before those gentlemen left the colony, as a donation towards the institution they had now met to establish.

Having announced this stellar start — it would be somewhere between $4.2 million and $56 million today19 — Perceval went on to put the first motion to the meeting: That it is highly desirable to establish in this city an Institution, in which European and American Sailors shall be provided with comfortable board and lodging, and healthy recreation, at a moderate cost; and that such an

Institution is this day established, under the designation of the ‘Hong Kong Sailors’ Home’.

It is a telling formulation, the echoes of the tacit exclusions will reverberate through much of the balance of this story. If that resolution was one that was to echo down the years, the next is still with us in the Mariners’ Club today and, after a brief wobble in the 1920s, part is still enshrined in law. This motion was [sic],20 to vest the property of the Sailor’s Home in four trustees: the resident managing partner of the firm of Messrs Jardine, Matheson and Co., the resident managing partner of Messrs Dent and Co., the resident

03_Strong to Save.indd 34

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

35

managing partner of the firm of Messrs Russell and Co., and the harbour master for the time being. Speaker after speaker backed the idea including the Honourable A. Perceval, Hon. John Dent, Mr C.W. Murray, Mr E.H. Pollard, barrister and notary public, legal adviser, inter alia, to the P&O Steam Navigation Co., Reverend Dr James Legge, Captain A.L. Inglis, the harbour master,21 Henry George Thomsett, commander of HMS Princess Charlotte, the Royal Navy’s receiving ship, imminently to succeed Captain Inglis as harbour master, Mr John Darby Gibb of Gibb, Livingston and Co., Mr R.H. Reddie [sic], Mr Douglas Lapraik founder of the Douglas Steamship Co. and soon to be co-founder of both the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Co., Captain J.B. Caldbeck the recently arrived local superintendent of the P&O Steam Navigation Co. and a Mr MacAndrew. By the meeting’s end four other resolutions had been passed. The first, proposed by John Gibb and seconded by Reverend Dr Legge, established the board of management, which was to consist of the four trustees, eight directors, a secretary and a treasurer of whom three would form a quorum. There was to be a rolling membership with two directors and the secretary to retire each year, though to be eligible for re-election, and an annual public meeting each February at which the audited accounts and a report of the yearly proceedings were to be tabled. The second motion, proposed by Captain Caldbeck, and seconded by Mr MacAndrew nominated the first directors, the secretary and the treasurer. These were to be the Hon. Mr A. Fletcher and Messrs. C.W. Murray, H.G. Thomsett, John D. Gibb, John Heard, W. Walkinshaw, D. Lapraik and R.H. Reddie [sic], the Reverend W.R. Beach as secretary and the Oriental Bank Corporation as the treasurer.22 The motion charged them with “securing a good site, and erecting a suitable building thereon; and likewise, to appoint a Superintendent, and frame regulations.”

03_Strong to Save.indd 35

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

36

Strong

to

Save

The last motions were formalities rather than substantive contributions to the new institution. Douglas Lapraik, seconded by Edward Pollard, proposed that everyone who contributed more than $100 to the Sailors’ Home should thereby become a member of the Home and also have a right to vote at the annual meeting so long as he or she was resident in Hong Kong. And Dr Legge wound up business by proposing that the meeting gave a vote of thanks to Messrs Joseph and Robert Jardine, which elicited “an outburst of applause from all present” at which point “the meeting dissolved.” The energy created by that meeting was evidently considerable, though as we shall see, if it was good for a short burst, there are significant grounds for doubting it was up to the long haul. Just four days later on 6 February a second meeting was held, this one to consider finding the best site for the Sailors’ Home. The report from the meeting shows that in considering a site they were fully alive to the implications of the advent of steam and the rapid development of Victoria Harbour, and recommended a spot “above the Murray Barracks” which had the benefits of affording space, ventilation, ample supply of water, together with good facilities of drainage.23 Furthermore there was also a potential site higher up the hill for a seamen’s hospital.”24 The harbour master added that he had timed the walk between the proposed site and his office and that it was just five minutes. The result was a unanimous agreement on the proposed site and the nomination of John Dent, Henry Thomsett, and Douglas Lapraik “to wait upon His Excellency the Governor, for the purpose of entering into such arrangement as would enable the Trustees to obtain possession of the ground.” Things were not to be such plain sailing, as The China Mail’s summary of the second meeting suspected might be the case, for as it transpired the site chosen “has since been ascertained to be the property of the Board of Ordnance, who, as is well known, are so tenacious of their rights that there is not the least possibility of their

03_Strong to Save.indd 36

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

37

abating a jot, even in the cause of humanity, and for the erection of a ‘Sailors’ Home’.” However an alternative site, “nearly if not quite as suitable, situated near West Point” looked likely to be procured. The next we learn is from an official government document four months later on 13 June 1861. This was a notice of the sale of crown lands in Sai Ying Pun by auction, in which it was mentioned that three of the marine lots there had already been reserved for a sailor’s home on the waterfront.25 Lots 26, 27, and 28, on the corner of what is now Des Voeux Road and Western Street totalled 76,400 sq.ft. (7,097 sq.m.) and had an annual rental value of $732, so they were prime real estate, even if not in the most desirable part of town. We also learn from a later report that the land on which the Sailors’ Home stood attracted no rates, though it will turn out that the later report was rather compressing a less generous governmental story.26 And from a brief history of the institution many years later — in which the identities of the major private donors is given — that government “though declining to subscribe, reduced the Crown rent payable, to a nominal sum.”27 No further mention occurs of the site in Central that Eitel identifies as that of the “Horse Repository’”.28 Nor indeed, once the site had been given, is there much mention of anything else to do with the Sailors’ Home for the next four years. The record is silent on why this might have been so. Eitel states that work began in 1862.29 Site formation would have taken some time since it was obviously extremely stoutly and thoroughly done. For when the dreadful typhoon of 1874 pulverised the Hong Kong Island waterfront, leaving the Civil Hospital in such a state of disrepair it had to be pulled down, there is no mention at all of damage to the waterfront Sailors’ Home, strongly set up and back behind its stout granite block wall.30 But of the laying of a foundation stone there is a remarkable silence. Indeed nothing at all may have happened between 1861 and 1864 because in the Hong Kong Government Gazette on 12 September 1863 there is a note about licensed vehicle and sedan chair stands amongst

03_Strong to Save.indd 37

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

38

Strong

to

Save

which is mentioned one at “Sey-ying-poon by Reserve for Sailor’s Home”, which would at least weakly argue that at that date there was no actual home.31 Photographs of the Sailors’ Home over the next few decades all show that on the pediment surmounting the building’s front and back elevations there was a scroll with the institution’s name, one way or another surrounding a badge with the date “1864” in large numbers. We know that the institution as a legal entity was founded in February 1861. We shall see that it was opened for business in January 1865. So we can only surmise — the hard evidence is so far lacking — that in 1864 someone, we do not know who, formally laid the foundation stone, thus giving the building its birth year.32 It would seem possible that in Eitel’s muddled account can be found signs of what may have occurred. Referring to the period of fundraising he noted,33 “Meanwhile however, public interest slackened and subscriptions ceased flowing in.” Eitel then gets the opening date wrong — he gives 31 January 1863 — but in doing so gives what is probably the vital clue. ... funds were exhausted. The Government refused (14 May 1863) to give a

grant and difficulties multiplied. In autumn of 1864, Mr Robert Jardine gave a further donation of $25,000 in aid of the fund and undertook to carry on the Home at his own expense for three years.

In short, it would seem that when the money ran out in 1863 and in the same year the government refused to help, for a while everything came to a halt until Robert Jardine came to the rescue in 1864. This possibility is supported by the next major story of which we do have firm evidence. This appeared on 19 January 1865, when the governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, formally opened the Home. The problem of money while the Home was being built was specifically mentioned in the first of the opening ceremony speeches. Diplomatically blurring what must have been a very awkward exercise, Mr James Whittall, the new chairman of the trustees, and the

03_Strong to Save.indd 38

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

39

senior managing partner of Jardine, Matheson and Co. said,34

…aided by the grant of a fine site from Her Majesty’s Government, and

supplemented by a further act of almost unexampled generosity on the

part of Mr Robert Jardine, do we now owe the spacious and costly premises in which we have today the honour of receiving your Excellency. These,

however, fall short of the original design, but we hope that in time the intentions of the “Home’s” founders may be fully carried out, and that the comfort of Asiatic as well as European Seamen may be provided for.

So whatever proportion of the $40–42,000 raised that had been devoted to its construction had resulted in a Home that was “spacious and costly”, but that nonetheless “fell short” of an original building capable of accommodating Asiatic seamen too. Here we must infer that there had been further discussion, very likely prodded by government that had led the founding body to expand its vision from British and American seamen alone. However, what the government may have wanted to happen but was not prepared to help to pay for, the available money could not afford, so what Sir Hercules opened was a building for “upwards of one hundred” western seafarers. Asiatics could shift for themselves.35 The opening ceremony was ended with a prayer from Reverend J.J. Irwin before the good and the great toured the building’s “sumptuous” dormitories, sitting rooms, bathrooms, etc. This included Sir Hercules having a go on what becomes close to a Hong Kong Sailors’ Home fixture, the skittle alley. Meanwhile 100 sailors, who had been gathered to share in the opening of the new Home, sat down to a meal, which began with soup that Lady Robinson had pronounced to be good. We get a measure of the funding shortfall from a later speech by a Mr Dennison RN, who appears to have been a senior Royal Naval rating brought in to address the gathered merchant jacks as a fellow sailor.36 Mr Dennison noted that the brothers Jardine had advanced about $45,000 for the construction of the Home. So the shortfall

03_Strong to Save.indd 39

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

40

Strong

to

Save

was 62.5% of the sum purportedly raised in 1861, with the Jardine brothers contributing nearly 70% of the total cost, assuming all the monies so far mentioned had actually been paid in. An alternative and more probable hypothesis is that all the monies promised had not materialized, thus necessitating the further injection of funds by the Jardine brothers. So either Joseph and Robert Jardine contributed about 70% of the total cost or they contributed a great deal more, perhaps as much as 80–90% depending on what proportion of the rest of the promised funds were actually paid in. Raising money for the welfare of sailors had started out as it was going to go on; to depend on the philanthropy of the few, to suffer from the hot air of the many, and to bear with the niggardliness of government. Not that private philanthropy could be looked to for perennial support. For it was mentioned that the Jardines had “…offered to keep the Home going for three years”, but that “if at the end of that time it is not selfsupporting, it will have to be closed.” Mr Dennison had also noted in passing that at the Home “liquor of the best quality was provided at a moderate cost.” So the inclination that we know the clergy had towards advocating temperance and that we have seen was imposed on the seamen’s boarding houses had at this point been trumped by the hard-headed business sense of the folk who provided the money, who knew that a temperance home would have much less chance of being self-supporting. It was an issue that would recur. *** The Home’s initial popularity with seamen meant that in October of 1865 the shipping branch of the Harbour Master's Office moved to an office there. Presumably this also helped the sailors avoid the temptations of Queen’s Road grog shops that had concerned the trustees at the original meeting in 1861. It also much assisted both ships’ masters and seafarers to connect; an outcome noted officially in the Harbour Master’s Report for 1866, reprinted in the Government Gazette, 9 March 1867.37

03_Strong to Save.indd 40

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

41

But its success did not meet with universal approval. In August 1866 a police inspector at the trial of a drunken seaman said that there were “more rows and disturbances at the Sailor’s Home than in all the boarding houses and grog shops in Queen’s Road put together.”38 Regular outbursts of disorder became a perennial problem for the Sailors’ Home with stories in the newspapers running at around one every month or two of fights between drunken seamen that either spilled out into the street, required the steward of the Home to call the police or resulted in one of those involved laying a complaint. Part of this disorderliness can be put down to what seems initially to have been a history of loose, and sometimes almost non-existent management, though there is so little hard data on this that much is conjecture. However there are three bits of evidence that certainly argue that, over its first decade at least, the Sailors’ Home was not a well-run affair. The first comes from a record of what appears to be the only one of the supposedly regular annual general meetings that was reported, on 18 September 1868. The report on the meeting notes, “…when the erection of the buildings was completed the funds subscribed were short of the sum required to meet the expenditure incurred.” It then goes on to confirm that Jardine’s stepped into the breach and that this helping hand was not unconditional. For the sums advanced turn out to have been a loan that had to be repaid. By the date of this 1868 annual meeting, just three years after the Home had opened, $43,240.58 is announced as being “the debt of the institution”. That this debt is pretty much what had been advertised as having been raised to build the Home in the first place is startling. As startling is the reason avowed as to why it seems not to have diminished one whit. “The home when first opened, and until almost recently, was very unfortunate in its superintendents”, the meeting was told. It was then reassured that the new superintendent was all that could be desired.39

03_Strong to Save.indd 41

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

42

Strong

to

Save

From what can be gleaned from the records, Mr Thomsett was painting the lily. Hong Kong jury lists are not infallible, even though the qualification to be a juror was hardly demanding.40 However they are a fairly reliable guide to who was doing what job in the small expatriate community and in the case of the Sailors’ Home give us a fairly complete record from 1865 until 1941.41 What they reveal for the first five years is chaotic. William Punchard, a master mariner, was the first superintendent and appears to have served until 1866.42 In 1867 he left, and was replaced by a steward called David Brown and two clerks, R. Webster and Edward Fisher.43 What happenned at that point is impossible to assess save that in 1868 and 1869 the Sailors’ Home employed no westerner qualified for jury service. Only in 1870 does a Captain Overbury come on the juror’s stage for one brief year, and then ceases to appear on the list in 1871, though Mr Thomsett’s statement at least weakly implies rather longer service. However the jurors’ list unequivocally states that in 1871 and 1872 one Richard Cruce was the steward running the Sailors’ Home.44 He had as his assistants, David Brown (his 1867 predecessor as steward) in both years, William Marsden in 1871, and John Keller in 1872. Once the Home dispensed with a steward in late 1872 or early 1873, presumably as a further economy measure, David Brown and John Keller served on as assistants for a further year before they too left. At that point, 1874, the team of Jacob Fritz Schuster and Alexander Bleecker took over and ran the place as a duumvirate in their first year, and then with Schuster as steward and Bleecker as assistant until 1879.45 How excellent the newly installed Captain Overbury proved to be will emerge below. However, he clearly inherited a system of management that must have been singularly hapless. This is revealed by implication from the statistics with which the 1868 meeting was regaled. Those attending were told that the Home had looked after 3,709 seamen since opening, exclusive of casual visitors and “such as man of war’s men and sailors on leave from their ships.” Given that the

03_Strong to Save.indd 42

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

43

Home had 100 beds, it follows that occupancy had been very low. If one assumes an average stay of three nights, then in the roughly 1,300 nights there had been since the Home had opened, average occupancy had been about 8.6% of the available 130,000 bed/nights. Further evidence of financial troubles is given by a behest placed before the Legislative Council in 1871. A letter was read from James Whittall, Esquire (the managing partner of Jardine, Matheson and Co. at the time and therefore chairman of the trustees of the Sailors’ Home) reporting on behalf of the trustees that, “the Income of the Establishment was insufficient for its maintenance.” He asked that the Home be “relieved of the payment of License Fees and Police and Lighting Rates.” Permission was granted and the Home was refunded $564.46 A third, very much more solid piece of evidence comes from a libel case heard by the Supreme Court, unusually before a special jury, that had been brought by the new Sailors’ Home’s superintendent, Captain Algernon Overbury, who had been brought in to get things shipshape. Captain Overbury had brought his suit against the editor of The Hong Kong Daily Press, Mr W.H. Bell.47 The newspaper had published a piece about the problems at the Home, which was taken by Captain Overbury to defame him by imputing he had enriched himself at the Home’s expense by acting as the middle man in the purchase of the Home’s food and, especially, drink. The story is muddled, but the nub of it is that Captain Overbury was leaving the Home and a replacement superintendent was needed. A Captain Robert Scott, of the P&O ship Travancore, had applied, but there were doubts the Home had enough money to pay Captain Scott.48 The Home had clearly been losing money hand over fist for some time, was in fairly dire financial circumstances and, by implication of the 1868 trustees’ report and a clear summary of the case in the Straits Times and Overland Journal, was no longer being supported by Robert Jardine.49 Accordingly, before any appointment to replace Captain Overbury was made, the trustees had to decide whether they

03_Strong to Save.indd 43

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

44

Strong

to

Save

could afford the £400 a year salary, or whatever lesser sum they could manage, for more than one further year. In their view they would be unlikely to get the services of someone as able as Captain Scott on such a short-term basis and as it turned out, Captain Scott had in fact withdrawn his candidacy. Given the situation The Hong Kong Daily Press therefore stated, But it is strange to find, as the reason given (for not being able to pay a

full salary), that the funds will not allow the payment of a salary of £400

per annum to a Superintendent…while the previous occupant…enjoyed a large annual income. The withdrawal of the privilege hitherto granted to the Superintendent to import articles of food and drink should, if the

calculations usually accepted be correct, add a goodly sum per annum to the Home fund.

What Mr Thomsett had revealed about how this system worked, as principal witness to the Home’s affairs, was remarkable. He agreed that the board of managers had allowed Captain Overbury to act as the Home’s comprador, buying food and drink on his own account and reselling it to the Home at a mark-up equivalent to “what the storekeepers charged.” Under cross-examination Mr Thomsett then gave an example. Captain Overbury bought beer at whatever price he could buy it, the cost of which the board was not interested in learning. The board instead assumed, following its agreement with Captain Overbury, that he had paid $34 a cask. The steward was then charged $50 and the $16 difference “I am satisfied, went into the general funds of the Home.” In short, Captain Overbury increased his salary by whatever margin he could achieve between the buy-in prices for food and drink he had agreed with the Home and what he had in fact paid for it. The Home then made its profit only on the agreed sell-on prices to the steward — at the time of the Overbury case Jacob Fritz Schuster, who was called to give evidence. Similarly, it seems, the steward made his margin on the difference between that sell-on price and what he charged

03_Strong to Save.indd 44

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

45

sailors per meal or per drink. In revealing this interesting system Mr Thomsett also revealed how the board of directors had discharged their fiduciary duty, There has never been an annual meeting at which the audited accounts have been brought forward. At one time there was a paid auditor, after which we could not pay one, and I audited to the best of my ability.

He then informed the court that, “The losses in one year were from $6,000 to $7,000, arising from board and lodging, and had nothing to do with drink.” Replying to a question from the jury he said that the lamentable financial state of the Home was “because of the much smaller number of seamen now in the Colony.” There is no hint in the newspapers or other records as to an explanation for the Home’s parlous finances bar the story of mismanagement told by Mr Thomsett in court. However, there is the interesting point that between 1865 and 1871, as a result of the collapse of the London discount house Overend, Gurney and Co. in 1866, there had been a major financial crisis in India and China, including Hong Kong.50 The biggest Hong Kong victim was Dent and Co., founded in Canton in 1824, which in January 1867 had to close its Hong Kong office and officially suspend payment to its creditors — and thereby, presumably, lose its seat as one of the Sailors’ Home trustees. Maggie Keswick notes that the “working partners (of Jardine, Matheson and Co.), Whittall and the others, were in debt to the firm as a result of the banking crisis and the years of poor trading which followed it.”51 This might explain how what appeared in 1865 to have been a gift had by 1868 become a loan, leaving the Sailors’ Home quite unable to meet its obligations. As the next chapter points out, when St Peter’s Church was being built in 1871, the money raised to pay for it by a combination of public subscription and government aid was $8,500. It boggles the mind to suppose that people, who were perfectly aware of the cost of an entire church, would have been happily watching over 82% of that cost

03_Strong to Save.indd 45

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

46

Strong

to

Save

being lost each year by the Home to which the church was intended to be a complement. There is a mystery tucked into these gnomic bits of evidence as to the financial circumstances of the Sailors’ Home in the early 1870s. Whatever the explanations, eight years after its opening the Sailors Home was in trouble. As sail was giving way to steam, the centre of operations of Victoria Harbour was moving east. The spread of the junk trade anchorage almost into the waters immediately off the Sailors Home at West Point is indicated by a notice in the Hong Kong Government Gazette less than a year after the Home was opened, indicating that the westward limit for the “salt, brick, and tile” junks was the Sailors’ Home pier.52 The crossover as worldwide steam tonnage overtook sailing tonnage would take place in the 1890s, but with the overwhelming influence of the junk trade in Hong Kong, steam was overtaking western sail faster than elsewhere.53 At the same time, shipping companies using western ships were beginning to turn to cheaper, Asian seamen to provide their deck, cabin, and engine room rank and file. The net result was that the number of western seamen in Hong Kong on or between ships at any one time was dwindling, only the numbers of officers was holding steady, though an increasing proportion would have been Hong Kong based, and hence probably not users of the Home’s facilities. Inevitably demand for the Home was falling and, as Mr Thomsett’s evidence argues, the Home was feeling the pinch. There were also other than financial problems. Whether it was Captain Overbury or Mr Schuster who was arraigned is not clear, but in October 1872 the French consul charged the superintendent of the Sailors’ Home with harbouring deserters, although the court dismissed the case. Running a Sailors’ Home was evidently a fraught business.54 Certainly if the evidence from the jury lists is to be believed, after Captain Overbury no one was employed as superintendent until 1890. The Home was instead run by stewards — presumably on lower

03_Strong to Save.indd 46

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

47

salaries — usually with a single western assistant and of course with a much more lowly paid but essential Chinese staff, who did the bulk of the routine work. Whilst the slide from the heady early years of support for a Sailors’ Home is evident, it is hard to fully explain since at the same time the business of the port and hence its importance to the Hong Kong economy were growing apace. So in a context when one could have expected modest prosperity, instead there was at best stagnation or at worst decline. We can pick up hints of the effects of this early loss of public confidence in the Home’s management and value. As early as 1867, within two years of the Home opening for business, there was clearly no significant sentiment in government to protect it from the effects of Hong Kong’s development as the main business of the port moved eastwards. In that year a slaughterhouse was opened not far west from the Home. A decade later a cattle depot established near the slaughterhouse replaced the unknown, previously ad hoc arrangements for its victims. Clearly the Home was not in a salubrious part of town, and the authorities didn’t much care.55 By 1885, a decade after it was clear that the Sailors’ Home was not developing as hoped and had no chance at all for the hoped for extension to accommodate Asian seamen, a supplement to the Hong Kong Government Gazette, published a letter from the colonial treasurer, Mr A. Lister, to the colonial secretary, Mr W.H. Marsh, discussing what to do with (western) destitutes.56 The majority of these were noted to be seamen. For that reason Mr Lister seriously proposed turning part of the Sailors’ Home into a casual ward (in effect an overnight jail). The letter certainly shows little respect and is implicitly questioning who the Home is for, if not seafarers down on their luck. We shall return to this issue in Chapter 5. In 1887 a further blow was struck, which was strangely premonitory of what would happen to the Seamen’s Institute 32 years later. The Hong Kong Government Gazette of 16 April that year

03_Strong to Save.indd 47

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

48

Strong

to

Save

announced the finance committee’s unanimous approval that an area of 74,000 square feet “opposite the Sailors’ Home” be reclaimed for a new western market.57 So not only had the Sailors’ Home slid down the scale of respect and increasingly found itself at the wrong end of the harbour, it was also being deprived of its useful waterfront location and associated pier that allowed ready access by ships’ boats, a matter that no doubt added its weight to the impending split between the Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seamen to which we shall turn below. Work began on the reclamation in May 1890 and was completed in February 1892.58 However, once the managerial upsets of its early years were past, the Home’s management seems to have settled down, though clearly the finances sufficient to afford a steward, a superintendent and an assistant never reappeared. The steward who succeeded Jacob Schuster was John Robinson White. White was an ex-soldier who had fought in the Crimea and had run the Stag Hotel in Hong Kong until he had gone bankrupt in 1878. According to the jury lists he then worked as manager of the Kowloon Hotel until he moved to the Sailors’ Home where he worked until 1886.59 John White was succeeded by Alexander Moir, who had initially come to Hong Kong as a member of the Hong Kong Police. Moir served as steward for the next three years, when he was appointed superintendent and the post of steward lapsed. He continued as superintendent until late 1899 when he left to become manager of the Peak Hotel where he served until he retired back to Scotland in 1908.60 With Alexander Moir’s departure in 1899 came the appointment of the longest serving of the Sailors’ Home’s managers. This was Anthony Alexander Heron Milroy, who served as superintendent from late 1899 to 1919,61 from 1905 onwards as the sole western employee. Born c.1865 in Scotland, he had come to Hong Kong as a ship’s officer and by 1893 was serving in the Douglas Steamship Company’s SS Thales,62 for in that year in Swatow (Shantou) he married a Jessie Martin.63 Reflecting what we know from newspaper comments, Milroy’s work

03_Strong to Save.indd 48

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

49

with the Sailors’ Home had been reduced to three foci. One was running a simple boarding house for seamen in good standing, ashore between ships because they had been signed off and had not yet found another ship, or because they were ashore reading for their tickets.64 That this was an established role is clear from the 1899 Chronicle and Directory, where, as it had been back in 1879, the Home was listed as a “licensed boarding house keeper”. We can infer from this, in most respects correctly, that probably the major part of the Home’s business by the early 20th century was with those who could afford to pay, namely western ships’ officers, whether deck, purser’s department, or engineer. Where those reading for their tickets were concerned, the Home offered more than merely accommodation. It had always been an intention of those who founded the Home that it would help improve the skills and knowledge of seafarers and it is clear that it provided the needed classes.65 Third was the Home’s relatively regular, but small role in temporarily accommodating what were (and still are) called “distressed British seamen”. Technically these were sailors who, through no fault of their own, had been abandoned in Hong Kong by British flagged ships. They are to be distinguished from those seamen identified in the records as “destitute” (sometimes called “beachcombers”), who were adrift in Hong Kong entirely as a consequence of their own acts. Under legislation deriving from the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, the authorities in Hong Kong were obliged to provide for the care and repatriation of distressed British seamen from public revenue and the harbour master used the Sailors’ Home as the temporary staging point for the average of 238 cases a year in 1905.66 It does seem likely that Captain Milroy and his staff were not overly hard worked. In part that may have been a function of the long lasting downturn in the shipping market between 1899 and 1912,67 though Hong Kong data does not seem to reflect this. Data on

03_Strong to Save.indd 49

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

50

Strong

to

Save

numbers of ships’ officers — the only ship’s company data given in the “Harbour Master’s Reports” that cover the time period — shows an increase from 4,180 to 7,012 between 1899 and 1906, thereafter declining steadily to 6,057 in 1911 before beginning to rise again until 1914.68 Over the same period, there was a concomitant, steady, if unspectacular rise in the tonnage of ships entering Hong Kong. If numbers were not the problem, then another possibility was simply the less than dynamic way the Home seems to have been operated. As a moderately successful boarding house always with enough paying business, it offered something of a comfortable sinecure for a ship’s captain who had decided to come ashore. There was obviously plenty of leisure time. Captain Milroy was a founding member of the Kowloon Bowling Green Club, rather far in time and distance in late 19th century Hong Kong from his place of duty. He also had time to serve as its president.69 Interestingly in his graceful acceptance speech at his retirement presentation Captain Milroy is quoted as saying,70 The Home, which was my chief interest until the Shipping Office work also fell to my lot, has been maintained in a good state of efficiency and it leaves

my hands, I am pleased to say, with a Bank credit considerably in excess of that which it had when I joined it.

This is interesting because it suggests that one way in which the financial difficulties of the Sailors’ Home may have been at least partly addressed was by giving responsibility for running the Shipping Office in the Home to the superintendent. This allowed some of the harbour master’s budget to be redirected to support the superintendent either occasionally or on some other basis, probably thereby saving the Sailors’ Home some of the cost of what might have been a salary it could not actually afford. Certainly the next superintendent, Captain Frank Baylis, listed himself as “Shipping Master of the Port of Hong Kong” when travelling as a passenger on the Canadian Pacific liner Empress of Asia in September 1922.71 Indeed close inspection of the

03_Strong to Save.indd 50

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

51

small print in various contemporary government documents suggests something of this kind. In the civil establishments listings for 1919 and 1920 we learn that first Captain Milroy and then Captain Baylis were employed by the Harbour Master’s Department full time as first clerk (the old title for deputy shipping master). Captain Frank Baylis (sometimes spelled Bayliss)72 seems to have worked on the China Coast first as a master of a China Merchants Steam Navigation Co. ship and then later as the manager of their Hong Kong marine office. Given that in around 1880 the China Merchants SN Co. wharf had been built immediately seaward of the Sailors’ Home on reclaimed land, it is possible that the proximity of the Home and Captain Baylis’ place of work played its part in his shift from managing one affair to managing the other. Little else is known of this period in the story of the Sailors’ Home, save that the Shipping Office that had been in the Sailors’ Home almost since it opened, was moved back into the main Harbour Office in late 1920 or early 1921, probably with the advent of Mr Coysh, transferred, in the wondrously apposite way only government bureaucracies can manage, from the Sanitary Department,73 and the change in the title of the old first clerk to deputy shipping master. The final blows to the Home’s fortunes must have started being felt with the Hong Kong seamen’s strike of 1922, with its large effect on Hong Kong’s shipping, and then the downturn in the global shipping market that began in 1923. Certainly by 1925, when the Sailors’ Home Ordinance was gazetted no. 5 of that year, at about the same time the devastating general strike and lockout began, the Home was in trouble.74 As the third of the reasons given in support of the ordinance put it, “the present site has become quite unsuitable for the purposes of a Sailors’ Home”, and as it didn’t add, though a dispatch sent by the governor to the Colonial Office did,75 demand for the Home’s services had dropped so much that it was again in significant financial difficulties. Although government was prepared to hand over $800,000 to the

03_Strong to Save.indd 51

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

52

Strong

to

Save

new trustees as compensation for the resumption of the site, this appears on the face of the record not to have been enough to build the hoped for new home at a site “near Signal Hill”, close to where the Mariners’ Club was to be built 37 years later. Why things fell through and the proposed move came to nothing we shall return to in Chapter 7. In the meantime we can say that when the project fell through, the next move taken by the government and the new Sailors’ Home trustees was a delay, and then a few years later the opening of formal negotiations for a merger with the Seamen’s Institute run by the Missions to Seamen with whom the Sailors’ Home had first been linked 45 years previously. The delay between stopping one way forward and starting the next is a fascinating insight into the mentality of expatriate colonial Hong Kong. The fundamental reasons for the Home’s difficulties were its exclusive focus on western seamen and the huge effects on the fortunes of this group caused by the seamen’s strike of 1922 and the strike and boycott of 1925. Yet in the records these are glossed over. The Sailors’ Home and the Seamen’s Institute were firmly — and declaredly — on the side of the colonial authorities and therefore declaredly against the 80–90% of Hong Kong seafarers who were Chinese and supported the seamen’s strike and, three years later, the general strike and boycott. The effects of the second of these strikes on the economy were devastating — there were thousands of bankruptcies, 50% was wiped off the volume of trade, the stock market dropped 40%, property values and rentals fell by 60%, and a government with a surplus of $2–3 million became one with a deficit of $5 million that needed a £3 million loan from London to tide it over.76 Given that it was ocean-going shipping that really counted, the 47.7% decline in ship movements between 1924 and 1926 will have hit hard. Worse, not only was the Sailors’ Home in trouble financially, it is also likely to have been without any staff for the months the general strike lasted. More to the point for the planned move, for a

03_Strong to Save.indd 52

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

A Snug Harbour

in

West Point

53

government placed very firmly on the back foot by a devastating and quite explicitly anti-British and anti-colonial strike, being seen to be providing site and financing for this exclusive western seamen’s refuge would have been treading on very thin ice indeed, though how much this was a consideration in largely purblind 1920s colonial Hong Kong is moot. Whatever the reason, quite obviously 1925 was not a good year for the Sailors’ Home to be making a move or for the government to be seen to be backing it, but only in hidden government files is the truth of this acknowledged, and then only indirectly. *** After the closely reported dramatics of the Captain Overbury libel case, something of a silence descends over the detailed doings of the Sailors’ Home, bar the reports of occasional newsworthy mishaps like the suicide by hara-kiri of an Indian employee in the Shipping Office,77 occasional deaths and frequent disturbances, until we learn of the continuing financial difficulties in the 1920s. This silence is in one important respect puzzling because in the years between 1887 and 1905 something had happened to the Sailors’ Home that ought to have at least made some sort of impact. A comparison between early photographs and images of the Home before 1888 and ones from the period after 1905 shows that at some stage in the interim the main building had had an additional floor built onto it. The architectural style of the new floor is interestingly different to that of the two lower stories and, equally interesting, the style of the name and date of foundation on the new central roof gable end changed but, in being redone, did not revise the date — 1864 — that had been on the original. No mention of this extension has yet been found in contemporary newspapers, though one possible clue is the application of the Sailor’s Home in January 1892 to government to construct water closets. On the source of the money for the work involved the record is also silent. One further argument to explain the extension that has been suggested is that the additional floor was the product of the Sailors’

03_Strong to Save.indd 53

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

54

Strong

to

Save

Home being taken over by the Hong Kong Police for their No. 7 station. This is argued by some to have occurred as early as 1902, however this is largely unsupported by facts such as architectural drawings for No. 7 Police Station in 1902, stories of the police “called” to the Home, and as a clincher, in the government report on public works for 1930, there is explicit reference to “alterations to (the) Sailors’ Home”.78 Unquestionably the Sailors’ Home did become the quarters for the station — a photograph and a drawing done from it exist in police archives clearly showing what appears to have been the one-time Sailors’ Home in a new guise as police quarters in the 1960s — and we know it was used to house the white Russian anti-piracy detachments of the 1930s.79 But despite its declining fortunes, the Sailors’ Home, while it was still in operation as an independent entity, stayed where it had been created until the bitter end in 1930. One final possible reason for the Home’s apparent loss of influence and salience may be that as of as early as 1891, and certainly from 1895, for reasons that are obscure, but no doubt to do with the formal stature of the established church in Hong Kong’s public life, the Home was without the partner it had had for the previous decade. For it had been in 1872, shortly after the Sailors’ Home had opened, that it first connected its mission to care for seamen’s material welfare with a concern for seamen’s spiritual welfare — though how closely was not defined — by agreeing that part of the site of the Sailors’ Home should be used to build a “Seamen’s Church”. A dozen years later, in 1885, before the Sailors’ Home’s fortunes had begun slowly to ebb and thanks to that undefined connection with a seamen’s church, a newcomer to the care of seafarers in Hong Kong joined the Sailors’ Home, the Missions to Seamen. It is to this part of the story of the Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seamen, the spiritual side of caring for seafarers in Hong Kong, to which we can now turn.

03_Strong to Save.indd 54

6/7/2017 6:29 PM

Part II

Church and Mission

04_Strong to Save.indd 55

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

04_Strong to Save.indd 56

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

4

A Seamen’s Church

he care of seafarers’ spiritual welfare was not entirely neglected in these early years. There are reports of a “Mariners’ Church” as early as 1851, though it is not clear where it was or who ran it.1 An anecdote suggests it may have been aimed more at Hong Kong’s large, indigenous, waterborne population than at seamen in commercial or naval vessels. Whatever it was, this early in Hong Kong’s story it is unlikely to have been a permanent building but, most probably, a mat-shed somewhere on the waterfront.2 There is a possibility that what is meant is the “wooden hut with calico windows” erected jointly by HMS Belleisle’s chaplain, Reverend Edward Spencer Phelps, and the 98th Regiment’s Captain Thomas Maitland Edwards, which would appear to have most probably been in Stanley.3 With a naval chaplain’s involvement, an attribution as a mariners’ church would be understandable. But if Anglican mat-sheds were initially the order of the day, other religious denominations were quicker off the mark with solid buildings. The American brick built Bazaar Baptist Chapel and the Queen’s Road Baptist Chapel opened as early as 1842.4 The Roman Catholic prefect apostolic, Fra Antonio Feliciani, had the Church of the Conception built and open in 1843.5 And the resident followers of Islam completed their first mosque in the same year.6 The established church was flatter-footed. The first permanent partly Anglican church building was not erected until the London Missionary Society’s first Union Chapel, built on Hollywood Road in 1845.7

04_Strong to Save.indd 57

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

58

Strong

to

Save

Where Anglican efforts for merchant seamen are concerned, things were even slower to get going. We have already noted the brief presence of a floating seamen’s chapel in 1859–61 though this was simultaneously maritime, American, and non-conformist and is ignored by most historians. And we also saw that it was in the latter year that the established church, through the work of the colonial chaplain and another member of the Anglican clergy, inaugurated the campaign to create a Sailors’ Home, which may, in the Reverend Irwin and Reverend Beach’s minds at least, have promised more than the lay institution that resulted. It is no surprise therefore, that once the Home had opened in 1865, church services for seafarers were soon being held there. A weekly service was instituted at the suggestion of Mr Thomsett, the harbour master, in 1866.8 We read in the Hong Kong Blue Book’s “Ecclesiastical Return” for 1871 that “At the ‘Sailors’ Home,’ Divine Service is held on Sunday evenings, where the attendance is about 100.”9 However this would appear to have been an ad hoc arrangement, without any purpose designed or dedicated space. It would also have been entirely dependent on the good offices of whichever clergyman was sufficiently committed to the spiritual needs of seamen and otherwise free of duties. The probability — we do not know — is that the incumbent of St Stephen’s Church may have helped out. St Stephen’s was a missionary church, built at the West Point end of Hollywood Road, on a street then known as Gap Street, in 1866, by the Reverend Thomas Stringer of the Church Missionary Society, who had arrived in 1861.10 He was hoping to build a Chinese congregation and so would have been otherwise focussed, but may have doubled as a seamen’s chaplain. However it was managed, in the early years Hong Kong still had no specific seamen’s mission with its own home of the kind provided by the American Seamen’s Friend Society in Whampoa and by 1869 in Shanghai. Moves to address this began with the arrival in post of Bishop Alford in 1867. He responded to the question of the religious needs of

04_Strong to Save.indd 58

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

A Seamen’s Church

59

the European and Eurasian population of the western end of the island and those of the Sailors’ Home by deciding to have a church built that catered for both. Dating this poses its own problems, although diocesan historians maintain the first step was taken when the bishop wrote to the War Office in London, to get their agreement to the appointment of a chaplain, who would look after the seamen whilst serving part-time as a military chaplain.11 Hong Kong’s first historian, E.J. Eitel, mentions a visit by the bishop to England in 1870 in which he “secured from some Society a donation of £500 and the promise of an annual contribution towards the salary of a seamen’s chaplain”.12 What is not clear is whether Eitel is confusing the War Office and “some Society” or whether Bishop Alford was advancing on two fronts. The probability is the latter, though which “Society” is quite obscure.13 Quite why both bishop and War Office looked to army chaplains to take the weight is puzzling. The army is not the obvious place to look for a concern with the spiritual care of sailors, leave alone primarily merchant sailors. In any case it also had no presence at the western end of Hong Kong Island. The Royal Navy would have seemed a more likely source, although the difficulty would have been that all their chaplains would have been afloat. But whatever the explanation for Bishop Alford’s unlikely choice, before a stone of the new church was laid an agreement had been made that the army would pay for half of the incumbent’s salary and the diocese would raise a chaplaincy fund for the rest.14 One answer to Bishop Alford’s choice may lie in what happened to the Reverend William R. Beach between when, with Reverend J.J. Irwin, in 1857 and again in 1861 he proposed a sailors’ home, and his taking over the colonial chaplaincy from Irwin in 1868. According to the China Directory he had been an army chaplain in Tianjin.15 It is accordingly quite possible, given that Reverend Beach was colonial chaplain until sometime in late 1870 or early 1871, that he suggested the army route to Bishop Alford because he may have known that some of the funds devoted to the Hong Kong garrison chaplaincy via

04_Strong to Save.indd 59

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

60

Strong

to

Save

its support of St John’s Cathedral could be used to support St Peter’s.16 A slight puzzle arises from the Reverend Thomas Talbot being the first chaplain thought to have had care of St Peter’s when it started holding services in 1872. This is because the “Ecclesiastical Returns” for 1872 and 1873 do not connect him with St Peter’s or even mention him in respect of any post. It was a particularly tangled period for the colonial chaplaincy, involving musical chairs amongst acting office holders until, in October 1871, the Reverend Richard Hayward Kidd arrived to take up the permanent post thus rendering Reverend Talbot free to take on a temporary responsibility for the new seamen’s chapel once it was complete. In March 1871 Bishop Alford wrote to the governor-in-council, reporting that $6,000 had been raised by public subscription for the erection of a chapel at the Sailors’ Home. In the light of that he asked that a grant in aid be made from colonial funds to supplement the privately raised monies. The government accordingly voted $2,500 “for the erection of the proposed Chapel.” It is worth pausing a moment here to consider what we are being told given what we know. We know that the Sailors’ Home, erected just six years previously, had apparently cost some portion of between $45,000 and $67,000; sums insufficient for a building as large as had been hoped. The resulting Home had been losing $6,000–7,000 a year from its operations when it ceded part of its site for the erection of St Peter’s, as far as the record goes, without being paid for it. We can see from photographs that the ground footprint of the church was, if modest with a nave 58 ft. long and a capacity of around 160 worshippers, no mere chapel.17 It had a large and rather ornate tower and spire at the east end. With its most Victorian interior, the brick and sandstone ensemble was reminiscent of the near contemporary Union Church, arguing that perhaps the same architect, Palmer and Turner, designed both. It is therefore curious, even allowing for the Home’s more complex plumbing and interior subdivision and furnishings, that everyone seems to have thought without question

04_Strong to Save.indd 60

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

A Seamen’s Church

61

that less than 20% of the funding needed to underwrite the building of the Sailors’ Home, and not much more than it was losing each year, would be sufficient for the neighbouring church. Whatever the truth of the final cost of the church, the foundation stone was laid on 25 March 1871 by the bishop, Mr James Whittal for the trustees, the chief justice, the colonial secretary, the attorney general, the US consul and Mr Douglas Lapraik from the management committee, on vacant land to the east of the Sailors’ Home. It was to be dedicated to St Peter, one of the Anglican communion’s favoured patron saints of sailors.18 Inheriting a surplus bell from St John’s Cathedral, St Peter’s was opened for divine service by Reverend John Piper on 11 January 1872.19 However, it had an uncertain status. The $6,000 in public subscription had mainly come from the shipping community anxious, perhaps, to provide for its Sailors’ Home a moral and spiritual anchor that might have been felt lacking.20 But moot was whether the establishment was a local church for the inhabitants of West Point that happened also to serve seamen, or part of the Sailors’ Home that welcomed local inhabitants. Whatever the formal answer was, St Peter’s was soon informally known as the “Seamen’s Church”. But what exactly the status of the incumbent was is unclear. In the “Ecclesiastical Return” for 1872, St Peter’s Chapel, Victoria is listed as having room for 180 worshippers, of which 50 seats were reserved for sailors.21 The return also notes that the average congregation had been 60. Conspicuously it names no incumbent and, by designating the institution as a “chapel”, presumably identifies it thereby as initially different from a full church. This subordinate status did not endure long, and by 1873 the term “church” is used.22 The source of the new establishment’s chaplains and the presence of a local, nonseamen congregation, however, meant the arrangement whereby St John’s Cathedral provided a priest under the colonial chaplain was not a solution that would work in the long run. One difficulty with this system was the cure to which incumbents

04_Strong to Save.indd 61

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

62

Strong

to

Save

recruited this way would feel themselves called. Were they serving a mission to seamen? Were they parish priests within whose parish there was a sailors’ home? Or were they in some way solely chaplains to a church that served seafarers to which a local congregation was attached by adoption, but without specific parochial responsibilities because it was actually answerable to the cathedral? This was likely exacerbated as the changing patterns of shipping and organizational layout of the port caused the Sailors’ Home clientele to diminish and the landbound parish numbers to increase. An additional complication, which emerged over the following 30 years, was the relationship between church and Sailors’ Home. Instead of being an interdependent, mutually reinforcing relationship as would have been the case had the Home been part of the Mission or vice versa, it was one of mere contiguity that time and chance could make or mar in response to personalities and policies. Indeed, as we learn from Endacott and She, by 1895, ten years after the Missions to Seamen had taken over the chaplaincy, the harbour master, at that date Commander Robert Murray Rumsey, was quite specifically denying any direct connection between church and Sailors’ Home. He affirmed that although St Peter’s might be a “Seamen’s Church”, it was not the Sailors’ Home church.23 We also learn that in the same year the Mission declared it would no longer provide a chaplain for reasons we shall revert to below.24 These events in turn perhaps point to a knock-on effect of the Sailors’ Home’s financial problems we considered in the last chapter. For when St. Peter’s was built, it seems, it was to be “kept in repair by the Trustees of the Sailors’ Home”.25 Although this makes little sense, given what we know of the Home’s financial situation in 1871 and 1873, perhaps a sense of obligation overrode strict fiscal prudence. If it did, then clearly by Commander Rumsey’s day two decades later the pips were squeaking and he was anxious to offload whatever burdens he could. ***

04_Strong to Save.indd 62

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

A Seamen’s Church

63

The first arrangement for finding priests for St Peter’s did not offer the relatively young Hong Kong church and its ecclesiastical authorities plain sailing. We have noted that half of the pay of these first incumbents was from the War Office budget and so one assumes that, via their status as in some way connected with St John’s Cathedral, they were part time garrison chaplains.26 Indeed for all but one of the first six priests in charge of St Peter’s, their brief Crockford’s details preface their period of service in Hong Kong with the letters “C.F.” meaning “Chaplain to the Forces”.27 At this stage in British military history military chaplaincies would appear to have been of two sorts. There were those who were formally listed within the naval or army establishment as chaplains and who were thus members either of the Royal Navy’s Chaplaincy Service, formally organized as of 1812, or of the Army Chaplain’s Department that had been established in 1796.28 And there were those who gained the designation of “Chaplain to the Forces” without being members of either service. Very little seems to be known about this second category. It would appear to comprise those members of the Anglican Church paid, or partly paid from military funds, possibly with some pastoral responsibilities for military units where they were serving, and who were also part of the diocesan clerical establishment that, in Hong Kong, was the bailiwick, if not officially, of the Church Missionary Society. The first priest, Thomas Talbot, whom we have already met, has as tangled a British record as his Hong Kong one. He is not noted as having been chaplain of St Peter’s, only as having been in Hong Kong from 1870 to 1872 during which time he was according to his Crockford’s entry, “officiating Chaplain to the Forces and Colonial Chaplain”. This offers support for the argument that the bishop had been making arrangements well before the foundation stone for St Peter’s had been laid. For given that St John’s Cathedral was also the garrison church, Thomas Talbot’s pre-St Peter’s appointment

04_Strong to Save.indd 63

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

64

Strong

to

Save

as “officiating chaplain to the forces” would suggest a division of responsibility during the waiting period between the colonial chaplain, who looked after the cathedral and its congregation of whatever stripe, and the Reverend Talbot, who bore the specifically military responsibility. Subsequent entries in the “Ecclesiastical Return” leave it open whether that arrangement persisted. This introduces us to the second priest in charge of St Peter’s Church before the advent of the Mission to Seamen. The Reverend William Henry Baynes appears in the Hong Kong Blue Book’s “Ecclesiastical Return” for 1874 as the “Seamen’s and Military Chaplain” under the colonial chaplaincy.29 It thus appears that this part-army, part-civilian priest arrangement continued to be how the army in Hong Kong dealt with its responsibilities for the spiritual needs of its soldiery because the Hong Kong garrison was not large enough to warrant a full-time garrison chaplain.30 The result may have been that priests like Reverend Baynes, looking after St Peter’s but answerable to the colonial chaplain — and presumably the army command — for garrison church responsibilities, yet also in some way looking to the trustees of the Sailors’ Home, were caught in an uncertain chain of command. In some cases, such as Baynes’, the result was a celebrated tiff when in 1874 he refused to accept a licence as a priest in Hong Kong from the recently translated Bishop Burdon on the grounds that the Bishop lacked an authoritative appointment by the state and “was merely a private person with no jurisdiction, and indeed with no connection with any clergyman of the Church of England excepting that of friendly feeling.”31

*** The chaplaincy of St Peter’s reveals itself in its opening years as having had a pretty fast turnover of young priests very early in their careers and, by inference from their dates of graduation, mostly under 30 years of age. The Reverend Baynes ceased being the Seamen’s

04_Strong to Save.indd 64

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

A Seamen’s Church

65

and Military Chaplain around 1876. In 1877 the “Ecclesiastical Return” gives the Reverend John Henderson as occupying that post.32 Interestingly the Reverend Henderson had already served three years, during his curacy in Birkenhead, UK, not only as a nominal curate of St Mary’s Birkenhead but also as chaplain of the Mariners’ Chapel, Birkenhead.33 After Hong Kong he alternated between parish work and chaplaincies to prisons and workhouses, adding a further stint as an acting chaplain to the forces in Chichester, 1894–1904. In 1880 the Reverend C.G. Booth became chaplain. Unusually, he appears in no British or other ecclesiastical record. However his death in 1882 is recorded by Eitel, which explains the brevity of his incumbency.34 His grave in the Hong Kong Cemetery records that he was 28 when he died. More interestingly, the grave was paid for and erected by the “Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of the Garrison”, which indicates fairly strongly that the military and seamen’s chaplain had genuine military duties. Gilbert Booth was also a Freemason, a connection between the chaplains to seamen and masonry in Hong Kong that lasted well into the 20th century.35 The Reverend Booth was succeeded on his death by the Reverend J.B. Ost, who was evidently an emergency appointment, because he was already in Hong Kong working for the Church Missionary Society in West Point.36 He took temporary charge of St Peter’s before, in 1882, the Reverend H. Wilson Lee took over.37 In the “Ecclesiastical Returns” the Reverend Lee remains the designated incumbent until 1883 when the incumbency was worth £150, although Crockford’s and the University of Cambridge alumni lists say he was in post until 1885.38 There is no other name of an incumbent until 1891. That apparent absence leads us to an interesting and possibly significant moment in the history of the Mission to Seafarers in Hong Kong. We have noted that when the “Ecclesiastical Return” first mentions the new institution it is identified as St Peter’s Chapel, becoming St Peter’s Church in 1873 and getting its first named priest

04_Strong to Save.indd 65

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

66

Strong

to

Save

in charge, the seamen’s and military chaplain, the following year. That is how things stayed until 1881, when the Reverend Ost of the Church Missionary Society took temporary charge. Two things of interest follow. The Reverend C.G. Booth is the last incumbent to be styled “Seamen’s and Military Chaplain”. With the arrival of Revered Ost that title is dropped and never reappears. The second is that in the “Ecclesiastical Return” for 1881 the designation of St Peter’s changes and it becomes St Peter’s Seamen’s Mission Church, Victoria. It retains this designation in the “Ecclesiastical Return” until 1891, about halfway through the Reverend A. Gurney Goldsmith’s tenure, and reverts to being St Peter’s Seamen’s Church the following year. Perhaps this change of title reflects the apparent decision by Gurney Goldsmith, reported by Wolfendale, to disburden himself of responsibility for St Peter’s in that year. As interesting point is that from the presumed departure of Reverend Wilson Lee in 1883 (although as noted he may actually have remained until 1885) until 1891 there is no incumbent’s name, even though we know that from January 1885, the Reverend Goldsmith had been in post.

*** Whilst St Peter’s was gaining its informal reputation as the seamen’s church, the world of shipping had moved on. Sailing ships were in decline, steam in the ascendant, and the centre of gravity of Hong Kong’s western style shipping business on the Hong Kong Island shore had moved to Central, leaving mainly the junk trade towards the western end of the harbour. The natural consequence was that the number of seamen in the Home at any one time was decreasing with their raw numbers perhaps down to low double figures or even single figures on any one Sunday. Assuming a roughly 50:50 ratio of regular churchgoing seamen to non-churchgoers, the seamen portion of the congregation may now and then have disappeared altogether. It obviously followed that a seamen’s church that was not attracting seamen but was attracting landsmen was in trouble, the more so if it was hoping to be an effective seamen’s mission church.

04_Strong to Save.indd 66

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

A Seamen’s Church

67

Of more immediate concern for St Peter’s would appear to have been the decision of the army to put an end to its partial funding of the chaplaincy. The story as it has come down to us is that this decision was made in 1884. However, from the analysis of the “Ecclesiastical Return” above, it would seem possible that the army may have withdrawn its funding support as early as 1881; the year in which the title “Seamen’s and Military Chaplain” disappears from the Hong Kong record, though against that is Reverend Lee’s, Crockford’s, and Cambridge alumni records identifying him as a chaplain to the forces during his time in Hong Kong. Nothing appears elsewhere to suggest why this withdrawal of funding will have occurred and only conjecture can help. One certain possibility is the shift in the centre of gravity of Hong Kong’s garrison that steadily took place once the Second Opium War had ended. Britain had acquired by treaty that part of the Kowloon Peninsula south of Boundary Street and troops were based in Whitfield Barracks (today’s Kowloon Park), the large tented encampment centred around today’s Gun Club Hill Barracks.39 Although no permanent barracks were built until the 1890s, at any one time after 1863 military units were rotated to Kowloon from Victoria and Murray Barracks. Then in 1885 major military works were begun at Lei Yue Mun, planning for which will have begun in 1883 or 1884.40 The net effect of both developments would have been to leave any chaplain of St. Peter’s with military responsibilities too far from the more distantly placed army units. Despite this, and aware of the non-maritime congregation, including the small Sands shipyard and other remnants of West Point’s non-Chinese maritime heyday,41 the staff and pupils of the Diocesan Home and Orphanage up on Bonham Road,42 and a number of locally resident Chinese and Eurasian Christians, Bishop Burdon was anxious that St Peter’s remain an active church and retain its status as the seamen’s church. Critically — and for the balance of this story, vitally — he wanted the incumbent to “work amongst seamen on board

04_Strong to Save.indd 67

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

68

Strong

to

Save

as well as on shore”. With the backing of the trustees of the Sailors’ Home, he accordingly sought funding to install a full time chaplain who could do the job. This resulted in the bishop choosing to ask the London-based Missions to Seamen to nominate a chaplain devoted to exactly the means of ministry that he wished for.43 The result, whatever the reason for the army’s decision, was the appointment of the Reverend Alfred Gurney Goldsmith as the Missions to Seamen’s first chaplain in Hong Kong at the end of 1884. On his arrival in January 1885, the story of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong traditionally begins.

04_Strong to Save.indd 68

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

5

Uneasy Berth and the Demon Drink

he new Hong Kong chaplaincy of the Missions to Seamen did not find an easy berth in the newly designated Seamen’s Mission Church. The reasons for this were complex. There was the ongoing problem of finances, at which we have already looked and which were to result in Captain Rumsey’s reluctance to continue paying for the upkeep of St Peter’s. And there was the incumbent chaplain’s potential responsibility for a non-maritime, West Point area flock. Four further issues were more specifically related to the operations of the Sailors’ Home and the Mission. One was the simple issue of whether the Sailors’ Home, as a base for the Mission, should continue to serve alcoholic drinks. The Missions to Seamen at this point in its history — and indeed until the 1950s — was resolutely temperance. The newly arrived chaplain was thus immediately faced with the uncomfortable task of trying to run a temperance reading room and coffee room in a building that also sold alcohol. Although it nowhere comes explicitly to the surface, there would also have been the issue of what relationship existed between the two institutions. Did the Missions to Seamen chaplain have the right of access to, and the use of part of the premises of the Home the better to conduct his mission? Or was any such access entirely at the discretion of the Sailors’ Home management? There was also the matter of the different relationship each part of this roughly spliced dual entity might have felt they bore to Hong Kong’s influential shipping interests, which we shall

05_Strong to Save.indd 69

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

70

Strong

to

Save

see became an issue in 1888. And finally there were the respective attitudes of each institution to the less fortunate western seamen, cast up as destitute on Hong Kong’s shores — did the Home owe them a duty of care? The second and last of the issues above also posed a deeper, underlying question of governance. Was the Mission, under its chaplain, hoping to run a sailors’ church-cum-home — St Peter’s Seamen’s Mission Church and Sailors’ Home, not just St Peter’s Seamen’s Church? Or was the Sailors’ Home, under its superintendent, merely giving houseroom, of a kind that the record leaves obscure, to a chaplaincy that served an adjacent, but not organizationally integrated church? In short, who was in charge of what? This more fundamental issue, nascent at the very outset and unique to Hong Kong, was not to be fully resolved until the 1960s, having, in the meantime, led to a fairly clear and quite long-lasting split to which we shall return in Chapter 5. These issues came to a head during the incumbency of the first Missions to Seamen chaplain, the Reverend Alfred Gurney Goldsmith. The extent of the first of the influences — temperance — in Gurney Goldsmith’s early years is a matter of inference, but his strong advocacy of the cause is likely over time to have hampered whatever relationship he might have hoped to establish with the management of the Sailors’ Home. Since the outset, the availability of alcohol in the Sailors’ Home had been a two-edged sword. As the Overbury case showed, it was potentially a significant source of revenue. But as frequent newspaper stories also showed, it was as much a cause of public disturbance. Throughout the 19th century in Britain, as elsewhere in the western world, the tide of temperance had in general been on the rise. There were occasional flows in the opposite direction — as with the repeal of the Sale of Beer Act in 1854 and the overwhelming defeat of an early prohibition bill in parliament in 1859. But the evidence of the damage that drink did to many working class homes was hard to

05_Strong to Save.indd 70

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

Uneasy Berth

and the

Demon Drink

71

ignore, and advocates of temperance were undismayed.1 Societies such as the Church of England Total Abstinence Society (1862),2 the Roman Catholic League of the Cross (1873), the British Women’s Temperance Association (1876) and the National Temperance Foundation (1884) meant that Gurney Goldsmith had grown up and received his education at a time when temperance was in the ascendant in the Anglican Church, and especially in the world of maritime missions.3 Significantly, whilst a desire to keep seafarers out of the down market and rapacious grog shops on Queen’s Road had figured in the thinking of the Home’s founders, whatever pressures there had been for a “dry” establishment had been resisted. The businessmen in Hong Kong’s shipping community were well aware that with no provision of alcohol, the Sailors’ Home would never have even the smallest hope of paying its way.4 So the arrival of the Reverend Gurney Goldsmith and his total abstinence views raised the chances of a major falling out if, as would appear to have been the case, Mr Thomsett’s successor was of different views to Hong Kong’s longest serving harbour master, whose farewell presentation by his colleagues in 1888 Gurney Goldsmith attended, suggesting that at least initially cordial relations had existed.5 They were not apparently to last. By 1891, three years after Captain Thomsett’s retirement and in the middle of Reverend Goldsmith’s incumbency, the Missions to Seamen and the Sailors’ Home had started “parting brass rags”, as Royal Naval seafarers put it. Meanwhile, whilst the matter of booze festered, the Reverend Goldsmith’s evidently rather evangelical temper took him into another struggle. This was over the way in which the Port of Victoria knew no day of rest, not even a Sunday. *** The Port of Victoria had grown busier and busier in the 1870s and 1880s. Between 1870 and 1885 the tonnage of ships handled by the port had all but doubled from 2.84 million to 5.66 million tons, even though the total number of vessels calling annually had actually slightly decreased from 27,891 to 27,102. From 1870 to 1885 steamer

05_Strong to Save.indd 71

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

72

Strong

to

Save

traffic increased 447% while with an 80% decrease, western sail was in eclipse.6 This reflected the pattern from which the Sailors’ Home was suffering, as larger steamships were replacing the older western sailing fleet. That had two consequences. Sailing ships were almost entirely western crewed, traditional Chinese sail giving no training in or habituation to going aloft. By contrast, steam ships were very early on to make the shift to mainly Asian crews. Secondly, the main action of the steamships in the port moved eastwards towards Central and Tsim Sha Tsui. But independently of the Sailors’ Home’s plight, all vessels, junks, and steamers alike worked frenetically on Sunday as on every other day to stay competitive with Shanghai and other ports that also worked seven-day weeks. Although government had afforded its own employees a day of rest each week in 1844 and a day and a half from 1866, no law had been passed extending this to the private sector.7 Views had in any case been split in the ensuing years, a letter from “Justitia” to The China Mail of 1856 sensibly pointing out that forcing Chinese people, who were not Christian, to observe Sunday as a day of rest if that was not their inclination was “not only impolitic, but unjust”. As with the Missions to Seamen’s care for both the spiritual and material welfare of seafarers, so with Sunday cargo working, there were two issues in play. One was the secular belief that every worker should be entitled by law to a day off to rest and relax, and should not be prey to the pressures of a greedy and unscrupulous employer of no matter what faith or ethnicity. The other was a concern for the sabbath as a scripturally mandated day of rest and prayer. The young Gurney Goldsmith’s campaign began on 24 March 1888, just over two years after he had arrived and, perhaps significantly, almost coincidentally with the departure of Henry Thomsett. Three years later a law was passed, mainly owing to royal intervention, the Missions to Seamen in London and, possibly, the impending end to Sir G.W. Des Voeux’s period in office and British newspapers arguing that Queen Victoria should “give” Hong Kong its Sunday rest day as a royal

05_Strong to Save.indd 72

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

Uneasy Berth

and the

Demon Drink

73

bequest to mark the colony’s 50th anniversary. The Legislative Council passed Ordinance no.1 of 1891, the Sunday Cargo-Working Ordinance, on 6 May, to come into effect on 1 August.8 However the ordinance was as much fudge as focus. In principle it outlawed Sunday cargo working by establishing a penalty of a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for a month, in fact it was perfectly lawful to work provided, “a ‘permit’ from the Harbour Master had been first obtained.” But in a neat twist, the permits cost money. This rapidly became a useful source of public revenue raising $5,000 in the first year it was in operation thanks to the issue of 20 permits. By 1914 the annual revenue stream had risen to $60–70,000 from the issuing of around 500 permits. One might thus argue that this was a pyrrhic victory. Because of Hong Kong Government practice, this mulcting of shipowners in the cause of seafarers’ welfare may have achieved the contrary to its aims in three ways. First, government practice meant that the money raised went into the general revenue account and was not as a matter of principle hypothecated to help defray the costs of the Sailors’ Home. Second, since the shipping world now had to pay more money to government than had previously been the case in order to do exactly what they had been doing previously, it is at least possible that their donations to the Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seafarers suffered proportionately. Third, given the powerful role played by the leading members of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce in the establishment of the Sailors’ Home, to have had to wage and lose the battle over a levy they opposed cannot have sweetened relations between them and the Home, between them and the seamen’s chaplain, or between the Home and its chaplain. Meanwhile, one infers, relations between the Sailor’s Home and the Mission chaplain were not prospering for another reason. What its relationship was to the Temperance Society — which we shall return to below — that had been founded in Hong Kong sometime before

05_Strong to Save.indd 73

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

74

Strong

to

Save

1864 is not clear, but on 26 February 1886 the Hong Kong Mission to Seamen’s branch of the Church of England Temperance Society had been founded, one assumes by Gurney Goldsmith, about a year after he had arrived.9 Two years later, on 9 March 1890 the Temperance Society held its fourth anniversary at the Sailors’ Home. As the tea and coffee did the rounds, the assembled company was told between speeches, readings, and hymns, of the 1,366 members of the society enrolled in the last four years, with 326 of them having joined over the previous year. An address was given by Dr James Dyer Ball, who spoke of a China Mail newspaper article of 1864, which had praised the impending opening of the Sailors’ Home as a “means of combatting the terrible evil of the low grog shops which so often brought ruin to our seamen ashore.” At the end of the evening, six new members were enrolled.10 At this time Alexander Moir had just been promoted to superintendent of the Sailors’ Home, which argues that the success of his management had warranted resuscitating a senior post that had been moribund for 18 years. As an ex-policeman and a future hotelier he is not likely to have been much in favour of temperance and it is a racing certainty that if he had revived the fortunes of the Home, alcohol and good food will have played their part.11 It is not difficult to put oneself in his shoes when in January the following year the Mission held its annual tea and meeting at which the sale of tickets and gifts raised $40 towards a new organ for St Peter’s Church. That year the bishop gave the address and, as the newspaper report winsomely put it, “did not stress temperance, though he advocated it.”12 Much the same is likely to have been true of one of the stalwarts of the Home’s management committee and the boss of the Shipping Office housed in the Home. This was the harbour master, Commander Robert Murray Rumsey RN. He had become assistant harbour master in Hong Kong in 1885, the same year that Gurney Goldsmith had arrived. By all accounts a convivial man, it is not likely he was much

05_Strong to Save.indd 74

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

Uneasy Berth

and the

Demon Drink

75

in favour of abstinence. Commander Rumsey would seem to have been as regular a churchgoer as Mr Thomsett but perhaps not as strongly supportive of the issue of temperance in the promotion of sailors’ welfare.13 But whatever the causes, he was to be notably less supportive of St Peter’s Church than his predecessor. There must also have been the irksome contrast between a Sailors’ Home that was slipping in the ratings and the evident energy and achievements of Gurney Goldsmith. In 1886, within a year of his arrival, the new chaplain had managed to talk the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Co. into providing a four-oared gig for ship visiting.14 Visiting ships under oars must obviously have been extremely hard work and, of course, so small a vessel would have been useless for bringing seamen ashore to church, so it was evidently a stopgap. The energies of Gurney Goldsmith had evidently not been so distracted by temperance and Sunday cargo working that he lost sight of this more urgent need. Quite where the money came from is not clear. But a year before the temperance tea, on 2 August 1890 at 9.30 p.m., Mrs Keswick launched the first powered Mission launch, the small steam powered screw vessel Dayspring,15 at the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Co. The order of service made clear that Dayspring was named by Mrs Keswick in the traditional fashion by breaking a bottle against the bow…except that it was “a bottle of pure water”. Even the Mission’s launch supported temperance.16 Dayspring — the first of what would be five launches of the name — made possible the ship visits that have always been such a core element of the Mission’s work and with it, far more than would have been the case with a rowing gig, the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong was fully operational. At the same temperance meeting at which $40 had been raised for the church organ, Dayspring’s first year results were announced. There had been 1,468 ship visits — or 4 visits a day, every day of the year — 192 scripture readings aboard ship, 341 pledges of temperance signed, 131 bags of reading material left on ships17 and 2 volunteer mission helpers enrolled.

05_Strong to Save.indd 75

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

76

Strong

to

Save

However, with the arrival of Dayspring the development of the Hong Kong Island waterfront must have added its own pressures on the relationship between the Mission and the Home. For at the end of the 1880s, as we have seen, the prized waterfront access to the Home, where previously there had been a small jetty and a landing, was in the process of disappearing as a result of the Praya West reclamation. That will have posed a problem of the best place for the launch to work from as works were going on. Given the very ad hoc manner of foreshore development before the passage of the Piers Ordinance in 1899, either Dayspring will have had permission to use a government pier, or would have had grace and favour permission to use one of the piers erected by private interests. Whichever it was, the resulting pier is extremely unlikely to have been very close to the Sailors’ Home or St Peter’s Church, for by 1890 the focus of western shipping activity had long been gone from the western end of Hong Kong Island. Nothing signifies that so well as the founding, in 1871, a decade after the cession of the Kowloon Peninsula and its annexation as part of the British colony of Hong Kong, of the Hong Kong Wharf and Godown Company, which would lead to the largest wharf and warehousing operation in the colony with deep water, alongside berths being built on the Tsim Sha Tsui Peninsula.18 As a glance at the 1888 chart of Victoria Harbour shows, by that date 14 piers and jetties had been built from the naval yard westwards to Possession Point, all for the leading shipping companies and all within today’s Central to Sheung Wan area. Opposite them on the Tsim Sha Tsui shoreline of the small, pre–1899 British Kowloon annexation, were the growing HK Wharf and Godown Co. sheds and wharfs and the large number of stockpiles of coal and the coaling wharves. On either side of the peninsula were the new dockyards, which ships would visit for repairs and maintenance. At Hung Hom were the three dry docks, the patent and building slips of the large Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Co. (HWD), usually called the Kowloon Dock, founded in 1866 and by 1890 one of the pre-eminent dockyards in Asia. At

05_Strong to Save.indd 76

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

Uneasy Berth

and the

Demon Drink

77

Tai Kok Tsui was the smaller Cosmopolitan Dock, with its double dry dock, founded in 1875 and taken over by HWD in 1880. It follows, given the predominance of coal-fired steam power in western-crewed ships and their need for docking, that the centre of activity of Victoria Harbour had definitively shifted eastward and northward and away from the Sailors’ Home and St Peter’s Church. For as the 1890s arrived the world of global maritime commerce, exclusive of traditional carriage like the junk trade, had reached the crossover point. In around 1893, in terms of global shipping tonnage, sail and steam each totalled around 10 million register tons. At this date there were still many more sailing than steam vessels with some 30–31,000 of the former and around 10–11,000 of the latter. The numbers’ crossover point did not arrive for another decade. However, in 1890 each sailing vessel was on average carrying only a third of what the average steamer could load so future trends were patent.19 But if that was the global picture, in 1890 Hong Kong was continuing at the head of the vanguard. If in 1885 steamers in Hong Kong had outnumbered western sail almost 10 to 1, in 1890 the ratio was over 30 to 1; 3,989 steamers to 125 western sailing vessels entered that year.20 Although the evidence is sketchy, and clearly responding at some level or another to the multiple influences working against the Sailors’ Home and St Peter’s Church as preferred locations for the Missions to Seamen, it appears clear that by 1891 the Reverend Goldsmith had been working for a year of two on finding alternative, temperance premises for the Mission’s non-church activities. He wanted premises separate from the Sailors’ Home and possibly premises that would be closer to where seamen now came ashore. They would also be premises, we can infer, where his mission work could take pride of place. In 1891 he made his first move.

05_Strong to Save.indd 77

6/7/2017 6:34 PM

6

Parting Brass Rags1

e know for certain that in 1891 a mat-shed Seamen’s Institute was opened in Tsim Sha Tsui on the corner of Elgin Street (today Haiphong Road) and Canton Road. Two years later a hitherto unknown venue in the story of the maritime mission in Hong Kong, the “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House, was opened in rented premises on Queen’s Road.2 It is not certain where this latter establishment was, but it is probable it was not too far from where permanent premises were built or acquired six years later, which was close to where the wide, shallow steps of Pottinger Street meet Queen’s Road, immediately opposite a small pier on the waterfront and within a stone’s throw of the then Harbour Master’s Office. The establishment of both reflects the uneasy relationship that arguably existed at this point between the Mission and the Sailors’ Home. For had all been going swimmingly in the home, with its established nearby seamen’s church, it seems unlikely that the seamen’s chaplain would have founded alternative premises to ensure he would be so busy it would be difficult to find time to do much more than make flying visits for church services, not to mention undertake the task of raising sufficient money through donations and operations to finance two premises. In fact there may have been even more to the split than we have considered thus far. The waters here are extremely muddy and the evidence slight, spasmodic, and connected only by inference. There

06_Strong to Save.indd 78

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

79

are two aspects, one concerned with who the subjects of seamen’s welfare should be, the other to do with where that welfare was to be administered. *** The treatment of destitute westerners, the majority of whom were

seamen, may have been yet another cause of the split between the Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seamen. It is clear from references in government documents and the newspapers that the Sailors’ Home considered such seafarers to fall outside its remit. In the Home’s view, it appears, its premises existed to cater for seafarers in good standing in need of temporary shoreside accommodation as they looked for a new ship or prepared for their tickets,3 but who were above all able to pay their way. It did cater for distressed British seamen, but only because these were a charge on British and Hong Kong Government funds, so the home would be reimbursed. Quite clearly, seamen down on their luck, unable to pay for their beds and not officially “distressed” were not welcome. Obviously, in the absence of any public provision for the welfare of such seafarers, and given the refusal to extend the charity of the Sailors’ Home to them, the Missions to Seamen had a problem as long as the Home was its “accommodation”, as it were. Its mission was not restricted only to seafarers with money in their pockets. Indeed the principles of Christian charity would lead one to suppose that such unfortunates, whether merely unlucky or their own worst enemies, would matter greatly to a concerned Mission chaplain like Gurney Goldsmith. The problems were where to look after them and how coping with their needs was to be paid for. That there had been efforts to deal with this problem both with reference to the Sailors’ Home and separately can be traced from 1871. Eitel notes that in that year there had been a short-lived attempt to provide relief of some sort for the destitute and for discharged prisoners, which he took to be an “indication of a healthy public spirit”.

06_Strong to Save.indd 79

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

80

Strong

to

Save

Five years later, on 17 April 1876, a Temperance Hall was founded, it would seem as some sort of spin off from the first Good Templars’ Lodge, established in Hong Kong in September 1873.4 The hall was explicitly a quasi-religious venture aimed at providing an alcoholfree resort, mainly for seafarers but also for the military, within the purlieus of the bar and tavern district, just off Stanley Street “just behind Messrs Falconer’s & Co’s premises”.5 It was a three-storeyed building with sleeping accommodation for 20 on the top floor, a billiard table and reading room on the middle floor, with the temperance coffee bar and dining room on the ground floor and the toilets and ablutions offset from the main building to the rear. Like so many of the initiatives with which we are concerned, it too had difficulty keeping going and after a few moves from its original location, appears to have folded in around 1888.6 In the 1880s, indeed, there had been a number of possibly parallel efforts to create something for seamen that either kept them from the fleshpots or coped with them once they had gone astray. These, as relations between the Sailors’ Home and the Mission became strained over issues of temperance and the destitute, had established a precedent that, we assume, then pointed a way forward for the Missions to Seamen. For those who were destitute, by 1883 there was a Sailors’ Shelter in operation in rented property at 5 Hing Heen Lane,7 supported by donation. It specifically targeted destitute but deserving seamen — as distinguished from what were known as “beachcombers”. By inference from a government document the shelter had been started in 1881 and we learn of its existence in 1883 because of a letter written by a Charles G. Bunker to The China Mail in October that year.8 The letter identifies the nub of the problem of destitute seafarers. It is that there existed no legal provisions to prevent “the custom of sending men on shore without papers or means of any kind.” The problem was acute for non-British seamen since the latter were protected by the law and given assistance until such time as they

06_Strong to Save.indd 80

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

81

could be found a berth or repatriated. The operation Mr Bunker would seem to have run was small, looking after an average of six destitute seafarers each night, and on the basis of the summary accounts presented in his letter, cheap.9 Bunker’s letter also tells a sad tale that illustrates well the entire problem that his shelter, the work of Gurney Goldsmith, the Hong Kong Temperance Society in its various guises, the Hong Kong Benevolent Society, and the Hong Kong Christian Association was aiming to cope with. One of the destitute who had been helped by the Sailors’ Shelter was a seafarer named George Kirby. He had evidently been something of a wastrel but had “seen the light” and reformed. In February 1883 he had been made the caretaker of the Sailors’ Shelter. Sadly, as Bunker reported, by September “the effects on his system of a life of neglect and dissipation” had so ravaged him that he had been admitted to the Civil Hospital, where he had died on the 22nd of the month. How long the Sailors’ Shelter continued we do not know. By inference from the next public mention of the problem of dealing with destitute seamen, to which we shall now turn, it lasted at least until 1885. The next public surfacing of the subject of destitute seamen appears that same year, when the report from Mr A. Lister, the colonial treasurer (today’s financial secretary), that we looked at briefly in Chapter 2, addressed the problem again.10 There are three points of importance in the report that one can infer bear on the split between the Mission and the Sailors’ Home. The first is that Mr Lister affirms bluntly that “(the) destitute class here, other than Chinese, is mainly composed of seamen”. The second is an inference from Mr Lister’s recommended solution to the problem of destitute seamen, namely to create a casual ward. This is a very 19th century term meaning a managed space in a workhouse for those who were temporarily unable to support themselves. Workhouses were public institutions, created in Britain following the passage in 1834 of the notorious Poor Law Amendment Act, wherein strictly sex segregated “wards”, the

06_Strong to Save.indd 81

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

82

Strong

to

Save

destitute, received meagre board and very basic lodging in return for usually mind-numbing or back-breaking work gardening, cooking and sewing, corn milling, sack making, oakum picking, and crushing stone ten hours a day.11 Mr Lister was suggesting borrowing the casual ward idea and finding an institution in Hong Kong where it could be placed. With the seamen component, he suggested attaching it “to the Gaol, the Central Police Station, or the Sailors’ Home”. In discussing how his proposed casual ward might work in respect of the likely cost of his scheme, Mr Lister refers to “the experience of a Sailor’s Shelter, maintained here for the past four years by subscription.” It seems evident that the Sailors’ Shelter and the Missions to Seamen were not connected — or at least not directly so. For in a footnote Mr Lister noted that since he had written the main body of his text, a meal ticket system of the sort he had described in the course of his argument had been introduced “by a voluntary organization, the relief being given at the Temperance Hall.” In which observation we see again the possible explanation of why in the end neither institution was able to prosper for each was a rival to the other in a small market. There is no further mention of this project, which Mr Lister had recommended be made a subject for public discussion, and it seems clear that it fell by the wayside, or at least led to no further action or debate by government. As a welfare problem, however, the issue obviously did not go away and, equally obviously, it would have been a problem with which the Missions to Seamen chaplain will have become much concerned. Definitive evidence as to exactly in what order, inspired by whom and when is missing, but we do know that in 1889 the Hong Kong Ladies Benevolent Society had been founded and that in some way that is not documented, Reverend Gurney Goldsmith and the Missions to Seamen were soon involved. The new society’s remit was to raise the funds and with them to arrange care for destitute Europeans in Hong Kong, “for the purpose of rendering assistance in cases of sickness, want, poverty, or distress arising from time to time amongst persons other

06_Strong to Save.indd 82

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

83

than members of the Portuguese or Chinese communities” including, if possible, helping to find a passage to their home countries.12 It seems possible that the new society, Temperance Hall, and the relief of destitute seamen are connected strands in one half of Gurney Goldsmith’s two-pronged move away from the Sailors’ Home. The first move, as we have seen, was to get a plot of land in Tsim Sha Tsui from government and there erect the mat-shed Seamen’s Institute whilst efforts were made to raise the funds for a permanent building. The first effort was quickly successful and the mat-shed building opened on 2 September 1891, though from statistics gathered by Gurney Goldsmith, it is evident that the main clientele were British army and navy personnel, merchant seamen comprising just 17.3% of the 5,690 visits to the mat-shed in 1894. A draft letter from Gurney Goldsmith to the governor reveals that as of the date of writing, sometime probably in early 1895, $4,200 had been raised, mostly from the shipping community, to pay for a permanent building. In the light of the costs of the Sailors’ Home 30 years previously, the estimated cost of the new premises, with a coffee bar for “temperance drinks and light refreshments”, a billiard table, bagatelle boards, a writing table, and a small library of magazines and newspapers were estimated to be $5,000 for the building, $250 for furniture and $150 for gas and lamp fittings. As with the Sailors’ Home 30 years previously, the government made no contribution to this exercise beyond providing a “charity” site, Kowloon Inland Lot 632, which was on the northern corner of the junction of what was then West Bund (later Canton Road) and Elgin Road (later Haiphong Road). By December 1894 Gurney Goldsmith and his Local General Committee, of the composition and membership of which at this stage we have no evidence at all, were sufficiently confident that the money would be raised for their building that they began construction. On 21 December Bishop Burdon dedicated the foundation stone (referred to in the newspaper story as a “memorial stone”), the newspaper story reporting this described the future building to be two-storied , with a

06_Strong to Save.indd 83

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

84

Strong

to

Save

smaller, detached building for kitchens, etc.13 Sixteen months later, on 2 April 1895, the new Institute was opened happily free of debt.14 That was only one part of Gurney Goldsmith’s efforts. The second was on Hong Kong Island. In 1893, two years after the first, temporary Kowloon Institute had opened, its Hong Kong opposite number was started in rented premises somewhere near where Queen’s Road and D’Aguilar Street came together at the waterfront, perhaps two blocks from the small pier used by the Harbour Office at the end of Pottinger Street and, one suspects, Dayspring. The premises were called the “Star” Seaman’s Coffee House and as the name makes clear, were temperance.15 When Bishop Lander gave a speech about the Mission’s history in 1909 he told the assembled worthies that there had been a plan for the erection of the Seamen’s Institute on the grounds of the Sailors’ Institute [sic]. I understand that the committee gave their consent and some money was collected but it was not found possible for lack of funds to go on with this scheme.

There is no other evidence that anything of the sort had ever been planned. It is true that the grounds of the Sailors’ Home were spacious, but it seems hard to believe, given the shift in the port’s centre of action, the Institute in Kowloon and the coffee house in Central, that there really had been a Missions to Seamen plan to build a rival, temperance institute right next door to a Sailors’ Home that everyone agreed was in the wrong place. It is rather harder to believe that the management committee of the Sailors’ Home would have given the go ahead. As with much to do with the early history of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong, disentangling truth from muddled recollection is often impossible. Evidently between them Gurney Goldsmith and Bishop Hoare had been such efficient fundraisers for the Mission, that despite extensions to the Kowloon Institute and improvements to the Star, enough funds had been raised to encourage plans for building something similar on

06_Strong to Save.indd 84

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

85

Hong Kong Island. These were the beginnings of a new building fund. There is no record of exactly what was where for the Hong Kong Missions to Seamen chaplaincy in organizational terms for the next decade. Wolfendale explicitly says that as of 1891 the Mission handed St Peter’s Church back to the diocese, although the evidence from the “Ecclesiastical Returns” does not seem to support this. There is also a note in one of the Missions to Seamen archive documents to the effect that in 1892 religious meetings at the Sailors’ Home stopped, though this almost certainly refers to the use of the Sailors’ Home for Mission activity and not St Peter’s Church.16 What we do know suggests that by 1895–96 the Mission was no longer based at West Point save possibly for the purposes of church services. Briefly, given the presence of a committee room in the new building in Kowloon, it may have shifted its operational headquarters to Tsim Sha Tsui. But whether it stayed there or moved to the new premises on Hong Kong side, clearly the Missions to Seamen had become quite removed from the Sailors’ Home. Gurney Goldsmith’s swansong had been this creation of new, dedicated, temperance Missions to Seamen premises on either side of the harbour nearer to the new centre of operational gravity of shipping. Of course there is one further and possibly rather forceful reason connected with the Sailors’ Home’s location in Sai Ying Pun that would have encouraged Gurney Goldsmith to shift base. It is powerfully illustrated in a description that appeared in an article written in 1913 about Hong Kong and the terrible 1894 plague,17 At the time of the appearance of plague in Hong Kong the sanitary

condition of the city was deplorable. The buildings were filthy, badly lighted and ventilated and very much overcrowded [...] The drains in Chinatown

were old and [...] The great majority of infections in this district resulted in death.

Chinatown, or Tai Ping Shan, lay between Central and Sai Ying Pun, indeed Sai Ying Pun abutted close upon its western edge, being in effect a western extension of the established Chinese residential

06_Strong to Save.indd 85

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

86

Strong

to

Save

quarter and pretty much reaching the boundary wall of the Sailors’ Home where St. Peter’s stood. When the great plague of May 1894 broke out in Hong Kong, if Sai Ying Pun was not as badly affected as Tai Ping Shan — much of which was pulled down and rebuilt — it certainly suffered. In Dr Lowson’s analysis in The Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894, he reveals that Sai Ying Pun’s Sheung Fung Lane — about 100 m from the Sailors’ Home — was inhabited “principally (by) night soil coolies and almost all died”.18 As Dr Lowson described the general area, it is clear that conditions had been grim since shortly after St Peter’s Church had been built, and very probably well before that:19 The ravages of 1894 were by no means the last of the plague or its

visitation to Hong Kong’s more crowded areas with further, though milder outbreaks occurring in 1896, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1904 and 1905. Given

the Mission’s concern for the welfare of seamen, there will have been a

perfectly understandable wish to find somewhere more salubrious to be based than Sai Ying Pun.20

In this move away from an area neither any longer pivotal for harbour activity nor salubrious and that served alcohol, Gurney Goldsmith’s crowning achievement was the successful replacement of the mat-shed Kowloon Seamen’s Institute by the permanent brick and stone structure. It was to stand — albeit with mixed fortunes — until 1926. However despite both this success and that of the “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House, achieving them had cost the Reverend Goldsmith dear and his health had suffered badly. Just nine days after the new Kowloon Institute opened, he was invalided back to Britain. *** Gurney Goldsmith had been appointed to Hong Kong as what was called a “grant chaplain”.21 This meant that the cost of the chaplain’s passage from Britain to Hong Kong and return was paid from the funds of the London headquarters of the Missions to Seamen, as was the chaplain’s annual salary. However, that was the extent of the contribution from headquarters. Beyond help with a grant

06_Strong to Save.indd 86

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

87

chaplaincy, all other costs — accommodation for the chaplain, the capital payment or rent for any premises the Mission operated, the capital and operational costs of any launch, any salaries for additional workers, etc. — had to be found by the chaplain and his Local General Committee. There would be four likely sources for funds, whether in relation to a specific project like a new building, a building extension or a launch, or for day-to-day operations. First and foremost would be the funds that could be raised from the shipping community — both shipping companies and ships’ crews — and the community at large. The resulting funds could be in cash or kind, and if cash then it would come from specific fundraising drives, regular annual or periodic contributions, one-off large donations, or bequests. One object of the fundraising was if possible to build an endowment fund from which income could be drawn in hard times and that could be topped up in good times. The next source, which more often resulted in help in kind rather than cash — for example land grants on easy or peppercorn terms — was government. Even though the Anglican Church in a British colony might be assumed to have a privileged position and in many respects did, government in a multi-faith, majority Chinese society like Hong Kong did need to seem even-handed to all creeds and denominations, and this was certainly the case in its response to overtures from the Mission. Obviously the next source of funds, once the Mission had premises that were being used, was the operations of the Institute or coffee house. They could be hoped at least to pay for themselves. If they were well managed and popular they could even be looked to for a surplus that could help defray other costs or to contribute to the endowment. Finally there would be whatever contribution to the Mission’s needs the local diocese might be prepared to make. The chaplain, although he was appointed by London, was appointed only in consultation with the bishop of Victoria and with the bishop’s approval. On arrival he then had to be licensed to officiate as a priest by the bishop and was thus a member

06_Strong to Save.indd 87

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

88

Strong

to

Save

of the diocesan clergy. This was an important matter since it ensured that when needed — for example in the case of a chaplain being ill — the diocese could help the Mission and pari passu, the Mission could help the diocese. As a source of funds, the diocese was very much a last resort. Alfred Iliff, Gurney Goldsmith’s successor, was a stopgap appointed locally in Hong Kong, London evidently having been taken by surprise by Gurney Goldsmith’s sudden collapse. During his brief chaplaincy both the Kowloon Institute and the rented “Star” Coffee House were extended. But, called as he had originally been to mission work in China proper, in December 1898 Alfred Iliff resigned and on 1 January 1899 the Reverend John Hoole France arrived, this time very much a London-made appointment. As has so often proved the case with Missions to Seamen chaplains, John France turned out to have been an excellent choice. He proved very hard working and greatly respected, and despite what was evidently initially a major setback, he ended up taking Gurney Goldsmith and Alfred Iliff’s pioneering work to its hoped for conclusion.

*** In the meantime, barely a month after John France had taken up the reins, his first task was to open the new rented home for the “Star” Coffee House a bit further east along Praya West from the old premises, for which Alfred Iliff had managed to find financial backing. The new premises, at what must have been no. 76, Queen’s Road Central, had 40 beds,22 so here for the first time was a full service Mission to Seamen in Hong Kong with what seemed to be excellently located premises and a launch for ship visits, as well as a somewhat less conveniently placed seamen’s church. This apparent triumph lasted only two or three years before it fell victim to a very Hong Kong story. Recapping the history of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong when he gave the first speech at the opening of its first permanent home in 1909, Bishop Landers noted that the “Star” was brought low by an increase in rent that its

06_Strong to Save.indd 88

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

89

operations could not support.23 The coffee house had to move again to somewhere in a “bye-street near Queen’s Road”. Probably for the same reason, although that is mere conjecture, this new venture soon closed, bring the “Star” to a permanent end. Obviously, that global shipping hit a peak in 1899 and then went pretty sharply into the longest downturn of the 20th century that lasted, with only a slight uptick in 1906–07, until around 1912 will have had an effect on the “Star”’s patronage.24 Another contributory factor may have been the opening of rival institutions that will have “poached” many of the military personnel, who the Kowloon Institute figures show to have been important supporters. In 1899 the Reverend C.T. Bone of the Methodist Church had begun his campaign for the creation of a Sailors and Soldiers Home in Wan Chai. This had the support of the government and was so successful that by February 1901 the new home was open for business.25 At around the same time the Royal Navy had their naval canteen and a Union Jack Club in operation. There was a Soldiers and Sailors Rest at East Point and a United Services Club in Kowloon. And for ship’s officers there were the Institute of Marine Engineers “complete with technical library and librarian”, and a local branch of the recently formed British Mercantile Marine Officers’ Association.26 Given the pattern of use of the Kowloon Institute, these must have been worrying developments. But John France was evidently undeterred. Almost from the moment the “Star” Seaman’s Coffee House definitively failed, he was planning a comeback. That the workload in no way decreased as the Mission went through these setbacks is indicated by the arrival of the Reverend Thomas Wright as assistant chaplain in 1900, the beginning of a 28year career with the Missions to Seamen.27 He was soon in the thick of mission work. The new Missions to Seamen venture John France was planning, like the rival Methodist establishment, was to be in Wan Chai. We have only slight clues as to when the planning started, who was involved

06_Strong to Save.indd 89

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

90

Strong

to

Save

other than John France, or to the reasoning behind it. The only clue, from long after the event, is a recollection by the sixth chaplain, George Waldegrave, to the effect that “France undoubtedly went there to be on the spot in ‘Sailor Town’, Wan Chai (or ‘little village’) as the district is called.”28 But it evidently went ahead at a good pace and with sufficient backing where it mattered. By May 1905 John France was able to open a new Seaman’s Institute in rented premises in Wan Chai. It was sufficiently large to need a manager, a Miss Forster, who by inference seems possibly to have played the same role in the defunct coffee house. We learn from the newspaper story of its opening by the governor, Sir Matthew Nathan, that it was on the waterfront at 72 and 73, a long way further east from where, a few years later, the Missions to Seamen’s third permanent premises were to be.29 It was not exactly the high end of town and, by inference from contemporary documents, comprised two side-by-side tenement buildings on part of Marine Lot 107, towards the western end of a block of 18 such buildings and close to No. 2 Police Station, which stood where Wan Chai Road met Praya East.30 That the new Mission opened at all was in its way surprising. In an editorial at the end of July The Hong Kong Telegraph noted that “An earlier institute on somewhat similar lines had to be closed for lack of support”, which fairly clearly refers to the relatively sudden closure of the “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House two years or so previously. The same editorial also makes the point that the new premises were not expected to pay their way and that the Local General Committee — who, bar the bishop, continue to remain infuriatingly anonymous — had “agreed to pay the rent out of the capital fund if necessary, in order that it might have a fair chance.”31 That success nonetheless may have followed was indicated by some useful contrasts between the new Seamen’s Institute and the Kowloon Seamen’s Institute that had “only four or five beds”, the Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Home that was “to all intents and purposes a Service affair” and the Sailors’ Home that was “a boarding house pure and simple”.32 In short, the new Institute was

06_Strong to Save.indd 90

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

91

intended to fill a gap in the market, but one the demand for which no one involved seemed very confident about.33 So, why the widespread support? There may have been a number of influences in play. One is obviously what had happened to the Sailors’ Home, stuck out at West Point, catering mainly to merchant service officers and interested only in those who could pay their way as longstay residents. This left the merchant jack ashore for a night on leave, or a bit down on his luck with nowhere to turn save the infamous grog shops and brothels. That potentially large group of patrons, who were so often led astray, was obviously connected in its turn to the problem of destitute seamen. And it is with destitute seamen, casting our eyes forward to 1925, that an interesting line of speculation opens up in relation to why yet another temperance institution gained sufficient charitable support to create a further refuge for sailors. We can infer from the absence of any subsequent documents that Mr Lister’s 1885 initiative to create a casual ward for destitute seamen went nowhere, as one might have expected given a previous report by Dr E.J. Eitel in 1880, that had affirmed it should be government policy to leave the care of destitutes to private charity.34 For seafarers therefore, the Missions to Seamen and the Hong Kong Ladies’ Benevolent Society, whose president in 1901 was the Jardine Matheson taipan’s wife, Mrs J.J. Keswick, had more or less taken over the running.35 That this relationship had continued despite the failure of the “Star” Coffee House is indicated by a story from The Hong Kong Telegraph’s report of the 1905 general meeting of the Benevolent Society which affirms that with John France’s active involvement, it is continuing to look after “destitute and deserving sailors’ because the Sailors’ Home refuses to do so.” The report goes on to accuse the Sailors’ Home of frittering “away in administrative extravagance monies that should be devoted almost wholly to the real purposes of its foundation.” The points of interest are two. One is that the Missions to Seamen chaplaincy was helping do a job that no other charitable foundation

06_Strong to Save.indd 91

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

92

Strong

to

Save

connected with seafarers was doing. The other is that the people who had led support for the Sailors’ Home when it was built — Jardine, Matheson and Co. — seem to have thrown their taipan’s weight behind an alternative organization, which was doing part of the job for which, we can assume, the Sailors’ Home had been founded but was not doing. This raises the question of to what extent Jardine’s can be assumed still to be supporting both institutions. In the early 1870s, around the time of the Overbury lawsuit, we noted from Mr Thomsett’s testimony that Jardine, Matheson and Co. had stepped back from financial support of the Sailors’ Home. This may also over time have led to less and less involvement in, or at least influence over, policies and operations at the Home. For if we cast our eyes forward to 1925 when discussion begins about placing the Sailors’ Home on a firm legal foundation, it is clear that whatever management structure was then in place, it had partly lost touch with the arrangements established at the meeting in February 1861, which had enshrined the taipan of Jardine’s as the chairman in perpetuo of the Home’s trustees and of its board of directors. So great was the assumption that Jardine’s was only coincidentally involved by 1925 that in the first draft of the proposed legislation to incorporate the Sailors’ Home trustees, the chairman of the new trustees — as opposed to the existing “informal committee” — was to be the harbour master.36 This argues that at least in the official mind the Sailors’ Home over the years had in some way or another become increasingly associated with the Harbour Master’s Office, not least, perhaps, through its accommodation of the Shipping Office 1865–c.1920 and its role in helping prepare ships’ officers for their examinations for their certificates. However there are some grounds for doubt that caring for distressed seamen was the main basis of the support the Missions to Seamen was finding. Certainly John France was acclaimed, at the new Institute’s opening, by Sir Matthew Nathan, for his work during

06_Strong to Save.indd 92

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

93

1904 in raising funds to help relieve unemployed seamen whose “number was unusually large”. But what may as much have been driving things could have been a marked shift in focus in the target audience of the Mission. The Kowloon Institute seems by 1905 to have become almost the exclusive preserve of naval and military personnel to the point, indeed, that it is being referred to as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Institute. The second is that at the opening it was specifically mentioned in the press story in The Hong Kong Telegraph that the new Institute’s main patronage was expected to be from Royal Navy other ranks on 48-hour shore leave passes.37 Whatever had in fact happened, there is no question that by the date of the founding of the Missions to Seamen’s Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute in Wan Chai in May 1905, it had influential support, as evidenced by the receipt of several paintings from the governor, Sir Matthew Nathan, though all of scenes of the British countryside and of London.38 This narrowness of focus — any trace of a concern for Asiatic seamen that had at least made an appearance back in the 1860s was by 1905 long gone — was not merely evidence of casual and unreflective habit.39 It was explicit in the Mission’s own newspaper advertisements with respect to its church services that, with the advent of John France, had returned to St. Peter’s.40 The Hong Kong Daily Press in the month the new Institute had opened the doors of its rented premises announced, The Church launch Dayspring will call on ships carrying white crews to bring friends ashore to the services between 9.15 and 10.30 a.m. and between 5.15 and 6 p.m. (Kowloon Police Pier 10.30 and 6), returning afterwards. [Preacher Reverend E.J. Barnett, MA]

Not Christian crews; white crews. There was another aspect emphasized in a tailpiece to the article reporting the governor’s gift of paintings, which may help explain the move to Wan Chai rather than any focus on building on the head

06_Strong to Save.indd 93

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

94

Strong

to

Save

start in Kowloon. We learn that in addition to the governor’s gift, the Institute was to have a billiard table bought from Lane Crawford with funds donated by the Navy League, whose local president was Henry Pollock.41 The donor of funds is interesting. A glance at a contemporary chart or at contemporary photographs of the Wan Chai waterfront shows that far from being where the majority of western merchant vessels berthed or occupied moorings, the harbour off Wan Chai was dominated by the naval anchorage. The nearest major focus of maritime activity to the Institute was the Royal Naval dockyard. The new Mission was making its pitch to the clientele that for the next 30 to 40 years would form a very important source of patronage — the royal, not the merchant navy.42 The article concluded, emphasizing again that the new venture had not necessarily been expected to prosper, It is eminently satisfactory to learn that the Seamen’s Institute is

progressing favourably. There was a fear at first that it would go the way of

its predecessor — rise like a rocket and fall like the stick. But every month has seen an increased attendance of seamen.

A year later — just before the terrible Bingwu typhoon of that year was to drown up to 10,000 Chinese fishermen and boat dwellers and sink the diocesan launch, drowning Bishop Hoare in the process — The Hong Kong Telegraph summarized John France’s annual report on the Missions’ doings. Nearly 4,000 ship visits had been made. The Kowloon Institute had held 100 concerts entertaining 7,287 attendees and raising $121.53 for Mission funds. Attendance at the Kowloon Institute, at 18,419 visitors, was over three times what it had been in 1896 and the first year in Wan Chai had seen 5,414 users, though “the latter is not yet paying its way…”. What it does not mention is that John France was also running two “parishes” in that he had resumed responsibility for St Peter’s in West Point and had been holding services at the Kowloon Institute, which were the foundation of what later became the parish of St Andrew’s.43

06_Strong to Save.indd 94

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

95

Reflecting on these facts — the opening of a new home, active programmes in two premises divided by the harbour, an average of over ten ship visits a day every day, regular church services to conduct in two widely separated institutions and a vigorous campaign to raise funds for a permanent home on Hong Kong Island44 — and that Thomas Wright, John France’s assistant chaplain, had left for Rangoon in 1904 — makes it no surprise that the Hong Kong Telegraph’s commentary ends by noting that “the Chaplain needs an assistant.”45 Running an active and successful Mission placed a heavy demand on its chaplains in Hong Kong. Gurney Goldsmith had buckled under the strain. As John France pushed ahead single-handed on an even more intensive and demanding programme than that which had overtaxed his predecessor, he was moving inexorably towards repeating the same fate. After two years on his own following Thomas Wright’s departure, in late 1906 or early 1907 John France did get help when the Reverend Charles Edward Thompson arrived as assistant chaplain, beginning what would turn out to be five important years of service with the Mission in Hong Kong. But Charles Thompson had been in place only a year when John France’s hard work both bore fruit and his health gave out, ending his service as chaplain in Hong Kong, though not with the Mission.46 We learn that by sometime in 1908 the fundraising efforts by John France and others had raised over $73,000 to help pay for a site and a permanent building.47 Some 15% was a residuum from the days of Gurney Goldsmith and Alfred Iliff and 37% had been raised by public subscriptions following a meeting presided over by the governor in early 1908. The balance and the donation that made the venture possible came from one of early 20th century Hong Kong’s great benefactors, the Parsi merchant Mr H.N. Modi. To pay for the building, Mr Modi had initially donated $35,000, but when it became clear that the cost of the site had exhausted Mission funds, he was later to raise it to $50,000. Sadly no sooner had Mr Modi’s first offer been made and the promise of new premises begun to look like

06_Strong to Save.indd 95

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

96

Strong

to

Save

fulfilment than John France and his wife had to leave Hong Kong as a matter of urgency. There is an interesting point about the acquisition of this site that emerged some 40 years later in reminiscences of the Mission’s history in Hong Kong written by the sixth chaplain, George Turner Waldegrave. In an historical memorandum he wrote for the London office in 1948 he observed, It is worth noting that France (Rev J.H. France) was only allowed to build it

(the Wan Chai Seamen’s Institute) for the benefit of merchant navy lower

deck only [sic], so as not to compete with the Sailor’s Home for Officers’ patronage.48

Obviously this may or may not have been true, but it seems to have been the Mission’s “folk memory” that had been passed on and reflects what little we do know about the Sailors’ Home between 1890 and 1930. George Waldegrave, in a later note, also added a waspish comment about what this first independent Seamen’s Institute was actually like in practice, When the house in Wan Chai (which preceded France’s building experimentally) was in being, bottles of drink were regularly supplied

nightly to the inhabitants who lowered lines and hooks from their bedroom windows and other accommodating friends or shopmen hooked on the necessary bottles.49

Obviously London was no more prepared for John France’s sudden departure than it had been for that of Gurney Goldsmith. Fortunately for the Hong Kong chaplaincy, Charles Thompson was in place and able to take over. Curiously, however — and there is no record explaining why — when Charles Thompson was made chaplain, unlike Gurney Goldsmith, Alfred Iliff, and John France, he was not a grant chaplain. That is, his salary was to be paid by the Local General Committee — or a combination of the Local General Committee and the diocese — and not by London. It is hard to divine a cause of this other than the obvious probability that the tribulations of the shipping

06_Strong to Save.indd 96

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

97

industry in Britain meant hard times for the Missions to Seamen’s headquarters. It is also possible, though from the general tenor of reports not probable, that local Hong Kong fundraising had been sufficiently successful not only to pay for a new building, but also to finance the salary of the chaplain from local resources. Whatever the answer, Charles Thompson’s salary had to be found locally. With John France’s premature departure, it fell to Charles Thomson to oversee the design and building of the Missions to Seamen’s first purpose designed and built Hong Kong Island home. Here the record of the ins and outs of the project’s inception is quite puzzling. We know that the site of the new building was at this stage what was at that point known as Marine Lot 29 on the Wan Chai waterfront or Praya East, and that the Mission had acquired the plot with funds raised from shipping and other leading Hong Kong companies.50 We are quite clear on the financial side of the affair. This is that the site cost the Mission $37,000 and the building an additional $50,000 or so. There is a list of donors, which includes fourteen trading and shipping companies, including all the leading players, the three largest banks, two insurance companies, seven Royal Naval ships and establishments, and eighteen individuals including the munificent HN Modi. What is interesting is that in 1900, some eight years before the Mission acquired the plot, Mr Chater and Mr Modi and a number of other Marine Lot holders on Praya East had mooted to government a scheme to reclaim in front of the Praya.51 After some toing and froing over detail, during which the proposed reclamation had increased from a 445 feet extension to seaward to a 520 feet extension, in February 1901, subject to certain conditions, government had given approval. By April the lot holders had agreed to government’s conditions and in August they had sent a letter proposing to go ahead. Then nothing happened. We learn the story and why nothing happened from news of a meeting held in May 1905, just at the time the Mission moved to

06_Strong to Save.indd 97

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

98

Strong

to

Save

its rented premises in Wan Chai. Apparently the lot holders had supposed that the new tramline along the Wan Chai waterfront, that had opened in 1904, would lead to a marked increase in business and other activity, boosting demand for land and thereby making a reclamation a feasible speculative venture.52 By 1905, however, it had become evident that the tramline was working no such increase and accordingly support for the project had evaporated. The meeting on 12 May 1905 had been called to get an agreement to shelve the proposed reclamation, which the meeting duly did.53 To understand the place of the Seamen’s Institute in these goingson requires us to go back to the launch of the organization in rented premises in 1905. In the governor’s speech reference was explicitly made to how and why the new institution was being lodged in temporary premises, when he noted “a site shall be reserved, and lent to the Mission on favourable terms.”54 An echo of this also appeared a short time later in a letter from the Missions’ general secretary in London in which “the reclaimed ground where the Governor graciously promises a suitable site” is mentioned.55 So clearly at this point, as far as the government was concerned the Praya East reclamation was going ahead as agreed and when it did, the Mission would get a site for “the handsome Seamen’s Church and Institute… worthy of Hong Kong’s long and noble lead in provision for sea-going men.”56 Given the date of the meeting at which the decision of lot holders not to go ahead with the reclamation was made, it is extraordinary that no hint of it should have emerged in the Mission’s papers. Instead we learn only that the new premises have been leased to the Mission “at a moderate rent” for three years from the Hong Kong Land Investment Co., the hint being that this is a temporary shift until the expected site on the reclamation would be available. One possibility is that the main speculators in the reclamation, Mr Modi and Mr Chater, may have been advising the Mission via its Local General Committee. Both were supporters of the Mission and,

06_Strong to Save.indd 98

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

99

in addition to being hugger-mugger with J.J. Keswick, Mr Chater was also a leading supporter of the Anglican Church and of the Freemasons who, as we shall see shortly, were already helping to support the Kowloon Institute. Since they will have known that they were abandoning the reclamation and that therefore the hoped for site for a new, permanent institute would not be available as expected, perhaps the offer of the leased premises was made while efforts to find somewhere permanent were redirected.57 It is likely, after all, that the main drivers of the development of the Wan Chai waterfront will have been fully apprised of all potential sites and when they might be available to the Mission. Whatever the exact mechanics, the lease on the temporary premises evidently had to be renewed, since it was not until 1909, a year after the original lease had expired, that the purchase of the new site was completed — one notes that the government rhetoric about finding and leasing a site at moderate rent to the Mission proved so much hot air — and the foundation stone for a permanent building laid. At this stage the new premises were going to be at no. 8 Praya East, which was in the process of being re-numbered and becoming no. 9. By the time the Mission actually started using the address, the numbering had undergone drastic revision and the premises had become no. 21, though when that change took place is not clear. On 28 April 1909, after the choir of St Peter’s, led by Mr Sykes, one of the Diocesan Boy’s School masters, had sung “The Church’s One Foundation”, the new governor, Sir Frederick Lugard, who had assumed office in 1907, presided over the foundation stone laying ceremony. Intriguingly, in the previous year — and perhaps again a sign of the insider knowledge to which the Mission may have been privy — government had made arrangements to create a new road joining Queen’s Road East and Praya East. It was to occupy the eastern edge of Marine Lot 29 and result in that lot’s division into four: Marine Lots 295 and 296 and Inland Lots 1797–1800. The public road created was 30 feet wide. So not only was the new Mission premises going to

06_Strong to Save.indd 99

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

100

Strong

to

Save

be on a waterfront site, it was also going to be a corner site, with all the advantages that ensued, not least of three sides free of an adjacent building.58 In the course of his opening speech at the ceremony on 28 April Bishop Lander introduced the remarkable piece of information, noted above, about Gurney Goldsmith’s 1896 plan to build the Seamen’s Institute on the grounds of the Sailors’ Home and the claim that the project only failed from lack of funds. That there may have been a plan for a Hong Kong Island institute at the juncture is one thing. But it is very hard to reconcile the idea that the Mission intended to stay in West Point given the Kowloon Institute, the successive “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House premises, what we know of everyone’s sense that the Sailors’ Home was in the wrong place and the intimations that relations between the Home and the Mission were not entirely satisfactory. Scuttlebutt is a fickle jade.

*** Building works occupied the next 14 months, with the whole surrounding area being built on at the same time.59 Then, on 23 June 1910, the new Hong Kong Seaman’s Institute was opened by the acting governor and colonial secretary, Sir Henry May, assisted by Bishop Lander.60 Mr Alfred Bryer, who was a partner of one of Hong Kong’s leading architectural firms, Leigh and Orange, had designed the new Institute. It was steel-framed and built of red brick faced with Amoy red brick, “in the style of the Flemish Renaissance”.61 The whole frontage was composed of verandahs with granite piers at street level leading to columns of the “Roman Doric order” for the two upper stories. The openings at all levels were semi-circular “with pierced spandrels surmounted by a plain parapet with a hood mould and small octagonal corner pieces on moulded trusses.” Over the main entrance was a pediment with “Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute” and the date of opening carved on it. Despite the fact that funds were $14,000

06_Strong to Save.indd 100

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

101

short of the $90,000 needed for the whole project and that its rented predecessor had had to work hard to break even, the building’s flatroofed structure had been built to take the load of an additional floor when funds were available.62 In the interior a chapel had been planned despite St Peter’s having returned to being a seamen’s church run by the Mission under John France. This had disappeared by the time of the finished building, so presumably the bishop had had second thoughts about the Mission no longer having a reason to look after St Peter’s. The planned chapel had been replaced by one of the two dormitories for seamen, the “late” one on the ground floor for patrons arriving after hours. The other, the “early” dormitory, was on the first floor. On both first and top floors, as well as quarters for the chaplain, were 33 “state rooms” for officers. Each floor was linked by a covered bridge to a services block built to the rear of the building, which housed toilets and bathrooms. The known images of this building are sadly of indifferent quality either in terms of resolution or because of the angle from which they were taken, even though it was not actually demolished until the 1960s, having served from 1933 as a government building. In his speech, Sir Henry gave a brief but full history of the Seamen’s Institute in Hong Kong that, he said, had been “born in 1891 — its cradle a mat-shed in Kowloon by Gurney Goldsmith, the nursemaid”. He also noted that the rented premises the new building was replacing had been catering for up to 2,000 seamen a month by the time of its closure.63 Not mentioned was the Mission’s launch and the landing point on Praya East, near the end of Gresson Street, which would be most important both for Dayspring to use for ship visits and excursions, but also to connect the new Institute with its older partner in Kowloon. The reason is not hard to seek for, before the new Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute had opened, the need for a link to the Kowloon Institute had disappeared. We do not know why for certain, other than

06_Strong to Save.indd 101

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

102

Strong

to

Save

some sort of fluctuation in shipping of the sort that was a perennial bother, though a look at what was actually going on in Hong Kong’s early 20th century port as far as raw numbers go leaves us little the wiser. Despite the relative downturn in international shipping, from 1905 through until 1910 actual numbers of seafarers using the Port of Victoria only slightly diminished. This suggests that the Mission tended to appeal to a distinct minority of seafarers, so the consequence of a 20–35% fall in raw numbers meant a sufficiently severe collapse in demand to cause the Kowloon Institute to become a liability. A much later recollection by the sixth chaplain, George Waldegrave, suggested that the problem was as much location. Albeit that the Kowloon Institute was in Tsim Sha Tsui, to where the focus of late 1890s and early 1900s merchant shipping had moved, it was not the right part of Tsim Sha Tsui. As Waldegrave summarized it, Gurney Goldsmith had got a $2.00 a year charity lease from government on a site that was close to what had at one stage been intended to be the main gates of the relatively newly completed Kowloon wharves towards their northern end. Once the wharves were completed, the landing for seamen who were not aboard ships actually berthed at the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Co.’s piers was several hundred yards away at the south end. It was for that reason that Waldegrave surmised the premises did not prove to be notably successful.64 Perhaps more significant, given knowledge of the heavy dependence of the Kowloon Institute on naval and military personnel, will have been the consequences of the Japanese defeat of Russia in the RussoJapanese War and especially the annihilation of its fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. Because of Britain’s 1902 alliance with Japan that was renewed in 1905, as well as in congruence with Admiral Fisher’s ongoing restructuring of the Royal Navy, in mid 1905 a decision was made to withdraw from Hong Kong the heavy complement of predreadnought battleships from the China Station.65 In June and July

06_Strong to Save.indd 102

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

Parting Brass Rags

103

that year five of these ships, the Glory, Ocean, Centurion, Vengeance and Albion, left for Europe. Given that each embarked some 779 officers and men and that we know they were strong supporters of the Kowloon Institute, this must have been a significant additional blow.66 Whatever the actual cause of the collapse in patronage in Kowloon, in 1909 Charles Thomson had taken the first steps to find an alternative use for the decreasingly used Institute. The offer he made was to the Freemasons’ Lodge Eastern Scotia No. 923. The lodge had been formed on 19 February 1902, intended for shipyard junior management and foremen, and closely affiliated with Sir Paul Chater in whose Kowloon bungalow it had been erected and dedicated in 1901.67 Charles Thompson’s offer was only slowly accepted and it was not until following a committee meeting in July 1911 that the Lodge formally agreed to lease the Kowloon Institute building from the Mission. The history of the Lodge Eastern Scotia notes that “in addition to the Temple, the Institute also provided a club and billiard room for the use of the Brethren.”68 As of July 1911 the Missions to Seamen thus had only one premise, the Hong Kong Institute at 8 (later 9), Praya East in Wan Chai. At this point it also finally sundered its link to St Peter’s though no exact date is known and the “Ecclesiastical Returns” never reflect that this occurred. The diocesan historians note the revival of the church during John France’s chaplaincy, during which it got a new organ (1908) and Sir Paul Chater paid for a new pulpit screen and east window (1909). It also acquired a church council of seven with the Reverend George She as secretary reflecting, no doubt, a sea change in the composition of the congregation. Charles Thompson and the Missions to Seamen’s decision to leave St Peter’s is ascribed to “the falling off of the seamen’s side” of the congregation, which had never been particularly large to begin with. St Peter’s itself then flourished under the chaplain of the Diocesan Boys’ School, at that time in Western District, the Reverend A.J.S Stearn, who looked after it until 1922.69

06_Strong to Save.indd 103

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

104

Strong

to

Save

Where the Mission held its services as of 1911 is not mentioned in any early documentation. In a confidential report in 1928 by the visiting Missions to Seamen’s secretary, Stuart Carnegie Knox, there is a detailed description of the use of the building at that date that notes a room converted to a church seating c.100 people.70 There is no mention of this being a dedicated or consecrated space or of any patron saint and no mention at all is made in the diocesan history, so it was clearly an informal arrangement. It is probable that the room came into use very soon after the Institute was opened and the Mission had left St Peter’s to its predominantly local congregation. No doubt Charles Thompson rued the decision to dispense with the original design for a chapel. However it was managed, by 1911 the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong was a fully independent entity completely severed from both the Sailors’ Home and from St Peter’s Church. It was to retain that status for the next 22 years when the rift that had begun opening in 1891 — or perhaps before — was again closed, initially with much by way of jury-rigging. Until well into the last half of the 20th century, the resulting patched-together compromise often threatened to fall asunder.

06_Strong to Save.indd 104

6/7/2017 6:35 PM

7

Meanwhile Down on the Waterfront

ith both Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen firmly established by the turn of the 20th century as part of Hong Kong’s mix of facilities to care for the material and spiritual welfare of seafarers, it is time to look again at the “laissez faire” provisions that had emerged in the first days of British colonial Hong Kong and been brought fully under the supervisory wing of government by 1857, and see how they had progressed. At the point we left them the seaman’s boarding houses had been dry, required to meet minimum construction and facility standards, were being used as the major means of controlling and keeping a record of seafarers ashore in Hong Kong, and for monitoring that aspect of their health that might have had an adverse, knock-on effect on military readiness. They were able to accommodate some 600 or so seafarers of all nationalities whether traditional lascar, western seaman or, though this is a great deal more questionable, Chinese seamen. At that point it had seemed probable that as the regulations settled down and the market got to work, the boarding houses would continue to adapt to the changing composition of seafarers as this reflected changing shipping technology and the economic conditions in the shipping industry. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that during the last half of the 19th century the number of Indian lascar seamen working out of Hong Kong, in the sense of standing in need of accommodation, markedly diminished. The main reason for this would seem to be the

07_Strong to Save.indd 105

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

106

Strong

to

Save

shipping industry itself and a general shift from lascar (i.e. Indian, Malay, and Filipino) crews to Chinese crews for vessels working the China Seas or routes from China to India and Europe. Although British passenger liners run by P&O and British India/Apcar remained mainly crewed by Indian lascars, British liner companies like Blue Funnel (Ocean Steamship Co.) employed mainly Chinese crew, as did China Coast shipping lines like the Indo-China Steam Navigation Co., the China Navigation Co., and the Douglas Steamship Co., and the growing number of China Seas based German, Norwegian, and Dutch companies. Hong Kong statistics do not help us much to get beyond this anecdotal impression. They only begin to become fairly reliable in the early 20th century and there is almost never any attempt (as there continues to be no attempt today) to give data for anything other than total crew throughput as a result of total ship port calls. Such a figure inevitably does a very large amount of double-counting, given that many of the China Coast steamers were working a regular schedule. For example, excluding the traffic of river steamers plying between Hong Kong and ports in the Pearl River Delta, the 1894 data shows that of 504 ships responsible for 2,860 recorded entries to the port, 90 (17.9%) had entered port over 9 times in the course of the year and 377 (74.8%) had entered at least 3 times.1 Deriving any sort of average number of crew in port with no local place to stay at any one time is therefore difficult, let alone getting an accurate idea of the ratios between broad ethnic categories. In terms of actual numbers, it is difficult to be precise given the sources we have, but it seems that the number of merchant seafarers in western style ships in port daily was around 600 at the beginning of our period and perhaps 2,200 at the end. Of these between 30% and 90% were Asiatic, which means that in the 1860s perhaps as few as 200 western seafarers would be in port on any one day with that number dropping maybe as low as 120–150 at the beginning of the 20th century and rising to somewhere between 300 and 500 a day

07_Strong to Save.indd 106

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

107

depending on the fortunes of the shipping industry by the 1930s. By contrast the number of “Asiatic” crew in port daily — with the quantum of those who were Chinese uncertain, but rising to probably over 90% by the 1920s — will have averaged some 570–680 as the 20th century dawned, rising with fluctuations to 1,600–1,800 daily by the mid 1930s before the general falling off in all crew numbers as the Second World War approached. Returning, therefore, to the fortunes of the commercial provision of seafarers’ accommodation, we can see how the loose pattern identified is reflected in legislative change and in the numbers of seamen’s boarding houses in business. For example, the relatively trouble-free removal of explicit recognition of ghaut serangs with the 1852 Desertion Act almost certainly reflects a decline in the salience of lascar seafarers as the brief 25-year reign of the tea clipper (c.1845– c.1870) placed a premium on western sailors used to working aloft. Then, as China Coast and transpacific passenger and coolie shipping begin to get into their stride and, with the increase in steamship numbers, begin to create a demand for Chinese crew, and as western China Coast steam shipping begins to prosper from roughly the 1870s, a similar decline begins in the demand for western crew. The seamen’s boarding houses that resulted from the 1852 ordinance peak in the 1860s. They then fall steadily in numbers, probably with declining demand as western crew give way increasingly in favour of Chinese crew. By the mid 1870s boarding houses would appear to number no more than 8–10 and 5 in 1908. In 1917 boarding houses cease being listed in the Hong Kong Directory. Supposing the average size had not changed greatly, that would argue that until the 1890s accommodation remained for 150–250 seafarers, which may well have been more than demand required, especially given the arrival of the Sailors’ Home with its 100 bed capacity as of 1865. Once into the 20th century, however, provision seems to have dropped right away to provide for no more than perhaps 100–150 seafarers.

07_Strong to Save.indd 107

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

108

Strong

to

Save

*** By way of a brief detour here, we may mention one intersection between the secular world of seamen’s boarding houses — though for westerners only — and the world of mission activity that illustrates both a “third way” and why it did not succeed, and one of the bugbears of seamen’s mission activity in Hong Kong from the outset until almost the end of the 20th century: rivalrous alternatives based on denomination and/or nationality. As early as 1858, with a nice touch of self-deprecating humour, the Reverend Philip Winnes of the Basel Society Mission, which had been established by the redoubtable Karl Gutzlaff in 1847, reported preaching to German sailors in a sailor’s boarding house for Germans. “In this inn, I preached until the sailors had had enough, and that they had quite soon.”2 The German Inn or Tavern was run by Christian Frederick William Petersen, who had founded the establishment in around 1858 and ran it until he died, aged 64, in 1896. Like so many such places as we shall see, it lay on Queen’s Road, somewhat to the west of the beginning of Gough Street.3 Although the primary foci of Hong Kong’s German-speaking missionaries were Hong Kong’s terrestrial Chinese inhabitants, this early interest in seafarers recurs in the records until the effective dispersal of Hong Kong’s German community with the outbreak of the First World War. With the beginning of Pastor Theodor Kriele’s incumbency in 1898, a frequently expressed duty to the seafarers of German-speaking nations’ naval and merchant ships visiting Hong Kong took concrete form. There was successful lobbying in 1898, via Prince Heinrich, who was the commanding officer of the cruiser Deutschland of the newly created German East Asiatic Squadron, for funding to create a Reading Room, sometimes referred to specifically as a Sailors’ Reading Room, for German seafarers in port. The room opened in 1900–1901 as part of the Berlin Mission complex around the Bethesda Chapel on Bonham Road, which had opened in 1881. The interest of the Reading Room was that it was the occasion

07_Strong to Save.indd 108

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

109

of the first, if indirect, appearance in Hong Kong of the Deutsche Seemannsmission. For in July 1908, thanks to the efforts of Pastor Johan Müller, Pastor Kriele’s successor, the Seemannsmission agreed to subsidize the running costs of the Reading Room.4 Thus, with a German tavern expressly catering to a German speaking maritime clientele and, not too far away, a German chapel providing a quiet refuge and for those who sought it, pastoral care, from the late 1850s through until Hong Kong’s German community was interned and expropriated with the outbreak of the First World War, German-speaking seafarers were separately catered for. That German experience expressed the problems maritime missions in Hong Kong faced in microcosm. For entertainment and lodging there were always secular alternatives for sailors that played more to their fancies than perhaps their good sense. Each subset into which seafarers might fall, whether as a self-identity or an identity otherwise assumed, tended to be the focus of those of their persuasion — whether cultural, linguistic, or religious — not only to the exclusion of members of other groupings, but necessarily as a result also in a manner guaranteed to stand in the way of any provision that could achieve genuine economies of scale. This shortcoming was itself exacerbated by the obvious point, jokingly referred to by Pastor Winnes, that most seafarers had rather a limited tolerance for the core of what any religious mission had to offer. *** Extensive rules governed the operation of the Seamen’s boarding house; it is worth spending a brief while exploring what these rules specify, for in that detail lies an explanation for the apparent lack of major interest in or commitment to the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen premises. For if — and it is quite a large if — the provisions had been properly enforced, the resulting boarding houses would have met almost every requirement an assiduous concern for seafarers’ welfare might require, albeit with nothing in the arrangements that looked to their spiritual well-being.

07_Strong to Save.indd 109

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

110

Strong

to

Save

All boarding houses were required to be “substantially built”, kept in good repair, well ventilated, and connected properly to mains drainage. They were to have adequate kitchens and accommodation for seamen had to provide at least 400 cu.ft. per seamen as well as a common mess and sitting room and a separate room for the sailors’ hammocks and baggage.5 There had to be adequate, regularly cleaned washing and toilet facilities painted out twice a year and the house had to have satisfactory and regular refuse disposal. The residents had to be seafarers legitimately discharged or on shore leave and could not exceed the permitted number for the boarding house in question. No alcohol was allowed to be sold on the premises though it could be consumed, and no gambling, undue noise, or prostitutes were permitted. The doors had to be closed at 11.00 p.m. and the boardinghouse keeper was obliged to maintain proper discipline. Seafarers had to receive prompt medical attention and a sick book was required to be kept and its details communicated to the proper authorities. Any home was required to keep proper accounts, liaise regularly with the harbour master and the authorities, and keep and communicate full and correct records of resident seafarers’ details. And finally there were clear provisions aimed at ensuring that seafarers would in no way be swindled, have their belongings seized as “security”, or be forced into debt to the boarding house keeper: in short, no crimping activities.6 It is easy to see that from the points of view of the harbour master and of the government authorities, supposing that adequate resources were provided to ensure the rules were observed, the system spelled out in the ordinance and schedule did all that was needed to be done to ensure that open market provision for the welfare of seafarers of any nationality, who found themselves ashore in Hong Kong and in need of accommodation, was as fully protected as it could be.7 Similarly, supposing the fees the ordinance specified were an accurate reflection of costs, allowed a reasonable profit to the boarding-house proprietor, were affordable by seafarers, and could be adjusted in

07_Strong to Save.indd 110

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

111

tandem with the movements of prices and wages, the resulting system could be assumed to be a sustainable, market driven response to changing demand. What the 27 rules spelled out in terms of the seamen who were served by the boarding houses is not in most respects markedly different in principle from anything that had gone before; it is merely more specific in detail. Typical here was the first regulation that specified that: over the principal door of each house shall be affixed a board containing in

letters, at least 3 inches in length, painted white in a black ground ‘Licensed Boarding House’ for (number of Seamen, Manila men or Lascars) kept by (name of master), and at the foot thereof shall be inserted the name, in full, of the keeper of the house.

From this it is clear that the division of seamen into categories, as was the case almost from the outset, still fails to identify Chinese seamen as a category. However, a more clear-cut ethnic division that does not repeat the earlier categories appeared in the very last regulation. This specified the charges that seamen should pay and created two simple groups. There were “Europeans and Americans”, who were to pay $6 for their weekly board and lodging. And there were “other Boarding Houses, as approved by the Harbour Master”, although curiously no scale of fees was laid down for such institutions. This is in fact curious and to see why we need to pick up on the persistent failure to identify whether Chinese seamen were or were not intended to be covered by the legislation and therefore deemed to be possible customers of seamen’s boarding houses as were lascars, Malays, and Manila men. There are three far from unequivocal bits of evidence that point towards an answer to this conundrum. None is entirely satisfactory. Even taken together they leave much unanswered. But between them they suggest that even if the ambiguity of the regulations allowed for the admission of Chinese seafarers, such seamen probably did not understand this was how things were

07_Strong to Save.indd 111

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

112

Strong

to

Save

or, perhaps better, did not think of such places as being relevant and connected to their maritime world. Chinese seamen therefore had over time created their own, parallel equivalent such that by the time of the 1899 Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance, this had led to their being swept within the same regulatory system. The first hint that Chinese seamen had stayed aloof from the provisions for western and lascar seafarers is suggested by the founding in 1872 of the first known Chinese seamen’s boarding house, the Yihetang (義和堂), though of course there could have been earlier foundations now lost to the record.8 This boarding house was typical in that, as Elizabeth Sinn notes, it was “established to help (sailors) find jobs, and offer welfare and accommodation, (and like many operated) on a regional basis.” In the case of the Yihetang, the specific affiliation was to Kejia (客家) or, as westerners say, Hakka sailors. The next year the Taoyige (陶義閣) was founded. Although it was apparently not regionally focussed, it nonetheless had a predominance of sailors from Xiangshan (香山, today Zhongshan, 中山), which led to later fragmentation with separate houses catering to specific groupings within Xiangshan county, the first being the Anlanxuan (安 瀾軒). The next piece of evidence appears in an address by the governor, Sir William Robinson, to the Legislative Council on 25 November 1895.9 During his speech Sir William said, “Chinese seamen’s boarding-houses have recently been inspected and licensed for the first time, and there are now 67 such houses duly licensed, affording accommodation for 1,120 men.” The puzzle here has to do with the early records identified by Dr Sinn and the comparatively huge number of Chinese seamen’s guest houses identified by the governor barely a generation later. The rapidity and quantum of expansion in numbers is staggering, but if there had been sufficient demand not beyond belief. The last piece of evidence of the official embrace of the Chinese seamen’s boarding houses is Government Notification No. 564 of

07_Strong to Save.indd 112

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

113

13 December 1897, signed by James Stuart Lockhart, then colonial secretary. This shows that licensing in 1895 had been just an initial move. In 1897 these boarding houses were brought within the embrace of the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance of 1891. The preamble to the resulting new regulations gives the game away and is indirect evidence of the “separate” world of Chinese seafarers at the time:

…some of the Rules for the government of Licensed Boarding Houses for Seamen, contained in Table (K) in the Schedule to Ordinance No. 26

of 1891, are inappropriate to the case of Boarding Houses for Chinese Seamen.

It is not clear why the issue of Chinese seamen’s boarding houses surfaced at this time, nor who was responsible for raising it. However, two things are interesting. One is that the authority deemed competent to deal with the matter is the harbour master, and the new and additional Rules for the Government of Licensed Boarding Houses for Chinese Seamen were issued under his authority as empowered by section 17 of the 1891 ordinance. The second comprises the comparative brevity of the rules, just 13 rules compared to the 27 laid down to deal with boarding houses for non-Chinese seamen, and the differences between the two sets. There is no hard evidence of the reasoning behind the differences. However a reasonable conjecture is that although by inference Chinese seamen are considered to be as deserving of proper provision as others, they are different in two important ways. Their habits and way of life are different, so some of the rules deemed necessary for western and other seamen can be omitted. But more important, the way in which they are recruited for shipboard service is by inference not such as can be brought within the complex regulations and paperwork deemed proper for westerners and others. The first six of the Chinese seamen’s boarding house rules are almost identical to those for other seamen’s boarding houses covering signage, construction, space provision — Chinese seamen also got 400

07_Strong to Save.indd 113

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

114

Strong

to

Save

cu.ft. each — and the provision of sanitary facilities, refuse clearance, and drainage. The sole difference in the first rule being that neither the name of the proprietor nor the keeper of the boarding house was required on the signboard at the entrance. The notable omissions in the rest of the rules are the exclusion of any reference to alcohol (most likely showing a belief that alcohol was not a habitual vice among the Chinese, although it is interesting then that there is no mention of opium10) or any of the detailed monitoring of Chinese seafarers’ identities, employment status, or state of health. The reasons for these exclusions must mostly be inferred from what we know of Chinese seamen, their social structures, manner of shipboard recruitment, and of Chinese society more generally…and western beliefs about these. For example, the omission of the need for a proprietor or keeper’s name probably reflects a knowledge of the collegial or cooperative nature of the premises, placing them rather to one side of the more plainly commercial businesses of the boarding houses for westerners that were predicated on no necessary relationship existing between boarding house keeper and the seaman, or between the seamen residents. Rule 13, the last rule, differs from rule 27 in the main schedule K in that no mention at all is made of any schedule of charges for board and lodging. This is explained by the rest of the rule, which reveals that the Chinese seamen’s boarding houses were operating as the local equivalent of the ghaut serang/serang system of the lascars, whereby the boarding house provided seafarers to ships in groups or gangs. Instead of signing on and signing off on discharge exclusively at the Harbour Master’s Office, as had become the case with other seafarers, rule 13 makes clear that whilst the government charged $0.40c either for being signed on or for receiving a discharge, there is also an additional fee of $1; a “Boarding House fee which is to include the commission for cashing an advance note.” This suggests that the boarding house acted, though one assumes not at this stage

07_Strong to Save.indd 114

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

115

necessarily through someone like a ghaut serang or a serang, as the single point of reference for Chinese seafarers’ employment. These variations suggest, though they by no means prove, that by the last decade of the 19th century, a system of boarding houses for Chinese seafarers had developed somehow in parallel with but initially at an unregulated remove from the regulated world of boarding houses for westerners, lascars, Malays, and Manila men. We do not know why, though the most likely explanation is the “parallel worlds” nature of early Hong Kong and on the resulting way in which the pattern of legislating for seafarers’ accommodation ashore seems consistently to have let Chinese seafarers disappear through the gaps in the planking.11 The attempt to bring Chinese seafarers’ shoreside accommodation within the regulatory net for seafarers in general was a relatively short-lived experiment. The evidence as to why is no more than an inference. What appears probable is that between 1897 and 1917 a process of politicization of China’s seamen had begun in concert with similar developments in general in Hong Kong’s Chinese society, as the Qing Dynasty entered its final phases and the republican movement, with its very active Hong Kong component, gained strength. A result came in 1917 when the government removed Chinese seamen’s boarding houses from beneath the umbrella of merchant shipping laws. The new ordinance under which they were mustered, the Boarding Houses Ordinance, brought under a single set of regulations every place where any person is harboured or lodged for any kind whatsoever of hire or reward and where any domestic service whatever is

rendered by the owner, lessee, principal tenant, occupier or master to the person so harboured or lodged.

Except that “every” did not actually mean “every”. Of all seamen’s boarding houses only those for Chinese seafarers were subject

07_Strong to Save.indd 115

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

116

Strong

to

Save

to the change. In the definitions section of the new ordinance the term “boarding house…shall not include any boarding house for non-Chinese seamen within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1899.”12 The probable explanation for this would have included wanting to keep the itinerant part of Hong Kong’s Chinese population under closer scrutiny, especially the seafarers. This was because they were suspected of being the vector through whom arms and information were being smuggled to the anti-Qing movement of Dr Sun Yat-sen. In addition, and a useful rationalization for what security concerns were demanding, to the Hong Kong colonial mindset the harbour master should never have been regulating Chinese seamen in the first place. Instead they should have been under the purview of the secretary for Chinese affairs, who oversaw all Chinese organizations. In 1917 the government passed a new Boarding House Ordinance. This set the groundwork for which an accompanying set of rules and regulations established the detail. The detail created seven classes of boarding house. The ordinance described the seventh class as hang shun kun (行船館 — roughly “seafarers’ residence(s)”). They were quite clearly only for Chinese seamen, as one learns from the annual report of the secretary for Chinese affairs in 1918. For it is that document that first reveals that the hang shun kun were part of his bailiwick. In it he reports that 104 hang shun kun had been licensed. What is interesting, however, is that the 1897, Chinese seamen’s boarding houses amendments to table K in the schedule of the 1899 Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance were not copied across specifically for the hang shun kun. It follows that as of the coming into force of the new Boarding House Ordinance, none of the earlier rules about minimum space, etc. that Chinese seamen’s boarding houses were supposed to have been observing since 1897 would continue to have applied. Instead, the issues were covered in two quite different ways. First, a complete set of 36 rules applied to all seven classes of boarding

07_Strong to Save.indd 116

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

117

house.13 These incorporated many of the provisions that had applied to the seamen’s boarding houses. However, in terms of space, rather than a minimum per person, the rule set a limit on the number of people to be accommodated on each floor. Second, under regulation 15 we read that residence in a hang shun kun “shall be permitted only in accordance with the approved rules of the Kun.” This rather typical English co-opting of a Cantonese term indicates that the Chinese seamen’s boarding house was at this stage very much in principle something of a seafarers’ fraternity. One key revelation is that, in the absence of any crew member being able to provide personal security to the ship’s captain, the “gang” as a whole constituted themselves as a “brethren”, we can infer a “kun” (館) — thereby each standing as security for the others. In short, small groups — in this case 25 — were quite normal base units for traditionally sourced Chinese crews. Hang shun kun numbers rise slightly after 1918 to reach a maximum of 116 in 1923. Thereafter they slowly decrease in number sliding to 98 at the end of 1928, 81 five years later and 75 at the end of 1938. Given that, barring dips in 1922 and 1925 as a result of the seamen’s strike of 1922 and the general strike two years later, Chinese seafarer numbers increased 250% between the regulation of the hang shun kun in 1917 and the interwar peak in Chinese seafarer numbers in 1935, this drop requires explanation.14 Exactly when the kun ramified we do not know. What became clear in public discussions during and following the seamen’s strike in 1922 and the general strike and boycott in 1925–26, however, is that by the mid 1920s Chinese seafarer services were brokered by two, or possibly three conceptually linked organizations. The oldest were the fraternal kun at which we have looked. To these had been added two new types of kun which operated more like the sort of ghaut serang that 19th century western commentators had condemned as a form of crimping. Both had been sources of complaint by the striking seafarers. They appear to have operated in two forms, probably

07_Strong to Save.indd 117

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

118

Strong

to

Save

distinguished more by size and connections with shipping companies than any issue of principle. The larger (or the generic) was called a “contractor’s house” (baogong zhi, 包公制) and the smaller the “sai ma sha kun” (洗馬沙館 — “sai ma sha” is a phonetic rendering of the English “shipmaster”).15 This would appear to have been a local form of crimping — whereby the seafarer was mulcted of much of his pay in return for work and membership of a xi ma sha controlled kun when between ships. The allegation was that the compradors for western shipping companies were the licensees of boarding houses and used their positions as the providers of crew to enrich themselves at the crew — and kun — members’ expense. This problem would resurface in the post-war period and it is fair to say that until it had been resolved, Chinese seafarers never became sufficiently a part of the “mainstream” port welfare systems, which included both Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, to make it onto the radar screen. Although the evidence is extremely sparse, government data becoming totally unreliable after 1915, what there is suggests that boarding houses for non-Chinese seamen were at that point an endangered species. They had dwindled in numbers as more and more ships took on Chinese crew. These changes are reflected in the Directory for China, Japan, etc. in its successive editions in which, interestingly, the Sailors’ Home is always listed under both “licensed boarding houses” and “taverns”. Other changes the non-official records indicate also reflect on the changing composition of ships’ crew. In 1879 there are three probable boarding houses for European seamen: the Sailors’ Home, F.C.W. (or C.F.W.) Peterson’s and Peter Smith’s. Two others cater for lascars — Alli Moosdeen and Abdool Ismail, and three for Manila seamen — Ignacio Beltrão, Francisco d’Assis, and Lenterio Vilanueva. Ten years later the European boarding houses are down to two and those for Manila men to one, along with the indeterminate clientele of Awang’s seamens’ boarding house on Hollywood Road. By 1899

07_Strong to Save.indd 118

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Meanwhile Down

on the

Waterfront

119

there are further changes — only one boarding house remains for European seamen (the Sailors’ Home), two for lascars, one for Manila seamen, and Awang’s, along with a newcomer in the guise of the boarding house for Japanese seamen run by K. Sekigushi at 24, Praya Central. The provision for Japanese seamen is not present in the 1905 directory, but reappears in 1908, run by Forakichi Mori at the less salubrious address of 44, Bridges Street.16 By 1917 boarding houses are no longer listed in the directory, though whether as a result of legislation or because of subtle shifts in perceptions of social status is a matter of guesswork. That trend of slow decline would suggest that government regulation and market forces, plus increasing charitable provision, may have combined to bring the commercial seaman’s boarding house low. We have noted that government regulations set the weekly charge for board and lodging. Given general concerns over the “innocent” sailor ashore and the “unscrupulous” boarding house keeping crimp, it is probable that the charges for board and lodging left any boardinghouse keeper operating on tight margins. There will also have been inevitable bureaucratic lag over adjustments for changes in prices, rents, and rates. Given the very sharp fall in the number of western merchant seamen during the First World War, the result was probably sufficiently difficult conditions for commercial seamen’s boarding houses that many went out of business. Post-war the incentives were perhaps not sufficient to lead to any resurgence.

07_Strong to Save.indd 119

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

8

Separate Moorings

or the Missions to Seamen, the 20 years from 1910 to 1930 were equally difficult. It too faced more of the successive challenges posed by the First World War and, post-war, the rapidly changing world of shipping and the knock-on consequences of turbulence in China. All the changes seem to have resulted in the Mission’s congregation — almost exclusively British seamen — shrinking markedly. This was, as we have seen, a reason underlying Charles Thompson’s 1909 initiative to offer the use of the Kowloon Institute buildings to the Freemasons as a Masonic hall. The years that followed the opening of the Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute at 8 (then 9, then 21) Praya East saw a succession of chaplains, few staying long. After two years of the new building’s operations, during which he spent a year training the man who was to become the Missions to Seamen’s first chaplain in Shanghai,1 in 1912 Charles Thompson left to return to parish life in Ireland.2 London and the Local Committee do not appear to have been as well prepared as they might have been for his departure because there was no immediate full-time replacement. Instead his post was filled for the inside of a year by a locum, the Reverend William Thomas Austen, a most singular figure in the history of the Mission in East Asia. As a layman in Japan in 1873 William Austen had begun his work for the spiritual and material welfare of western seafarers, becoming the Missions to Seamen’s reader there in 1880. He had taken holy orders in 1890, being ordained deacon in that year and priest in 1891

08_Strong to Save.indd 120

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

121

by Right Reverend Edward Bickersteth.3 He became the Mission’s chaplain in Yokohama in 1890 and was to continue to serve in the post until 1923, an amazing 50 year career. He finally retired to the parish of Shoeburyness in southeast England in 1926 where he served until his death in 1930.4 William Austen had left his wife and family in Yokohama to take up his duties in Hong Kong where, from the Mission’s annual report as it appeared in the newspapers, he worked extremely hard. At this point we also learn for the first time of the composition of the Local Committee. The chairman was the Bishop, Bishop Lander, supported by the commodore-in-charge of naval establishments, Hong Kong, R.H. Anstruther, Honourable W. Chatham (director of public works), Honourable H.E. Pollock, Mr Lawrence Gibbs (civil engineer of Denison, Ram and Gibbs and ex-Public Works Department5), Dr Francis Clark (dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Hong Kong), Mr G.W. Barton, Mr F.B.L. Bowley, Mr W.T. Harbord, and the resident chaplain. Roughly, we can say that the diocese led the committee with government, Royal Navy, and lay involvement. The shipping community appears conspicuous by its absence save indirectly, via Mr Barton of the Douglas Steam Ship Co.6 It was not until April 1913 that the permanent replacement for Charles Thompson arrived. This was the Reverend Duncan Reynolds, a Yorkshireman from Hull and a Cambridge graduate. Like Ashley Crofton, he arrived in Hong Kong with previous Mission experience, it evidently having become clear to both London and the Local Committee that the demands of the Hong Kong job were too exacting for a neophyte straight out of theological college and a curacy. As with almost all the Mission’s work in Hong Kong before the 1920s, detailed records are lacking and so why it was that Duncan Reynolds stayed such a short time is guesswork. Certainly he lasted barely two years before taking his leave to return to a parish in Hull and wartime work there. Given that he became a temporary chaplain to HM forces in 1918,7 the probability is that he chafed at spending the First World

08_Strong to Save.indd 121

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

122

Strong

to

Save

War in the backwater of Hong Kong where, after the heady moments of the opening year of the war, the rapid eclipse of German interests in China meant that Hong Kong was a backwater, far removed from the terrible carnage taking place far away in Europe. Duncan Reynolds’ decision to leave must have been awkward both for the Local Committee and for London. Finding a replacement chaplain as the once hoped for quick victory turned to stalemate, unrestricted submarine warfare began to bite, and the war machine developed a voracious demand for personnel must have been difficult.8 Again determining exactly what happened is impossible, but there must have been some swift exchanges between London, the Local Committee and the bishop of Victoria because Duncan Reynolds’ replacement was chosen from among clergy already in Hong Kong without the London headquarters being directly involved in the selection. The replacement was one of the bishop’s chaplains and an assistant master at St Paul’s College, the Reverend William Thornton Featherstone. He was the second Missions to Seamen chaplain not selected by the Mission headquarters in London. Born in 1886 and ordained priest in 1913, William Featherstone — the first Missions to Seaman chaplain recorded to have had private means, though not necessarily the first in fact — had come to Hong Kong the following year as a teacher and priest under the headmastership at St Paul’s of Reverend A.D. Stewart. William Featherstone seems at the same time to have become the chaplain to St Peter’s Church in Sai Ying Pun, which may have been an indicator of the way the wind was blowing. He seems to have been an energetic and able man because as the pressures of wartime shortages of people were felt, he accumulated a remarkable portfolio of responsibilities. According to his Crockford’s biographical data, between 1914 and 1918 William Featherstone was at once assistant master at St Paul’s College (1914–16) and acting headmaster in 1915, domestic chaplain to the bishop (1914–18),

08_Strong to Save.indd 122

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

123

chaplain of St Peter’s (1914–18) and chaplain to the Missions to Seamen (1915–18).9 It is hard to avoid the impression that William Featherstone was engaged in a holding action at the Seamen’s Institute as patronage began suffering from wartime changes to the shipping market and Royal Naval deployments. For despite opening the Seamen’s Institute to army personnel during war years, the changes to shipping patterns combined with wartime disruption meant that the Mission suffered. In another part of William Featherstone’s report he notes that a third of the Institute’s subscription income for 1915 had been lost as a result of the wartime liquidation of German and Austro-Hungarian companies. We can see from the “Harbour Master’s Reports” how drastically British shipping fell away. British officers using the port each year fell from 3,860 in 1914 to 1,453 in 1918. With crew it was the same only more so, numbers dropping precipitately from 25,490 to just 9,947 over the same period.10 Meanwhile foreign — mostly American and Japanese — seafarers grew by comparison, but even so the general trend was still a decrease. More to the point, officers and crew of American and Japanese ships were not at that time typical habitués of the Seamen’s Institute. On top of that, given Hong Kong’s relative status as far from the seat of action and the killing maw of the battlefields in Europe, the British armed forces’ presence in Hong Kong was reduced, especially that of the Royal Navy. Arriving at definitive fleet lists for the China Station is not easy, but very roughly we can say that if in 1913–14 there were potentially 35 ships on station — 6 cruisers, 20 destroyers and gunboats, 3 submarines and half a dozen or so auxiliaries — by 1918 this was down to 25–26; 2 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, 3 or 4 destroyers, 10 gunboats, the 3 submarines and 6 auxiliary vessels.11 In terms of personnel the China Fleet had been reduced by some 40%.12 Whichever way the Seamen’s Institute turned, times were hard. One consequence of this was retrenchment. Indeed in his annual

08_Strong to Save.indd 123

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

124

Strong

to

Save

report of January 1916 William Featherstone reported that the accommodation side of the Institute had been closed for lack of custom and that in consequence the manager, William Davis, had had to be paid off because there was nothing for him to do. We also know that in the course of 1916 the chaplain felt he had little choice but to sell the faithful Dayspring. For the first time in a quarter of a century, the Mission’s ship visits ceased not least because with the depletion of commercial shipping there was scant demand. It also followed that if by the beginning of the second decade of the 20th century the Mission had become dependent on military personnel for its patronage; by the end of the First World War it was almost entirely so. It was also dependent on sources other than the shipping community for money. In the report for 1915 we are told that the Institute’s income for 1915 had come from collections in St Peter’s and St Andrew’s churches, from the Canton Episcopal Church and from Hong Kong’s Church Council — in practice the body charged with looking after St. John’s Cathedral13 — as well as $2,550 raised more generally.

*** One of William Featherstone’s last jobs was the formal regularization of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong. Exactly when the negotiations began does not seem to be recorded though according to William Featherstone’s successor, George Turner Waldegrave, the final sealing and signing fell to him.14 The object of the ordinance was exactly as later was the case with the Sailors’ Home. In both cases when leases were taken out on premises — for the Mission the Kowloon and Wan Chai institutes — there was no body corporate in existence. That meant the organization was not the lessee of its property, only individuals who had at the time been in positions of authority. In the case of the Kowloon Institute, all three lessees were dead by 1919. And in the case of the Wan Chai Institute, the lessee was Bishop Lander personally. This meant that the Mission’s committee could not technically manage its own property, for example lease

08_Strong to Save.indd 124

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

125

it out, which presumably left a question mark about the leasing of Kowloon Institute. The result of this regularization of the Mission’s situation was Ordinance No. 10 of 1919, dated 13 June, The Missions to Seamen Incorporation Ordinance. By inference the main issues would appear to have been two. One was to make the Mission into a single, authoritative body corporate governed by a single committee — the Local Committee — as opposed to the several semi-independent trusts in charge of each premises. It is clear that somewhere in the background was a lively sense that changes were afoot and for them to take place, the Mission’s formal house had to be in order. Who came to these conclusions and why is nowhere mentioned. The probability is that it was triggered by the resuscitation of the Praya East reclamation scheme that leaseholders in Wan Chai had decided against back in 1905, despite government’s approval of the idea. The issue resurfaced as early as 1914 and in July 1915, in a debate about recreational facilities, the governor thanked Sir Robert Jardine for agreeing to do a deal, swapping an inland lot for a marine lot to free up land for a sports ground…and get a marine lot without having to pay the normal additional premium. Over the next three years the pressure on the government to get moving was constant, not least on public health grounds because, in the absence of a public drainage system, the tidal foreshore was noxious.15 If the scheme went ahead, the Mission would have to be in legal shape to cut a deal. It follows that its rather muddled condition as a leaseholder and owner of assets needed sorting out and no doubt this was a significant reason for incorporation.16 Whenever the Local Committee actually got the ball rolling, formal notice of their intentions was posted in the Gazette on 19 May 1919, repeated on 30 May, by the Mission’s solicitors, Dennys and Bowley,17 to the effect that, Notice is hereby given that the committee of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong intends at an early date to apply to the Legislative Council of

08_Strong to Save.indd 125

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

126

Strong

to

Save

Hong Kong for a bill intituled “A Bill to Provide for the Incorporation of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong.”8

Read for the first time on 5 June 1919, the ordinance shows us a number of things. It points out exactly what premises the Mission owned — Kowloon Inland Lot  632 and Marine Lot 29519 — while indicating how very loose the Mission’s title to these premises seems to have been. To that end the first property was “vested or (was) purporting to be vested” in Bishop Burdon, Commander Dawson in London, and Alfred Gurney Goldsmith and the second was solely vested, etc. in Bishop Lander “who has declared that he holds the same as Trustee for the Missions to Seamen”. Since this was obviously unsatisfactory, the ordinance accordingly transferred both properties and “all moneys, securities for money, goods chattels and effects whatsoever in this Colony” to the new corporation. The bill was passed on 21 June. Perhaps the most interesting element is revealed by who is specified as determining membership of the Local Committee that was to constitute the new corporation. According to section 3, the bishop and the senior chaplain are always members, as were to be “such other persons as shall be certified by the Bishop under his hand to be members of the committee.” So the bishop in principle had an absolute controlling hand, should he so wish, and the London headquarters of the Mission had no role to play unless the bishop was prepared to consult them or appoint one of them as a member of the Local Committee. Of course as a matter of courtesy and established practice the bishop would appoint the Local Committee in consultation with London, but it is interesting that as far as Hong Kong law was concerned, he had no legal obligation to do so. *** In 1919 William Featherstone went back to school teaching, becoming the Diocesan Boys’ School’s headmaster. The chaplaincy of the new arrival, George Turner Waldegrave, was to last until 1934 — the second longest in the Mission’s history here — and witness the

08_Strong to Save.indd 126

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

127

most significant change in the organization of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong.20 He was again a grant chaplain, though we learn from a very much later document that when he was appointed London was committed to pay only his salary in pounds sterling.21 Should exchange rate fluctuations mean that the salary in Hong Kong dollars was less in pounds sterling than it had been at the time of George Waldegrave’s appointment, the Local Committee found themselves obliged to find the difference. It was premonitory. By 1931 the Local Committee were being asked to pay the whole of the chaplain’s salary.22 Like Charles Thompson a decade previously, George Waldegrave was an experienced Mission chaplain, having begun with the Mission in the Port of London in 1915 before moving as chaplain to Lowestoft, a frontline wartime port in the First World War, where he served until 1919, holding a temporary Royal Naval chaplaincy from 1918–19. At some stage during this period he seems also to have had some sort of a roving commission looking after interned members of the Royal Naval Division in Groningen in the Netherlands.23 He was also a Freemason, again like a number of Mission chaplains24 and, in the specific Hong Kong and Missions to Seamen case, thereby with a link to Sir Paul Chater, arguably Hong Kong’s most eminent mason, and many other leading businessmen, civil servants, and clerics.25 With the end of the war and the rally of commercial shipping in the immediate post-war period, things briefly looked up. Indeed 1919 turned out to be an important year for the Mission, albeit in the form of something of a false dawn. Initially things must have felt very encouraging for the new chaplain. Within a year of the war’s ending total numbers of European ships’ officers passing through Hong Kong had risen by 50% and were clearly on an upwards trend. The same was true of European crew numbers, which had leapt from 19,811 in 1918 to 32,867 the following year and would almost quadruple to 120,619 in 1923. Similarly, with the end of the war and the defeat of Germany, British naval planners had begun to ponder the next threat, which they soon

08_Strong to Save.indd 127

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

128

Strong

to

Save

identified as potentially Japan. As a result, in July 1921 the AngloJapanese Alliance was not renewed and British naval strategy pivoted eastward in a strategic shift that was to last more or less until 1939. If the long-term consequence of this pivot was to be to downgrade Hong Kong in favour of Singapore, this was not to make itself seriously felt until Singapore’s new dockyard at Sembawang opposite Johore Bahru was completed in 1938. So the immediate effect of the pivot occasioned by the War Memorandum (Eastern) of 1920, was the renewal of the importance of the China Fleet and an increased Royal Naval presence in Hong Kong, if largely confined to the winter months.26 Another reason for optimism was, as George Waldegrave noted to his superiors in London, that when he arrived he had “found the finances in a sound position”. So much so indeed that, according to his later recollection, “within a month” he had acquired a replacement for Dayspring from the noted Ah King Shipyard in Causeway Bay for $10,000.27 What counted at this point was the general sentiment of optimism. It did not seem to last.28 There are no firm known dates but an early issue for the new chaplain was the fate of the Kowloon Institute. This had been taken over by the Freemasons of Lodge Eastern Scotia No. 923 in 1911. With a first rumbling in 1919, by 1922 the decision had been made that all the satellite Masonic lodge premises around Hong Kong were in future going to use Zetland Hall on Zetland Street in Central for their meetings, so the Kowloon premises were going to become vacant.29 The exact date the building again reverted to the Mission is uncertain, but it was in late 1922 or early 1923.30 Clearly one task for George Waldegrave was to decide what to do. From a brief aside by him in 1923 informing London headquarters of a recent meeting of the Local Committee — its membership for the first time fully identified in the archives31 — it is clear that the main motivation in re-opening the premises was a fear of losing them.32 Given that the land on which any building owned and operated by a

08_Strong to Save.indd 128

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

129

charitable body was often its only significant asset, hanging onto it was vital since it could be a bargaining chip with government. That will have been a pregnant thought if, as we can surmise, the Local Committee was alive to the looming funding problem the Mission would face given the Praya East reclamation. For they will have known both from the 1900–1905 saga and from the revivified plans that the work was to be paid for by the existing Wan Chai leaseholders, the expected beneficiaries. Whether this was the clinching reason or not, the decision was made to re-open. With the reopening of the Kowloon Institute we get an excellent description of its final state and a roughly contemporary photograph confirms that in its heyday it was a handsome building. The ground floor was a large room with the coffee bar and a five chair writing table, two games tables, a billiard table — bought from an Indian wine merchant for $700 — and a small platform on which a piano was to be placed. Off the main room there was a small dining room, with a kitchen and store in an annex nearby. Above were rooms which had begun housing sailors in need of a bed but that by this time were used to house the people looking after the Institute. The hope was that after a quiet re-opening the revived Institute would prove to be a success. It was not to be. We learn something of the operational difficulties from the recollections of George Waldegrave 25 years later. The problems seem to have had to do with poor management combined with — or perhaps caused by — too little to do. He also noted that the coffee bar there “ran at a dead loss”.33 He dates the terminal decline to around the time of the arrival of his new assistant chaplain, the Australian career Missions to Seamen chaplain, Norman Peel, though he doesn’t quite imply a direct connection. Peel had arrived in Hong Kong in late 1923 in part also to take the weight during 1924 when George Waldgrave was going on leave. Waldegrave’s memory is of initially making the Kowloon Institute Norman Peel’s base. However, as Waldegrave put it — carefully leaving himself out of the frame — “a lot went on he [Peel]

08_Strong to Save.indd 129

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

130

Strong

to

Save

did not spot”. It seems the British ex-soldier, who had been installed as caretaker, and two other people living in the Institute — whether as employees or residential seamen out of work Waldegrave does not say — were “engaged in gun and opium running” and “on occasions smuggled prostitutes into their quarters”. It sounds a lively spot. What happened next, not just to Kowloon but in general, as well as to the Mission and the Sailors’ Home was by way of a quadruple misfortune in which one tribulation after another cumulated over the years between 1922 and 1926. If they had not thus far been felt, suddenly in the documentation we read of the Mission feeling the effects of the dramatic Hong Kong seamen’s strike of 1922 as this made significant, if temporary, inroads into the life of the port.34 For the Kowloon Institute this was an additional blow necessitating closure because, as Waldegrave later recalled, the “anti-foreign strike” meant the Chinese staff on whom the Institute depended walked off the job. This is a re-run of the state of affairs we looked at in Chapter 2 and the relationship between the Sailors’ Home and the mid 1920s period of strikes and boycott. As with the Sailors’ Home, the colours of the Mission were firmly nailed to the masts of colonial orthodoxy and western seafarers — only in the Mission’s case not just western merchant seafarers, but the seafarers of the British Royal Navy and the soldiers of its army — what Lenin had called, following Friedrich Engels, the armed organs of “public power”, a point probably not lost on the anti-British leadership in Guangzhou of either the Guomindang or the communists. A key issue in the 1922 seamen’s strike had been that despite galloping inflation local seamen had not had a pay rise for over two years but western seafarers, paid 30–50% more than Asian seamen anyway, had recently been given a 15% rise. So, western seafarers were seen as being more privileged and those who supported and cared for them as seemingly blind to the worse lot of the Asiatic

08_Strong to Save.indd 130

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

131

seafarer. Then three years later, with the Hong Kong seamen’s union very much in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist forefront, British colonialist attitudes and actions provoked the more serious general strike and boycott of 1925–26. The already primed local and regional population had been easily further aroused by the May 30th Incident in Shanghai, when a British police officer and his men had opened fire on an unarmed but allegedly hostile and aggressive crowd. Attitudes inflamed by that first incident were then stoked by the 23 June “Shaki (or Shameen) Massacre” at Guangzhou in which the Royal Navy provided the bulk of the British defences and weaponry. All this was widely known.35 In Hong Kong, once the strike had begun, the Royal Navy had been the governor’s first recourse in seeking reinforcements,36 and — as indeed it was duty bound to do — it had led government efforts to solve the effects of the strike on cross-harbour ferries. So an organization run by westerners that was a firm supporter of the colonial government, of western seamen, of the Royal Navy and of the army and, if indirectly, of the entire world of the unequal treaties that were a prime target of the strikers and boycotters, was in a difficult spot. Almost immediately after 1922 the port seemed to recover from the seamen’s strike, with a notable bounce in shipping activity in 1923. That year proved to be the peak of the post-war boom and was followed by something of a collapse exacerbated by the general strike and boycott. Between 1923 and 1926 numbers of ocean-going steamships calling in Hong Kong suffered a 26.7% decline. The worst effects, a 37.9% decrease, were experienced by British flagged ships, not least because the general strike and boycott of 1925–26 had specifically targeted British goods and shipping. As the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce reported it, Regulations were promulgated by the “All China General Labour Union” and the “Canton-Hongkong Strike Committee” governing trade in Canton.

Regulations issued by the same bodies stated that no British goods might

08_Strong to Save.indd 131

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

132

Strong

to

Save

be brought into Canton, whether in foreign bottoms or Chinese. Further, no

British ship might visit Canton and no ship of any nationality might call at Canton if it called at Hongkong.

A dozen active Chinese patrol boats enforced the regulations and this had the inevitable effect on British flagged shipping.37

Prior to the boycott the carrying trade between various ports on the China

coast and Canton and Swatow was largely in the hands of British steamship companies, but it was now entirely non-British hands, principally Chinese,

Japanese, and Norwegian; the latter mostly under charter to Chinese merchants. From July to December 1924, 681 British steamers entered the

Port of Swatow, as compared with 78 in the corresponding period of 1925, and even these 78 were prevented by boycott pickets from loading and unloading cargo.38

This differential between British and foreign shipping, and the general downturn of shipping fortunes had an inevitable effect — a further decrease in British seafarers. It all ran roughshod over the Mission’s “business model”, heavily dependent as it was on mainly British seafarers. We also learn that despite the $2,000 that had been spent refurbishing the Kowloon Institute in 1923 after its decade with the Freemasons, the building was in fact in very poor structural condition. Exactly what the problem was is not specified. All we do learn is that the costs of repair were beyond what the Mission could afford and, worse, without the repairs the buildings’ authority would condemn the building. The result was that the building was given up, although the Mission was going to have to bear the cost of demolishing it. Three months later the only small light that shone was the news that the contractor who took on the building’s demolition did so without charge because he could use the rubble to form the base for the concrete flooring of the godowns he was building nearby. Finally the Mission was facing increasing competition and nowhere more so than in Kowloon where a smart, brand new YMCA had

08_Strong to Save.indd 132

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

133

just opened on Salisbury Road in a far more advantageous location than that enjoyed by the old Kowloon Institute. Worse, as George Waldegrave complained to the London headquarters, they were bigger, newer, better equipped, and cheaper to boot. To rub salt into the wound they didn’t seem to conduct themselves like Christian gentleman civilly dividing the spoils as George Waldegrave says they had agreed to do, instead “they have a man going round the shipping touting for them”. The result was that mariners looking for a berth ashore for the night went first to the YMCA and only when that was full did the disappointed patrons begin to look elsewhere.39 Given that in the years before the new YMCA had been built on Salisbury Road in Kowloon, the YMCA had had a residential base with 18 rooms on the top floor of a building in Central and had certainly courted both merchant and Royal Navy sailors, the “competition” should have come as no surprise.40 The malaise was general. In the same letter that the travails of Kowloon and the challenge of the YMCA are revealed, Waldegrave notes that he can expect no help at all from London, who were themselves suffering from a funding problem, even though, as he put it, “the (Hong Kong Local Committee) Treasurer only three days or so ago was seriously discussing with me the advisability of closing down the Institute and laying up the Dayspring for a time at least.” Everyone was evidently feeling the pinch.41 At this point we need to go back in time a little to 1920, when the Mission got first definite news that the Praya East reclamation scheme was going ahead. In financial terms this could not have come at a worse moment since it was government policy that marine lot holders, if they wanted to get one of the new marine lots on the reclaimed land, must pay for the reclamation. The cost was going to be $1.50 a square foot, possibly plus a 25.5 cent premium. As George Waldegrave put it to HQ, the issue left the Mission with three options. They could stay put:

08_Strong to Save.indd 133

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

134

Strong

to

Save

with a very poor compensation from government for the loss of our water frontage, get back-streeted, or at any rate if on a main street, get

surrounded by a noisy Chinese and Japanese quarter, and have that distance of shops, Jap wine shops and brothels to bring the men through from the launch, and also have stuffiness instead of fresh air.

It was a way of putting things that bluntly said, “No way!” So that left two possibilities.42 The first was deft, but complex. The idea advanced was to raise the $14,000 deposit required by government by donation from intended participants in the scheme. Once the new plot was secured, then since it was going to be larger than the Mission needed they could sell off the surplus area,43 thereby raising the money for the new building. Meantime it could keep the old building as an asset on the books of the endowment fund, though it is left open whether the income from this would be from rental, or from sale of the land and a return on the capital. Finally the Mission could choose to borrow the $14,000 needed from the bank and — one feels that George Waldegrave’s heart is not in this because what follows next is what historians call “explanation by hand waving” — use the new land and the old for repayment… somehow. Leaving all that in the air as something that was going to have to be addressed with some urgency, George Waldegrave moves on to point out that just as the Mission has to contemplate these problems, so do its neighbours and, in a sense rivals, the Naval Canteen and the Wesleyan Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Home. In the course of writing about this he also reveals the first approach by the Sailors’ Home to suggest that the rift that had occurred back in the early 1890s between them and the Mission be closed. He is vague about detail but in mentioning that the harbour master had been talking to him and the Local Committee about amalgamation, he added “but they have a bar and I don’t advise amalgamation but rather cooperation.”

08_Strong to Save.indd 134

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Separate Moorings

135

Everyone was facing the strong headwinds of hard times and it was the combination of the Praya reclamation scheme and the headwinds that takes us to the next chapter in the story in which those who had put themselves asunder over a generation previously in the 1890s cobbled together a somewhat uneasy second union.

08_Strong to Save.indd 135

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

9

Headwinds and Adverse Currents

iven the broad context within which the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen had made their efforts to provide for western seamen ashore, we are now better placed to understand why they had fared as they had during the long 19th century and the first decades of the 20th. For by the time the First World War was past, neither institution can be said truly to have established what today we should call a sustainable business model. We left the Missions to Seamen facing headwinds as the first flush of the post-war recovery faded and it needed to find the money to relocate in the face of the Praya East reclamation scheme. Another early victim of the difficult conditions in the 1920s was the Sailors’ Home. As we briefly considered in Chapter 2, the Home had been struggling for a few years and by 1920 may have had equally as bad or possibly worse financial problems than those besetting the Mission. We have no concrete details of exactly how bad the financial and business situations were, especially given Captain Milroy’s optimistic valedictory comment that he’d left the Home in better financial shape than he’d found it. But we are told in Mission sources that in 1920 the first overture was made in what turned out to be a long, ten-year dialogue. There is no Sailors’ Home source for this, but the thought that there were problems looming, if not actual, is confirmed by the retrospective review of the Home’s situation in the justification of the amalgamation bill in 1930.

09_Strong to Save.indd 136

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

137

*** To begin with, the overtures from Home to Mission were as much general hand waving as anything very specific. In early 1920, at around the time it was realized that the Praya reclamation scheme was going ahead and would involve major changes for all the Wan Chai waterfront institutions catering for seafarers — the Naval Canteen, the Seamen’s Institute, and the Wesleyan Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Home — it also became clear that the harbour master was planning a major change for the Sailors’ Home. In a letter of 20 May to the Mission’s London headquarters, in which he spelled out the alternatives for the Mission of the reclamation scheme, George Waldegrave mentions in passing that “the old Sailors’ Home from West Point, where St. Peter’s Church is, is to be moved down here, as far as I can see the church being rebuilt in another site West Point way” and that the harbour master was proposing an amalgamation which Waldegrave opposed. Part of the interest here is the implication of the distance that had grown between the two institutions since their divorce in the 1890s. It seems that by 1920, other than the courtesies of a nodding acquaintance, there was not much by way of regular contact. Certainly what the Sailors’ Home was proposing revealed very little understanding of the Mission and its Seamen’s Institute. And as we know, at least for a decade or more, possibly since the Mission’s first appearance in Hong Kong, the harbour master had not been a member of the Local General Committee and so would not have been formally kept au fait with its doings. There were two harbour masters in 1920: Captain Basil Taylour RN (Rtd) until 29 May 19201 followed by Charles Beckwith.2 It follows that which of them opened discussion with George Waldegrave is uncertain. The likelihood is that it was Charles Beckwith, though given that in addition to his work as harbour master, he was also superintendent of imports and exports (today the commissioner of customs and excise) and deputy superintendent of the water

09_Strong to Save.indd 137

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

138

Strong

to

Save

police, his side role as trustee and secretary of the sailors’ home was probably not a central focus. However both Captain Taylour and Commander Beckwith will have been aware that the organizations concerned with the welfare of seafarers were jointly facing a crisis. It seems to have been a widely shared view. The harbour master’s initial proposal to George Waldegrave was that the Sailors’ Home (was) to have the Shipping Office, school of seamanship &c and men’s sleeping and living quarters while (the Mission) should be

responsible for religion, entertainment, sports &c and the officers living and sleeping quarters.

It is not clear whether this was intended to go on in a single, shared premises or whether the existing two establishments should remain, but something like side-by-side, in Wan Chai. Whatever may have been intended, George Waldegrave was lukewarm at best because “each day I am here makes me more and more convinced that our work cannot run hand in hand with a ‘pub’.”3 Because, at least in the short term, the rapid post-war revival of the port gave everyone a new lease of life, nothing seems to have transpired from this early overture. There may also be the influence of a change of watch at the Sailors’ Home. Captain Milroy left as superintendent in August 1919 and one can assume that his replacement, Captain Frank Baylis, will have taken a while to familiarize himself with his new command. Once he had and the Mission had rebuffed the harbour master’s tentative overtures suggesting amalgamation, alternative avenues began to be explored. We know from material sent by the government to the Colonial Office in London that the issue of a move to new premises somewhere — whether Wan Chai or Kowloon — was on the Home’s agenda by the end of 1921, at which point we can infer that some sort of overture was made to government.4 Evidently while these initial exchanges were going on the events we have considered before in relation to

09_Strong to Save.indd 138

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

139

both Home and Mission erupted. The January to March 1922 seamen’s strike had a major economic impact on shipping. This is likely to have caused some delay to the Home’s first feelers about a move, because nothing further seems to have happened until 1923 when a site for a new home was mentioned in passing in a debate in the Legislative Council.5 However, given the strength of the recovery that year, with British ocean-going ships calling in Hong Kong rising from 410 to 529 — a 29% increase — confidence evidently returned and the issue of the move was raised again at some unknown moment in mid 1924. By the autumn negotiations had more or less concluded and decisions had been made, for on 1 October the governor wrote to the secretary of state, Right Honourable J.H. Thomas JP, seeking permission to go ahead providing a new location for the Home.6 The proposal included the offer of an 82,600 sq.ft. (7,673 sq.m.) site at “Kowloon Point” — actually what was properly known as Blackhead or Tsim Sha Tsui Point.7 The Home was to be granted the new site, to be paid $800,000 for the old Sailors’ Home site, and in addition $50,000 to the diocese towards a replacement for St Peter’s Church. Meanwhile, back in Hong Kong, the government would move ahead with sorting out the problem that the original lease — a copy of which was enclosed with the governor’s letter — was between the Crown and the three first trustees personally, all of whom were now dead, which meant there was no valid lessee with whom the deals could be done.8 To solve this the government proposed at this stage to “incorporate by name” as trustees the existing “informal committee” — Dallas Gerald Mercer Bernard (Jardine, Matheson and Co.), Archibald Orr Lang (Gibb, Livingstone and Co.) and George Macdonald Young (Butterfield and Swire) — with only the harbour master — at the time George Francis Hole — being named by office as a trustee ex officio. Future vacancies were to be filled by the nomination of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. With that sorted out there could be a

09_Strong to Save.indd 139

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

140

Strong

to

Save

valid deal done over the payment of compensation for West Point and a new lease for Tsim Sha Tsui.9 On 13 January 1925 a draft bill to incorporate the Sailors Home was placed before the Legislative Council. The object was to create a corporation to be known as “The Trustees of the Sailors’ Home in Hong Kong”, to appoint the first trustees, and to vest in the new

corporation the Crown lease of the land on which the present Sailors’ Home stands.10

However, this first draft excluded the taipan of Jardine, Matheson and Co. from those who were trustees ex officio and this put the cat amongst the pigeons. There is no record of who said what to whom, but the bill was stopped dead, and nothing further appears in the record until 7 April. On that date a redraft, “to be put before the Legislative Council shortly”, was published “for general information”. This corrected the error and made the taipan of Jardine, Matheson an ex officio trustee along with the harbour master. Accordingly the bill went forward and passed after its second and third readings on 25 May.11 From that point onwards the Home was fully able to dispose of its existing property and make arrangements for financing whatever was to come next. Everything was in place for the project to go ahead, plans for the new building were already complete12…and then on 25 June, the general strike and boycott was called that was utterly to upset Hong Kong’s economy and society — and especially its prime target, maritime trade. This nine-month episode of near paralysis polarized attitudes, with the British colonial government and system and their supporters on one side, and Hong Kong (and China’s) rising nationalist sympathies on the other. A contemporary explanation of why the Tsim Sha Tsui project was dropped is that the Home lacked the capital to make the move, since the funds on offer from the government were not sufficient. On the government side nothing appears in the record as to what

09_Strong to Save.indd 140

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

141

happened until 1929 when the governor, in informing the secretary of state of the new amalgamation plan, mentioned in passing that the “Trustees were requested in September, 1925, to postpone the scheme for building the new home at Kowloon, and the matter then fell into abeyance.”13 This is then amplified in a statement in the finance committee later in 1929, giving as the reason for the request that the government too was short of cash, the public accounts, as we know from government data, having been driven sharply into deficit.14 Whatever the reasons were, the result was that the Home had been left with an unsolved problem. Not only did it have a building in poor repair in the wrong place but, at least according to Mission records, it was also losing $400 a month on operations.15 How the eventual solution of amalgamation was finally successfully pushed ahead can be seen by looking at the names of the Sailors’ Home’s four trustees in the incorporation ordinance passed in 1925. One and one only was not also a member of the Local General Committee of the Missions to Seamen, and that was the harbour master. It is hard to escape the conclusion that whatever the Seamen’s Institute’s senior chaplain and Sailors’ Home superintendent might wish, there was much practical and business sense in combining the two. Not, we need to recall, that this will have been the initial impulse, because we know that between 1920 and the collapse of the project in 1925 there had been that most serious and at least officially completed plan to shift the Sailors’ Home to Tsim Sha Tsui. What followed turned out to be a crabwise series of moves towards amalgamation, the deeper reasons for which we shall consider in Chapter 10. At this point we can focus on the simple point that thanks to the after effects of the strike and boycott, by 1927 everyone was feeling the pinch and George Waldegrave admitted that financially the only real solution was to combine.

*** The Committee of the Sailors’ Home extended the first formal feeler

09_Strong to Save.indd 141

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

142

Strong

to

Save

in September 1927. However, because temporarily the Institute was doing rather well “owing to the increased naval strength out here”, George Waldegrave evidently played hard to get and there was no immediate action.16 But by later in the autumn minds were getting focussed. For the first time the Mission had been approached by the committee of the Sailors’ Home with a clear amalgamation proposal that had evidently been discussed at management committee level.17 At this remove it is impossible to say where the definitive push for this initiative came from unless it was just the residual momentum created by the various more half-hearted moves thus far. Obviously the Sailors’ Home had money problems and, as George Waldegrave noted in his letter to Stewart Knox in September, also had an unspecified “building problem”.18 Equally the Seamen’s Institute was feeling the pinch. In July, according to a report in The Hong Kong Daily Press, the Seamen’s Institute had had a deficit of $15,000.19 And that was exacerbated by the fact that because of the reclamation, the Institute had to move to keep a waterfront location. Nonetheless, despite inertia and these obvious concentrators of minds, one gets a strong sense that somewhere behind the scenes there was also government backing for the amalgamation. One possible reason might be an indirect effort to make sure that the Sailors’ Home, which had become something of a fief of the Harbour Master’s Office, did not ineluctably slither into becoming a burden on public finances. The best way of ensuring this was to use the Home’s assets to help the Mission and the Mission’s assets to help the Home. But that in its turn went together with the more delicate state of Hong Kong’s riven maritime world in the last half of the 1920s, at which we shall look further in Chapter 10. Meanwhile Bishop Duppuy had written his letter to the government spelling out where the Mission stood and indicating that he had already discussed the matter with a fellow Mission Local General Committee member and the chairman of the Sailors’ Home trustees, D.G.M. Bernard of Jardine, Matheson and Co., in effect implying that

09_Strong to Save.indd 142

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

143

with government agreement, this was a done deal. Expatriate Hong Kong in the mid 1920s was a very small place. The summary the bishop provides is succinct and telling both in what it says and what it doesn’t. Both institutions were struggling financially, but between them — by implication only between them — they could realize enough from their existing assets (now securely theirs thanks to their respective incorporation ordinances) — a bit over $1 million — to develop a site in Wan Chai. He then sketches each institution. The Sailors’ Home caters for the merchant service, allows alcohol on the premises, and is losing money. The Seamen’s Institute just about breaks even from its endowment and donations, caters for the merchant service, Royal Navy and the army, and is teetotal. Any new combined institution had to be able to provide what the two separate entities were providing and come to an agreement over the alcohol issue. This, Bishop Duppuy proffered, came down to a new building on the waterfront with a pier, a school of navigation, bathing facilities, a marine store, sleeping accommodation, dining and recreational facilities, a Mission launch run by subscription and the Mission’s endowment, a chapel, a chaplain, and a competent manager. The result “would be self-supporting, possibly with the aid of a small annual grant from Government.” That summary is then followed by the Mission’s formal proposal in draft that, in effect, sets out the Mission’s bottom line with respect to any new, joint entity. First it must have a Church of England chapel and quarters for the chaplain. Second, the management committee must include the bishop of Victoria as an ex-officio member. The operational management is to be split between the chaplain, appointed by London subject to the Local General Committee’s approval and what is temporarily described as a “management secretary” appointed by the Local General Committee. These two officials are to have a clear division of responsibilities, the chaplain in charge of spiritual and social welfare, the mission launch and crew, and ship visits, the secretary in charge of financial management and running the building

09_Strong to Save.indd 143

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

144

Strong

to

Save

and its facilities. Finally the bishop notes that London would have to agree to this and it would have to be agreed that the new premises would be teetotal. Since this was really a momentous step — not least given the very large sums of money involved — the Missions to Seamen decided to send out its general secretary, Mr Stuart C. Knox, to sit in on thrashing out the negotiating principles for the amalgamation from the point of view of the Seamen’s Institute. That would then ensure that the draft proposal had London’s approval without a lot of time being wasted as letters and documents went back and forth across the intervening 6,000 miles. Stuart Knox arrived on the P&O liner Karmala20 on 13 February 1928 and was met by “the dear old flying angel flag flying from the mast of the smartest launch in the harbour and on the jetty the comfortable figure of Waldegrave waving us a cheery welcome.” The Knoxes were carried across the harbour in Dayspring with their baggage being taken on to the Bishop’s house, where they were staying, in the care of Waldegrave’s “smiling and capable Chinese boy” Ah Woo.21 No other name of a Chinese member of staff is mentioned in any document until a report on the condition of the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute immediately following the British reoccupation in September 1945. It was an intensive five-day stay, with negotiations from the Missions’ perspective resting on the thought that the conditions under which the Missions to Seamen work is carried on in Hong Kong differ in many important respects from those in any other Port in the world and have altered very materially from those prevailing

in Goldsmith’s time, 1886–1896, and ever since France built the present Institute in Praya East in 1909.

This, Knox notes, means that like in Singapore ships tend to be birds of passage, not staying long, so the Institute is not needed for them, or for the China Coast fleet personnel, who have “local bases”. Thus,

09_Strong to Save.indd 144

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

145

he concludes, the Mission in Hong Kong is made more use of by naval ratings for board, lodging, and recreation “than is the case in any other port in the world.”22 The key meeting during Stuart Knox’s stay was held on 17 February 1928 at the bishop’s house, where he and Mrs Knox were staying. We have no minutes of, or list of attendees at that meeting, only Stuart Knox’s brief description, but it is clear that it was attended by the Mission’s Local General Committee and by the management committee of the Sailors’ Home with at least three people wearing two hats. The anticipated sticking point was the Mission’s policy, at this time sacrosanct, of teetotalism. To the Mission’s surprise this proved not to be the obstacle that was anticipated. At the same meeting a subcommittee of three was appointed to go into the question of the site for the new, joint institution and to draw up a constitution by which it was to be managed.23 The amalgamation agreement as it was finally settled left two enduring and occasionally bothersome legacies. The first was a simple matter of vulgar money. For when the sums were done, it became clear that the major “shareholder” in the new, combined institution was the “lay”, booze-friendly, Hong Kong domiciled Sailors’ Home, the value of whose old Sai Ying Pun premises and never used Kowloon potential premises was markedly greater than that of the Mission’s Church of England, teetotal Seamen’s Institute. Echoes of that issue reverberate down the history of what became the Mariners’ Club until at least the 1990s. The way the sums were done is interesting because, as the process of amalgamation dragged on — it took two and a half years from the agreement in the bishop’s house to the final merger — a certain amount of “creative accounting” was indulged in to try to narrow the otherwise awkward gap between the two contributions. Rough arithmetic meant rival contributions to any new premises at somewhere between a 1:11 and 1:14 ratio, which didn’t argue for a position of strength from the point of view of the Mission.24

09_Strong to Save.indd 145

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

146

Strong

to

Save

This quite understandably concerned the Mission’s Local General Committee, as no doubt it did London. So it is with little surprise that we see, in a letter from George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox in London in July, some reworked figures presented by the treasurer of the Local General Committee, Mr T.G. Weall of Dodwell and Co. This interesting exercise attempted to square the circle between accounts that deal with capital assets and accounts that deal with income streams. The resulting legerdemain bumped the Mission’s contribution up by a factor of four to five and hence reduced the mismatch between the two contributions from the alarming 1:11/1:14 to a more acceptable 1:2.5. The trick was worked by capitalizing the chaplain’s salary — which at this point was being paid by London — capitalizing the income from donations and subscriptions, and by the Mission having recovered some bad debts in the five months between the two calculations. “It looks a little like wangling,” wrote George Waldegrave, “but we must put as good a face on things as we can, and of course everything will be open for their (the Sailors’ Home) inspection.”25 The second legacy was the compromise position reached with respect to the new institution’s management. Bishop Duppuy’s original summary was equivocal between a simple description of the respective spheres of day-to-day responsibility for both chaplain and manager that did not concern itself with what we might call the chain of command, and the specification of a duumvirate where command responsibilities were split, with no overall boss save the management committee. Although there appears to have been a clear sense that this was a hostage to fortune, given the need to do a deal it is evident that no one wanted to spell the problem out and find a solution. Nor did the sub-committee charged with drawing up a constitution for the new combined institution bite the bullet. The result was a perennial doubt over who was in fact in charge on a day-to-day basis that was not resolved — and even then only informally rather than formally and legally — until the 1960s. ***

09_Strong to Save.indd 146

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

147

The tribulations of amalgamation were not George Waldegrave’s only worry. He was also facing a rather complicated business involving a sick manager in the Institute and the manager’s faithless wife, which no doubt influenced thinking as to how a future combined ship was to be run and who would be the skipper. Neither housekeeping issues nor the obvious complexity of a move and an amalgamation did away with the demands of the Mission’s more routine work. A typical example lasting from October to December 1928 — remarkably fully covered in the archives — was the saga of the brand new, British flagged and owned ship Darcoila, chartered to the Dutch colonial JavaChina-Japan Line.26 After the ship arrived, her captain had brought four of the crew before the marine magistrate (one of the harbour master’s roles), charged with inability to do their work and bad conduct because of drink. On investigation it turned out that the mate was a heavy drinker and the four crewmen had complained about the quality of food being served and perhaps had been targeted as a result. The Mission had been asked to keep an eye on the ship. In December — the Darcoila was still in port — George Waldegrave visited, talked with the crew and had a look at the food aboard. He concluded it was “pretty bad, but not enough to form a case”. Because they had been cooped up aboard for so long, he took the apprentices ashore for a break. During dinner, as the apprentices talked about life aboard the Darcoila, two other ship captains dining close by and hearing the story of bad accommodation, bad food, poor sanitation in the heads (toilets), neglect of crew health, and absence of instruction being given to the apprentices insisted the Mission should take up the case. Accordingly on 23 December George Waldegrave visited the ship and noted the firemen’s dinners were insufficient, poorly cooked, and poor quality. Via the second engineer, who was an old acquaintance — a perfect illustration of the importance of hands-on engagement through ship visits — he learned that the apprentices’ complaints were wholly justified.

09_Strong to Save.indd 147

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

148

Strong

to

Save

The next day, Christmas Eve, with the Darcoila due to sail, George Waldegrave and one of the two captains from the dinner with the apprentices went to see the acting harbour master, Lieutenant Commander J.B. Newill. The same day three Harbour Master’s Department marine surveyors, the port doctor, the deputy shipping master and a boarding officer went aboard, inspected, and took depositions. It turned out the captain was also the chief steward. To bamboozle the inspection team he had given the galley orders to get officers’ food sent to the hands in the forecastle. Because the ship had a Board of Trade certificate the Hong Kong inspectors were powerless, but they also noted inoperative auxiliary steering using the aft winches and no provision for hand steering in event of breakdown. Their report showed the captain to be generally callous and careless of crew welfare, especially the apprentices. On Christmas Day George Waldegrave went back aboard to see if some crew could come ashore, but found the ship raising steam to depart. Rushing ashore he discovered from the Harbour Office that the ship was not cleared until 6.00 a.m. on 27 December and that the captain, issued a summons for errors in the ship’s log, was due in court on the same day. Although at that point, evidently beginning to get the message, the captain allowed some crew ashore, there was then further trouble aboard with a fireman refusing to turn to when ordered to by the drunk mate. On Thursday 27 everything came to a head in the marine magistrate’s court, but while the lawyers for the captain and the crew were wrangling over a point of law, a cable was received from the owners instructing the captain to discharge the European crew that was aboard and sign on a wholly Chinese crew. The captain didn’t have the funds to do this, couldn’t raise them, and collapsed with a nervous breakdown. George Waldegrave commented that he had a history of “mental trouble, possibly due to a blow from a crowbar received in a ship fight a few years ago. The anxiety over this case brought it on again, but this blow would not account for his general conduct.” The

09_Strong to Save.indd 148

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

149

mate was hospitalized with delirium tremens and then discharged and shipped back to Britain. And one of the apprentices with dysentery, who had complained to the captain that he was passing blood (to be told “pass it back again”), also had to be hospitalized. To save the charter, one of the two captains who had advised George Waldegrave to act on the apprentices’ complaints took over command and the second mate was promoted to mate. All the food aboard was condemned, the Indian steward and cook were laid off, and a Chinese steward and galley team brought aboard. Although the old crew was persuaded to sign back on, the bosun, who had sided with the original skipper, stayed too and things fell apart again at Saigon. And that was during the busy festival of Christmas.27

*** While George Waldegrave was dealing with such routine work and the Institute’s domestic problems, another far more complex issue had emerged over the site for the new building. The original plan had been that in exchange for the Institute’s old Praya East site, plus an agreed cash payment, the Institute would get three sites on the new reclamation that stretched 272 yards to seaward of the waterfront on which 21 Praya East stood.28 There is not much discussion of this in the archive, but it is fairly obvious that the plan was to use some of this land for the Institute and sell off what wasn’t wanted to raise money. The land allotted to the Seamen’s Institute was not ideal with a short waterfront and other buildings on each side.29 Fortunately the major lot holder on the new reclamation was the Hong Kong Land Investment Co.30 So when the allocations had been made and everyone had thought the matter over, the deal proposed put the new Mission premises on the waterfront street corner, Inland Lot 2899, and realized $38,088 cash, which represented the difference in the gross areas of their plot and the lots exchanged with the Hong Kong Land Investment Co.31 There was a brief hiccup in 1928 when government decided it wanted the site earmarked for the Mission. However, the Missions’ heavy hitting Local Committee swung into action and

09_Strong to Save.indd 149

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

150

Strong

to

Save

came up with a solution that satisfied everyone, though in the end this proved unnecessary and things would go ahead on the site as arranged.32 In the meantime the amalgamation was moving towards a happy conclusion. It turned out — via a quick word between George Waldegrave and William Shenton at the annual ball held by the Royal Navy’s commodore-in-charge — that the Sailor’s Home trustees want the Seamen’s Institute to take over

trusteeship of the Sailors’ Home and get the Missions to Seamen Incorporation Ordinance changed to incorporate (on the Local General Committee) representatives of the Sailors’ Home and change the name to Sailors’ Home and Sailors’ Institute.

William Shenton knew what was what because he was the solicitor and grandee acting for the Sailors’ Home trustees in the amalgamation talks. The Home also wanted the Mission to find a way to employ their superintendent, Captain Frank Baylis, and cope with his impending retirement, which ended up with a solution that weighed quite heavily on the Mission well into the post-war period. No one seemed to think of that problem at the time and instead saw simply a line of green lights. Agreement on the amalgamation. Agreement on no alcohol. And agreement on a future manager. “Needless to say it is most cheering,” wrote George Waldegrave to his boss, “and I have been singing mental Te Deums ever since.”33 What followed was a formal statement of heads of agreement on amalgamation, drawn up by deacons. This not only dealt with the obviously major issues like agreeing to merge under a single, new incorporation ordinance, pooling of assets, and how funding for the new development was to be financed. It also focussed on ensuring that existing rights of the senior employees were to be safeguarded, like providing accommodation for both chaplain and business manager (ex-superintendent) in the new premises. It also settled small but significant details like:

09_Strong to Save.indd 150

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

151

…there shall be affixed at the Entrance of the New Institution and in a

conspicuous place a name plate bearing the words ‘The Sailors’ Home

and Seamen’s Institute’. There shall also be erected in the New Institution

a memorial inscription commemorating the fact that Sir Hormusjee Nowrojee Modi provided fifty thousand dollars to the building fund of the Seamen’s Institute.

And it settled on what we’d today call the corporate logo, that the new institution must fly both flying angel and red ensign flags and have both emblems printed on all letters. The agreement was signed by the governor and the chairmen of the two amalgamating bodies.34 By April it was a done, although not formalized deal and George Waldegrave wrote to Stuart Knox with full notes outlining what had been agreed as above and adding some detail, critically that the new organization’s committee would include as permanent members all those who had previously been trustees of the Sailors’ Home. The Home’s superintendent would be employed as secretary and manager “as long as he gives good service”. And finally, the new Home and Institute was to be open to all seafarers irrespective of religion. With all that agreed, all that remained was to get the assent of the secretary of state for the colonies in London and it would be plain sailing to get an amalgamation ordinance through the Legislative Council.35 It is hard to discern clearly the various agendas in play as the amalgamation scheme wound its way to its conclusion, not least because of the overlapping membership of the two management committees. From the Mission’s archives it could appear as though the Mission and its Local General Committee were at the helm, and certainly that is the impression George Waldegrave’s letters give. However, looking at the story via Hong Kong Government documents suggests that the Sailors’ Home committee was equally influential to the point, indeed, that one comes away with the distinct impression of a joint campaign with, if anything, quite a lot of agenda driving by the Home. That this is a plausible interpretation will be seen when we come to the immediate post-war period in Chapter 14.

09_Strong to Save.indd 151

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

152

Strong

to

Save

The colonial secretary’s speech to the finance committee in September 1929 notes that once the decision had been made in 1925 not to pursue the Kowloon option for the Sailors’ Home, for the Home everything on that front had stopped. Then, in February or March 1929, when we know that the two committees had already agreed in principle to the heads of their amalgamation and the details were being thrashed out, “serious steps were taken (by the Home) to reopen negotiations (with Government)”. It is made crystal clear that the Sailor’s Home was doing so in order to have the biggest war chest possible to bring to the new, joint outfit. As Mr Southorn put it: The Government was then asked if it stood by its promise (to provide a new site for the Sailors’ Home), and naturally it said “Yes.” The Trustees

put a new suggestion to Government that they should amalgamate with the Seamens’ Institute at Wan Chai and, instead of building a new place

in Kowloon, should build a combined Institute on the Praya East. The Kowloon site, therefore, became useless to them and they offered to sell

it back to Government for $100,000. The Government agreed that their proposals were sound and, with the approval of the Secretary of State and I

think, if I remember rightly, the approval of the Finance Committee as well,

the scheme was settled on those lines. The Government will pay $900,000

altogether, for which it will get the present Sailors’ Home at West Point and

the site in Kowloon, and the Sailors’ Home will be amalgamated with the Missions to Seaman and the new site will be on the Praya.36

How much government was in on this strategy of the two seafarers’ organizations raising money for redevelopment by getting full market value from government as compensation for sites that were not to be auctioned for commercial use is impossible to say. All we can do is remind ourselves again that late 1920s expatriate Hong Kong was very small and note how small. According to the 1931 census, of a total population of 849,751 just 7,620 were European or American and of them there were only 3,756 British males.37 Sadly, whilst the census does provide data on

09_Strong to Save.indd 152

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

Headwinds

and

Adverse Currents

153

occupation for the Chinese population, it does not do so for nonChinese. A very rough guess would peg the senior professional and managerial numbers to 10%–15% of British males, or at most 376– 574 people. At the level we are considering — the Legislative Council, the committee of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, heads of major hongs, leading figures in government, senior members of the church and charitable organizations — the number will have been perhaps 50 people, who belonged to the same clubs, committees, churches, boards of directors, and Masonic lodges. It is unlikely that either the amalgamation programme or the financing of the new building were planned in secret and mutually exclusive conclaves. At this point George Waldegrave must have heaved a huge sigh of relief because he was heading off on leave, which he was insisting should be six months in duration and allow for him to return to Hong Kong via Canada and in late September “because I have been too long in the tropics” and he felt he could not handle August in Hong Kong after a long, hot passage out via Suez. Before he left he handed over to the locum London had found, the Reverend Richard Henry Vaux Brougham, a nearly 60-year-old Anglo-Irishman, who was on his way through Hong Kong to become the temporary Mission chaplain at Kobe. Brougham had been a chaplain to the forces during the First World War, had worked for the Mission in Marseilles (1922–24) and was at the time in Port Adelaide, Australia.38 Richard Brougham was evidently a very experienced and safe pair of hands with whom to leave the signing and sealing of the amalgamation agreement. In August 1930 he was able to write to Stuart Knox announcing that the amalgamation had been legally completed.

09_Strong to Save.indd 153

6/7/2017 6:36 PM

10

One Ship, but Still Two Cap Tallies1

hroughout the tale so far, focussed as we are on western seafarers, there has been a single issue that has appeared and disappeared, ebbed, and flowed. The welfare of seafarers wears two hats and this was as clear to at least some in the Missions to Seamen in the period of amalgamation as it is to us today.2 On the one hand there is sailors’ material welfare — the simple matters of a safe and secure place ashore to get a meal, to have a quiet drink whether alcoholic or not, to avoid the perils of the red light district, and if needed to find a clean and safe bed for the night. For sailors with more complex needs — like those between ships or studying to qualify for a ticket — perhaps more elaborate arrangements might be needed. But whichever level of need was to be catered for the answer that had been provided increasingly over the last half of the 19th century was some sort of Sailor’s Home run by a charitable, municipal, or governmental organization3 working in the seafarer’s interest and aiming only to pay its way. The nearest example to Hong Kong — and probably influential in the founding of Hong Kong’s lay Sailors’ Home — was the Sailors’ Home in Singapore, initially founded in 1851, by 1927 in its fifth building.4 On the other hand there is the matter of the sailor’s spiritual and moral welfare. An obvious issue is whether these needs can or should be met by a single institution. In this light — as an aside but a relevant one — we need to note that it was in 1927 that in Britain the British Council for the Welfare

10_Strong to Save.indd 154

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

155

of the Mercantile Marine had been founded.5 This was the outcome within the British merchant marine of a series of initiatives by the International Labour Organization consequent on the second session of the International Labour Conference in 1920. The upshot of this new thrust was to result over the period before the Second World War, and again after it, in programmes of action aimed at governmental level to create “substantial improvements in the conditions in which seamen have to spend their time while ashore.”6 There is no question that this new set of initiatives soon included within their remit, and had cooperating in their deliberations, existing voluntary welfare organizations like the Missions to Seamen. However what matters is that this new, wider approach aimed at two things that the Mission itself was not ideally geared to tackle. One was action not merely at a governmental but at an intergovernmental level. The other was, explicitly, to try to render the provision of seafarer’s welfare more efficient and effective than it possibly could be when being provided by a multiplicity of independent, and not necessarily mutually supportive entities.7 So while the negotiations for amalgamation had been going on between the Mission and the Sailors’ Home in Hong Kong, in the background had been this new, governmental and intergovernmental current in which, we would suggest, the spiritual welfare of seafarers was seen at best as a subset within the larger issue of seafarer welfare. Indeed in what we might consider two of the founding documents of this very important turn in the matter of the welfare of seafarers, no mention at all is made of provision for their spiritual welfare.8 The moral and spiritual welfare of the sailor was thus revealed as a very much more complicated, indeed contested matter. By the middle of the first half of the 20th century, whilst there may have been broad and highly general agreement in principle, in practice in Hong Kong as elsewhere there was a number of rather fissiparous and rivalrous solutions. By the time the amalgamation of the Sailors’ Home and Missions

10_Strong to Save.indd 155

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

156

Strong

to

Save

to Seamen went ahead in 1930, this “fissiparousness” was more than evident. The Wesleyans were in the process of pulling down their old Praya East Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Home and were building a new one at the junction of what was becoming Johnson Road and Hennessy Road. There was the recent and very popular YMCA building on Salisbury Road in Kowloon. There was the YMCA’s Hong Kong Island based Cheero (sometimes called erroneously Cheerio) Club, founded in 1927 and aimed at sailors, soldiers, and airmen. Its base was in City Hall until that was mostly pulled down in 1933 and thereafter in a small building roughly where the Cheung Kong Centre is today.9 The Norwegian Seamen’s Mission looked after Norwegian seafarers. The Royal Navy’s chaplaincy service looked after Royal Navy personnel’s spiritual welfare.10 Finally, although there was no formal system, the Roman Catholic Church in Hong Kong served Roman Catholic seafarers when they came ashore and their recently established seafarers’ mission organization, Apostolatus Maris or the Apostleship of the Sea, was aware of the need in Hong Kong for their presence.11 One early 1930s letter from George Waldegrave to London reports on an early Apostleship venture.12 Hong Kong had started off rather like Singapore, except that where Singapore’s Sailors’ Home had begun and remained an entirely secular entity, in Hong Kong the Church of England had taken the initiative. It had then built a seamen’s church in the newly built Sailors’ Home grounds and it had brought the Anglican Missions to Seamen to serve as the church’s incumbent. However, this post hoc, now one thing, now the other approach to a unified body catering to both a sailor’s material and spiritual needs had been more a construction of faith and sticking plaster than a carefully thought through, solidly built and integrated institution, and so the two parts had soon gone their separate ways. It is impossible to put a precise finger on all of the whos, the whys and the wherefores, but somewhere in the background in the discussions of the late 1920s — and we shall see that this became a

10_Strong to Save.indd 156

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

157

great deal more manifest after the Second World War — one has a sense that by the 1920s, if not before, the colonial government in Hong Kong felt a shadowy but palpable duty not to be seen to be actively discriminating in favour of one Christian religious denomination over another. Whilst many, perhaps most of the personnel of the colonial government may have been supportive of Christian beliefs and values, the system itself was a typical blend of the British imperial inclination to indirect rule — letting indigenous and locally created social systems take much of the routine load of government13 — and a broadly liberal-utilitarian posture towards the varieties of religious denominations and creeds amongst those whom it ruled, despite the formal status of the Church of England as the established church.14 It follows that where the care for the welfare of seafarers was concerned, there will have been a governmental bias — evident from the outset in Singapore and by inference tacitly present in Hong Kong by Commander Rumsey’s day in the 1890s and, as we have seen in the ILO and British Council on the Welfare of the Mercantile Marine, more to the forefront in the late 1920s — towards organizing affairs so that the material and spiritual welfare of all seafarers could be catered for within some larger welfare system in which no manifest preference was given to any Christian denomination, or possibly even any creed.15 There are two faint clues to this in an exchange between the governor, Sir Cecil Clementi, and the Colonial Office in July 1929 in which the risks of favouring an institution with “a definitely denominational tinge” are noted but discounted.16 Clearly preferring the established church, or possibly any church, over any other was by this stage not above “criticism”.

*** The ordinance that incorporated and amalgamated the new, joint Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen strongly reflects the equivocations and hesitations that these behind-the-scenes exchanges reveal. The result was more a rehash of the cobbled together makeshift that had emerged in 1885, than a solution to its inherent

10_Strong to Save.indd 157

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

158

Strong

to

Save

shortcomings. Following the phrasing of Bishop Duppuy’s original draft as that had been thrashed out in discussion with the Sailors’ Home committee, the new ordinance circumvented important management issues, and left unresolved the exact spheres of responsibility of the senior chaplain of the Mission and the business secretary (as he was first called, later changed to business manager) of the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute. It is worth spending a little time looking at the detail because these issues rumble on, flaring or fading depending on the personalities involved, until well after the creation of the Mariners’ Club nearly 40 years later. There are two key clauses in the ordinance that illustrate the failure to get to grips with the hard work of achieving a genuine amalgamation. The first described the composition of the local management committee. The second specified the objects of the new organization. Even more significant was the schedule, since its regulations dealt with how the Institute was actually to be managed day-to-day. The first two clauses need not detain us long. The new committee was an amalgam of the committees that had presided over the two separate institutions. The members were the bishop of Victoria, the harbour master, the chairman of Jardine, Matheson and Co., two nominees of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, two nominees of the London headquarters of the Missions to Seamen, a representative of the Royal Navy chosen by the committee, and up to four other co-opted members one of whom was to be the treasurer. It was left to the committee to elect a chairman, a treasurer, accountants, and auditors annually at the annual general meeting that had to be held in February. The important change here, which carries over a Sailors’ Home operating principle and abandons the Mission’s equivalent, is the exclusion of both Mission senior chaplain and Sailors’ Home superintendent (in the new organization the business manager) from membership of the committee. Indeed it goes rather further and in

10_Strong to Save.indd 158

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

159

doing so supports the idea that tucked in here may have been some sort of effort at, if not sidelining, then at least redefining the role of the chaplain. In that part of the schedule headed “The Committee”, the business manager is given the extremely important role of keeping the minutes. It also specifies that both chaplain and business manager (obviously) were required to attend all meetings unless the committee decided otherwise. Incredibly the lack of a vote for the chaplain over decisions affecting the Institute set down by the ordinance and explicitly commented on by Richard Brougham, who signed off on the deal,17 seems only partly to have been noticed. George Waldegrave’s successor, Reverend Cyril Brown, was unaware that he had not been a voting member of the Local General Committee until two years after the Second World War had ended and he was working for the Mission’s headquarters in London!18 Of course that also tells us something about the way in which committee meetings were usually conducted — nothing so vulgar as a show of hands. Up to this point the chaplain had always been a full voting member of the Local General Committee. Indeed in the 1919 ordinance that incorporated the Mission, only the bishop and the chaplain are actually stipulated as being members of the management body, any other member to be whoever the bishop “stipulates”, leaving open the possibility of a management body of two. By contrast the superintendent of the Home had never been a member either of the Home’s trustees or of its management committee. Quite why the new arrangement was decided upon we do not know because we are not privy to the discussions between Sailors’ Home trustees and Mission Local General Committee. One is tempted to see a “win” for the businessmen, anxious to make sure that the management committee was free to manage, untrammelled by other, possibly less worldly considerations and always able to outvote the Bishop. Totting representation up we have four businessmen (Jardine’s taipan, two Chamber of Commerce members and the treasurer), two “government”

10_Strong to Save.indd 159

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

160

Strong

to

Save

representatives (the harbour master and the RN representative) and, say, one or two of the remaining three co-optees to make between seven to eight “lay” members. For the Mission side there was to be the bishop, two Missions to Seamen, London nominees, and one or at best two of the co-optees to make four to five “church” members. In short, a clear majority for the “lay” voice, especially when we count the person in charge of the minutes. Given that the Sailors’ Home was the financial weight in the new, joint organization, one senses that the Mission’s negotiators may have accepted they needed the Sailors’ Home slightly more than the Sailors’ Home needed them. Of course, in practice lines would turn out to be less rigidly drawn and sympathies would prove more evenly shared. But that the management committee had been structured in this way does seem to indicate a wish, somewhere in the decision-making system, to emphasize the more lay and material concerns of the new institution over its spiritual and religious ones.19 The objects of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen were equally an exercise of two separate aims being stuck side-by-side to the point, indeed, that no attempt seems to have been made to come up with anything akin to what we should today call a vision and a mission statement for the single organizational entity — the Institute — that the ordinance created. Instead the objects of the two originally separate bodies continue to be specified separately. The Sailors’ Home’s objects of caring for “the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine irrespective of their religion and also the provision of a suitable institute or home for the seafaring classes and officers and men aforesaid” remain one set of the new entity’s aims. The same was to be true of the Missions to Seamen’s object of providing “an institute for and the spiritual welfare of the seafaring classes and in pursuance of such work and objects the use of every means consistent with the principles and received practice of the Church of England.” There was ambiguity in the use of the term “Mercantile Marine”, especially in its capitalized form. For the use of capitals implied —

10_Strong to Save.indd 160

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

161

perhaps weakly, but nonetheless implied — a proper noun, that is, a specific Mercantile Marine. For almost anyone in 1930s Hong Kong this wording can have borne only one construction. This is that the object of the Sailors’ Home was to look after British seafarers and only British seafarers. After all, the First World War was still very much a living memory for almost anyone involved in the negotiations over and elaboration of the ordinance. All will have been very well aware of the medal that had been awarded by the Board of Trade just a decade previously to the 133,135 merchant seamen, who had served on one or more voyages in a war or danger zone. It was styled The Mercantile Marine War Medal and bore the legend “For war service / Mercantile Marine 1914–1918”.20 The British Council for the Welfare of the Mercantile Marine was founded in 1927. The term had long been in current usage in reference to Britain’s merchant service. Today the more common referent is Merchant Navy, but in 1930 that was still a very recent coining.21 Mercantile Marine was and until at least the Second World War continued to be the generic that covered the otherwise disjoined worlds of Britain’s commercial shipping and the fishing fleet.22 So, reflecting the old priorities of the Sailors’ Home, as far as the letter of the incorporating ordinance was concerned, the new Institute catered solely for the British merchant service. This represents another apparent defeat for the Mission given what had been the mainstay of the Seamen’s Institute over the preceding decade and more: the Royal Navy and its sailors. This omission was rectified in the schedule, which spelled out the regulations dealing with dayto-day management in which it is stated that the Institute was to be open to both Royal and Merchant Navy seafarers. But there is a difference between fundamental principles as set out in an ordinance, and variations upon those principles, changeable by the managing committee with government approval, as these may from time to time be decided and applied by regulation. Again, somewhere in the background behind this process is an agenda that does not prima facie

10_Strong to Save.indd 161

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

162

Strong

to

Save

appear to have been strongly sympathetic to the Mission. This introduces the schedule and its regulations. These set out the chain of command with the vesting of “supreme control and management of the Institute” in its committee. This is worth a moment’s pause because it ensured two things quite out of the way for a Mission institute and utterly different to what had been the case since Gurney Goldsmith had opened the mat-shed Kowloon Institute in 1893. When the Mission had an institute in most of the ports where it had a presence, the whole principle was that when set up its chaplain “form(ed) a local management committee, rais(ed) funds locally, and open(ed) a Seamen’s Institute under its flag, the Flying Angel.”23 So although there was a Local General Committee, chosen by the chaplain and approved by London, of which the chaplain was a member, there was no question but that he was the boss of any locally appointed manager employed to look after building, catering, and staffing. It followed that while London dictated broad institute policy, ensuring a commonalty of approach in Missions to Seamen institutes around the world, and the Local General Committee advised on local conditions, the chaplain was skipper of his ship. It was this state of affairs that the incorporation ordinance formally ended. Cyril Brown, George Waldegrave’s successor, was to home in on exactly that issue when the time came for him to be exchanging handover notes, I (must be) quite definitely No. 1 at the Institute. My experience here (Singapore) has taught me that a layman who possibly is no sort of

churchman and who has little if any interest in the spiritual, moral, and physical welfare of seafarers finds himself in an awkward position.

Obviously this is an issue that had come up, because in a letter in 1932 to George Trench, George Waldegrave mentions in passing that during negotiations he had opposed “dual control”, but “had

10_Strong to Save.indd 162

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

163

to give in,” though he doesn’t say why.24 Whilst the first mentioned official with respect to day-to-day management is the chaplain, he is specifically given only “sole charge of the religious activities of the Institute…” and is to “care for…all social arrangements and functions and (responsibility for) the visitation of ships and hospitals,” as well as being in charge of the launch and her crew. The worm in the apple is introduced in the next regulation that covers the business manager. This officer is noted to be “under the control of the Committee” — where no such control is asserted over the chaplain — and entrusted with the upkeep and repair of the buildings, furniture and fittings of the

Institute, the management of all catering and messing arrangements and the secretarial and office work. He shall also be entitled to go on board all

mercantile shipping and shall make any necessary hospital arrangements in connection with such seafarers.

Apart from one’s sense that the draftsman left something out about why the business manager was to go aboard ships and make hospital arrangements, what stands out here when considering the duties of chaplain and business manager is a very clear sense that it is the latter who is expected to do the lion’s share of the management work and is primarily responsible to the committee, leaving the chaplain solely with the cure of souls. It is also clear that neither is in charge of the other. There is no captain of the ship. Instead the schedule creates a manifest duumvirate. Tacked onto the end of the detailing of day-to-day management responsibilities is a grab bag of a regulation dealing with terms and conditions of appointment of the two senior personnel. Obviously the committee reserve to themselves absolute authority over the terms and conditions of service of the business manager. But given what we have noted to be the way that most Missions to Seamen institutes operated, in Hong Kong henceforward the chaplain was to be seen very differently. He was to become a subordinate. And although his

10_Strong to Save.indd 163

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

164

Strong

to

Save

appointment was to be made by Missions’ headquarters in London, it would be “subject to the approval of the committee” and he would be “subject to the control of the Committee”. Curiously this same regulation slipped in what would prove over time to be a most burdensome obligation. While negotiations had been going on over the terms of the ordinance, Captain Frank Baylis, the last Sailors’ Home superintendent, with whom George Waldegrave had supposed he would be working in harness, had decided the time had come for him to retire. He obviously had the power to negotiate a sweetheart deal, though as to how and why we have no clue. Tucked away as the last part of regulation 13 was the extraordinary stipulation that “Captain F. Bayliss [sic] the late Superintendent of the Sailors’ Home shall be paid out of the funds of the Corporation a pension for life of Three hundred and fifty Pounds per annum being the pension heretofore agreed to be paid to him.” We have seen that the Sailors’ Home was not in the best of financial shapes. We have also noted that the Seamen’s Institute was struggling. Yet here was a committee of presumably well-informed businessmen, with their decision endorsed by the Legislative Council, agreeing to pay a pension for life to a 58-year-old man of what, in today’s terms, would be something like $54,000 a month (in 2013 values) for what, if the deal was honoured, was to turn out to be 26 years.25 It casts an interesting light on how the Sailors’ Home would appear to have been run over the preceding decades, giving considerable support to the regular complaints in the newspapers that administrative costs were out of control. In any case, and it is hardly surprising, the organization could not afford to appoint anyone, so the post stayed vacant. However one looks at it, £350 a year for life as a pension was a fantastic deal for Captain Baylis. That was a point that came home 14 years later when, back in employment as a wartime merchant skipper, he complains to London that he has not been paid his pension since the fall of Hong Kong in December 1941, and when can he expect to

10_Strong to Save.indd 164

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

165

get the money?26 The last points worth mentioning are regulations 15 to 18, which represent between them the concessions that the Mission had managed to get to satisfy its interests. The first specifies that “No alcoholic liquors shall be sold or consumed on the premises of the Institute.” The next that the Institute is to be open not just to the Mercantile Marine but to “all men of His Majesty’s Navy” and that in all cases a man’s religious affiliation is not to be considered relevant. Then comes a duet specific to “Religious Services”. Within the institute, according to regulation 17, only the “rites and ceremonies of the Church of England” are to be used in the chapel. This was to cause a hiccup 30 years later when broader-minded, more ecumenical days arrived. Finally regulation 18 states, reinforcing regulation 16, that attendance at chapel is voluntary and must not be made a condition of use of the Institute. In short, the chaplain would seem to have been fairly carefully hedged in, just in case there was any inclination to return to the more evangelical days of yore. In practice, the ordinance looks to a rerun under a single roof of the state of affairs that had obtained in a single compound with split functions in 1885. A lay business manager is running purely secular accommodation (“a home”) to house sailors in need of a bed for the night no matter who they may be or what they may or may not need in spiritual terms. Meanwhile the Mission — somewhere within the same building — is looking after the spiritual welfare of seafarers of all stripes but only in ways that are consistent with Anglican principles and practice. By strict implication, therefore, the lay part was going to be serving a larger group than the spiritual part; possibly an overwhelmingly larger part since common sense and experience will have told everyone involved that the quotient of seafarers who were actively religious or sought to be, had in the past been and was most probably always in the future going to be only a fraction of the number of sailors looking for nothing more than bodily comfort and sustenance. It was not a well thought through recipe. To use the image

10_Strong to Save.indd 165

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

166

Strong

to

Save

of a Royal Naval sailor’s cap with its “cap tally” — the ribbon that had embroidered on it the name of the ship in which he served — this was a ship with two names on the cap tally. With the amalgamation complete following the passage of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen Incorporation Ordinance, the Sailors’ Home closed and its operations moved across town to the very much smaller Seamen’s Institute in Wan Chai. There is nothing in the archive to indicate what happened to the Sailors’ Home staff. By the time of closure there was only one European member — Captain Baylis — and he had retired. The Seamen’s Institute had not replaced Mr Sellwood when he had left and its assistant steward, Mr Watt, was doing most of the routine work whilst George Waldegrave took over the rest. In a letter to headquarters a year and a half after the merger, George Waldegrave described the Institute’s formal establishment — very typically for the period — as chaplain, business manager, European steward, and “otherwise Chinese staff”. In practice to save money that meant just the two Europeans, the chaplain and the steward, with the bulk of the day-to-day work being done by the anonymous Chinese staff of whom some may have been old Sailors’ Home employees.

*** With the Praya East reclamation already mostly complete the old Institute had become 18 Johnston Road and George Waldegrave and his committee were negotiating with government over what was to be done when the Institute moved to the new premises. There was a choice. Either the site could be sold back to government — which needed it for additional office space following the demolition of the old, and very handsome, Beaconsfield Arcade in Central.27 Or it could be rented to government, if government would play. What followed, in George Waldegrave’s account, is an extraordinary tale. Government offered the Institute $240,000 as a purchase price (“which seemed too good to be true”) and no doubt everyone was

10_Strong to Save.indd 166

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

One Ship,

but

Still Two Cap Tallies

167

smiling happily. Then, a Mission Local General Committee member on the Legislative Council, who George Waldegrave kindly left anonymous,28 “[who] felt his duties to the public were greater than his to us” reported that the Institute’s architect’s valuation had only been $166,000 — “a book valuation only” as George Waldegrave glosses it. The result of that was that the government offer came down to $170,000 and the authorities then refused to parlay over the Institute’s counter-bid of $200,000. “$170,000 was a fixed offer, as the building itself was only worth $5,000 to them since they would have to make a lot of internal alterations.” As 1931 began the new institution was ready for its move. The land problem had been sorted out. Government had helped patch together a new, single institution out of the old Sailors’ Home and the Missions to Seamen Seamen’s Institute. A new management committee and management structure had been agreed and the relevant personnel were in place. Sufficient money had been found, via compensation or purchase by government for buildings and sites occupied and sites foregone, to give the new entity sufficient funds to build. Plans for the new building had been completed. It was time to start building.

10_Strong to Save.indd 167

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

11

An Interesting Launching on the Wan Chai Waterfront

e learn little from the archive about the last years in the old Institute building because so much of the focus of correspondence was on the new buildings. However, there are asides about life at 18 Johnston Road suggesting that the new building might meet difficulties because of its size. It almost appears as if planning for the new premises was being done independently of anything that was being experienced down on the waterfront. For example, in his post-Christmas letter to Reverend Coryton, George Waldegrave gives a quick summary of business, which we need to remember was business for both Seamen’s Institute and Sailors’ Home. Waldegrave notes, The percentage of Asiatic crews in shipping coming here is 90.63%, which leaves a very small percentage of European crews. In fact if we get more

than one ship with all white crew in a month we are doing very well in that way.1

So clearly the patronage by western merchant seamen was slight. The Royal Navy only went some way towards taking up the slack as they had the choice of the Wesleyan Home, the YMCA, and their own clubs, so the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen still depended in part on merchant seamen. That is, men euphemistically stated to be “on reserve” i.e. out of work, or men

reading for their tickets. Then we have of course the DBSes [distressed

11_Strong to Save.indd 168

7/7/2017 11:19 AM

An Interesting Launching

on the

Wan Chai Waterfront

169

British seamen] and American and other nationals in the same state.2 And once taken in while I was away by an inexperienced manager, an Asiatic crew.3

That last, given the earlier comment about over 90% of ships’ crews being Asiatic seafarers indicates two things. The first is the extent to which the Mission still conceived its role as exclusively orientated towards serving British seafarers abroad. For all that Hong Kong was a British colony and in some sense the Asiatic seamen serving under the red ensign visiting the port of Victoria were British seamen, they fell outside a notional remit. In fact there was more to it than that as we shall learn as we consider the design of the new building. This was to be a simmering bone of contention between the two parts of the new, dual institution that would make itself more manifest following the Second World War. But the merchant service clients, whatever their provenance and despite their role as long-term residents, were an extremely small part of the Institute’s business. As George Waldegrave summarized it, casual beds in the Institute — that is, those taken just for a few nights — were 90% naval ratings (i.e. Royal Navy personnel) on a night ashore or on three to four days general leave. By the end of 1931 things were no different.4

If the custom at the existing premises did not exactly endorse the planning for a new, considerably larger building, this was clearly disregarded. Where doubts did exist, they had to do not with potential custom, but with the alternative and the locale. The alternative seems to have been fairly swiftly dismissed although it does seem to have been considered. This was to stick with the old Sailors’ Home’s original plans and build on the Tsim Sha Tsui site because by doing so, given that there were already architect’s drawings, $23,000 would be saved. What tipped the balance against this were three considerations. The new building’s plans “were not of a very good building” and it was not on the waterfront. Most merchant service patrons who were looking for work, would have to go over to Hong Kong where the

11_Strong to Save.indd 169

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

170

Strong

to

Save

shipping company offices were. And perhaps worst, to get to the Tsim Sha Tsui site, sailors would have to pass the attractive YMCA. Finally there was the clincher. Since “much of the revenue comes from letting beds and cabins to naval ratings, and as their ships lie mostly on the Hong Kong side of the harbour, we should have lost a large source of income.”5 But although plans for the new building had been completed and negotiations over the site concluded, George Waldegrave nonetheless did voice concerns over where it had been decided that the new Home and Institute was going to be built. As a result of the very specific arrangements that had prevailed in Hong Kong with respect to prostitution, Wan Chai had become the low cost red light district for Europeans, and especially sailors and soldiers. It was the home of Chinese and Japanese brothels catering for “European and white men mainly [sic]”. Elsewhere in the town were higher cost brothels with European, Australian, and American prostitutes whom rank and file matelots, soldiers, and merchant jacks could not afford. And separately, and also elsewhere, were the many brothels — indeed very much more than brothels — that catered exclusively to a Chinese clientele.6 From the early 1920s there had been increasing pressure from Britain for the governments in Hong Kong and Singapore to reduce the levels of tolerance of prostitution that their extra-legal, yet regulated systems appeared to condone.7 During the governorships of Sir Reginald Stubbs (1919–25) and Sir Cecil Clementi (1925–30) there had been some marked foot-dragging, since the worthies of both expatriate and Chinese communities were supporters of the extant system. However, as a result of domestic pressure,8 the arrival in office in 1929 of the Labour government in Britain and the change of governor in Hong Kong on the departure of Sir Cecil the following year, allied with an impending visit by a League of Nations Committee on the Traffic in Women and Children,9 by 1931 the government had been instructed to shut brothels down. The new governor, Sir William

11_Strong to Save.indd 170

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

An Interesting Launching

on the

Wan Chai Waterfront

171

Peel (1930–35), slowly complied. This had the inevitable consequence of increasing the number of what were known as “sly brothels”, a huge increase in street soliciting, especially in Wan Chai, and a sharp spike in the incidence of venereal disease.10 These vicissitudes notwithstanding, the Wan Chai site had become a fixture and planning for the new building was complete by the end of 1931. From the records it would appear that the plans had largely been driven by what we can call the old Sailors’ Home element on the new committee. As George Waldegrave put it to his London boss in May 1931, if London had any objections to table over the plans “that the Sailors’ Home have approved” they need to remember that the Sailors’ Home are the main paymasters and that the Missions to Seamen was occasionally gently reminded of this gritty fact.11

*** The building, occupying almost all the 166 ft (50.6 m) frontage and 118 ft (36 m) sides of its site, was to be a very impressive edifice, designed by one of the leading Hong Kong architectural firms, Palmer and Turner. It was very much in the 1930s, rather heavy, neo-classical influenced version of art deco and would be followed just two years later by the stylistically related new Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation building at 1, Queen’s Road Central, also by Palmer and Turner. Massive and imposing from the street, the building was in fact rather smaller than it appeared, for local building regulations required and architectural good sense suggested the provision of open space within the building to ensure that air and light reached everywhere. So in the middle of the building, occupying 11–12% of the area of each floor, there was a central light well, which also had a service staircase. There were to be six floors and a basement, the whole having clearly been designed by people concerned primarily with the material and educational welfare of seafarers. Typically for the era, accommodation for officers and sailors was separate, as were not only their dining and washing facilities but their entrance and lift — which were also the entrance and lift for the chaplain and manager,

11_Strong to Save.indd 171

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

172

Strong

to

Save

the two “officers” in the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute staff. However, although in 1929 there had been a clear message sent back to London that the new institution being planned would contain “some sort of accommodation for Asiatics and coloured men”,12 by the time of George Waldegrave’s first letter with a detailed description of the new premises some one and a half years’ later, any such thought has disappeared. What does stand out is the amount of space given over to accommodating the management and administration. That, at least, is a constant in human affairs. The contrast in provision is as clear as it is because of a letter George Waldegrave wrote to London in late 1933 providing a brief to help London guide his successor, Reverend Cyril Brown. He describes the chaplain’s quarters in the Seamen’s Institute at 21 Praya East. “For years I lived, fed, slept and worked in my office, a room 27’ long by 12’ broad, no fireplace and practically a passage.” At some point someone had realized that this was hard commons and George Waldegrave had been given a $50 “quarters allowance”.13 The scale of provision in the new premises was lavish by comparison. The basement at 40 Gloucester Road, with its 10 ft (3.04 m) ceilings provided the toilet block, the garage, and boathouse, although by the time the building was finished, the basement held a gym, locker room, bowling alley, carpenter’s shop, and a den for the Sea Scouts. The garage and boathouse had been shifted to an open yard at the western end of the building. The original plans had included a swimming pool but, reverting to the problem of prostitution, the idea was shelved because of the prevalence of venereal disease and, it turned out, rising costs. All of the ground floor with its 19 ft (5.8 m) ceilings was given over to office and facility spaces. The first floor had more facilities, but much was devoted to the chapel, vestry, chapel anteroom, and chaplain’s office. The entire mezzanine floor was accommodation for the Home and Institute domestic staff. The second floor accommodated ratings, with a small, two-room plus bathroom flatlet for the steward. The whole third floor was officers’ accommodation.

11_Strong to Save.indd 172

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

An Interesting Launching

on the

Wan Chai Waterfront

173

And all the top floor was either accommodation or services — the chaplain’s and manager’s large flats, the laundry, and quarters for the launch coxswain and the No. 1 Chinese Boy (later to be given the more dignified title “Chinese Steward”). The chaplain’s flat included a study, a drawing room, a dining room, three bedrooms “all of good size” each with its en suite bathroom and lavatory, a store room, a pantry, a kitchen, a larder, a drying room, servants quarters “and plenty of verandah space.” Curiously, given George Waldegrave’s insistence that the Sailors’ Home people had driven the design, the business manager had less opulent quarters, with only two bedrooms that had to share the bathroom and lavatory and no study. The approximate share of space devoted to seafarers compared to the space devoted to accommodation and service spaces for those working for the seafarers was about 60–40%. The reasons for this — apart from the perennial management creep that assails all organizations — were peculiar to colonial and paternalist Hong Kong. Like many colonies where Europeans formed a minority, work done in the western world by the Europeans for themselves, was done for them by local employees. Few Mission chaplains in 1930s Britain, for example, would have enjoyed the services of a houseboy, a cook, and a coolie as live in staff … with all three together costing him just 10% of his monthly salary.14 In Hong Kong that was normal and merchant navy officers staying at the home expected something equivalent. In like manner a good colonial employer like the Mission offered accommodation to its workforce. In part this compensated in kind for the low pay rates of all but the few and the squalid nature of too much of outside accommodation that, on their meagre pay, was all they could afford. The pattern persists today in Hong Kong’s system of subsidized public housing. We need also to remember that in 1930s Hong Kong, perhaps with the exception of the most expensive hotels, the use of automated and semi-automated kitchen and cleaning equipment was still slight. Photographs of the new Institute’s kitchen

11_Strong to Save.indd 173

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

174

Strong

to

Save

and laundry show very labour-intensive systems. So for the new Home accommodation and service space demands were high and the design of the building reflects this. There is also an obvious and important reason for the larger chaplain’s flat. With the demise of the West Point Sailors’ Home and the decision by Captain Baylis not to assume the role of business manager, it would appear that the management of the new, combined institution was assumed entirely by the Missions to Seamen. The whole administrative load of the recently combined institution at 18 Johnston Road had been taken over by George Waldegrave and his assistant steward, Mr Watt, with the accounts being done out of house by Lowe, Bingham, and Matthews. This arrangement had the effect — which turned out to be and continues to be of signal importance — of creating a de facto Missions to Seamen-led management system that totally ignored the de jure duumvirate that had been enshrined in the incorporation ordinance. With no actual business manager to have to deal with, nothing stood in the way of the Mission establishing an unchallenged hegemony. However, as George Waldegrave’s successor was to put it, what put George Waldegrave in charge was his personality, “but what of his successor?”15 The new building pushed ahead quickly, but in at least one sense not quickly enough. As a result of the Great Depression that had begun in 1929, the value of the silver dollar, Hong Kong’s currency, had come under marked pressure. When the building was in the early planning stages in 1931, the building sub-committee of the local committee decided that the cost of the new building including furnishings and fittings was to be confined to “$400,000 Mex or rather HK”. This would then leave approximately $600,000 for an endowment fund, the income from which would help defray the running costs, which almost everyone expected would not be fully paid for by operations. However, as the effects of the Great Depression began to make themselves more evident in the global economy, the pound sterling to silver dollar exchange rate moved sharply to the project’s disadvantage. Typically

11_Strong to Save.indd 174

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

An Interesting Launching

on the

Wan Chai Waterfront

175

for a British colony, and as with the near contemporary Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation building, significant quantities of the materials for the building had been sourced from Britain, “window frames (metal), sanitary gear, central heating system, etc. have to be bought from the UK and these are now double the normal price in HK dollars…”.16 When George Waldegrave had arrived in Hong Kong in 1919, the silver dollar had been worth 1/11d. By January 1931, he reported to the Reverend Coryton when planning for the new building was nearing completion, this had moved drastically and one dollar bought only 11¾d.17 The consequence for the new building was the loss of extras. A planned hard court tennis court on the roof was dropped because building regulations would have required a far more costly roof specification. Central heating for the whole building was abandoned, leaving only the basement heated in winter. The façade was covered with a terracotta coloured Colorcrete treatment instead of the more expensive Shanghai plaster — the result was apparently rather startling to the eye, “the colour is unusual for this part of the world, a sort of buff. At first it looked awful but it has toned down quickly and looks well.”18 Interior walls were to have been made of brick but were changed to cheaper Aerocrete.19 Exposed floors were still terrazzo and concert hall and apartment floors in teak parquet, but the rest were covered in a cheaper, ½ inch thick rubberized treatment called Decolite.20 Even so, by October 1932 the cost of the building had risen 25% and the hoped for $600,000 endowment fund had dropped to $500,000. Extraordinarily, there is no trace either in the Mission archives or in Hong Kong newspapers and archives of a foundation stone laying ceremony. For 1930s Hong Kong, with a project so prominent and relatively prestigious involving a leading architect, and for an institution with a committee from the good and the great, from the bishop to heads of the leading hongs, not having a foundation stone laying ceremony would have been all but unheard of. Every other of

11_Strong to Save.indd 175

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

176

Strong

to

Save

the Mission or Home’s permanent buildings that has appeared in the narrative so far had a foundation stone laying ceremony. It appears that the largest and most costly seamen’s institute did not follow that practice. Just as there is no mention of such an event, so is there no mention as to why such a strange departure from colonial norms occurred. There is only a baffling silence. It is clear that economically 1931 was a tough year. The rising tensions between Japan and China were worrying everyone. There were catastrophic floods in the Yangzi area. Southern China had a disturbing outbreak of banditry. Apart from anti-Japanese riots, Hong Kong appears to have had an otherwise quiet, albeit trying year, so a domestic reason for the omission is hard to find.21 The only mention of the Seamen’s Institute during 1931 was the sensational story of a drunken Dutch seaman who attempt to cleave asunder the assistant steward, Mr H. Watt.22 In 1932 the sole story about the Institute’s redevelopment — and one that rather hints that there was no official foundation stone ceremony — appeared in the Hong Kong Daily Press in August. By that time work was evidently well advanced, but there is no mention, as would have been normal in Hong Kong’s 1930s’ press, of any preceding ceremony that would have cued readers to something they would have read about before.23 As building progressed and prices rose, savings continued to be the order of the day. However, making them was not always easy or even possible. Saving money on staffing meant no business manager, a decision that enabled George Waldegrave to arrange to rent out the manager’s apartment, when it was complete, for $200 a month. A $50,000 saving in costs could have been achieved if the Home had been able to use Japanese-made cement at $0.90–$1.20 a bag instead of locally produced cement at $3.20 a bag. Unfortunately anti-Japanese sentiment was at fever pitch — it was in September 1931 that five members of the Yamashita family had been murdered during five days

11_Strong to Save.indd 176

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

An Interesting Launching

on the

Wan Chai Waterfront

177

of violent anti-Japanese protests.24 It followed that had the Mission tried to use Japanese cement, the workforce would immediately have walked off the job and that would have cost more than the potential saving. The completion of the building was fairly swift, from breaking ground to first occupation taking around two years. It is clear from the 1931 Report of the Director of Public Works that work did not start until some time in 1931.25 In his initial estimates George Waldegrave gives a timetable that has the handover of the old Institute building to government on 1 January 1933, which he thought would entail the new building being ready for the start of moving in on 1 December 1932.26 As it turned out that proved very optimistic. For reasons that are not clear, but most probably have to do with rising costs and the need to make changes to contain them, the hoped for deadline was missed. January had come and gone. So had February, March and most of April before, on the 25th of that month, the Mission took possession of the new, although still not finished building. George Waldegrave and “a few of the Institute house boys and coolies” moved in the next day and the last lunch for the residents at 18 Johnston Road was held on 27 April. That evening the government moved into 18 Johnston Road and began work to convert it to offices for an electrical store and workshop on the ground floor, dispensary stores for the medical and hospital institutions on the first floor and the Port Development Department on the second floor.27 It is perhaps a sign of the salience of the second part of the new organization’s name, and the de facto assumption of the entire management of the combined outfit by the chaplain and Mission staff, that once the Institute was occupied, the first part of the premises to be officially put to use was the first floor chapel or, as it soon became known following its consecration, St Peter’s Church. On 30 April, just three days after the last lunch in Johnston Road, Bishop R.O. Hall, who had succeeded Bishop Duppuy in 1932, consecrated the new church.

11_Strong to Save.indd 177

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

178

Strong

to

Save

It was consecrated rather than dedicated, as a later chaplain recalled post-war, because it was intended that it could be used for performing marriages.28 George Waldegrave describes the chapel as “sort of semi-byzantine, so far as I can make out, the proportions of the room, the French windows, etc., naturally cramping the opportunity for producing anything very striking”.29 Photographs of the chapel, far from the ornate decorations of Byzantium, show a rather severe and plain interior. It is white painted with simple, arched window openings and windows of plain glass, reminiscent of 18th century Presbyterian churches in Scotland, with a semi-circular apse behind the altar, embellished by only a plain coloured, half height curtain around the back wall. At that point as far as bringing the Mission into operation went, things hung fire. Initially George Waldegrave thought that full completion of the building so that it could open for business would take an additional seven weeks or so. That again proved optimistic since the building wasn’t actually opened to seafarers until 16 August, three and a half months later. Even then, as Waldegrave reported, apologizing to London for the absence of interior photographs, the builders were still in. That in part would explain why there was no official opening of the building to inaugurate full time use. However, the story for the delay of a grand opening given by George Waldegrave — exactly why the delays in completion of the building were so protracted is not explained — was that it had to wait until the cooler weather came back round in the autumn, saying in the letter that announced the actual opening for business, that the official opening would be in October or November.30 This brings us, as we round out this story of the building of the new Sailors Home and Seamen’s Institute, to the most puzzling aspect of these first moments in its 34-year story. There is no sign whatsoever that the formal opening by the governor, supposedly delayed until the cold weather in the autumn, ever took place. The Mission to Seafarer’s

11_Strong to Save.indd 178

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

An Interesting Launching

on the

Wan Chai Waterfront

179

archive has no souvenir programme, no photographs, no text of a speech and no mention or record of any inscription on a foundation stone or grand opening commemorative plaque. There is no reference to any such event in the last letters of George Waldegrave’s long tenure. All of the above could be explained by unfortunately coincidental gaps in the record. They become more strongly corroborative evidence that something was very, very different when we add to them the fact that all the newspapers of Hong Kong for the closing months of 1933 are uniformly silent on the new building. This leads us to the conclusion that for some reason — we know not what — the new Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute at 40 Gloucester Road slipped into operation marked only by the formal consecration of its first floor chapel, itself a service attended only by a “not very large gathering”, amongst the attendees of which the newspapers of the day, usually most careful to name any of the good and the great in attendance, mention only the bishop, a handful of clergymen and the pro-chancellor of St John’s Cathedral, Sir Henry Pollock K.C. There were evidently plans for a formal opening in the autumn of 1933. Given that George Waldegrave’s letter was written when October was almost ended, yet that he could only write “shortly” as opposed to giving a definite date, it would seem reasonable to infer that as of the date of his letter, 23 October, no firm date had been set. After that letter no trace of an opening ceremony can be found. It seems safe to assume that it did not in fact take place. It is pointless to speculate about reasons or causes in default of a shred of evidence. For the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute at 40 Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, this was a most unusual start.

11_Strong to Save.indd 179

6/7/2017 6:37 PM

12

Threatening Times

ith the opening of the new premises the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute swiftly settled into a regular existence. The nuts and bolts of the operations were spelled out in what were in effect George Waldegrave’s handover notes for his successor, sent by him to George Trench in a series of letters beginning shortly before the new building began full time operations. George Waldegrave’s routine duties with ships and in the Institute continued to be entirely focussed on western seafarers. As he put it, describing the shipping in port as largely British, American, Japanese, Chinese, Norwegian, Dutch, and French ocean liners with some British, Norwegian, Japanese, Chinese, French, and Danish coastal shipping, “I have been unable to tackle more than the British vessels, though if necessary I go aboard others as required for any special purpose.” He goes on, I aim principally at the vessels visiting the port, Blue Funnels, tramps, BI,

etc. and the bigger coast vessels. The percentage of Asiatic crews in vessels coming to this port runs somewhere near 90%, so that our work is mainly among the officer ranks in the Merchant Service.1

One of the last reports George Waldegrave makes about the new building reveals its true impact on the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s finances. By the time of the last bills in October 1933, the final cost of the new premises had risen to $700,000. That represented

12_Strong to Save.indd 180

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

181

a 75% cost overrun on the original $400,000 budget. The endowment, which had been expected to be $600,000, had been halved and was down to $300,000. It must all have played havoc with the financial planning for the new building’s operations. George Waldegrave mentions this in a general overview of finances. It was another reason for not employing a business manager. Apart from this having the useful side effect of giving the Missions to Seamen complete control of the Institute, by saving the business manager’s earmarked $7,200 a year salary, and paying a secretary to help the chaplain $1,500 a year instead, it allowed the renting out of the business manager’s flat at $200 a month. The result was an annual gain against the budget of $8,100.2 It is also evident — and an interesting statement of the mindset of the world of colonial expatriates — that the cost overrun and financial difficulties had not come at the cost of hard commons for the chaplain. Describing his situation for Cyril Brown, who seemed likely to be on a starting salary of $500 a month, “a good housewife can manage for two on $100 a month”. Living as George Waldegrave lived, which from his description was quite lavish, the Browns could still live comfortably within their income. *** In early October 1934 George Waldegrave’s 15 years as senior chaplain came to an end and he took ship back to Britain. Earlier in the year he had featured in the mid-year honours’ list, being awarded the MBE (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire). This was not for his 14 years’ of service to maritime mission in Hong Kong, evidently something not perceived by the colonial authorities that made recommendations for such awards, as worthy of recognition. Instead it was for his services to the Boy Scout movement in Hong Kong.3 The report of the award in The Hong Kong Telegraph mentions he became commissioner in 1921, two years after his arrival in Hong Kong, and that he had been involved in the scout movement since its

12_Strong to Save.indd 181

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

182

Strong

to

Save

very earliest days and knew the movement’s founder, Lord BadenPowell. Given that the governor was ex-officio patron and chief scout and that there was a strong, pro-imperialist orientation to the interwar scouting movement, services to scouting would seem to have drawn more official approbation than services to seafarers. On 31 July the Mission staff — all of them Chinese bar the manager Mr Watt — made a farewell presentation to George Waldegrave. Apart from this being only the second time in the 69-year history of the two organizations now joined under one roof that a member of the Chinese staff is actually named, it is also revelatory of the happy ship that George Waldegrave had skippered. Mr Lo Lam-tai, the Chinese steward, presented a silver cup, which had engraved on it the names of all the Chinese staff contributing to its purchase. One member of staff — we don’t know whether he contributed — had been with the Institute since it had first opened in 1905 despite three moves and an otherwise complete turnover of personnel. Mr Lo said, I have been asked, on behalf of the Chinese staff of this Institute, to present

you with this cup. We are very sorry you are leaving, but fully realize that your home country is calling, and we hope that your successor will show us

as much kindness as you have done. We wish you all success in your new appointment, wherever it may be, and that “Good Joss” may go with you.4

Cyril Brown had left Singapore in early February 1934 in order to have time for leave back in Britain before arriving in Hong Kong. He and Mrs Brown arrived in Hong Kong in early August, allowing a nearly three-month handover period to ensure a smooth transition.5 The Mission had again found a fairly young man, who had been plunged into the deep end in Singapore only three years after ordination, completing his curacy in London only a few months before he headed to Singapore aged 27.6 From stories in the Singapore newspapers he had made a great success of things. Cyril Brown’s fears, that the de facto solution to the de jure duumvirate of the two-headed Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute

12_Strong to Save.indd 182

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

183

in Hong Kong that had been contrived by George Waldegrave might not work for him, a younger, less-established figure, must have been palpable. As it turned out, this was never really an issue that he needed to confront. His problems were in a sense both more mundane and more troubling and had to do with both the viability and the pattern of use of the Mission’s large new premises as the world of the Far East, as the British referred to it, led the spiral towards a global war with the increasing problems and tensions in China as a result of growing Japanese aggression.7 Within two months of his arrival with his wife Myrtle, Cyril Brown came up against the problems the Mission faced in Hong Kong. He reported back to London that church attendance was slight and comprised mainly “some old faithfuls from St Peter’s (in West Point)”, which had finally closed as a church earlier in 1933. But that in a sense paled when compared to the day-to-day business of trying to fill the Mission. His efforts to organize music concerts, as he had in Singapore, were not yielding swift fruit. But when there was success, as there had been with a successful dance at which the band of the P&O liner Rawalpindi had played; the effort of finding enough female partners —European women of course — taxed Mrs Brown severely.8 For what Cyril Brown was meeting head on were prevailing attitudes in Hong Kong about merchant seamen. One of the “good ladies”, he reported, told him no European seamen came to Hong Kong so the Missions to Seamen had no purpose and was not wanted. When Cyril Brown pointed out the Blue Funnel, Canadian Pacific, and P&O vessels, and “six or seven freighters sailing under British, German and Danish flags” on moorings in the harbour or alongside, it made no difference. The ignorance amongst shore people concerning the Merchant Service is amazing: Passengers for the East will endeavour to get a seat at the Captain’s table, but few would think of entertaining his officers on shore.

12_Strong to Save.indd 183

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

184

Strong

to

Save

Hidden in plain sight here is the actuality of what was happening to shipping in Hong Kong in the late 1930s. George Waldegrave had already noted that during his years with the Mission merchant shipping with British crews had languished. From 1934 until 1939 the trend continued with British seafarer numbers falling by a further 2025%. The raw number was still quite high, perhaps at any one time some 800 British seafarers were in port in any week, but the numbers that were likely to come to the Mission in Wan Chai were always a very small proportion of the total. During the 1930s they dwindled further both because of the reduction in shipping as a result of lower economic activity and because the new premises seemed not to be for them. Although almost all the annual reports of the Institute have been lost or mislaid, a useful glance is afforded in 1936 by a Singapore newspaper story about the 1935 annual report of business. A few things stand out. In both 1935 and the previous year the actual use of the institute’s 200+ beds at 32,474 and 25,527 occupancies, represented only a 44.5% and 35% occupancy rate. It is little wonder that the report noted an operating deficit of HK$2,000, although donations of near HK$5,000 meant that the year had ended in the black.9 The reason for the reluctance of merchant seafarers to use the Institute was simple. During the period, which was one of great instability in China as civil war and increasing Japanese aggression caused more and more chaos, the British naval presence in the China Seas increased. This was mostly a reaction to the perceived threat to British strategic interests from a rising Japan. But it was also connected to more immediate potential demands for protecting British citizens living and working in China and therefore in possible danger of being caught up in the rising tides of unrest.10 In 1939, by which time the main British Royal Naval China Station base was in the process of moving to Singapore, the total number of warships and auxiliaries had risen to 112 vessels. These ranged from the

12_Strong to Save.indd 184

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

185

aircraft carrier HMS Eagle, through the 5th Cruiser Squadron, 21st Destroyer Flotilla, Yangtze, and West River Gunboat Flotillas, and the 4th Submarine Squadron to the motor torpedo boats of the 2nd MTB Flotilla.11 Until the large redeployment of the China Station to Singapore and the Indian Ocean as the threat of war increased and, after the outbreak of war in Europe, ships were needed back in British home waters, most of these were either based in Hong Kong or regularly calling. Allowing for the base personnel at HMS Tamar, those working in the Royal Naval Dockyard, and the shore based China Squadron headquarters staff, a rough figure for the total Royal Naval personnel on the China Station would have been between 8,000 and 10,000. Unlike the merchant service, Royal Naval hands were close to the Mission, they were given regular shore leave and their ships’ port calls lasted longer even if occasionally interrupted by exercises. Finally, although there were Chinese enlisted personnel (known as “locally enlisted personnel”), proportionately their numbers were close to a reversal of those that applied to most merchant vessels and, in any case, when in Hong Kong they will have had families to go to. The result was that the preponderant users of the new Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute were from the Royal Navy. As a note taken from a meeting of the Local General Committee noted in 1938, expressing dismay, this Royal Naval presence “inevitably resulted in merchant seamen feeling there was no place for them.” And the committee went on to note that as the Royal Navy beefed up its presence to meet the rising power of Japan, the problem was going to get worse not better.12 By that date this shift in focus was also being reflected in what the chaplain was doing in his daily round and common task. There is a file note copy from October 1938 which observes, The Rev WH Shawcross met Admiral Manners while preaching at Gosport

and the Admiral went out of his way to speak most highly of Brown of Hong Kong, saying that whenever he (the Admiral) was in Hong Kong he made it

12_Strong to Save.indd 185

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

186

Strong

to

Save

a rule to ask Brown to come and talk to the ship’s company because Brown has such a wonderful way with men.13

Evidently the work of the Missions to Seamen chaplain was more and more orientated towards British sailors in uniform. At this point, however, we need to add a qualifying element. This is that what we might call the “pro-Royal Naval” atmosphere of mid1930s Hong Kong was in part shared by the Institute itself. The evidence of this is not definitive, but it is strongly suggestive. The history of the naval volunteer forces in Hong Kong is convoluted and seems to have featured various initiatives — beginning with a government proposal in 1889 — that led nowhere until the creation of a Hong Kong Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in 1926.14 That in

turn seems to have been more promise than fulfilment until the establishment of the Hong Kong Naval Volunteer Force in 1933.15 The organization of this body allowed for a chaplain, a post first taken up by the serving Dean of St John’s Cathedral, the Very Reverend Alfred Swann. The interest in this for the Mission comes in April 1935, about a year after Cyril Brown’s arrival in post. In that month the Hong Kong Government Gazette announced his appointment as a probationary chaplain in the Hong Kong Naval Volunteer Force (HKNVF).16 An announcement of his achievement of a substantive appointment is missing from the Hong Kong record, but we can assume he was made substantive as of two years later, since that was the date of his seniority in naval records.17 There is no mention of this move by Cyril Brown in any of the extant correspondence with London, which is peculiar given his general worries about the dominance of the Royal Navy in the Institute. In addition to his travails over the effective takeover of the Institute by the Royal Navy despite his membership of the HKNVF, Cyril Brown also had to handle a design defect in the building, revealed by the passage of the devastating typhoon of 1937. This caused havoc in the

12_Strong to Save.indd 186

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

187

harbour, with more than 30 vessels, from large cruisers and passenger liners to small freighters being driven ashore. At least some of the crew of two of the stranded vessels, the Tymeric and Talamba, took refuge in the Institute. However life there had a distinct downside because the combination of a high tide and the storm surge meant that the Institute’s basement had a 4 ft flood of sewage. This episode was part of a pattern that was having an effect on Cyril Brown and his commitment to work for the Missions to Seamen. We can see how demanding the organization’s work in Hong Kong was — work with government, work with the diocese, the day-to-day management of a large and complex mission-cum-seamen’s hostel, the normal routine of the mission chaplain in visits to ships, prison, and hospitals, the services in the chapel. But although intensely busy, the work had no continuity or consistency in the people to whom Cyril Brown ministered. His “congregation” was a constantly changing and seldom numerous entity increasingly dominated by seafarers he had not “signed up” to serve: the Royal Navy. There are two other small indicators of the steady — and for Cyril Brown personally, if puzzlingly, worrying — increase in clientele from the Royal Navy and the Mission’s increasing dependence on them. The first was an aside in his first letter of 1939 to headquarters in London reflecting on the Institute’s location in what had become — and was to remain for the next 30 to 40 years — the red light district for sailors and military personnel. The Institute was obviously far from where Cyril Brown thought it ought to be. This in itself is odd since it would seem prima facie that the Institute was actually extremely well placed. For it was exactly where those with whose material and spiritual welfare it was most concerned were at greatest risk. That part of Cyril Brown understood this is clear from his next observation, which was that despite the drawbacks of the Institute’s home patch, it was doing good work in providing “clean” beds for Royal Naval personnel ashore.18

12_Strong to Save.indd 187

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

188

Strong

to

Save

That this was a matter of importance is revealed in the second aside in which Brown reveals he has been put on a government antiprostitution committee. That prostitution was a rising problem with mariners is manifest, though it is hard to attach clear numbers to since no specific data on transient visitors to Hong Kong was kept. Likewise, whilst naval data was systematically gathered, locating sources of data for specific naval commands has proved difficult. Nonetheless there are clear indirect signs of the magnitude of the problem, such as the opening of dedicated venereal disease clinics. There are no figures for merchant seamen, but in the general population the total cases treated rose from 3,130 in 1929 to 59,294 in 1939.19 The total population of Hong Kong over this period increased by around 20%, whilst the apparent increase in venereal disease infection was nearly 1,800%. Even allowing for changing social attitudes to the perceived shame of infection and improved public education in the importance of seeking treatment as the result of a more proactive government policy, this is a staggering increase. It wasn’t just prostitution either. Clearly being in the rough end of town asked of the Mission’s senior chaplains rather more than normally falls to the lot of a clergyman.20 “A few nights ago I was forced to knock out an abusive and semi-intoxicated local officer. Fortunately this sort of thing does not happen very often, but there are occasions when there is no alternative.” Evidently it helped to be a muscular Christian. But whatever the worries of prostitution and rambunctious seafarers, Cyril Brown had not yet reached the end of his tether. Clearly there was a strong part of him — perhaps supported by Mrs Brown — that felt he had done enough in Hong Kong. However London had asked him to stay on for a second tour of duty. So in this report, in which he announced his movements for his end-of-tour leave, though a little reluctantly, he had agreed to return for another tour despite his mother having had some sort of unspecified accident and wanting him to relocate to be nearer to her.

12_Strong to Save.indd 188

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

189

Cyril Brown had left before his locum was able to arrive, which was not to be until 3 June. In the meantime the dean of St John’s and the cathedral chaplain took the weight. With the arrival of Charles Strong, fresh out of his curacy in London and another relatively inexperienced priest but a qualified master mariner with a decade and more of sea time, began a dramatic period for the Mission and its chaplains.21 Within two months’ of Charles Strong’s feet hitting the ground, what everyone in Hong Kong had been fearing for several years began to move towards a more troubling reality.

*** In October 1938, in the last few months of Cyril Brown’s first tour, the Japanese fleet under Admiral Koichi Shiozawa had moved to blockade the entrance to the Pearl River and, by extension, inhibit the movements of ships into and out of Hong Kong. This had been what had occasioned the effective disappearance of commercial shipping and the rise to dominance in the Mission of Royal Naval — and of course British Army — personnel. At the same time that Admiral Shiozawa’s forces were blockading the coast, an invasion of Guangdong was mounted by Japan’s 21st Army under Lieutenant General Motoo Furusho. The weakly opposed landings had been to the east of Hong Kong in Bias Bay (Daya Wan) on 12 October. Resistance by six divisions of the 12th Army Group under General You Hanmou was compromised by lack of reinforcements, thanks to a simultaneous Japanese onslaught in the Wuhan area further north. By 21 October Guangzhou had fallen and by the 25th so had Humen and Sanshui. By December the Japanese had declared Guangdong Province to be under their control. That being the case, it was equally evident that Hong Kong was isolated, cut off from what for the last 138 years had been its natural hinterland. Refugees were spilling across the border and tensions were high. As Kwong and Tsoi point out, by 1938 it had for years been evident to British military planners that Hong Kong was in many ways

12_Strong to Save.indd 189

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

190

Strong

to

Save

indefensible against a sustained Japanese onslaught. However, for all that it had been accepted that Hong Kong was an “exposed outpost” rather than an “Eastern Fortress”, the official line was that Britain was determined to resist Japan and in so doing, offer support for Chinese resistance against Japanese aggression.22 For those like Cyril Brown and Charles Strong, what was happening would have formed a worrying backdrop to their daily lives. Not only was there a collapse of the commercial shipping their mission primarily existed to serve, and a concomitant near takeover by naval personnel, there were other ominous signs of building tension. As 1938 came to a close, so strengthening Hong Kong’s landward defences accelerated from the slow start that had begun in 1935. By the time Cyril Brown left for leave in May 1939, 38 of the final total of 93 of the Gin Drinker’s Line pill boxes had been completed as had 50 on Hong Kong Island, especially around the south coast.23 Nine of what would become eleven splinter-proof headquarters bunkers were complete. Coastal defence artillery was in the process of being re-organized and expanded. Seven new anti-aircraft batteries were being put in place and the central command headquarters, the “battle box”, was under construction beneath the ridges of Victoria Barracks in Central. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s waters and approaches were increasingly being effectively mined, being prepared for fitting with indicator loops to give advanced warning of approaching enemy submarines, and having boom defences installed to control access to the harbour.24 In the first report to London from Charles Strong on 5 August 1939, just less than one month before war would be declared in Europe, things had come to a head. Marked “Confidential”, the report outlines a rapidly deteriorating state of affairs. All merchant seafarers were required to stay aboard their vessels — with an obviously adverse knock-on effect for the Mission, Royal Naval dominance notwithstanding. Worse, government had issued instructions that all women and children were to leave Hong Kong and the troopship

12_Strong to Save.indd 190

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

191

Ettrick was, so Charles Strong reported, leaving with military families the following day, 6 August.25 Mrs Dorothy Strong intended to stay with her husband as long as possible, but was then going to head for New Zealand.26 Already, Charles Strong reported, all bridges north into China had been blown up, Japanese forces were massing on the border, the Royal Navy had repositioned most of its vessels to Singapore and all vegetables were reaching Hong Kong by sea! Finally, he noted, if the Japanese did invade as feared, then he had received indications that the Institute would be taken over to be used as a hospital. He ended with news that demonstrated, if everything else had not, that the looming spectre of war with Japan was affecting his own future plans as well. Probably as replacement for Cyril Brown’s role as chaplain to the HKNVF, as of 12 May, within moments of arriving, Charles Strong too had been taken on the HKNVF’s strength as an acting chaplain.27 However, it seems that Charles Strong didn’t think just being the HKNVF chaplain would contribute sufficiently or enduringly to the war effort because he was bent, it seems, on volunteering to join the Royal Navy in some other capacity, assuring HQ in London that he would hang on working for the Mission until the last moment. This decision was to have interesting consequences. The good news — and there was some — was that the Mission’s cat, Sugar, had given birth to three “nice little kittens” and HQ was asked to pass the word on to Cyril Brown. A month later and the panic was temporarily over. In his September and first wartime report to the new headquarters address in Wimbledon,28 Charles Strong noted that calm had returned, although it remained very difficult to arrange launch picnics because of the security situation. Then he put the cat amongst the pigeons by announcing that he had accepted a commission as a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve and that this was formalizing voluntary work he had already been doing with the Naval Control Service.29 He attached a letter from the bishop signifying his approval of this, and recorded that the Local General Committee had also approved. The Royal Naval

12_Strong to Save.indd 191

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

192

Strong

to

Save

authorities were ensuring that Charles Strong’s duty roster would leave him free for his church duties on Sundays. By late September life was entirely back to normal in Hong Kong, save that Charles Strong’s new duties with the Royal Navy were proving something of a hindrance. Although the plus was that he met all ships masters and senior rates, the minus was the ship visiting had had to be taken over by Mrs Strong.30 That this was not as bad as it may initially have read was made clear in a following report in November, which reached London in early December. For even if the immediate emergency was over, the consequence of the departure of the Royal Navy for Singapore and severely restricted merchant ship movement was that the Institute was “practically empty” and the port with very little shipping present.31 Charles Strong then put a significant spanner in the Mission’s plans. He announced that he intended to stay in his new job with the Naval Control Service “for the duration”. Evidently his move to Hong Kong as locum for Cyril Brown had been his first work as a chaplain in the Missions to Seamen and he had heard a “buzz” that his next posting was to be to Kobe, again as a locum, after the Browns’ return. This was a sharp reminder that although China was at war with Japan and Britain was not, the very fact that the Naval Control Service existed meant that Britain was nonetheless at war and had been since the declaration of war against Germany the previous 3 September. Charles Strong was announcing to his superiors that he was putting evidently strong feelings about his duties as a citizen of a country at war ahead of any commitments he may have made to the Missions to Seamen. He had obviously felt rather guilty about delaying the announcement, though he had done this deliberately, as he put it, because he didn’t want his intention to stay in the Royal Navy and in Hong Kong to have any influence on Cyril Brown’s decision whether to come back to Hong Kong. So he asked George Trench and HQ to keep the news to themselves, meanwhile indicating that if the Browns had decided they didn’t want to return to HK, then since he had found a

12_Strong to Save.indd 192

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

193

.

way of dealing simultaneously with his naval and his Mission duties, he was happy to stay in Hong Kong.

*** Curiously, Charles Strong didn’t mention another development, perhaps because he thought it was just the mills of bureaucracy

grinding, slow and small. This was that on 18 September the Hong Kong Government Gazette had published an official warning about possible further mobilization of Hong Kong Naval Volunteer Force personnel. Amongst the names listed as those next to be called and who should therefore be on standby was Cyril Brown as the HKVNF chaplain. He was, of course, on leave and was not due back until 1940. This gives something of the flavour of the curious ambivalence obtaining in Hong Kong over the Japanese threat. There is no indication in the record of headquarters’ reaction to Charles Strong’s enlistment as a regular officer (not as a chaplain), perhaps because the next letter from him dropped an even bigger bombshell, though one of arguably more parochial scope. It is worth spending some time on this issue because it highlights two things that have been running as leitmotiven through the narrative so far, and that were not finally to find resolution until the closing decades of the 20th century. On the one hand there are the contrasting attitudes and expectations of the Mission and its committee and of the Harbour Master’s Office to seafarers, with their long tail back to the founding of the Sailors’ Home some 80 years previously. On the other was the more deep-rooted and more general issue of race relations in a mission context. What happened in October 1939 brought both to the surface. That the problem arose would appear from the record to be a consequence of Hong Kong’s shift to a quasi-war status with respect to the management of shipping. Rather than merchant service personnel being left to fend for themselves when ashore, under the stricter supervision of wartime the authorities took a hand in matters. In the case in question, which emerged shortly before Charles Strong’s letter

12_Strong to Save.indd 193

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

194

Strong

to

Save

to London about the affair, the shipping master of the Mercantile Marine Office had requested that the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen accommodate two black British seamen, one from British Guiana and one from The Gambia. It is hard for us in the 21st century to empathize with the immediate reaction from Charles Strong, which we learn from a meeting of the Local General Committee, with Charles Strong taking the minutes, copied to London.32 The reaction was simple. What the Mercantile Marine Office was requesting could not be done, even though it should be done since the Institute had no religious or colour bar. There were at the time 80 residents in the Institute. They comprised 70 Royal Naval petty officers and ratings, and 10 Merchant Navy officers. Were the home to accommodate the African British seamen as requested they would “perforce … have to use the same baths and lavatories as the RN Petty Officers.” Accordingly, Charles Strong had written to his committee to get their approval for his refusing the request in order to avoid “trouble”, which he felt he was empowered to do under section 16 of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen Ordinance.33 What follows is an interesting record of the vote of each member of the Local General Committee that met to decide on the matter.34 Broadly everyone bar one, the harbour master, Commander Hole, agreed that the two African seamen, at the time putting up in the Tong Shan Hotel,35 should be moved to Khan’s Boarding House for lascars. In short, an unsegregated and unsegregatable Institute was not the place for black seamen. The final decision, minuted as “unanimous”, was that the Institute was not going to accept the African seamen, nor was it going to pay for the difference between the cost of putting them up in the Institute and that of putting them up at Khan’s. That cost was to be born by either the shipping line with whom the seamen had arrived or by the government. There had also always been a difference between the broad approaches of the secular and religious elements in our story to the business of caring for the welfare of seafarers in Hong Kong. As

12_Strong to Save.indd 194

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

195

we have noted, these were apparent in the parting brass rags in the 1890s and, if in a low-key manner, existed as a subdued undertone in the negotiations for the merger in the 1920s. Was the Sailors Home and Seamen’s Institute a partly publicly supported, primarily secular welfare organization for seafarers serving on modern ships, answerable in part to the duly constituted maritime authorities of the colony? Or was it an independently operated religious institution that also served the welfare of such seafarers, though with a strongly spiritual emphasis, answerable to the local bishop and, via its Local General Committee, to the Mission headquarters in London? The issue of the West African British seamen seems briefly to have brought these differences to the surface once again before all such matters were overwhelmed by the rising clamour of war. However, they were to resurface in the 1940s and early ’50s once the clamour of war was stilled.

*** With the poor West Africans turned away from the door, the Institute was free to turn again to the issue that had not been resolved, namely Charles Strong’s decision to accept a Royal Naval commission for the duration of the war. This was obviously causing consternation in London because it was badly upsetting their plans. These had been for Charles Strong, on the return of the Browns from leave, to head up to Kobe and relieve Reverend F.E. Watts so that he in turn could take leave. That this had badly rattled London is evidenced by the file copy of the letter George Trench had felt impelled to write to Bishop Hall, arguing that splendid patriot though Charles Strong might be, he had signally failed to grasp the imperatives of his commitments to the Missions to Seamen. By 5 March 1940 Cyril Brown was back in Hong Kong and had resumed his duties. Writing to George Trench to announce this, he mentioned how well Charles Strong had discharged his locum and indicated that as far as he could see what had been hoped for — effective assistance from Charles Strong despite his naval duties —

12_Strong to Save.indd 195

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

196

Strong

to

Save

seemed to be working out.36 The Mission was in robust financial health, 1939 having been a bumper year despite the alarums and excursions. Better yet, the clouds of war were obviously having a salutary effect on religious observance since church attendance was up, although the cancellation of matins and an increase in ship visits were thought to be contributory too.37 It was clear later in July that the Hong Kong to which the Cyril Brown had returned was a very different place to when he had left, although some of the old complaints persisted. The Institute was “more of a boarding house than an ordinary mission.” There were now no lady volunteers at all. And some seamen remained a permanent nuisance — the Scandinavians were singled out for being a disgrace. The noise of war was also beginning to be heard more loudly.38 Throughout 1939 and on into 1940 and 1941 the adaptation of Victoria Harbour and its approaches to a full war-footing, with minefields, anti-surface ships and anti-submarine barriers and rigorously controlled traffic movement was gathering pace. In June the evacuation of western women and children had begun again with only dependents in “necessary” work being allowed to remain.39 Conscription had been introduced for men. Hong Kong had turned into “an armed camp” with little recreation and it was at this point clear to Cyril Brown that Myrtle should not return. Unfortunately by June 1940 Myrtle Brown had already set out on her journey via Canada to Hong Kong, so her husband had to contact her to tell her to stay put in Vancouver. The Browns then had to work out how Myrtle was going to be supported financially once the grace and favour of her stay at the Missions to Seamen, hosted by Reverend John W. Leighton, had begun outliving its welcome.40 A further blow must have been felt — and a sense of what might yet be to come — when on 9 August the British Government announced that it was withdrawing all China Station naval forces from Shanghai and northern China to bolster European theatre forces.41 Given how dependent the Institute had become on service personnel, the steady

12_Strong to Save.indd 196

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

197

relocation of British naval forces away from Hong Kong necessarily meant not just a reduced income, but along with the collapse of merchant traffic, a genuine loss of focus for the Mission’s core activity. There is a newspaper story about Cyril Brown’s 1940 annual report to the Local General Committee — and by copy to London — in which the hard times for the Institute are plainly set down. In the heady years before he had gone on leave, the Institute, he reported, had had one of its busiest years ever. This had in part been thanks to the need of the Royal Naval authorities in both 1938 and 1939 to use the Institute to billet seamen, for whom they had no accommodation. From the beginning of 1940 things had changed drastically and the operation was running at a loss, exacerbated by inflation.42 An incident which must have marked the general downturn in spirits was the unexpected death of the Institute’s steward of 14 years, Hugh Watt. He had died in Matilda Hospital on 21 September from an unknown cause. He was just 56. His funeral at Happy Valley was held by Cyril Brown the following Monday. His place was taken by another established resident of Hong Kong, part time policemen and one time employee of the Peninsula Hotel, William Valentine Field.43 What is curious in this regard, given that we know Cyril Brown had been a chaplain in the HKNVF since 1935, is the absence of any mention in his letters to London of activity related to this role, especially given that with the louder beat of the drums of war, the duties of the HKNVF were increasing as more and more of the personnel were called up for active service. There is also the absence of any reference to what must have been some sort of preparation for alternative use of the Mission in the event of requisition following the start of hostilities, given Charles Strong’s indication that the building was earmarked for use as an emergency hospital. During the next year things obviously came to a head. Given the sparse record, it is difficult at this remove to put one’s finger with any certainty on what triggered what and when. However, that the decision that Cyril Brown announced to London in October 1941 was

12_Strong to Save.indd 197

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

198

Strong

to

Save

not sudden is evident. In his letter sent on the 27th of the month he refers to his leave in 1939 and of the reluctance he presumably then conveyed to his superiors to return to Hong Kong. It follows that his decision had been the result of long and careful thought and no doubt had been discussed with Myrtle during their leave. The final decision, however, seems to have followed a brief reunion of the Browns in Manila in June 1941.44 At some point during 1941, Myrtle had set out from Canada to join her husband. We can only assume that, sometime following Cyril Brown’s “stay put” decision in July 1940, he and Myrtle had reviewed their options and decided that they would prefer being together, whatever the all too palpable risks for both of them in Hong Kong. In the archive the 27 October letter comes as a shock, though in London it should not have been entirely unexpected. In it Cyril Brown announced his resignation from the Mission. He reminded London that he had wanted to resign whilst he was on leave so that he could return to parish work in Britain, but was talked into coming back to Hong Kong.45 However, once he was back in Hong Kong facing the steadily worsening situation and separated from Myrtle, he must have felt pushed into exploring his options and finding one. His letter goes on to declare that he has accepted a new job, the living of Ipoh, in what was then Malaya,46 offered to him by the bishop of Singapore.47 This decision and the timing of the announcement raise two interesting questions. The first is how long previously Cyril Brown had broached the question of leaving the Mission with the diocese in Singapore. On balance, considering Cyril Brown’s acquaintance with the outgoing bishop of Singapore and with the dean of Hong Kong, the Very Reverend John Leonard Wilson, who in July 1941 became the new bishop of Singapore, the probability is that the matter will have been broached as of early 1941. The Browns’ collective decision will then have been made when they met, which in turn explains why, when Cyril Brown returned to Hong Kong after the meeting in Manila, Myrtle

12_Strong to Save.indd 198

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

199

did not go with him. Instead, we learn from her letter, she headed on to Singapore where, we can assume, the Browns still had friends with whom Myrtle could stay until Cyril joined her and they both headed for Ipoh. Meanwhile, as Cyril Brown wrapped up his work in Hong Kong, so Myrtle could begin on the domestic arrangements necessary for their new lives. The second question is even more puzzling. For on 11 July 1941, Proclamation No. 5 issued by the government of Hong Kong called out all the members of the Hong Kong Naval Volunteer Force.48 This was the final mobilization of the HKNVF, following a series of proclamations of partial mobilization beginning at the end of August 1939 that, by the date of the full call up in July 1941, had mobilized a total of 92 officers and cadets and 121 ratings. It is impossible to relate this to total numbers since they do not appear, although we do know that in September 1939 the establishment had 305 personnel altogether, so by inference up to 70% of volunteer naval reservists had been called up by the end of 1939.49 In the meantime, following the outbreak of the war against Germany, all Royal Naval Reserve personnel had been mobilized by a British government decree, notified in Hong Kong by Proclamation No. 14 of 2 October 1939. The story of Cyril Brown’s decision to leave Mission service and his naval duties to take up parish work in Malaya offers a fascinating insight into the mindsets of Europeans resident in Asia — and especially in Hong Kong — in the months immediately preceding the outbreak of war with Japan. Despite all the ominous signals that Japan was becoming more belligerent, there was clearly a widely shared view amongst Europeans that nothing truly drastic was likely to happen.50 As Bernice Archer’s book reminds us, once things had seemed to settle down again following the 1939 alarums and 1940 evacuations, although there was continued discussion and even some decisions about evacuating westerners from threatened areas like Shanghai and Hong Kong as of June 1941, the signals were mixed. She quotes one Shanghailander as saying,51

12_Strong to Save.indd 199

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

200

Strong

to

Save

A lot was happening on the political front in East Asia but we continued to

live normally and felt secure. So it was in October and November 1941 that

women and children came back from Australia, and a trickle were heading away from China for safety.

The whole muddled story of the evacuations from Hong Kong, with their marked and unpleasant racist bias is a separate issue, the sole relevance here being, yet again, the ubiquity of the level of unquestioned acceptance of such views even in circles like the Mission.52 On the one hand there were patent actions by the British

colonial authorities following the Japanese occupation of French IndoChina (today’s Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) in September 1940, indicating a clear awareness that the threat extended as far as Malaya, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies. Yet on the other were official and unofficial announcements that whatever the Japanese were up to in China and Indo-China, they were no real threat.53 None summarizes better the background to the Browns’ decision than one quotation by a British resident in Malaya in mid–1941,54 “We were strong in the confidence of our own propaganda … Our attitude in Malaya remained casual and light-hearted.” Cyril Brown had obviously also discussed his intended move with Charles Strong, because he is able to say that Strong has offered to hold the fort until a replacement could be found. The October resignation letter mentions his having cabled London already, asking to be relieved by January 1942, whilst also indicating the terms he would expect to be offered to his replacement.55 As further evidence of the extent to which he had thought about the problem and tried to make it easier for London to agree to what he was clearly set on doing, Cyril Brown went on to argue that as far as he could see, Reverend Frank Weaver, the Missions’ chaplain in Shanghai, had nothing whatever to do. For following the Japanese annexation of most of the city in 1937, the installation of the puppet Chinese government of Su Xiwen and its absorption in 1938 into Liang Hongzhi’s Japanese puppet Reform Government of the Republic of

12_Strong to Save.indd 200

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Threatening Times

201

China, there had been a steady decline in non-Japanese dominated commercial activity. The deliberate Japanese policy of blockade, added to the effects on British shipping of the war with Germany, meant that by 1940 Shanghai had vanishingly few British seafarers.56 Cyril Brown’s sting was left to just before the end of his letter. Clearly the frustrations and disappointments he had felt almost from the moment he had arrived in Hong Kong, but had borne with for his first tour, had fermented. In explaining his decision he wrote, “I do regret being forced to seek a sphere where I can exercise the ministry to which I was ordained in fuller sort than is now possible here.” There were two problems implicit in Cyril Brown’s reasons. One was the very nature of the Mission to Seafarers itself with its many unresolved issues. For example the implicit but seldom stated question of the proper object of its work — “natives” (whoever they might be) as against westerners, fishermen and boatmen as against coasting and blue water sailors, naval as against merchant jacks, and officers as against the rank and file. There was also the never stable population of the Mission’s “congregation” as ships came and went and their crews constantly changed. These were problems peculiar to maritime mission and required quite different pastoral expectations and approaches to the norm of a settled terrestrial parish. In Hong Kong these difficulties were added to by the peculiarities of the work of an institution that was, “more a boarding house than an ordinary mission” as Cyril Brown had noted. Such a place required of its chaplains both secular managerial skills and complementary, maritime mission focussed pastoral abilities and attitudes for things to hold together. Looking back over the 56 years of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong that, in late 1941, were about to come to a very sharp hiatus, it is clear that finding that happy match had not been the norm. To see this we may compare the career trajectories of the eight people who had served as senior chaplains since Gurney Goldsmith had arrived in 1885. On both measures — of “successful” seafarers’

12_Strong to Save.indd 201

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

202

Strong

to

Save

mission chaplains and of successful Hong Kong mission chaplains — only three could be said to have met the demands placed on them. On the first measure, of the eight, only three continued to work for the Missions to Seamen after their time in Hong Kong — Gurney Goldsmith (and only after a nine-year break in a rural parish), John France, and Cyril Brown. The last, whom we have seen struggled with the demands in Hong Kong pre-war, only worked for the Mission postwar in an HQ job, no longer dealing with the day-to-day demands of caring directly for seafarers. On the second measure only four seemed to respond to the exigencies of Hong Kong sufficiently well to last a single tour or more: Gurney Goldsmith and John France again, but this time with the addition of George Waldegrave, who served for 15 years in Hong Kong after four years with the Mission in Britain and, though with qualification, Cyril Brown. It is perhaps indicative of the demands that this singularly demanding cure imposed that two of these chaplains had had to leave in a rush because of rapidly failing health and George Waldegrave not only had his own health problems brought about by the strains of the work, but post-Hong Kong moved away from maritime mission work. So as 1941 drew to its dramatic close and the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute, along with the rest of Hong Kong, faced the imminence of a Japanese attack, what we might style the business and pastoral models on which its activities had been predicated for the past 19 years were feeling the strain. There were unresolved tensions between its secular and religious welfare services to seafarers, especially as these had been administratively papered over by the 1930 ordinance. There were problems with the new location, relatively remote from the merchantmen that formed its proper “parish” and sandwiched between the red light district and both the naval base and main British Army barracks. And there were latent problems, woven into the warp and woof of colonialism, with the very category of “seafarer” that it was the business of the Mission to serve. Together the results were an environment that tested young British clergymen to their limits and beyond.

12_Strong to Save.indd 202

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Part III

War and Recovery

13_Strong to Save.indd 203

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

13_Strong to Save.indd 204

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

13

Destruction and Occupation

ondon seems to have reacted to Cyril Brown’s decision to resign with remarkable equanimity. An extract from the minutes of the council meeting that was held on 5 November, after the telegram announcing the resignation had been received, noted acceptance and the offering of the Hong Kong chaplaincy to Frank Weaver from Shanghai, as Cyril Brown had suggested. Frank Weaver accepted. Cyril Brown’s formal letter of resignation arrived on 19 November. By the time the offer of Hong Kong reached Frank Weaver, who had been put in charge of evacuating British civilians from Shanghai and passed through Hong Kong later in November, he was in Australia and so in the circumstances, unavailable.1 Then, before any further action on the London decision could be taken, on 8 December 1941 Japanese forces crossed the border into Hong Kong. It was part of a concerted Japanese move in the Pacific arena that saw the attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii, an invasion of Thailand, landings in northern Malaya and bombing raids on Singapore and the Philippines.2 It was a devastating onslaught for which Hong Kong had been preparing with an on again/off again rhythm for almost four years, if somewhat forlornly given the British government decision as early as 1938 that it was ultimately indefensible.3 The battle went badly almost from the start, with Hong Kong’s outnumbered, ill-prepared garrison, despite moments of doughty resistance, driven rapidly onto the back foot. Meanwhile, back in the

13_Strong to Save.indd 205

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

206

Strong

to

Save

urban heart of the territory a much more successful campaign, albeit one dependent on triad and Guomindang (KMT) help, was waged against the upsurge of sabotage by long time fifth columnists and opportunist criminal elements.4 This was a reflection of the extent to which in 1941 British colonial rule rested on less certain foundations than official rhetoric — and widespread expatriate popular beliefs — allowed.5 With the sudden and unexpected fall of the key Shing Mun Redoubt on 10 December, just two days into the battle, the order for withdrawal from the mainland and outlying islands was given and everyone who could be was ferried to Hong Kong Island. Resistance thereafter was resolute and the battle for Hong Kong Island, once the Japanese invaded on 18 December, was hard fought. What the Japanese thought would take them three days took them a week and cost them by far the greatest proportion of their casualties.6 These were high, given the overwhelming numerical superiority of 52,000 Japanese troops to the defenders’ 14,000. The almost equal number of Hong Kong casualties to those suffered by the invaders,7 especially when civilians are included, is testament to the numerous hard fought engagements and the ruthlessness of the victors. We have no sense of life in the Institute as the battle broke. We know that towards the time that hostilities commenced, though exactly what date is unknown, the building was requisitioned for emergency accommodation. Despite Charles Strong’s intimation of a possible use as a hospital, evidently this did not occur, probably because the Institute’s location was in the front line and hence vulnerable. All known emergency hospitals were set well back from the waterfront.8 The emergency accommodation was, by inference, on the one hand for stranded western merchant seamen of all nationalities put ashore by the scuttling of their vessels, as well as any overflow Royal Navy personnel. On the other, which emerges from the London Mission headquarters correspondence later in the war, it was to house families of British naval personnel, especially those of the HKNVF.9 Primary here were the families who had lived on the Kowloon

13_Strong to Save.indd 206

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

207

side of Victoria Harbour, who were evacuated following the fall of the Shing Mun Redoubt. What we know of the fate of the Institute and its key personnel during the Battle of Hong Kong, the period of surrender and the subsequent occupation is fragmentary and comes from two or three brief letters in the Mission archives and side references in works that are otherwise focussed. There is no coherent account and no one seems to have kept any sort of diary, or at least not one that has yet emerged from obscurity. The core of the Institute’s activities during the battle was sketched by a Canadian Pentecostal missionary released from internment in Stanley, the Reverend John Rutherford Spence, on his arrival back in Canada.10 He wrote a letter — whether at Cyril Brown’s request or on his own recognizances is not clear — to assure the Mission headquarters that Cyril Brown was in Stanley and to describe what had happened. The description is necessarily brief, but shows Cyril Brown working to the Missions to Seamen’s high standards. With the outbreak of war he had been called up and detailed to return to the Institute and do welfare liaison work with the wives of RN (RNR and HKRNVR) wives and families. By this stage there was very active HKRNVR patrolling going on every day and wives and families could not be sure where their loved ones were or how they were faring. Despite the Royal Navy having withdrawn the bulk of their ships to Singapore and further westward, the naval forces still in Hong Kong comprised a destroyer, 4 river gunboats, a minelayer, an old sloop and the 8 motor torpedo boats of the 2nd MTB Flotilla. To these were attached 14 auxiliaries from tugs to launches, 10 other vessels including ferries adapted as minelayers to give a total of almost 40 vessels great and small.11 The families of those who manned these ships were scattered on both sides of the harbour, although exactly where they were was unclear because, as Reverend Spence’s letter notes, the Royal Navy’s address system was “chaotic”.

13_Strong to Save.indd 207

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

208

Strong

to

Save

Perhaps the original intention was to ensure there would be someone to take care of all the standard welfare problems associated with pay, rations, family problems, illness, etc., once the military machine was otherwise occupied with the exigencies of battle. However, so swift was the Japanese advance that by the third day of engagement it was clear the immediate task was to evacuate dependents from Kowloon and get them bedded down temporarily in the Institute. In the meantime, with the invasion the order had come to scuttle all ships in the harbour not needed for the defence and otherwise unable to escape.12 Their crews were also billeted in the Institute, with many volunteering to help in Hong Kong’s defence. The key to the Mission’s work both before and after the onset of hostilities was Dayspring, the handsome launch built by Ah King back in 1919 and now in her 22nd year of service under her faithful coxswain Mr Leung Fook. Once the battle began she was used to ferry Cyril Brown to and fro across the harbour on his duty visits. However, once the Shing Mun Redoubt had fallen on 10 December, evacuation work began and Dayspring was kept constantly busy shuttling backwards and forwards, with full loads on her return trips. By 11 December, when the governor mobilized all police, firemen, and every form of disciplined services reservist to act as militia combatants, Kowloon was under heavy pressure. During the day fifth columnists in plain clothes emerged to begin fighting in the streets. At midday that day, consistent with the fundamental defence plan, General Maltby made the decision to evacuate the mainland and concentrate all forces on Hong Kong Island, if very much sooner than had been expected. “Terrible rioting and looting in the Nathan Road area” broke out, as it did elsewhere in the Kowloon urban area and No. 1 Company of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps had the unenviable and largely impossible task of riot control. Meanwhile all available naval and other vessels were being assembled and were moving towards designated embarkation points to evacuate troops.13

13_Strong to Save.indd 208

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

209

At some point during the day Cyril Brown and Leung Fook took Dayspring to the nearest landing place to Mong Kok — we do not know whether from the Yau Ma Tei or To Kwa Wan side — to locate a family for evacuation. This was successfully managed and everyone was got back to Dayspring, which headed for Fenwick Pier on the waterfront by the Institute. By this time the harbour was under fairly constant fire; at 2.30 p.m., for example, a police coxswain was severely wounded by shrapnel. Japanese bombers were also active over Stonecutters Island, and Mount Davis and Lei Yue Mun on Hong Kong Island. That Cyril Brown and his coxswain were out engaged on their humanitarian work as a battle raged around them is testimony to the quiet courage of so many of Hong Kong’s non-combatants. It is perhaps not surprising that eventually Dayspring too came under fire and was hit by shrapnel, though fortunately “Thanks to the skill of her faithful coxswain Leung Fook, she was laid alongside a wharf and the passengers disembarked before she sank.”14 At this point the Institute was “full of men” — and presumably women and perhaps children too, although other than the staff, all Europeans. Cyril Brown and his staff would nonetheless have kept going trying to ensure that everyone had somewhere to wash and sleep and with providing meals from whatever was available. However, with the evacuation of Kowloon, the Institute suddenly found itself in the front line of the battle. With just Gloucester Road between it and the harbour when the Japanese occupied Tsim Sha Tsui in mid-morning on 12 December as the last vessels left, it faced a determined enemy just a mile or so (less than 2 km) away across the narrows, almost within small arms range, leave alone field artillery. By 8.30 a.m. on the morning of the 13th, with the last evacuations by HMS Thracian and some of the 2nd MTB Flotilla from the narrow bridgehead still held at Lei Yue Mun, the whole of the mainland part of the colony had been evacuated by British forces and the Japanese were in full control.15

13_Strong to Save.indd 209

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

210

Strong

to

Save

The Institute’s closeness to the naval dockyard, the China Fleet Club, and Victoria, Wellington, and Murray Barracks, beneath which was the battle box, Hong Kong’s command centre, meant that it now lay at the edges of a major target area for Japanese gunners and bombers. An index of its vulnerability had been made evident on 12 December, when the Royal Navy’s operational headquarters shifted out of the China Fleet Club next door and across the island to the less exposed Aberdeen Technical School.16 However, initially Japanese artillery concentrated on the western end of the waterfront, where the gun batteries at Belcher’s Point and Pinewood were the targets. In its way this nonetheless indicated well the danger the Institute was in for, although the batteries were damaged, huge fires beyond the capacity of the fire brigade to control were started in Western and Sai Ying Pun. On 15 December the reality of the Institute’s position was brought home when mortar fire from Tsim Sha Tsui began falling heavily on Central and the naval dockyard. The next day, 16 December, the onslaught intensified with 230 shells falling in the naval dockyard area in a single hour. It was possibly around this time that the only Institute casualties we know of were caused. This intelligence came from a post-war letter from Cyril Brown just after his release from internment, which noted that “two Scandinavians” had been killed by shrapnel from a shell burst when they were standing at or outside the Institute’s front entrance. He also reported that before the surrender the building had been “hit by a few small shells”.17 The strong impression given by accounts of the island phase of the Battle of Hong Kong is of a comparative news blackout generated in part by fractured communications and in part by the normal limits to publicly available information in a war zone. This must obviously have exacerbated the worries of those in the Institute, simultaneously starved of information about the fates of their kin, rattled by the sounds of battle all around them, alarmed by unexplained events like a massive explosion at 11.00 p.m. on 12 December, just off the Central

13_Strong to Save.indd 210

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

211

vehicular ferry pier, and in constant fear of the battle arriving on their doorstep.18 Life was not devoid of news. What became Radio Hong Kong (later Radio Television Hong Kong) post-war, at this point known by its callsign as ZBW, stayed broadcasting for as long as it could. However power supplies and transmission antennae were vulnerable and as a government station it was only permitted to broadcast official bulletins.19 Despite the courage of the announcers, who stuck to their duty in fast deteriorating conditions, the last auxiliary power source was knocked out on 19 December, and so with six days of battle remaining, the main source of news for the general public fell silent.20 That night at 9.00 p.m. the China Fleet Club next door came under heavy Japanese mortar fire, possibly in case it was still in use by the Royal Navy.21 Given that the Institute seems never to have been an actual target and suffered only collateral damage by rounds probably intended for the naval dockyard, it is possible that it sported Red Cross symbols. However, there is no evidence of this either way, and the quality of Japanese intelligence as to what was what in Hong Kong was so good that it is equally probable that the Institute wasn’t on any target list because its non-combatant role was known about.22 The five days that followed the final evacuation of the mainland must have been harrowing, but they would have paled by comparison with the atmosphere in the Institute that will have followed the first Japanese landings on the northeastern shores of Hong Kong Island on 18 December. Clouded by uncertainty, though awareness must have been, everyone must have felt the gradual movement of the front line towards Central as the Japanese advanced along the northern shore. Perhaps too news would have come of the overwhelming of the heroic defence of Wong Nei Chong Gap that cut Hong Kong Island in two and effectively spelled the end.

13_Strong to Save.indd 211

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

212

Strong

to

Save

One consequence of the Japanese landing was the threat to normal utilities upon which the operation of the Institute was critically dependent. Accounts differ over when these were cut, whether on the day of the first Japanese landing or a few days later, but certainly by 21 December neither power nor water were any longer available.23 Whenever utilities were actually cut, the Institute will have been more gravely affected than most because in addition to the loss of flushing water for toilets mentioned in many post-war accounts, even had the Institute managed some sort of jury-rigged arrangement, we know its drainage depended entirely on electrical pumps in the basement. When they failed, an overcrowded building would have had no means of dealing with human waste, making an already frightening situation worse. Shortage of food. Shortage of news. Increasing squalor. And, as the 22 December dawned, the ever-closer approach of the fighting to the Institute itself. How much in regular touch with those passing by who were engaged in the battle the non-combatants in refuges like the Institute were is not a feature of standard accounts save where, as with the Repulse Bay Hotel, such a refuge became a battleground.24 So we do not know what sort of communications were passed between the Institute and its neighbours, leave alone the Institute and the central command in the battle box just a few hundred yards away beneath Victoria Barracks. That this is a point worth pondering emerges from one of those minor asides in a wartime account of a battle, normally and understandably overlooked unless, as in this case, one sees an implication more usually lost in the wider picture being painted. With the fall of the North Point power station, resolutely defended almost to the last by the “Hugheseliers” of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps, led by Major J.J. Paterson, taipan of Jardine Matheson and chairman of the Institute’s local Hong Kong Committee,25 and the inevitable outcome of the battle at Wong Nei Chong Gap, the British defence line began to shrink northwestwards towards Central. By 22

13_Strong to Save.indd 212

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

213

December, after the weight of the battle had for some days been on the south and hill line of the island, the Japanese were probing into Bowrington and the eastern parts of Wan Chai.26 The defenders were fighting hard but falling back as they were successively overwhelmed or outflanked, though the courageous defence of Leighton Hill by Z Coy of the 1st Battalion, the Middlesex Regiment slowed the onslaught. With each local reverse came a decision on the next strong points around which to orientate a line of defence. What the reasoning was we do not know, but at some stage it had been decided that the final defence line in the battle towards Central would run from Ship Street and along Luard Road to the waterfront. One of the strong points, one and a half blocks behind this line was planned to be the China Fleet Club building, where there was also a pillbox on the shore (PB56) with a 2 pdr gun.27 The China Fleet Club lay immediately to the east of the northeastern corner of the Royal Naval Dockyard and the old Wellington Barracks, and had been the Royal Navy’s headquarters from 8–12 December. There is some evidence that the club was a target. Banham reports large fires being started near the China Fleet Club by artillery fire on 24 December, as the battle came to its inevitable end.28 Given that the Seamen’s Institute was quite literally right next door to the China Fleet Club and between it and the advancing battlefront, it would have been an obvious choice for swift annexation by the Japanese as a firing base and a location for forming up for a subsequent assault. In the heat of battle, the Japanese would have been none too delicate about how they achieved that end. Given that the Institute was full of non-combatants, the choice of the China Fleet Club as a defensive point in the final battle for Central seems inexplicable unless, which seems unlikely, someone had supposed that a building full of non-combatants would have been respected by the Japanese as militarily off-limits. Fortunately for those sheltering within its scarred but largely intact walls, before battle was fully joined on this last defensive perimeter,

13_Strong to Save.indd 213

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

214

Strong

to

Save

the decision was made by the military command that the battle was lost and that continuing fighting would result in unnecessary death and suffering. But before that was to happen, at 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon, Japanese patrols had pushed through as far as the naval dockyard and fierce fighting had begun around the China Fleet Club.29 Despite the fighting raging around his church, true to his calling, on that same Christmas morning in St Peter’s Chapel, Cyril Brown had held the last service “under fire”. It was attended by 50 people.30

*** It seems to be generally agreed that whilst the Japanese prosecution of the military side of their campaigns was conducted with aggressive competence based on sound intelligence and effective planning, the same cannot be said of post-battle administration.31 It is thanks to the ad hoc arrangements that resulted from this lack of preparedness for handling prisoners of war that we catch a faint glimpse of the Institute before the silence of the Japanese occupation entirely overtakes it. We know from the Reverend Rutherford Spence’s wartime letter that when the battle ended the building was little damaged and was “in good shape.”32 Cyril Brown’s first post-war message to London also mentions in passing how the battle ended for those within the Institute; they were “evicted at the point of a bayonet.”33 Unfortunately that is all we know of the aftermath of the battle as far as those who were in the Institute at the moment of surrender were concerned. We have no clue as to how Cyril Brown learned of the surrender, or who was in the building at that time. Nor do we know where they went after their eviction and before they ended up in the various internment camps or elsewhere. We can assume, however, that Cyril Brown will have ensured that the surrender of the building was managed at the least risk to its occupants, no matter the risk to himself. However, once the building had been cleared, via one narrative we do learn that the Institute was briefly a holding pen for British naval prisoners of war including, one assumes, Charles Strong. The

13_Strong to Save.indd 214

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

215

description of what was happening during this interlude suggests, if rather weakly, that before he was ejected Cyril Brown had given thought to the fates of his local employees. We know from a number of accounts that there was a fairly wide understanding amongst Hong Kong’s more thoughtful westerners that Chinese people could not expect much consideration from their new conquerors. The rhetoric of pan-Asian solidarity did little to mask the actuality of an institutionalized, racist contempt in the Japanese armed forces. For local Chinese people who had been serving in the armed forces, or who had been otherwise manifestly connected with the colonial system the immediate aftermath of the battle promised ill. During the closing phases of the battle many took the opportunity to fade into the background. The more considerate of western officers informally instructed their local personnel to get rid of their uniforms and do likewise. The most considerate also ensured that people took food with them if rations were available. With that setting of the scene, we can return to the Institute and its role as a holding pen for British and Allied naval personnel. There is an account from Benny Proulx, a member of the HKRNVR fighting as foot soldiers, who first made his hazardous way to Stanley and was then taken by launch to Aberdeen, where after the surrender he was sent to the naval dockyard for the formal submission of surviving naval personnel to the Japanese. His account reveals that when the Institute had been cleared of its inhabitants, these did not include the working Chinese staff. They would appear to have been co-opted to continue operating the place in its new role.34 From that brief moment darkness fell on the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute and its personnel for the next three years and eight months. All we know, again from Cyril Brown’s post-war report and a photograph, was that the building was taken over by the Japanese military. Cyril Brown’s statement indicated that it was first used by the Imperial Japanese Army, but then was taken over by the Imperial Japanese Navy. We know it was used — as the sign at the entrance in

13_Strong to Save.indd 215

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

216

Strong

to

Save

one of the very few photographs from the immediate post-war period indicates — as a canteen for non-commissioned ranks. In addition to that, it was claimed by Cyril Brown in his report and repeated by the chaplain who arrived in 1949, William Haig Brown, that the Institute was also used as a naval ratings’ brothel. Haig Brown’s version was appended to the photographs of the battered, post-war Institute building that he sent back, in which he claimed he had had the sign at the door translated, and that it read something like “canteen and brothel”. In fact it says no more than that the building was the Hong Kong Garrison Imperial Japanese Navy Junior Ranks canteen. Whether sailors either brought prostitutes into the building or, in the practice for which the Japanese armed forces were notorious in occupied territories, “comfort women” were in residence, cannot be decided, though the post-war anecdote repeated by the Reverend Haig Brown would appear to favour the latter possibility.35 We have scant clue what happened to the Chinese members of staff, though we do know that the Chinese steward, Mr Lo Lam-tai, would keep a constant eye on his old charge. All we do know from the record is that many of the Institute’s staff kept in touch with each other during the occupation, especially via Mr Lo. It was for that reason when, finally, the war was over and the British had returned, Mr Lo was swiftly able to put together a team of ex-employees plus some Indian watchmen to hold the fort. We shall return to the period of post-war recovery below. For the first months after the surrender the fates of Cyril Brown and Charles Strong were unknown. London headquarters’ minutes in January and February 1942 express marked concern. On the 21 January an enquiry sent to Singapore — which was not to fall to the Japanese until 15 February — elicited no knowledge of Cyril Brown’s whereabouts. On 18 March the Malayan Section of Colonial Office contacted the London headquarters to say that both Cyril and Myrtle Brown had been in Singapore, though the minutes note “this information should be accepted with reserve”. In the same minutes

13_Strong to Save.indd 216

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

217

Charles Strong is noted as “reported missing”. There was some worry about a C. Brown that had appeared in The Times of London casualty list. Gradually the cloud lifted and by the middle of 1942 the survival of Cyril Brown and Charles Strong became assured. Exactly what had happened to Charles Strong during and after the battle we do not know. All we can surmise is that he had been fully occupied by his Royal Navy duties right up until the surrender. We can infer this from our knowledge that when the battle was over, he was interned in the military Sham Shui Po prisoner of war camp along with the other ranks of Royal Navy personnel, but clearly as a chaplain. Meanwhile, once the surrender was complete, Cyril Brown was mustered with Hong Kong’s civilians and sent to the internment camp that had been created in the premises of St. Stephen’s School in Stanley. His status as an internee was learned of from a list of internees made available in London in June 1942. In October they finally received the letter Cyril Brown had sent in May from “Block 16, Room 22, British Civilian Internment Camp, Hong Kong.” It asked that his wife and mother be informed of his fate, briefly recapped the last hours of life in the Institute mentioning the last Christmas service, and noted that he understood Charles Strong to be a prisoner of war. He then asked about Myrtle and included his worries about her welfare since he had been “without salary since November and local account inaccessible, trust Mission maintain her, and if possible Mother’s allowance, also life insurance premium.” If Cyril Brown seemed to have forgotten that he had resigned from the Mission, headquarters had not. That there was a problem in responding to Cyril Brown’s letter from Stanley was triggered by a letter from Myrtle Brown, thanking George Trench for the news he had passed on about Cyril Brown being interned. After she and Cyril had met in Manila, she had gone to Singapore as planned only to have to leave ahead of the Japanese, reaching first Java and finally Bombay (Mumbai). In Java she had begun working in some semi-voluntary capacity for the British Army, which work was continuing in Bombay.

13_Strong to Save.indd 217

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

218

Strong

to

Save

She was as a result getting a military allowance paid by the army, but this was under some sort of threat because somewhere in the system it was considered that her maintenance should be coming from naval funds because of Cyril Brown’s status as a chaplain HKRNVR/HKNVF. Cyril Brown’s situation had obviously already provoked some consternation in London. The minutes of the committee meeting on 1 July noted that his contract with the Mission had ended on 31 December 1941 and “although Mr Brown had been interned in Hong Kong prior to that date, it did not appear the Society was liable in the matter.” With that clarification of the niceties of the legal situation minuted, the record goes on to confirm that the Mission would nonetheless help Cyril Brown’s mother and Myrtle if necessary. In a rather stiff and formal letter from A.J. Matthew, care of the Bombay Mission to Seamen, on “about 20 October 1942”, Myrtle Brown is told that the Mission has no responsibility for either her or Cyril Brown, but that nonetheless they are covering Cyril Brown’s monthly remittance to his mother and will cover his insurance premiums until June 1943. Myrtle Brown was also told that the letter stood as a warrant to the Reverend Tanner, the Mission’s chaplain in Bombay, to support Myrtle from Mission funds in Bombay, should her payments from the military cease.36 The Mission was looking after its slightly errant sheep, which earned it the gratitude of Cyril Brown’s sister and mother, whose thanks appear in the archive, along with their vital information to Cyril Brown about Myrtle, condensed into the 25 word message they were allowed, “Relief on receipt of your message will be shared by Myrtle who is safe and well, care of Missions, Bombay. All love, Mother and Marjorie.”37

*** Both Cyril Brown and Charles Strong upheld the highest traditions of their church and the Mission in their long years in detention under the Japanese. We know little of Charles Strong’s life in Sham Shui Po, which he had specifically asked to be sent to from the officers’ camp at Argyle Street, so that he could minister to the majority of the HKRNVR

13_Strong to Save.indd 218

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

Destruction

and

Occupation

219

and RN personnel.38 We do know he was remembered for his good work amongst sick, starved, and downcast men. He was evidently a tower of strength and, himself, a fine example of Christian endurance and forbearance.39 For his conduct and devotion to his fellow prisoners of war during this testing period, if belatedly given the dates of other Hong Kong awards, he was awarded an M.B.E (military) in June 1946.40 For Cyril Brown the record is fuller, largely because the civilian internment camp had more people who recorded their experiences post-war. We know that he became the secretary of the first, temporary camp management committee, formed as soon as the internees had arrived. This did important work in the brief few weeks it was in existence. When the temporary committee was dissolved following the election of the permanent British Community Council, he then served on the canteen sub-committee and was clearly an active presence in the administration of the camp.41 As he noted in his first communication with London, he was one of several clergymen in Stanley, who were ministering to 3,000 internees representing 17 denominations. Post-war he described the melancholy task of holding the burial services for the dead, as he did the worsening conditions in Stanley with the many cases, especially among the older internees, of beri-beri, pellagra, and malnutrition. On a stronger note he was pleased to remember how “each year seamen in the camp gathered for a Seafarers’ Service which in the days of peace had been an annual event at St. John’s Cathedral.”42 Perhaps his most conspicuous role was in helping maintain morale, especially with the regular programmes of entertainment.43 Although the record is ambiguous, in at least one recollection of Stanley, Cyril Brown is credited with having written the words of “Sail Away” that “quickly became the Camp anthem, a popular choice to end concerts.”44 The only other knowledge we have of Mission affairs in Hong Kong during this dark and unhappy period is of an event that was to cause

13_Strong to Save.indd 219

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

220

Strong

to

Save

major problems once the war was over. On 16 January 1945 an air raid by the US Army Air Force resulted in four bombs hitting the Institute. It is unknown whether the bombs were intentional (there was an anti-aircraft battery on the roof) or collateral, the result was severe damage to the building and the reported death of 400 Japanese naval personnel in the building at the time. In his first post-war report to London Cyril Brown attributed this intelligence to “Chinese reports”, though without any further detail.45

13_Strong to Save.indd 220

6/7/2017 6:38 PM

14

Recovery and the Dawning of a New World

inally, on 15 August 1945 it was in principle all over. Emperor Hirohito had made his face-saving Gyokuon-hōsō (玉音放送), reading out his Daitōa-sensō-shūketsu-no-shōsho (大東亜戦 1 争終結ノ詔書) announcing the surrender of Japan. For Hong Kong, however, there was a longer wait while the British authorities in the Far East scrambled to re-establish a presence before Operation Carbonado gave physical substance to the American desire to see an end of colonialism, and the Nationalist Chinese wish to see Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty. That involved persuading the Americans that Britain, not Nationalist China, should take control of liberating Hong Kong before Chinese Communist guerrilla forces got there first, and then pulling together a task force to do the job.2 The result was that the first 19 ships of the 30-ship strong Task Groups 111.2, 111.4 and Task Unit 111.2.8, under the command of Rear Admiral Cecil Harcourt, didn’t arrive in a shattered Hong Kong until 30 August. In the meantime, long maturing plans within Stanley, led by Franklin Gimson, an often-misrepresented man, ensured that as soon as possible a British-led interim government was re-established.3 Events seem to have unfolded between 18 and 23 August as Japanese control crumbled and ex-prisoners of war increasingly exercised their limited freedom to move around, despite official British airdropped leaflet instructions instructing them to stay put, so that when Admiral

14_Strong to Save.indd 221

7/7/2017 11:20 AM

222

Strong

to

Save

Harcourt landed on 30 August there was already “an organized administration.” “At long last it is all over and we are free men again — Laus Deo”4 is how Cyril Brown recorded his feelings in his first, post-war letter to George Trench, whose retirement he had not yet heard of. He mentioned the deprivations of his captivity, though making light of his own condition in mentioning the toll of pellagra, beri-beri, and malnutrition on others, especially the elderly. But his main concern was the Institute, to which he headed as soon as he could get a pass to do so on 3 September, having already sent ahead a note authorizing Mr Lo to enter the building and take possession.5 Cyril Brown noted later in his summary report, “Thanks to the initiative of Rev Charles Strong … the Mission buildings were visited at the earliest opportunity and contact made with returning members of the Chinese staff.“6 The building was in bad shape. It was painted in a blotched camouflage pattern. It had been comprehensively looted and stripped bare. The central light well and staircases had been badly damaged by the bombs. The roof leaked. “There is now water (everywhere) and the filth and debris and stench are indescribable.”7 The hope of getting the military to take it over disappeared when it was declared uninhabitable. Once he had managed to get to the Institute, Cyril Brown found that Mr Lo had already installed himself with a skeleton staff and begun clearing up. But he could see that the major problem would be getting the building repaired, since the cost of what “in parts would amount to rebuilding” would be very heavy. Mr J. J. Paterson, the Local General Committee chairman, the commander of the Hugheseliers and one of that group’s few survivors, who had been in Sham Shui Po with Charles Strong, had managed to come across and look. He agreed that nothing could be done bar keep the local staff and Indian watchmen in situ. With nothing more he could achieve and, as he pointed out, no money either, Cyril Brown went back to Stanley. He was exhausted and debilitated by his years as a prisoner but, despite his uncertainty

14_Strong to Save.indd 222

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

223

as to what the Mission intended for him given that, formally, he had resigned and was no longer working for them, he carried on trying to get his stay extended before he was repatriated so as to continue his work in their interests. By 8 September he had been allowed back to Central as “an essential worker”. He was spending the time before his imminent repatriation trying to ensure that the affairs of the Mission were going to be looked after until his replacement arrived. He notes he had to “dismiss” the European steward, but gives no reasons, nor any hint as to the identity of whoever it was, although it has to have been the immediate pre-war steward, Mr W.V. Field, who will have spent the war in Sham Shui Po with Charles Strong.8 With the energy and commitment he had shown in Stanley, Cyril Brown was meanwhile providing for himself by acting as a temporary announcer for the revived ZBW. His key to the future of the building was the Royal Navy. He arranged for the new Royal Navy padre in the naval dockyard to help out until a replacement arrived. He got Captain D.M.L. Neame, of the aircraft carrier HMS Vengeance to agree that the navy would help clear the Institute up. The King’s harbour master confirmed that the Institute would get priority because of the need for facilities for seafarers.9 He had ensured that his old launch coxswain and crew were employed by the Royal Navy. And he drafted a recommendation that headquarters get the Hong Kong committee to seek funding from the Hong Kong Government on the grounds that little of the revenue raised from the Sunday Cargo Working Ordinance had ever found its way to significantly supporting the Institute, despite its importance over the years in providing welfare services. With that as his parting effort, on 18 September, Cyril Brown set out for Britain and a reunion with his wife. Of when Charles Strong was shipped out there is no record. We know from his Crockford’s entry and the London Gazette that he was not discharged from the RNVR until 1946. In June of that year he was awarded the M.B.E. for his services in wartime and by year’s end he had become the Missions to Seamen’s chaplain in Colombo, Ceylon (today Sri Lanka).10

14_Strong to Save.indd 223

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

224

Strong

to

Save

The Mission had been extremely faithfully and ably served by Cyril Brown. It had also found in Mr Lo, the Chinese steward, an equally faithful and resourceful servant. For in the period between Cyril Brown’s departure in late September and the arrival of Reverend C.J.W. Faulkner, as temporary chaplain, in January 1946, Mr Lo proved a tower of strength. Who was responsible for what we do not know, but in a November letter to Cyril Brown — by now working in the Mission headquarters in London — Mr Lo revealed that what had looked a hopeless case was now beginning to shape up. The solution had proved to be Major C.E. Moore RME, who commanded “A” Coy of the 340 strong 1st Battalion, Royal Marine Engineers,11 in Hong Kong to help reconstruction and to build temporary naval airstrips, who had been introduced to Mr Lo by the chaplain of HMS Euryalus, the Reverend Horsfield. With the consent of the Local General Committee’s secretary, John Fleming of Lowe, Bingham and Matthews, on 2 October the Royal Marines took over the building as their quarters. It was a heaven sent solution, as Mr Lo wrote, “The Marine Engineers [sic] are looking very well after the place and have done and are still doing a large amount of repair work of which the building stands in great need.” Better yet, the Royal Marines were paying their way, giving the Institute some cash flow. The beneficial result of that was that Mr Lo could afford “as far as possible” to re-employ “a lot of old staff who have returned to the Colony.” Lo Lau Tai also revealed that Cyril Brown’s efforts to get the Navy to take on the launch coxswain and crew had not succeeded. Where the services are not needed by the Marine Engineers as in the case of Leung Fook (our old coxswain) and two of the old watchmen, I am retaining their services and paying their wages out of my own pocket.12

By January 1946 the Local General Committee was being reconstituted and the job of secretary had been taken over by Archibald Ritchie, also of Lowe, Bingham and Matthews. He wrote to London spelling out in more detail how things stood. Helpful

14_Strong to Save.indd 224

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

225

though the Royal Marines had been, they had only occupied part of the building and made temporary repairs. The cost of full repair was still expected to be very large, especially when all the new furnishings and fittings were included. Mr Ritchie confirmed that the government would be approached. Mr Ritchie also indicated that he thought the building would be de-requisitioned in around March 1946, an estimate that would prove to be extremely optimistic. That was perhaps fortunate for the Mission, which was in no position financially to resume full-time work. However, at least some traditional Missions to Seamen work had been resumed because space had been released for a “reading and refreshment room for merchant seamen visiting the port”, which would also be the base for the chaplain, who was expected to arrive soon. Mr. Ritchie mentioned that although the Mission’s invested capital was secure — a small miracle — all the accounts had been lost, so London was asked to send out copies of the annual report for 1940.13 In fact Cecil Faulkner, an Australian who had been working for the Missions to Seamen since 1934, did not arrive in Hong Kong until March because the problems of post-war transport had delayed him in Singapore. In the meantime it had become clear that de-requisitioning was not only not happening, but the Royal Navy was more or less taking over the building for billeting and, fortunately for the Institute, getting down to proper repairs. By the time Cecil Faulkner arrived on around 15 March, the Institute had acquired a new name. It had become HMS Aorangi, the shoreside extension of the elegant Union Steamship Co. liner of the same name, which was being used as an accommodation ship in Victoria harbour. It seems probable that the Hong Kong Institute is the only Missions to Seamen building in the world actually to have been a Royal Navy stone frigate. The system Cecil Faulkner found when he arrived was spelled out in his second letter to London. Within a week or two of his arrival the Institute had become all there was of HMS Aorangi, since the ship

14_Strong to Save.indd 225

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

226

Strong

to

Save

had left Hong Kong for Australia. It housed some 450 ratings and 20 officers (who lived in the chaplain’s flat), and was run by a permanent naval staff of 60, with Mr Lo doing all the catering. The chaplain messed with the officers in the wardroom, which was on the first floor along with the chaplain’s temporary office in the old room that prewar had accommodated apprentices. St Peter’s Chapel was being used as a ratings’ dormitory. The hoped for space for merchant seamen had not yet been approved by the commodore, but was to be in the old boxing gym in the basement with a separate entrance. It would be all things to all men and, if possible, it was to include a small chapel, since as it stood, sailors were having to head for St John’s Cathedral for church services. Although it was clearly not the preferred solution, either by Cecil Faulkner or his recently reconstituted Local General Committee, they all realized that with the dockyard repair staff fixing the building up and with the navy’s rent making sure that all standing charges could be paid, as could the Institute staff, it was in fact a godsend. There was even hope for occasional use of one of the navy’s launches, though it seemed that most of the time all the launches were too busy to be spared. The major bugbear was the Aorangi’s Royal Navy commander, who was obsessively bureaucratic, insisting that no merchant seafarer could visit the chaplain’s room without a pass. In an exercise of catch-22 absurdity, this was only available if the seafarer gave the reason he needed to see the chaplain, which of course was usually on a confidential matter. Faulkner’s advice to London was to hold on sending his permanent replacement, Frank Weaver, until things had settled down. The good news was that merchant shipping was on the increase, with 12 British ships and 20 China Coastal vessels in port.14

*** Taking a step back and looking at merchant shipping in Hong Kong, the heart of the Mission’s work, what Cecil Faulkner must have seen will have been far from encouraging. When the Japanese

14_Strong to Save.indd 226

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

227

had surrendered, they surrendered a devastated port and port infrastructure. Partly this had been Japanese neglect after the great damage of the Battle of Hong Kong, partly deliberate sabotage following the Japanese surrender, but also in a large way a product of regular Allied bombing raids in 1944 and 1945. Thanks to combined Royal Navy and Marine Department supervised salvage work, Victoria Harbour was fully operational again in 10 months and clear of all wrecks in a little under 2 years.15 Damage to the port infrastructure was immense. The simple data enumerated by T.N. Chiu speaks for itself. Of the major ocean shipping wharves 70–80% needed repair or reconstruction. Every single crane was damaged and not working. Three quarters of the pre-war barge and lighter fleet of 2,000 craft had disappeared. Only two out of 48 moorings had survived, and with the wreckage in the harbour, anchoring space was restricted. To add to the woes, cargo storage facilities had had 25% of their volume destroyed.16 Even though putting the port back in working order was accomplished remarkably swiftly, normal shipping took rather longer to get re-established. In part this was a simple function of the need to feed people. Although the port was declared open for trading by November 1945 — an unprecedentedly short time — the military administration of Hong Kong continued to oversee everything until May 1946, using the Department of Supplies and Administration to supervise and control all shipping movement, as well as controlling trade to ensure that essential goods had priority. Following pre-war trends, a Port Executive Committee was created, to formulate policy, along with a Port Working Committee to put the policy into effect, but progress beyond that was slow. By August 1946 things were not looking much rosier. Although trade was booming, it was still well below pre-war levels and because of China’s increasing internal problems, continued rapid growth came to a halt in late 1946. Part of the problem was the devastation of the world fleet during the

14_Strong to Save.indd 227

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

228

Strong

to

Save

war. In 1946 there was only 50% of the number of ship calls in Hong Kong that there had been in 1939, a figure that would only rise to 75% by 1948.17 This meant fewer ships having to work harder to carry tonnage, so less liberty (time off) for ships’ companies. There was also the problem of military control of the port and port movements. None of this would make it easy for the Institute to re-establish itself as a haven for visiting seafarers. Not least because the dominant presence of the Royal Navy, especially with the Institute being naval premises run as a ship, meant merchant seafarers were reluctant to visit. However it wasn’t all bad news. It seems that a small launch had been found, that seems to have been brought up from Australia once the war was over. It was bought for for HK$7,500 and was being refurbished by Taikoo Dockyard — it would appear to have been called Dayspring, though without any numerical suffix to indicate it was the third of the name.18 Better for the Institute still, the end of the Royal Navy tenure was in principle in sight, so the Local General Committee had decided on a three-stage approach to reconditioning the Institute. The relatively undamaged eastern wings, which included the church, were to be restored first. This would take about two months and at least have two to three rooms ready for the Weavers. Then would come the central section, which had the worst bomb damage, and finally the west wing would be dealt with. It was thought that the total costs of this exercise would be a massive HK$500,000 and it was planned not only to follow-up on Cyril Brown’s suggestion to lobby government, but also to launch a local appeal.19 By the time the Institute was finally handed back — promised on 22 September, but not actually achieved until the first week in November — Frank Weaver and his wife had arrived, taking up the post to which he had formally been appointed five years previously. Obviously there had been a sensible intention to have a period of handover between Cecil Faulkner and Frank Weaver, the former finally leaving for London on 13 January 1947. However the two quite evidently did not get on — Frank Weaver’s first letter to London suggested Cecil Faulkner was

14_Strong to Save.indd 228

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

229

“slightly mental” — so little positive was gained. Indeed, apart from one beacon of light, the early days of Frank Weaver’s tenure as Senior Chaplain looked rather dark. The beacon of light was work to bring about the restoration of St Peter’s Church. Cyril Brown had lamented in September 1945, “…the Church is the most distressing of all — a Shinto shrine was over the Communion Table and the floor covered with empty beer bottles and excreta.”20 It had been cleared, but only for it promptly to be turned into a dormitory for Royal Navy sailors on their way to be demobbed. It was not until the navy had moved out in early November that work could begin on restoring the space to its holy purpose. The decision was made to reorganize the layout to make for easier access and egress, with what had been the traditional arrangement of an apse with the altar at the east end being demolished and the altar moved to the west end.21 Completion of the whole, from the Royal Navy’s departure to the final reorganization seems to have taken most of 1947. The only record of this in the archive comes from 20 years later that records that “new fittings, furnishings and ornaments were blessed by the Reverend W.F [sic] Weaver on Christmas Day 1947.”22 The darker shadows came from various issues both immediate and impending. The latter were a symptom of several things. One was the massive change that the war had wrought on British perceptions of their standing in the world, and of the Asian world’s perceptions of the west.23 This intimated, if at this stage barely perceptibly, impending changes in the world of shipping and in the status of seafarers’ welfare in the order of priorities and, accordingly, new initiatives that would have an inevitable impact on the Institute. These in turn would bring into stronger relief all the papered-over, unreconciled issues in the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute from the days of the amalgamation in 1930. But to begin with the darker shadows were more bluntly quotidian. The newly acquired and refurbished launch was very soon condemned as inadequate, and London’s help was sought to find the money for a

14_Strong to Save.indd 229

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

230

Strong

to

Save

new one. The cost of repairing the building had risen by 12% by the time the bills were in, and this had severely depleted the endowment. It had also rapidly become clear that patronage of the Institute was too small to provide a sustainable income. And more problematic, which will be a theme in the next few chapters, government was not only refusing to help out with the costs of getting the Institute back on its feet, but was querying whether repairing was worthwhile for a building that was evidently not where it should be, in Kowloon, and, although for the time being this was tacit rather than explicit, perhaps not being run in the right way by the right people. In this atmosphere, and with significant uncertainties about financing because government had refused to give a grant, work was put in hand to get the Institute back into full working order. The decision was a bold one involving, as it did, taking a bank loan for HK$140,000 in the expectation that interest on what was left of the endowment would pay the 4% interest on the loan.24 Things weren’t all dire. Even the refurbishment got help from what may have been unexpected quarters. The pre-war Hong Kong Amateur Dramatic Society had been reconstituted in February 1946 as the Hong Kong Stage Club. Initially its performances took place in the Star Theatre in Tsim Sha Tsui. When that ceased to be available in August 1947, the Stage Club needed a venue. So they volunteered to pay for converting the Institute’s King George V Hall into a workable theatre, amongst other things giving the stage a proscenium arch. By October 1947 it was back on stage with a performance of Noel Coward’s Hay Fever on a four-night run and an aim to have a similar performance every month through until March 1948 before a break.25 In the first half of 1948 restoration work on the Institute building was completed and by 14 June the Institute was fully operational for the first time since December 1941. Doing the work had been a bold decision because, as Frank Weaver’s letters during his first year spelled out, the Institute was in very poor financial shape. Not only had the repairs almost run through capital reserves, but because

14_Strong to Save.indd 230

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

231

the focus of merchant shipping was Kowloon-side, the Royal Navy’s presence in Hong Kong was being run down, and the reopening of the bar-equipped China Fleet Club was drawing away what RN personnel were left, business had been dire with no obvious sign of light on the horizon. The loss for 1947 had been an unsustainable HK$52,000.26 However there was also another source of the financial strains of the Institute. There is no reference to this in the Mission’s archives because the relevant annual report is missing. However, as was often the practice in more distinctly colonial times, matters like the Institute chaplain’s annual reports were quite fully covered in the press and in June 1949, the South China Morning Post treated Frank Weaver’s last report as senior chaplain at length. Towards the end of a generally upbeat appraisal of a tough year, Frank Weaver dropped in a small bombshell, Loss Written Off

…a regrettable loss of $16,197 arose in respect of working funds and

deposits in the hands of the previous Chinese Steward and Caterer at the date of his sudden death in the Wing On Godown fire. Since these funds

are clearly irrecoverable from the estate of the deceased (who had been over twenty-five years in the service of the society) it has been necessary to write off the loss. Steps have been taken to avoid the occurrence of a similar loss in the future.27

The Wing On Godown fire on 23 September 1948 at West Point, not far from the old Sailors’ Home, was one of the worst fires in Hong Kong history. As a result of Hong Kong’s fairly relaxed regulations the several five-storey back to back tenement blocks between Des Voeux Road and Connaught Road near the Whitty Street tram depot had storage godowns on their lower floors and residential accommodation on their upper four floors. It seems that without anyone much noticing or, if they did, much caring, No. V Godown in the centre of the block was storing highly flammable goods in contravention of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance — of which the Wing On director responsible told

14_Strong to Save.indd 231

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

232

Strong

to

Save

the subsequent commission of enquiry, he was unaware! It seems, though no one was ever actually sure, that 30 tons of washed, cellulose film scrap in drums spontaneously ignited, setting fire to the other inflammable materials.28 The resulting explosion and huge fire killed 176 people, including many children, and injured 69. The Institute’s Chinese steward was among the dead.29 This was a significant embarrassment and possibly an outcome of the traditional colonial manner of conducting businesses like the Institute, in which the senior management was unable directly to deal with the Cantonese speaking providers of most essential foodstuffs, cleaning materials, staff uniforms, etc. It was a small-scale equivalent to the comprador system that was used by all the major Western business houses. In effect the trusted Chinese lieutenant of an institution ran a parallel business, acting as a middleman between suppliers and his employer. He guaranteed to supply whatever was needed not above a certain cost to his principal and was usually advanced a float of an agreed amount to cover an agreed period of supply. He negotiated with suppliers for the best price he could get and kept the difference, from which he either made or supplemented his income. We saw a related system in operation in the Sailors’ Home back in the 1870s. Even if that system was no longer operating at the time of Mr Lo’s death, the probability is that he partly worked from home and, perhaps for security — his own as well as the Mission’s — kept the cash with which he was entrusted with him. Quite what “steps” Frank Weaver and his Local General Committee took to prevent a recurrence we do not know. Certainly avoiding the risk of increasing an annual loss by some 45% as a result of a steward defaulting or suffering a catastrophe such as the Wing On fire was essential. The saddest part of the story is the omission of the name of the worthy steward. For this must have been Mr Lo Tam or Tau Lai, who joined the Institute around 1923. Who had presented George Waldegrave with the staff’s farewell gift in 1934. Who had kept an eye out on the Institute during the harsh and wearying years of the

14_Strong to Save.indd 232

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

233

Japanese occupation. And who had been the first to re-occupy the Institute, muster a skeleton staff, and begin the long and difficult job of restoring it to its former glory. Much is said about colonial Hong Kong by this omission. The tragic passing of so good and faithful a servant produced no encomium to Mr Lo that remained in the Mission’s record. The implication seems to be that a set of arrangements of which the Mission was fully cognizant and which, presumably, had worked without mishap for years and was standard colonial Hong Kong practice was, when it went wrong, entirely Mr Lo’s fault.30

*** Frank Weaver’s time in Hong Kong was brief but during it many, though not all of the fundamental problems with which the Mission would wrestle over the next 20 years would make their presence felt. They were problems of location, of function, of what we might call congregation, of organization, of collaboration, of finance and of operational principles. Together they formed a tangled web in which, with the benefit of hindsight from almost 70 years down track, we can today see a clearer pattern, but with which for over 20 years, beset by more day-to-day concerns within the world of dramatic change they were living in, the Mission’s senior chaplains and its Local General Committee wrestled and prayed.31 At the heart of the main problems lay two issues. First was the strong post-war emergence of secular, public sector interest in providing for seafarers’ welfare. The immediate post-war expression of this was arrival in 1946 of a Ministry of War Transport’s short-lived Hong Kong Merchant Navy welfare officer and his interest in providing secular, Kowloon side recreational facilities. Interestingly this secular turn had always been the dominant one in Singapore, where, as in Hong Kong, a secular Sailors’ Home pre-dated the arrival of the Mission but where no amalgamation had taken place. Post-war, in response to the British government initiative represented by the installation of Merchant Navy Welfare Officers, Singapore had no Missions to Seamen chaplain on hand. Instead, the restoration of

14_Strong to Save.indd 233

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

234

Strong

to

Save

its Sailors’ Institute — or Marine Hostel as it was called — was an entirely lay effort. In the Mission archive there is a note, sent to Cecil Faulkner by the lay acting superintendent of the Mission in Singapore, which noted somewhat minatorily and even triumphally that the hostel side of the Sailors’ Institute was “in no way controlled by the Missions to Seamen.”32 That this might also become the case in Hong Kong was suddenly appearing on the radar.33 Naturally the Mission was quite well aware of this trend, though as a threat rather than anything more positive. Indeed it is clear that as far as the Mission in Hong Kong was concerned, there was no need for any change because it had been and was still doing all that was necessary and doing it well. This was the argument put forward by the new chairman of the Local General Committee, David Landale of Jardine, Matheson and Co., in his letter to the colonial secretary in May 1948, which had forlornly solicited government financial aid for restoring the building and providing a new Mission launch. He had enclosed for the colonial secretary’s reference three British government documents that affirmed the post-war attitude that government was responsible for the welfare of seafarers. He noted that because of the existence of the Mission and Institute in Hong Kong, there was no need for the creation of a port welfare officer. The manifest implication was that the money that would have been spent on such an official should be directed at the Institute.34 However a letter from Butterfield and Swire indicated that they supported the formation of British Merchant Seamen’s Clubs in Shanghai and Hong Kong that were separate from the Missions to Seamen, mainly as they would sell liquor. Evidently something was afoot in Hong Kong that was not working towards the same ends as the Institute. The roots of this we saw back in the 1920s when, via the work of the newly formed International Labour Organization seafarers’ welfare issues began to make headway. The 2nd International Conference on the Health and Welfare of Merchant Seamen in 1929 had recommended that Port Welfare Committees be

14_Strong to Save.indd 234

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

235

established in all main ports, although action to that end had not been swift.35 Initial moves to create this hopefully innovative body can be identified as early as 1946 and by July 1947 discussions were underway on its permanent membership. However, its remit was both narrow and racist, or at least culturalist in that it “was concerned only with members of the European and American Mercantile Marines who visited Hong Kong.”36 Its membership appears initially to have been exclusively from government officials,37 however, when a public announcement was made in September 1947, the membership included Frank Weaver and most of the other, non-government members who were to be formally listed in the Hong Kong Gazette only in 1948 and as a result of one resignation, in a short time Frank Weaver became chairman.38 The first mention of the PWC in Hong Kong in published official documents came on 16 February 1949 when it was formally reestablished with revised terms of reference requiring it to look to the welfare of “all visiting seamen”,39 instead of its originally racist remit of European and American seafarers who visited Hong Kong. At this stage it was obviously the intention that the PWC be an independent welfare, mission, and shipping entity and not, as the first had been, fully part of the newly named Marine Department. This meant that financing was not to be by direct government support but via those shipowners who chose not to employ British seamen and, thereby, pay for their welfare as British citizens through their national insurance contributions. There was no welfare system in Hong Kong and most Hong Kong shipping companies employed Chinese or lascar seafarers. The Hong Kong Government was not going to establish a welfare system, though it was taking on welfare responsibilities largely forced by the massive post-war influx of refugees. It followed that the money to finance a Port Welfare Committee in Hong Kong, as the Butterfield and Swire letter had predicted, was one way or another going to have to come from the

14_Strong to Save.indd 235

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

236

Strong

to

Save

shipping industry. And that, as Frank Weaver and others were well aware, would have its inevitable impact on a willingness to give to the Institute. On Wednesday, 31 August 1949, when it had already been operating since June, the Hong Kong Merchant Navy Club was formally opened, roughly beneath where the Hong Kong Museum of History now stands.40 A later Port Welfare Committee flyer from 1954/55 shows the club placed between Chatham Road and the KCR railway line opposite and about midway between Observatory Road and Austin Road.41 It was not exactly convenient for the main concentration of merchant shipping. It was a 30-minute walk from the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Co.’s complex and 10–15 minutes from either Holt’s Wharf or the Kowloon Docks at Hung Hom. For those coming from Hong Kong Island, it was a 20-minute walk from the Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry. Despite that, it was evidently soon popular. The formal opening ceremony was chaired by Frank Weaver, as chairman of the Port Welfare Committee, which represented in its way a small triumph for the Mission as lead body in this new effort to provide for seafarers’ welfare. However, what stands out most markedly in relation to the Institute’s fretful passage at this time was the speech that opened the new facility by the governor, Sir Alexander Grantham. Waxing lyrical about the dependence of Hong Kong and the British Empire on sea trade, and hence on the strong obligation Hong Kong had to attending to seafarers’ welfare he noted, Hitherto enough has not been done for the seamen. The Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute have done a certain amount only. But that was not enough.42

That this view of the Institute was in the air had obviously been a given almost as soon as the war was over and a Merchant Navy welfare officer was in place. Certainly the message had not been missed because in August 1948 the assistant bishop of Hong Kong, Right Reverend Nelson Victor Halward, and George Waldegrave had

14_Strong to Save.indd 236

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

237

visited the Missions to Seamen headquarters in London. Hong Kong’s future was obviously to be pondered because George Waldegrave had recently provided headquarters, at their request, with a potted history of the Mission in Hong Kong. Subsequent to the visit an anonymously drawn up memorandum came to three conclusions. The first was an old trope: that the Institute should be in Tsim Sha Tsui. The second, perhaps recognizing the strength of the sentiments expressed by Charles Knowles or Butterfield and Swire in his letter, was that the Institute should change its ordinance to allow the sale of alcohol. The third, however, was startling. It was that the Institute should get a legal opinion on the issue of splitting itself back into a separate Sailors’ Home and Mission. Clearly pressures in Hong Kong were mounting. A subsequent note by Cyril Brown, who had been promoted to second-in-command at the Mission’s headquarters, made clear a major consideration underpinning thinking about dis-amalgamation.43 This was evidently that given the new, public concern for seamen’s secular welfare, if the Mission was not careful it would be putting most of its effort into secular welfare work to the potential detriment of the more important spiritual side. Evidently, therefore, the Mission in Hong Kong was in a quandary because, given the way the 1930 amalgamation had worked out, especially with its large, full-service building, its major role was running the Institute’s accommodation and catering outlets. Cyril Brown’s note reveals that this concern for the Missions’ focus in Hong Kong was acute. Acute to the extent that, even though everyone involved almost immediately understood that reversing the amalgamation was probably impossible because government would baulk, the view at headquarters was that it was nonetheless necessary to know “the probable consequences of the dissolution of the amalgamation,” in order to safeguard “the practice and tradition of the Missions to Seamen”, which — and this is telling — were seen as “under attack.” From what the governor was to say in his speech opening the Merchant Navy Club a year later, this was no panicked exaggeration.

14_Strong to Save.indd 237

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

238

Strong

to

Save

To that end headquarters not only instructed Frank Weaver to seek legal opinion, the costs of which would be borne by London, but told him to treat it as an exclusively Missions to Seamen matter not within the purview of the Local General Committee. A whiff of a house divided against itself is palpable.44 At this point what proved to be a red herring suddenly occupied the forefront of everyone’s attention. It is not entirely clear how the matter came up, but at some stage Frank Weaver had discovered that the Hong Kong Police were looking for a new place for their headquarters and that the commissioner of police was taken with the idea of using the Institute building. However the issue had arisen, the remarkable result was the suggestion that the police and the Institute should do a swap. The Hong Kong Police would take over the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute and convert it into their new HQ. Meanwhile they would hand over to the Institute the handsome, 1881-built Water Police headquarters, on its spacious and conspicuous hilltop site in Tsim Sha Tsui, for them to convert into premises where all seemed to agree shipping patterns required them to be. In soliciting the help and advice of London, Frank Weaver mentioned that the government was already inspecting the Institute with an eye to costing conversion. Archibald Ritchie was in principle in favour and on the evening of the day the letter was written, Frank Weaver was to sound out David Landale to gauge his reaction before the matter would be put to the Local General Committee.45 Frank Weaver was evidently enamoured, but in a long and discursive letter, Bishop Hall suggested the government make a deal with the shipping companies and leave the Mission “a much smaller and more specifically religious function.” That possibility appealed because, the bishop feared, the new site might be “too large on the hotel side”.46 Cyril Brown’s reply was careful but considered the other side to the coin. With such a big site there could be useful provision made for married quarters for young officers on the China Coast — an issue previously raised by both Frank Weaver and the Bishop. But

14_Strong to Save.indd 238

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

239

the bugbear would be that any flats provided by the Mission could not have alcohol “which might be difficult to enforce”. Cyril Brown’s ending, however, reveals that at least at this stage another divorce was still very much on the agenda.47 Frank Weaver was most aggrieved when he was censured by London for not doing what they’d told him to do — get a lawyer’s advice over dissolving the amalgamation — when he’d been advised to do no such thing by the secretary of the Local General Committee, Archibald Ritchie. He went on to point out that in fact and in law a lawyer’s advice was otiose, since dissolving the amalgamation required repealing the relevant ordinance and passing a new one and that the Hong Kong Government would almost certainly not agree to such a move. In noting this Frank Weaver also revealed a further concern that had obviously been agitating London. This was a worry that the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, the new Port Welfare Committee, or the Merchant Navy Club, which at this stage was run by the Port Welfare Committee, could in some way gain “jurisdiction” over the Institute via the Sailors’ Home side of things. Frank Weaver didn’t quite say “poppycock”, but he certainly implied as much. The Local General Committee “is inviolate under the Ordinance”, so no outside body could tell it what to do. That he was “very much hurt by what appears to be the censure of the General Committee on my work and actions in the work here” was because he had umpteen things on his plate, not least sorting out the imbroglio over Local General Committee membership, caused in part by a combination of the bishop and London! The ordinance that governed these things — which London had forgotten to show to Frank Weaver — required London to appoint two members of the Local General Committee, one lay and one clerical. Unfortunately when Cecil Faulkner had been standing-in no one had remembered this, so London, on Bishop Hall’s advice, had appointed two clergymen. This had to be remedied, so Frank Weaver’s letter ran through the

14_Strong to Save.indd 239

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

240

Strong

to

Save

possibilities identifying as the best choices a Colonel H.B.L. Dowbiggin and, as the clergy representative a Reverend J.C.L. Wong. London did not back off. At that point the cat was finally let out of the bag, the worry was that the Local General Committee, thinking like Mr Knowles, wanted the Institute to serve alcohol. For should that happen then London would want to withdraw its chaplain and its flag from the Institute. That in turn led to London’s bottom line concern. If the Mission did act thus, could it recover the assets it had brought to the amalgamation? Frank Weaver was asked to get Hastings and Co. to give an answer.48 The answer was clear enough, holding that given the particular structure of the Local General Committee and its history, even in the event of a majority vote in favour of the Institute serving alcohol, if your representatives on the Committee opposed the alterations and

representations were made to the Governor-in-Council that such an

alteration was against the principles of the Missions to Seamen it is unlikely approval would be obtained.

On the matter of the money, the comfort was less clear since, in the view of Hastings and Co., the matter of the distribution of assets would have to go to arbitration because “as matters stand at present neither party has a legal right to the return of assets.”49 In early 1949, what seemed to be shaping up was another example of papering over the cracks. The Hong Kong Local General Committee stood solidly behind London in declaring that the Institute would remain temperance, whether it stayed in Wan Chai or, as at this point seemed very likely because government seemed to be trying to push the swap forward, moved across the harbour. This was in a sense bizarre. For at the same time, wearing his other hat as chairman of the newly formed Port Welfare Committee, Frank Weaver was pushing ahead with completing and opening a new, Merchant Navy Club and Sports Ground, which was licensed to serve alcohol. More odd still, in short order for want of any other way

14_Strong to Save.indd 240

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Recovery

and the

Dawning

of a

New World

241

forward, the Institute would soon take management responsibility for this new outfit, no matter that in doing so it was contravening its own temperance beliefs. As we shall see, this solution was merely delaying a decision that was sooner or later going to have to be made. At the same time as all that was going on, the dark financial clouds were, if not going away, at least lifting. An appeal for financial aid to shipping companies had raised HK$48,209.59. In the circumstances, that was remarkably encouraging. At the same time, it appeared, the Port Welfare Committee was very likely to provide additional aid, though as we shall see in the next chapter, this turned out to be a twoedged sword. It brought to the surface another problem, a new variant on inter-mission rivalry, which would become probably the most important issue for the next 20 years, if occasionally one that slipped out of focus. Meanwhile, other potential burdens on the slender thread of the Mission’s finances were relieved. London had agreed to continue paying Frank Weaver’s salary. More significant in terms of major capital costs that the Institute simply could not take on, London was also prepared to buy a new launch, though it required that the Institute retained the new vessel on the books as London’s property. The new Dayspring, to be called somewhat eccentrically Dayspring II, was launched at the end of May 1949 and on 30 May a service of dedication was held at Fenwick Pier with the blessing being given by Bishop Hall.50 Finally, there were two other encouraging signs. By the end of 1949 shipping had recovered almost to pre-war levels. And income from operations had received a double fillip. In early January 1949 government asked the Institute to provide a home for refugees fleeing the climax of the civil war in China. Government took over the whole second floor for them and although they were evidently “a problem”, the Institute got a steady income. That charitable windfall lasted until October when the last of the refugees, always in any case only in transit, moved out. To fill the income gap another windfall promptly

14_Strong to Save.indd 241

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

242

Strong

to

Save

appeared, when the Royal Navy asked the Institute to accommodate 140 of its sailors, almost all locally enlisted personnel.51 This steady trade was to last until 1951 and rescued the Institute from an even worse financial plight. In October 1949, Frank Weaver revealed that he had been having health problems. He asked to be allowed to leave Hong Kong after just under three years in post, handing over to his successor, an experienced Missions chaplain, the 35-year-old Reverend William Haig Brown. Haig Brown arrived on 10 December, missing his departing brother, Superintendent R.S. Haig Brown of the Hong Kong Police, who had retired and left Hong Kong a short while before. Less than a month later, on 6 January 1950, Frank Weaver left on the Glengyle.52 William Haig Brown was to face significant challenges.

14_Strong to Save.indd 242

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Part IV

Adapting to a New World

15_Strong to Save.indd 243

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

15_Strong to Save.indd 244

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

15

The New World Dawns

he 1950s and 1960s were a difficult period in which to reconstitute the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute and prepare it for the future. They were years during which, although unmistakably in the air, the full socio-political consequences of the Second World War in the Pacific theatre had not fully made themselves felt socially, economically, or politically. They were years during which the impending and massive revolution in global shipping foreshadowed by the technical advances and economic changes of the war years seemed to make little progress. To the observer of the day it may almost have seemed that the Mission’s main task was to resume business as had been usual in the interwar period.1 In Hong Kong itself any sense of a new world was at best had only by a few. In standard accounts the scope and pace of change seem significant, even radical.2 Yet to the casual glance on the ground at the time nothing will seem greatly to have changed. Colonial rule was reimposed. Expatriate status and privileges seemed the same and prewar racial prejudices seemed only a little altered.3 Chinese people still did most of the work for a fraction of the money. The few lived in spacious luxury. The many lived in crowded penury. Down on the waterfront ships seemed much what they had been for most of the 20th century. Middling sized breakbulk ships were the norm. A fast turnaround meant four days to a week in port and the labour of a large gang of stevedores; “the typical breakbulk freighter required six work gangs each of eighteen men a week to unload”.4 For

15_Strong to Save.indd 245

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

246

Strong

to

Save

many ships on a standard turnaround a port stay could be longer.5 The steam ship still dominated the waterfront, albeit increasingly oil-fired rather than coal-fired, although the amount of coal kept in stock for bunkering was still 1,000 tons in the 1960s.6 Large ship’s crews of 40 and more were still structured in the old ways: many cooks, stewards and storekeepers; large engine room crews of firemen and oilers. Lascars and Chinese seafarers, who provided the bulk of such crew on most British and Norwegian flagged ships calling in Hong Kong,7 were still employed under Asiatic Articles despite their struggles to gain parity during wartime.8 These struggles had even had the temporary, if perverse effect in some shipping lines that the proportion of western sailors aboard their ships in the late 1940s and early 1950s actually increased, though not for long. Ships’ officers were almost exclusively European and for much of Hong Kong’s merchant fleet were kept that way, at least for the most senior posts, by British flag requirements. These in turn rested on the system of certification run by Britain’s Ministry of Transport, restricted to British, Commonwealth, and British colonial citizens, which had long been administered in Hong Kong by the Harbour Master’s Office, newly titled the Marine Department.9 The system dated back to the 19th century and had changed little in the requirements for sea time and examinations. One of the mainstays of demand for residential accommodation in the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute over the years, and the main user of its “Navigation School”, had been preparation for ‘sitting one’s ticket’. Meanwhile, as any intimations of a new order dawning that were perceived as threatening were routinely squelched, Hong Kong was being pummelled by changes and events that made steering any sort of steady course for the Institute extremely difficult. There were massive local social changes brought about by the ending of the civil war in China with the resultant surge in Hong Kong’s population. These led to radical new directions for the local economy. Amongst these was the beginning of a generation of decline for the long-

15_Strong to Save.indd 246

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

The New World Dawns

247

established dockyards.10 There was also the onset of cold war and of postcolonial warfare in Southeast and East Asia that would last for a generation and have significant effects on shipping. For Hong Kong, the anti-colonial episodes began with the First Indochina War (1946–1952), during which French naval vessels occasionally visited Hong Kong for what later became known as R&R — a term that with the Vietnam War in the 1960s became closely associated with Hong Kong.11 The same was true of the still very large US naval presence in Asian waters, despite the major US naval bases in occupied Japan and in the Philippines. Just four years later the Korean War (1950–1953) began, with the consequent huge deployment of allied armed forces, amongst them large numbers of British, Commonwealth, American, and other allied forces naval vessels. Although Hong Kong was not in the front line, it was Britain’s forward staging area for ground troops, as well as the forward base for naval forces.12 The 1950s were also coincident with the 1948–60 Malayan Emergency that, although it did not directly impact Hong Kong, nonetheless ensured a significant British naval presence in Southeast Asia with regular redeployments of ships to the colony. This was followed, 1963–66, by the Malaysia-Indonesia struggle, mainly in Borneo, known by its Bahasa Malay name Konfrontasi, with much the same effect.13 All these conflicts ensured that during the 1950s and 60s, despite the closure of the naval dockyard in 1959, there was a large presence of British, Commonwealth, and American naval personnel for the most part arriving and leaving their ships within a stone’s throw of the Institute.14 Finally, the immediate post-war surge in shipping, which had resulted in Frank Weaver declaring that shipping was all but back to pre-war levels proved something of an illusion. Volumes were less than two thirds of pre-war levels when, with the founding of the People’s Republic, China’s ports were progressively either closed or subject to limited access. Only in 1957 did shipping actually get back

15_Strong to Save.indd 247

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

248

Strong

to

Save

to pre-war levels and begin the heady expansion of the 1960s and 1970s.15 In Britain, with its many charitable bodies aimed at helping seafarers, both lay and religious, the founding of the British Council for the Welfare of the Mercantile Marine and of King George’s Fund for Sailors (1917) had been early, if not always effective responses. However, building on major policy shifts occasioned by the First World War, they had laid the foundations of the tremendous further move in Britain towards central organization mediated by the state that the Second World War had occasioned. In post-Second World War Hong Kong, these would become live issues because for the first time since the establishment of the Missions to Seamen, its comparatively exclusive position was to come under threat and, for a time at least, though less obviously, the whole presumption that the welfare of seafarers could or should be left in the hands of religiously based organizations was also in question.

*** Meanwhile, the cumulative result of the various forces in play in the late 1940s and 1950s in Hong Kong was that the old pattern of patronage of the Institute, in which the bulk of recurrent income came from Royal Naval and to a lesser extent other British services personnel continued. It followed that although moving to Kowloon was the obvious stratagem as far as increasing the Institute’s accessibility to merchant jacks was concerned, simple economics argued in favour of the status quo. Indeed this was a powerful argument because even with such steady patronage and its resident 100 plus naval ratings, the Institute was losing money. A long report in February 1951 revealed that the Institute’s overdraft had climbed from HK$219,392.40 on 30 September 1950 to HK$240,672.10 on the last day of the year. The implication of this was spelled out the next week by the Local General Committee’s treasurer, when a follow-up noted that in 1950 the Institute had lost HK$30,000 on operations and had had to spend HK$60,000 on maintenance.16

15_Strong to Save.indd 248

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

The New World Dawns

249

Although it soon became apparent that there was far too much work for William Haig Brown alone to handle, even with a resident lay reader to help (as was the case from 1952), London refused to make Hong Kong a “two chaplain” station, almost certainly on financial grounds, despite a recommendation to that end from the Local General Committee. Indeed the whole money worry had become significant enough fairly soon after Haig Brown’s arrival, and the decision by the Local General Committee to be responsible for his salary, that the committee had seriously addressed the possibility of “getting the local Government to pay (the chaplain’s) full salary for them thereby making (the chaplain) a Civil Servant, under Old Jolly, as official Port Chaplain.” Both Haig Brown and London saw in that idea a very lurid red flag. As Haig Brown put it, now that London have [sic] severed all connection by not paying any of my salary, and having no one here actually on their books…this has

given the Committee rather the whip hand I feel if they chose to be really independent.17

The resulting complex and taxing environment, in a context in which the work demanded of him was on an upward spiral, added to having his leave delayed by a full year, probably pushed William Haig Brown too far. William Haig Brown’s chaplaincy lasted from December 1949 until October 1956. It is not made clear in the record why he left though we know it was both sudden and unplanned. The probable culprits were accumulated stress and illness. These resulted from overwork, a bout of malaria and, perhaps, the harrowing consequences of the murder of his stenographer, 22-year-old Miss Evelyn Fung Wai-ling, after she had left a film show run in the Institute.18 The stress came from a variety of causes. The frustrations generated by the recognized need to move from Wan Chai to Tsim Sha Tsui, yet the inability successfully to push the project forward against obstacles of one sort or another. This was allied to continuing, unresolved (and in some respects perhaps unresolvable) tensions

15_Strong to Save.indd 249

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

250

Strong

to

Save

between the religious and secular roles the combined institution played, and the consequent “two hats” of its Local General Committee, with the chaplain never quite sure where the balance of opinion — and power — would rest. Indirectly related to the previous issue, was the sudden challenge to the rather complacent hegemony of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen from a new, energized Roman Catholic Apostleship of the Sea in the context of the other problems. Finally, and itself yet another aspect of the tension between the sacred and secular “missions” with which the institution was charged, came the consequences of an insistence on temperance in the context of a much changed and more liberal mindset, not to mention the Institute’s own involvement in running a seafarers’ bar. To begin with, because in many ways it was the focus around which much else orbited, we can turn to the problem of the location of the post-war Institute. William Haig Brown graphically expressed the extent of the problem in the first of his few surviving reports to London, (The Institute is) the most horrible of dumps with the exception of the really fine flat at my disposal, and the super view that it commands, but

it completely lacks any soul, it looks (but is not) filthy dirty, and very

forbidding with its war paint still on. It lacks all the amenities of a friendly mission and it is hopelessly misplaced miles from the ships.19

The sense that the best place for an Institution catering for the welfare of seafarers was probably in Tsim Sha Tsui goes back almost to the earliest days of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong. What would appear constantly to have stood in the way of concrete action, at least as far as the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute was concerned would have been the perennial wish to be where the focus of colony life was, not in the Kowloon boondocks — it would not be until two decades or more post-war that the territory’s centre of demographic gravity moved across the harbour. That line of thought no doubt helped enhance the perception of the difficulties in acquiring

15_Strong to Save.indd 250

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

The New World Dawns

251

land from government. It may also have affected perceptions of how to resolve the tension between rival sources of income and patronage as between the personnel of the Royal Navy and the merchant service. The naval personnel were British, white, mostly Church of England and in the naval dockyard area on Hong Kong Island next door to the existing Institute. The crew of merchantmen were of multiple nationalities,20 were more likely to be clustered on the west side of the Tsim Sha Tsui peninsula or were otherwise scattered throughout the western and eastern mooring areas and anchorages. In addition, they were not only overwhelmingly unlikely to be adherents of the Church of England, but were for the most part probably not even Christians. Even the most active Mission chaplain had faced and was continuing to face much harder work finding his flock or potential flock amongst the merchantmen in port, as against the comparative simplicity of also being an adjunct welfare service to the personnel of the British forces mostly based next door. For that, of course, premises on Hong Kong Island continued to make more sense than having them on Tsim Sha Tsui, despite the fact that moving across the harbour may have increased patronage by merchant jacks. The additional element here harks back to the tension we have observed between the bias to secular provision apparently favoured by government, and at least some of both the Hong Kong shipping community and members of the Local General Committee post-war. From the Missions’ point of view this was not desirable and the result had been to consider dis-amalgamation, with the Mission returning to solely a chaplaincy role, perhaps working out of a dedicated seafarers’ church or chapel with a small, non-residential Institute attached. But that this course of action was contemplated was because of the new support for more robust and extensive provision of secular facilities that had emerged from the establishment of the Port Welfare Committee and its creation of the Merchant Navy Club and Sports Ground. London and the Hong Kong diocese both sensed that the

15_Strong to Save.indd 251

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

252

Strong

to

Save

weight of work in seafarers’ welfare was shifting away from any sort of focus on the core, spiritual mission. The new Merchant Navy Club had been so successful that shortly after he had arrived William Haig Brown had written to London noting, “I find all my shore work is done by the Merchant Navy Club, to which the men flock in the Kowloon area, and as this is fitted with a super sports ground attached it is a very valuable asset indeed.” But at the same time, this new and successful venue also placed in high relief the problem of the Institute being in the wrong place, “…with the additional work of the M.N. Club, which is the hub around which we can work on shore, I find it completely impossible to touch more than the surface of the many ships that come into this port.”21 At this point the existing hope of moving the main Institute closer to the centre of merchant marine life by completing the swap with the Hong Kong Police was quashed. The “swap” was turned down by the Local General Committee because “on inspection the Kowloon site was found to be too large.” Looking back from the vantage point of the 21st century and the known fate of a building with the longest continuous association with Hong Kong’s maritime world apart from Tian Hou temples, this decision has an air of tragedy. That left William Haig Brown with his main problem unsolved, though with the robust good cheer with which he greeted every setback, he noted that he and the Local General Committee were now enquiring about “a most attractive area situated south of the Kowloon Police Building and adjacent to Salisbury Road, and having an access path leading from the Kowloon Fire Station.”22 The motive for this continuing quest remained everyone’s professed conviction that the Institute should be relocated. Despite Haig Brown’s optimism and the committee’s resolution on the move, however, the possibility of the “most attractive area” promised in 1950 evaporated. A year later, after a refurbishment of the Wan Chai premises had been undertaken and the financial situation become dire, government “promised … an excellent site on

15_Strong to Save.indd 252

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

The New World Dawns

253

Chatham Road when the troops vacated the site.” At that point, since there was no money, nothing concrete on offer and any chance of the new site was obviously going to depend on the end of the Korean War and the running down of British Army requirements — and who could tell when that might be? — the Local General Committee gave up and decided to shelve the pending move for the time being.23 It is clear from the archives that efforts were made in every direction possible to try to get on top of the massive indebtedness of the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute, of what looked like a continuing mismatch between costs and income and of the desperate need for more hands on deck. London was constantly badgered, if to little avail. Haig Brown resorted to local fundraising, but in his own words, …the Hong Kong Chaplain now reports with sincere regret (in the light of

his experience in ports in Britain and Europe) that he has never before

met such complete apathetic indifference and lack of friendliness to the Seafarers as is shown locally.24

The chairman of the Local General Committee, David Landale, decided that the answer was government. So he wrote a letter to the colonial secretary setting out clearly the straits the Institute was in and how little — despite Sir Alexander Grantham’s statement that what was being done was “not enough” — government had done to help. He recapped his previous effort in 1948, reminding Mr Nicoll that in the financial secretary’s reply, the Institute had been told to apply to the new Port Welfare Committee.25 It had done. But the Port Welfare Committee couldn’t really help since government had only ever once given it any money when, in January 1949, it handed over HK$50,000. The record does not reveal any of the behind-the-scenes activity that may — or may not — have been going on. But the next mention of the PWC in July 1951 indicates that the HK$50,000 from government had in some way been a “seed” grant and that if the PWC set out to raise additional funds of, for example, HK$25,000, then these would be

15_Strong to Save.indd 253

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

254

Strong

to

Save

met dollar for dollar.26 The proposal on the table was therefore argued to be one whereby all charitable fundraising for seafarers’ welfare would cease being carried out by a multiplicity of individual charitable organizations. Instead the PWC would be the sole fundraiser and whatever it raised in any year, government would match the result dollar for dollar and the funds would subsequently be handed over as deemed best to the various seafarers’ welfare organizations.27 At this point the beginnings of what later became a bone of contention between the Institute and the recently created Hong Kong Roman Catholic mission to seafarers, the Apostleship of the Sea, become apparent. This was that the PWC was proposing “the possibility…of handing over the Merchant Navy Sports Club [sic] to the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute.” It seemed on the face of it a fairly sensible way forward since, as Haig Brown pointed out, the Institute had actually been running the club single-handedly for two years, although as an unofficial “helping hand” rather than being formally contracted to the task. It had supplied and managed the club’s staff, used the Institute comprador for purchasing and had run and maintained the grounds, as well as organized all the pitch bookings and matches, of which in 1951 there were to be some 200.28 A follow-up letter reveals just how much behind-the-scenes work must have been going on to get to this point. Sensibly William Haig Brown had decided he could not manage being chair of the PWC given the other work he had to do, so he had stepped down. However he had not done so, shall we say, in an entirely disinterested spirit. As the chair, he noted, he had not been able to vote. So, with some quick footwork, when he stepped down he had made sure that his replacement not only was a voting chairman, but was a staunch supporter of the Institute. The result had been — one can hear the chortle of glee in the letter — that the Institute had been granted HK$71,000.29 Clearly the same gerrymandered PWC had in addition to deal with a new issue related to the Merchant Navy Club and Sports Ground (in

15_Strong to Save.indd 254

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

The New World Dawns

255

time this became abbreviated to Merchant Navy Sports Club, hereafter MNSC). From the outset the club had been assumed by everyone to have been not just the responsibility of the PWC but owned by it. However, at some point in the late summer of 1951 government took another look and decided this was ultra vires. It issued the edict that the PWC was only an advisory body. That meant it had no legal powers to organize or run anything at all. The PWC could retain the title deeds and licences of the club, but would have to formally hand over the actual running to a body properly constituted to engage in such activities. The result had been the proposal for the Institute to take over the MNSC. On the face of it this was doing what made practical sense since it would be continuing an arrangement that had proved to work. However, as William Haig Brown put it in the letter, “The problem of the Merchant Navy Sports Club…might be a bit thorny.” It would rapidly prove to be so in two ways. One was a domestic problem for the Institute itself. For here it was, ostensibly dedicated to being a temperance organization, resolutely refusing to serve alcohol in its Wan Chai premises. Meanwhile, on the other side of the harbour at the MNSC, the very same Institute was responsible for running a popular and very successful bar. Haig Brown was quite happy with this provided “cosmetic” separations were maintained between the two operations. And he was so, letting the cat out of the bag because,30 If our Committee fails to run the Sports Club as the Managers of the Port

Welfare Committee, the latter will have no alternative but to hand over to Apostolatus Maris, who are anxious for a club and intend to build on the back of the premises a Hostel from the Club profits AND SO CUT US OUT FOR GOOD ON THE KOWLOON SIDE, AS WE WOULD THEN BE REDUNDANT [emphasis in the original].

15_Strong to Save.indd 255

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

16

Cross-Currents

n early 1950s Hong Kong, a new player appeared: the Apostleship of the Sea. Also known by its Latin name of Apostolatus Maris, the Apostleship was a relative newcomer to the calling of a mission to seafarers and an absolute newcomer in Hong Kong. In Chapter 10 we noted that whilst missionary work in the Roman Catholic Church was of great antiquity, its interest in a specific mission to seafarers dates only from the final decade of the 19th century, and a formal seafarers’ mission organization only from the 1920s. However, when finally the Apostleship opened its own first harbour-side premises on Canton Road in Tsim Sha Tsui in 1964, Father Patrick Cunningham SJ, the then Apostleship chaplain recalled,1 …before the war (the Apostleship) had a large club and office of what is

now the car park of St. Joseph’s church, Garden Road, for the Apostleship has been at work on behalf of Chinese and other seamen and their families since 1931.

That the story had substance is reflected in a quite separate and much earlier recollection by Father Pelly SJ, the first official Apostleship chaplain in Hong Kong. He was talking to the St Thomas More Society on 16 December 1948 after his appointment and mentioned that the Apostleship “was first established in 1937, and flourished till the War in the Seamen’s Club attached to St. Joseph’s Church.”2 Diocesan records would seem to indicate that in the early 20th century the Society of St Vincent de Paul, a prominent Roman

16_Strong to Save.indd 256

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Cross-Currents

257

Catholic charitable organization, had made ship visits and did concern itself with Roman Catholic seafarers’ welfare.3 However none of the regular newspaper reports of the society’s socially prominent annual fundraising fair in the pre-war period ever mentions any work for sailors, so whatever did occur must have been extremely small scale.4 It is not unduly surprising that it was not until July 1948 that Bishop Valtorta felt himself able to act.5 In a letter to the secretary general of the Apostleship of the Sea, Mr Arthur Gannon, the bishop, noting a long-felt wish to have been able to do something more organized for seafarers, formally declared that the Jesuit fathers in Hong Kong had agreed to act for the Apostleship.6 They had “detailed” Father Michael Cornelius Pelly SJ to become, in effect, the first Roman Catholic seafarer’s chaplain in Hong Kong.7 Father Pelly’s first moves once appointed were primarily aimed at both understanding the magnitude of the task he faced, setting up the formal organization of the Apostolate in Hong Kong, and finding a base. The first task ran hand-in-hand with the day-to-day job; the arduous work of ship and hospital visiting, for which it was not until 1952 that a launch — the first Stella Maris — and a car were acquired. The second task, recruiting lay helpers, including a special sub-committee of the Catholic Women’s League, and getting the formal organization set up, was not completed in October 1952, when the inaugural meeting of the Hong Kong Council of the AOS was held.8 The third was to prove a headache and one not fully solved until, in 1969, the ecumenical mission was founded in the Mariners’ Club. One major problem that Father Pelly faced resulted from the bureaucratic rules of the Port Welfare Committee on the one hand and the comparative slowness in getting the Apostolate of the Sea formally established on the other. For, until the Apostolate was a fully organized service, it had little standing with the PWC and hence no access to whatever central maritime welfare funding there might be. Once the AOS became formally established and had joined the PWC, however, Father Pelly was catapulted straight into the fray where the

16_Strong to Save.indd 257

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

258

Strong

to

Save

new government involvement in seafarers’ welfare was concerned. For it was to that committee, as he worked out the new Apostolate’s needs, that he looked both as a source of funding and for help in finding what, rightly, he felt he most needed: a shore base from which to do his work and to which to welcome Catholic seafarers. In both respects the Apostolate drew the short straw. The PWC’s HK$50,000 was split in what seemed an almost dismissive ratio of 46:4, whilst not only had the PWC not supported the Apostolate in pursuing an offer of a site for a club by government, the apparent “plum” of the MNSC with its space for development and lucrative bar was to be handed over to the organization that, unlike the Apostolate, not only already had a large premises but to add insult to injury was temperance! It is hard for us in the more latitudinarian, ecumenical 21st century to recall, leave alone sympathetically understand, the prejudices of earlier times. Yet to understand the tribulations of the immediate post-war Institute in its work at the MNSC, over public funding for seafarers’ welfare and over the proper division of these things as between the established Missions to Seamen, the relative newcomer in the Apostolate, or any other claimant,9 we need to remember the extent to which in the late 1940s and early 1950s Hong Kong’s Christian community was divided. No sooner had the proposals to centralize charitable fundraising for seafarers and to hand over the operation of the MNSC to the Institute been put forward than Michael Pelly swung into action to ensure that his new fledged organization would have its “share” of the port welfare turf. He typed a toughly argued three-page letter to the chairman of the Port Welfare Committee expressing his point of view and requesting that the letter be circulated to the committee’s membership.10 Father Pelly’s explicit concern was that if the PWC was to be the central fundraiser and subsequent source of funds, then it had to be organized in such a way as to ensure an equitable handling of all issues. Implicit here, obviously, was the thought that as it was actually constituted and run, the PWC was nothing of the sort.

16_Strong to Save.indd 258

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Cross-Currents

259

Dealing with that tacit undercurrent, Father Pelly argued for much greater transparency — and some clear rules — with respect to the allocation of funds and any other largesse. He stated that the principle of the PWC’s decision should be “equity only”, whereby allocations should be based solely on the merits of applications and not on an annual haggling exercise. He went on to say that, in short, the MNSC should not simply be handed over to the Missions to Seamen, but instead offered to AOS because, unlike the Missions to Seamen, it not only had no home but had no qualms about running a bar. Back in London the on-the-ground turf war building in Hong Kong seemed less of a concern than what London saw as a much larger threat to the practices of the Mission hitherto in such bodies as the Merchant Navy Welfare Board and, by extension, the PWC. As Cyril Brown put it in a confidential letter to William Haig Brown, “we may be at the beginning of a period of transition, leading in years to come to a voluntary or enforced withdrawal from our welfare commitments.” The reason for this, he made crystal clear, was “our ‘dry’ policy” that had recently been reaffirmed by the Missions to Seamen’s General Committee. It followed that taking on responsibility for the MNSC was problematic, independent of the AOS challenge, because in Cyril Brown’s view, sooner or later London would balk. He agreed that if the Institute was to take on management of the MNSC, the Flying Angel flag must not be flown and, he went on to advise, a quite separate management committee would have to be formed from the Local General Committee and include neither of the Mission nominees.11 William Haig Brown’s reply argued robustly that he saw no signs of any rift in the Local General Committee and that if the Institute didn’t take on the MNSC “the Missions to Seamen will merely be a redundant body” because, by implication, the Apostleship would step in, collar the MNSC with its much desired Tsim Sha Tsui site and in short order be the place for merchant seamen to congregate.12 It was at this time that a site next to the Institute in Wan Chai had

16_Strong to Save.indd 259

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

260

Strong

to

Save

apparently become earmarked for government purposes. According to the Mission archive, in fact no government building was ever built on the site and it was put up for sale. The China Fleet Club was by this time planning to bid for the site (which they successfully did), but the Institute’s Local General Committee chairman thought that the Institute should raise the funds “to purchase the land and build a Roman Catholic chapel and Bar.” In short, whip the rug from under Father Pelly’s feet by providing what he wanted where it was no threat because it was right alongside the Institute. William Haig Brown went on to note, however, that although he may have mentioned this plan informally, the chairman didn’t express that view in the meeting that discussed the issue. By this time the Local General Committee chairman was John Keswick. “It must be noted”, William Haig Brown commented in parenthesis, “that his wife is a very ardent RC.” Denominational name calling aside, the key point was that John Keswick “feels that the Missions to Seamen is not doing a full job without supplying a beer bar.” It was a problem that would continue to be ducked for a few years, but was not going to go away. For the next two years everything seemed to settle down. The AOS operation finally settled in the Catholic Centre in the King’s Building in Central, although Father Pelly had resigned because his health had suffered from the intense work. An unofficial member of the Legislative Council, the Honourable Charles Edward Michael Terry, a businessman-cum-part time civil servant, took his place on the PWC. The AOS still faced an uphill struggle fully to establish itself. Its inauguration on 20 October 1952 had been with some fanfare, with the presence of Archbishop Riberi, apostolic nuncio, who also blessed the newly acquired car and launch. Sadly the funding for this level of activity could not be sustained. With the absence of any central funding body and the church requirement that local communities finance their church, the demand to fund both parishes and charitable work meant that for the Hong Kong diocese money was tight. Equally, it seems, the diocese and the Jesuit order found it

16_Strong to Save.indd 260

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Cross-Currents

261

hard to allocate a priest fully and continuously to maritime mission work. The probable reasons in both cases were the steadily increasing pastoral responsibilities arising from Hong Kong’s rapidly increasing population, itself caused by the end of the civil war in China and the massive influx not only of refugees but, first as a trickle then a growing stream, the banished members of the Roman Catholic Church in China.13 The result for the Institute was that with the immediate rivalry over the MNSC losing thrust, tensions seemed to disappear and, via simultaneously running both MNSC and the Wan Chai premises, the Institute continued to receive the lion’s share of the c.HK$150,000 the PWC had to disburse.14

*** By the middle of 1953 the main issues for William Haig Brown and the Institute were domestic and focussed on the problems that had arisen from the solutions to his problem of overwork that had first been put in place during 1952. This was the vexed relationship between the Mission senior chaplain and his lay counterpart or — and this was the nub — subordinate. The archives at this point give us no clue as to exactly what happened, but we do know that during the tenure of William Valentine Field (in post 1940–51) an effort had been made — unsuccessfully — to establish what had become the de facto pecking order in the Institute management structure; namely the senior chaplain as captain of the ship. With “wicked old Field” there had apparently been an attempt to designate his job as the more obviously subordinate role of steward, as had been the case pre-war with Mr Watt. Evidently it had not worked and he had stuck his heels in as we know from a 1946 newspaper story referring to him as the manager.15 It would seem that there was a brief hope that perhaps with Mr Field’s departure his replacement might be happy to accept some lesser designation.16 In Mr Field’s place came the very experienced Mr J.W. Hawkins. Having a professional hotel manager to get a grip on things whose

16_Strong to Save.indd 261

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

262

Strong

to

Save

English was presumably fluent must have been a relief for William Haig Brown although, as it turned out, the problems of exactly who was captain of the Institute ship had not in fact been solved. It seems — at least from William Haig Brown’s 1952 annual report of which abstracts appeared in the local newspaper, that at least initially Mr Hawkins accepted the title of steward although by the date of his departure in 1962, he was being referred to as the manager.17 Clearly the issues were as ever being glossed over by the fortunate working relationship that Mr Hawkins and William Haig Brown had achieved. Help on the religious side had also arrived in January 1952 in the shape of Mr M.K. Beacham, the first post-war lay reader and, briefly, a Mrs Haines, styled the lady warden, who appears to have been a temporary experiment that was primarily a product of Mrs Haines being between engagements, as it were.18 If Mr Hawkins was an apparent success, Mr Beacham was less so. Exactly what his real shortcomings were is not apparent. Given the prejudices of the day one is left with a strong suspicion, fomented by a comment by Cyril Brown, on a fact-finding visit towards the end of 1952, that Mr Beacham’s main problem was that he wasn’t quite “one of us”, that is, a subscribing member of the “officer” class. Worse, in an Institute still very much geared to servicing the Royal Navy, he apparently didn’t like the Senior Service; Cyril Brown opining because Beacham’s own period of naval service had not been “a good experience.”19 By April 1953, despite celebrations for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II being part of the year’s schedule, William Haig Brown was anxious to get rid of his lay reader. Headquarters in London was planning to move Mr Beacham to work as reader in Immingham. Mr Beacham himself, meanwhile, rather fancied staying in Hong Kong and running the MNSC. Matters were finally resolved, after a rapid exchange of letters supported by a helpful one from the PWC saying they couldn’t afford to pay more than a part-time salary for running the MNSC, with Mr Beacham leaving — though it is not clear whither

16_Strong to Save.indd 262

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Cross-Currents

263

or exactly when. His replacement, Mr J.R. Taylor, arrived in September 1953 and within short order had presented London and William Haig Brown with another headache. There had been some minor worry that Mr Taylor, very much someone hand-picked by London, would be wholly in accord with the Missions’ temperance policy and might therefore balk at spending half his time running the MNSC. The problem rapidly turned out to be quite different. Mr Taylor swiftly proved to be quite happy to run the MNSC and even happier to be paid HK$300 a month to do so. The reason — and the cause of the perturbations — was that Mr Taylor’s salary as the Institute’s reader was GBP£300 a year, or HK$417.50 a month. So by being simultaneously paid by the PWC to supervise a bar and sports ground on the secular side and by the Mission to minister to the spirit, Mr Taylor was onto a very good thing. Since Mrs Taylor was a competent and qualified secretary and had quickly found work, and the Taylors were provided with free accommodation and utilities, they were, in London’s eyes near to serving both God and Mammon and being very comfortable in doing so.20 Having in a sense created the problem, London promptly pushed their worries in Hong Kong’s direction. Was the bishop comfortable, a query ran, that a lay reader licensed by him should be running a bar?21 The bishop, rather sensibly, seems not to have replied. Perhaps that was because he was aware that, if William Haig Brown was not much impressed with his new help as, later, he was to indicate was the case, he was in desperate need of assistance. By the date of Cyril Brown’s letter the senior chaplain had been hospitalized with a stomach ulcer and there was clearly no case at all for creating more strain and stress by upsetting the apple cart. Indeed the urgency of the need for yet more help for the burgeoning work of the Institute was to provoke one of the most unusual episodes in William Haig Brown’s seven-year chaplaincy. This too had part of its roots in what it would not be unfair at this point to label the incipient rivalry between the Sailors’ Home

16_Strong to Save.indd 263

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

264

Strong

to

Save

and Missions to Seamen and the Apostleship of the Sea and the need that both churches felt to start pulling together in the common cause of seafarers’ welfare.

*** When Father Pelly had been forced to give up his chaplaincy

and return home to Ireland his place was taken, if briefly, by Father George N. Gilligan MM, an American member of the Maryknoll Mission. Now we have noted above how the Korean War had created a tremendous increase in the number of naval vessels visiting Hong Kong, amongst them ships of the US Navy. Both Roman Catholic and Anglican churches had noted how touts from Wan Chai were proving extremely skilful in leading sailors straight from their liberty boats via overpriced souvenir shops to the fleshpots…and worse. Once in the grip of their affable, if rapacious “hosts”, the young seafarers were lost and their potential saviours powerless.22 This problem had been exacerbated when, at some point in 1953, the landing point for US Navy liberty men was officially redirected from Blake Pier in Central to Fenwick Pier, in Wan Chai, right opposite the Mission and used by its launch Dayspring II. Quite why this had happened is not clear, though ever “keep sailors at arm’s length” Hong Kong attitudes, which will not have wanted hordes of USN libertymen using the main public pier is the obvious reason. On the other hand, given publicly expressed concerns in maritime and church circles about Wan Chai’s red light district, the choice of Fenwick Pier betrays either a remarkably naive faith in the power of the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute to attract the sailors to temperance rectitude, carelessness, or indifference. Both Bishop Hall on the Anglican side and Father Gilligan of the Roman Catholics had become concerned at the absence of any system to help US sailors avoid the honey traps dangled before their eyes as they stepped ashore. With the blessing of the US consul general, Mr Julian Fiske Harrington, they founded what became the Servicemen’s

16_Strong to Save.indd 264

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Cross-Currents

265

Guides Association, with bishops Hall and Bianchi as co-patrons and a committee formed of three Anglicans and three Roman Catholics.23 Mr Harrington’s sole stipulation in giving his support was that the association should be for the service personnel of all allied forces (in Korea), not just of the United States of America. The commissioner of police, Mr Duncan MacIntosh, sought a lease of Crown land at the head of Fenwick Pier to build a service centre. While that was in train, the new organization had to have somewhere to set up its shop, and that somewhere appeared to be the Institute, for “On (1 August, 1953) we set up our information desk in front of the Missions to Seamen.” It is clear from the Association’s narrative that William Haig Brown, “our genial host” was not a part of this new organization, albeit apparently happy to help out while they were waiting for their new premises to be completed.24 Between the lines here we can read a most anomalous situation. On the Wan Chai waterfront, using Fenwick Pier for its launch, was a long-standing institution ostensibly dedicated to the welfare of the seafarers of all nations, castes, and creeds, albeit with a bias towards the merchant marine. It was widely patronized by sailors from the Royal Navy. Across the water in Kowloon the same institution was running the secular MNSC, an extremely popular operation amongst merchant seafarers. Yet on its doorstep there was now being planned, by the Missions to Seamen’s diocesan bishop and the Roman Catholic Church, a supplementary service to cater for sailors from the US and other navies to protect them from the fleshpots that it was the calling of the temperance Institute to serve. As much to the point, this new initiative involved raising US$10,000 (HK$58,600) at a time when the Institute’s finances, whilst not as parlous as they had been two years previously, would evidently have greatly welcomed such a supplement.25 Not only that, but when the fundraising did not go exactly as planned, the shift to a wider range of potential donors occasioned the founding of a local Hong Kong branch

16_Strong to Save.indd 265

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

266

Strong

to

Save

of the Co-operative Committee for Ministry to American Service Personnel in the Far East through which to channel donations from multiple Protestant sources, but which would appear to have been wholly unrelated to Missions to Seamen funding. Put bluntly it is clear that whilst the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches at diocesan level could work together to serve the welfare of seamen, at this point in its history that same spirit of mutual support did not seem to be possible for the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. In fairness there will also have been Bishop Hall’s lively sense that William Haig Brown was stretched to his limits and beyond, and that to add to his slop chit the care of US Navy libertymen in the manner being planned would have taxed him too far. In December 1954, some 16 months after the Servicemen’s Guides Association had opened its shop near the Institute, William Haig Brown sent a long letter to Cyril Brown in London enclosing a second letter from the senior chaplain to the US consul general, Mr Harrington. Haig Brown’s letter outlined a proposal from the Local General Committee for solving the need for a second chaplain without additional cost. This was explained in the enclosure, which summarized for Mr. Harrington a meeting of three members of the Local General Committee — the senior chaplain, the new chairman, Mr Robin Gordon, and the Royal Navy’s Commodore A.H. Thorold — aboard HMS Alert. The committee invited Mr Harrington to move forward with a proposal for the US Navy to provide an Episcopalian chaplain to work as the Institute’s assistant chaplain.26 The argument was simple. As a result of the Servicemen’s Guides Association setting up shop outside the Institute and the US Navy libertymen being exclusively landed at Fenwick Pier, use of the Institute had gone up markedly. The existing Institute staff was stretched to cope with the additional “transient personnel” and had decided they would like a US Navy person “to act as (USN) host and advisor at our Institute: thus supplementing the splendid work of the Servicemen’s Guides.” It was the view of the Local General Committee

16_Strong to Save.indd 266

6/7/2017 6:39 PM

Cross-Currents

267

that the ideal person would be an Episcopalian padre from the US Navy sent on secondment and, preferably, a young, go-ahead, single man. A short time later William Haig Brown transcribed an exceedingly muddled, indeed almost incoherent telephone conversation he had with Bishop Hall on the matter that seems to have come down to simultaneously saying that someone, by inference an American, was coming from England, though to the cathedral and not actually to the Institute. However he would be able to help out at the Institute except on Sundays, when he would be taking services on US ships. And could the Institute put him up given that he was married with two children. One can sense William Haig Brown holding his head in his hands. The new association was from the outset ecumenical. There were volunteer Roman Catholic and Protestant chaplains and a link to Hong Kong’s Jewish community. By the 8 December 1953 there was a small building stretching 28 ft either side of the pier and, at 22 ft wide and cantilevered out 5 ft over the harbour, offering enough space for sailors to sit, the guides to set up their stall and for one half to serve as a snack bar. Not long afterwards, vehicles were available to conduct tours and the loan of a launch enabled the association to offer the same sort of launch trips and picnic as the Institute. In May 1955 the Servicemen’s Guides Association was incorporated as a limited company. The following year they employed their first full-time chaplain, a US Army Reserve Episcopalian, the Reverend Canon D.C. Means from Pennsylvania. Two years later, in 1957, as the Institute’s plan for a move to Kowloon was still marking time, the Association’s premises were expanded. As had the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission before it, this new and dynamic organization, the key Servicemen’s Guides Volunteers of which had spun themselves off into the American Women’s Association,27 had created for itself a niche market out of what would be, during the 1960s and 1970s, a major flow of foreign seafarers through Hong Kong.28 By the time the Servicemen’s Guides Association had reached its

16_Strong to Save.indd 267

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

268

Strong

to

Save

service speed, as minutes from London General Council meetings in early 1956 note, the business from US naval personnel was of major concern. Cyril Brown remarked in March that around 3,000 US naval personnel were landing at Fenwick Pier every evening.29 The additional burden this must have been imposing on Institute operations can readily be imagined. While the discussion over help for William Haig Brown had been going on and he had been coping with his onerous workload, he had also evidently reached out a helping hand to someone with what appeared to him greater problems. At some time towards the end of 1954, Miss Evelyn Fung Wai-ling, had come to work at the institute as William Haig Brown’s stenographer. Since 1953 she had been the girlfriend of a young, Hong Kong Eurasian soldier, James Richard Becker, working as a driver with the British Army’s Royal Army Service Corps. The relationship she was in was of the sort that, in the mid 1950s, would have been not just frowned upon by her family for its flouting of racial exclusivity, but generally disapproved of because, evidently, the young couple were occasionally spending time together in a hotel room. Worse, the relationship was obviously stormy and, now and then, had resulted in Miss Fung being the victim of violence. In the meantime she had got to know a young British soldier and frequenter of the Institute named Bowyer, with whom she had started spending time. At some point before 18 May 1955, she had taken a stand and let James Becker know their affair was over. He had seemed reluctant to accept this and on the 18th William Haig Brown had felt obliged to tell him that Miss Fung meant what she said and that he should make himself scarce. As far as everyone knew the senior chaplain’s words had been taken seriously. Miss Fung and her new beau then went to a film being shown that evening in the Institute. Unfortunately after the show was over and Mr Bowyer was escorting Miss Fung home, James Becker followed them and, at Miss Fung’s door, there was an altercation. Becker then followed

16_Strong to Save.indd 268

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Cross-Currents

269

Bowyer as he took a bus back to his barracks, had further words and informed Bowyer he was going back to have matters out with Miss Fung. Bowyer tried to warn Miss Fung, but by the time he got through on the telephone Becker had arrived and Bowyer could hear disturbing banging and crashing. Worried, he called the police but, in his confusion, gave the wrong address. The next morning Miss Fung’s body was found on a nearby hillside. She had been strangled. James Becker was soon arrested and at both his committal hearing in early July and at his trial at the end of August William Haig Brown had been obliged to take the stand. James Becker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death. He was hanged at Stanley on 20 November.30 For William Haig Brown, a regular at Stanley to visit jailed seafarers, of whom there was always one or two, who will have seen it as his pastoral duty to visit James Becker too, the burdens must have been terrible to bear. On top of that, although there is barely a trace in the archive either of the occasion or of any work that was undertaken to celebrate it, 1956 was the centenary year of the foundation of the Missions to Seamen. We know from various photographs that the Mission did celebrate the event. There are images of Dayspring II dressed overall and of the Mission in festal tenue with its very large, newly acquired model of a late 18th/early 19th century British first rate warship standing majestically over the entrance. A special programme on Radio Hong Kong — “Flying Angel” — was reported in the South China Sunday Post Herald in which, rather surprisingly, it mentions in passing that the Institute operated “three launches”.31 A special service was held in St John’s Cathedral “as part of a world wide observance of the Centenary of the Missions to Seamen”, as Bishop Hall noted at the opening of his sermon. Organizing the service, which involved buglers, a procession of 70 flags of the Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Merchant Navy, 64 shipping companies, the Sea Scouts, and Hong Kong Sea School as well as the Missions’ own flag, along with the presence of the governor and many other dignitaries must

16_Strong to Save.indd 269

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

270

Strong

to

Save

have been a major exercise.32 We also know that it was during 1956 that the Institute changed its public — though not its official — name. Out went the 26-year-old Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute and in came Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. Finally, to add gilt to the overburdened gingerbread, in the Mission’s archives is a passing reference to a film, Dayspring, that had been made during the early part of the year, presumably as part of the centenary celebrations, and by late March was already in London being processed.33 The Hong Kong files of the archives of the Mission to Seafarers for the period from late March 1955 until the same period in 1956 are barren of letters. Given that the search for an assistant chaplain seemed to have gone nowhere despite the increased workload thanks to the inflow of US naval personnel, the centenary and its high jinks, and the film Dayspring, we can imagine the enormous additional strain the trial of Ms Fung’s murderer will have put William Haig Brown under. When the file does resume a month after the centenary service, the first thing we learn is that William Haig Brown had been sick with malaria and had been in hospital while the chaplain from HMS Tamar stood in for him. It is clear that he was nearing the end of his tether. His letter warning of this was not just the perennial call for assistance, but by this point urgent. The reader, J.R. Taylor, was a plodder…active and keen but his enthusiasm is apt to wane at the slightest set back…(he) lacks interpersonal skills, isn’t interested in and knows nothing of ships, lives from day to day and doesn’t plan ahead well.

Joe Hawkins, the manager, though “loyal and quite beyond reproach” had gone off on long leave. The temporary manager, Findlay — an exschoolteacher and Presbyterian minister — was still working his way into his role. And above all there had been vast changes over the four years since Cyril Brown had last visited Hong Kong. The chaplain’s job had turned into that of an “Organizing Secretary” and “work among individuals is suffering…I see little of the ships; hospitals and gaol visits are my chief contacts these days.” Unless some sort of

16_Strong to Save.indd 270

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Cross-Currents

271

change could be managed, Haig Brown went on, he would not renew his contract and would leave. His own leave was by this time a year overdue and, with J.R. Taylor also leaving in June just as the summer heat had begun… In any language the letter was less a loud call for help and more a cry of distress. In a minute of the meeting of the General Council in May 1956 it was agreed that the Hong Kong senior chaplain was “under considerable nervous strain and (that) he must return to the United Kingdom at once on leave.” By 22 May he was on the SS Glengyle headed back to Britain. To fill the gap, an old Missions to Seamen hand and the actual superintendent (or second-in-command) in London, the Reverend J.E.C. (Elliott) Lawlor, volunteered to go out to Hong Kong and fill the gap for three months.34 Elliott Lawlor arrived in Hong Kong on 16 May, just a week before William Haig Brown embarked on the Glengyle. There was obviously some consternation when it sank in that it had been agreed that for doing this emergency service Elliott Lawlor was to be paid his full London salary and an additional Hong Kong stipend of £75 a month. By the time the dust had settled, what had actually transpired was that Hong Kong would bear the costs of Elliott Lawlor’s airfare and an allowance for tropical clothing. The salary was to be divided in the exact reverse of the initial agreement, with Hong Kong bearing 78% of the gross and London 22%.35 That change in fiscal responsibilities is an indication that at some point quite early on in the new dispensation it had become clear that William Haig Brown would not be resuming office. An additional pointer to this is that Elliott Lawlor was asked to extend his stay to cover the arrival of the new senior chaplain which was expected to take place in October. This he refused to do unless he could be joined by his wife, and his wife refused to join him unless their daughter could go to Hong Kong too. This was rather a costly arrangement and it is obvious from the flurry of minute notes that someone on the General Council — and maybe also in Hong Kong — was objecting.

16_Strong to Save.indd 271

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

272

Strong

to

Save

However it is equally clear that the headquarters administration felt it had no option since without Elliott Lawlor there would be no Mission presence in the Institute.36 We also learn at this point of a small innovation for Hong Kong and an earlier one back at headquarters. Back in 1952 Cyril Brown had written to Bishop Hall “to ask if in the near future (he) might be able to spare time for a discussion of ways in which the Missions to Seamen might work more effectively amongst the non-European seamen, especially those from South China?” Interestingly this was not about Hong Kong but London, where “on any day in the Royal Group of docks…there are three or four ships carrying Cantonese-speaking crews.” What London was interested in was whether Bishop Hall knew of anyone who could help. “If we had a priest or laymen on our Port of London staff who had a real command of Cantonese, contact might be made with these men.” Cyril Brown’s letter leaves it open whether this would be a westerner who could speak Cantonese or, which he evidently thought more sensible, “a Chinese priest or layman.”37 The Mission’s Hong Kong archival records have little more on this venture, though evidently Bishop Hall had taken up the challenge. After being recruited in Hong Kong and working his passage to London by sea in 1954 Peter Kao had arrived to work as a lay reader at the Missions to Seamen’s imposing, 20-year old Victoria Dock Road building that served the Port of London.38 It was the beginning of a long commitment. By the early 1960s Peter Kao had taken holy orders and become the Missions to Seamen’s first Chinese chaplain. But in early 1956 he returned to Hong Kong to be ordained and to work for a year at the Hong Kong Institute, due to William Haig Brown’s need for help and, as we shall see in the next chapter, the growing presence of Hong Kong Chinese seafarers in ships calling in Hong Kong. This proved a godsend because of William Haig Brown’s sudden departure. Early in 1956 Peter Kao began holding a service in Cantonese in St. Peter’s Chapel every Sunday.39 With William Haig Brown’s departure and the loss of the lay reader, J.D. Taylor, Peter Kao’s presence was

16_Strong to Save.indd 272

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Cross-Currents

273

singularly useful for Elliott Lawlor. In August he prevailed on London to allow Peter Kao to be temporarily employed in the Institute for two months after his leave expired on 10 September.40 Meanwhile, on 15 October a new reader, Mr G.E. West had arrived in post via Singapore and on 22 December 1956 William Haig Brown’s successor, Anthony Nind, arrived in Hong Kong.41

16_Strong to Save.indd 273

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

17

Sea Changes

he 12 years between the sudden departure of William Haig Brown and the equally — if very differently — unheralded departure of the Reverend Frank Roe in 1968 were extremely important to the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s long story in Hong Kong. Yet in many ways the most significant changes that would effect long-term developments do not seem, from the record, to have played much of a role in Mission thinking and planning. For the most part everything seems to have gone on much as it had in the past, with the aim — if not always in focus — continuing to be the need to leave Wan Chai and move to Tsim Sha Tsui and with the issues of other maritime missions and other matters responded to as ad hoc tactical decisions of the moment, rather than as part of grand strategy predicated on larger visions and designs. Perhaps the only apparent strategic consideration may have been a determination that whatever occurred with respect to relocating, the leadership role of the London based Missions to Seamen should be preserved. Out of that curious conjunction emerged a relocated and transformed organization that was able to enjoy what we might style the “glory years” of the 1970s and 1980s despite what enabled that glory not being on anyone’s radar during the crucial years when the future was being planned. Getting the Institute to the point where as the various pressures built it could benefit from the transformed worlds of shipping and Hong Kong, was evidently taxing work. Just looking at the uneven pattern of service of senior chaplains during the period that Wan Chai

17_Strong to Save.indd 274

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

275

moved towards closing and the new Mariners’ Club was planned, built, and opened is indicative. Over the 71 years from the arrival of Gurney Goldsmith until the departure of William Haig Brown, ten senior chaplains had served the Mission for an average of seven and a bit years of service. Four of them served nine years and more. Yet between 1956 and 1968 there were six senior chaplains, or an average period of service of just two years. Only one of them during the period served for a normal tour of duty. Of the rest, three could reasonably be seen as stopgaps for want of a permanent incumbent and the remaining two, for very different reasons, fell by the wayside. Even today unravelling the story leaves as many loose ends as neat splices. However, from the record focus seems to have been split, and in consequence as often wholly blurred, between two issues: ecumenism and secularization. Each was a trend arising from larger global social and cultural changes taking place during the years in question. At the most abstract level the push towards an ecumenical mission was no more than a local echo of a larger, worldwide movement that had its roots in the early 20th century, but that moved closer to the top of many church agendas in the 1950s, not least in response to the cold war and the apparent ascendancy of “godless” Marxist regimes in the Eastern Bloc and in China.1 However, in Hong Kong at the same time there were manifest pressures, part a product of the hybrid, secular/ religious nature of the leading player, the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, part a product of what would become an increasingly acute problem in Hong Kong, the scarcity and value of building land, and part the manifest changes taking place both in Hong Kong and in the Asian shipping world, in which Asian peoples and their values and interests rose to the ascendant. The result would be a more locally parochial response to the need for economies of scale in a tougher, less western focussed world, by sharing premises that may in part have been brokered by, or even indirectly urged by government. The “economies of scale” aspect of the ecumenical turn may itself have been linked, if indirectly, to the first stirrings of what would

17_Strong to Save.indd 275

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

276

Strong

to

Save

within a generation prove to be the greatest revolution that the shipping world had ever seen, pushed simultaneously by technical and economic forces. It would prove a revolution more profound than when sail gave way to steam and left the Hong Kong Sailors’ Home marooned in Western District. The difference was, however, that the revolution of the 1950s through 1980s was far more wide-ranging, affecting almost every part of the shipping industry. It was one that would utterly change the way in which the Hong Kong Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen went about its business, the full consequences of which are still being played out today. First came the extraordinarily sudden disappearance of the passenger ship whose crews’ support for the Institute in the inter-war period was a leitmotif of chaplain’s reports. Ronald Hope notes that between 1957 and 1970 passenger traffic in the North Atlantic carried by ship decreased by 75% whilst air passenger traffic increased 800% — a similar change happened, if more gradually, in Hong Kong.2 At the same time the old world of relatively small, general purpose steamers carrying both mixed general cargoes and bulk cargoes was swiftly eclipsed by the emergence and rapid growth of larger and more specialist ships. This was particularly the case with bulk and liquid bulk cargoes as the first 40,000 ton vessels of the 1950s and 1960s gave way within a decade or two to the huge ships of the late 1960s and 1970s.3 And as the decades passed, so more specialist ships entered service from car carriers to roll-on/roll-off (RoRo) ships to gas carriers and many others.4 As the new ships arrived so older ships gradually disappeared. This had a knock-on effect on how ports developed, if initially slow to become manifest. Most of the main changes in ship technology required different shoreside technologies and different stevedoring skills as well as more space and greater depths alongside for docking larger vessels. They also required ever-greater hectares of flat land for stocking whatever it was that the ships loaded or discharged, particularly once containerization had begun making inroads. In

17_Strong to Save.indd 276

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

277

short, ports began to move. On the one hand they went where deep water and land were available. And on the other, where space was not available to cope with the demands of a variety of cargoes, they had to specialize or disappear, which is what effectively happened in Hong Kong: it specialized in containerized cargo movement.5 But there were other changes that were more specifically related to the world the Institute had grown to serve. Central here was the precipitous decline of the British shipping industry. Between 1948 and 1970 Britain’s share of world tonnage dropped from 22.3% to just 8.3%.6 Connect that with the revolution in China and the collapse of the old China Coast trade, and with the Korean War and the US-led strategic embargo of trade with the new People’s Republic of China, and one can see immediately that even if the volume of trade and of ships calling in Hong Kong rose steadily throughout the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the flag states of the ships and hence the composition of their crews inevitably changed.7 Finally, with the end of the Korean War, increasing colonial unrest elsewhere, and the growing demands of the new welfare state, with an economy and society effectively devastated by two world wars almost within a generation, Britain’s Royal Naval Pacific Fleet continued to contract, with downsizing in Hong Kong one of the early economies.8 That in itself, of course, was simply part of a larger though less obviously visible change, the accelerating decline of Britain’s economic and political place in the world as the era of western empires stumbled to its muddled and often tragic close. Bluntly, the staple target of the work of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen over its first 71 years, the British Royal Naval and merchant naval sailor, was about to begin a steep decline in numbers. In his place, temporarily, would come a local replacement, the Hong Kong seafarer, whose numbers between the early 1950s and the peak year of 1975 would rise from around 15–20,000 to 85,584.9 This occasioned an interesting, if temporary refocussing for the institution that resulted in forms of work and outreach quite unusual in the Missions to Seamen’s Institutes around the world — yet another

17_Strong to Save.indd 277

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

278

Strong

to

Save

element in the uniqueness of the Hong Kong organization within the worldwide Missions to Seamen system. Meanwhile, as European and American civilian crew declined in numbers along with those of the merchant ships in which they served, so the numbers of non-Hong Kong Asian crew began to rise, as did those of what were known as the flags of convenience ships that employed them. An unnoticed — or at least initially little commented on — corollary to both these significant developments was also an evident change for the Mission in that, with the gradual then fairly rapid decline in British naval and merchant naval personnel, the overwhelming majority of Hong Kong crew did not have what we might style a “default setting” of Christian, and an increasing majority of Christian, non-British crew were not Anglican or even Protestant. This had an inevitable effect on perceptions of the nature of the cure for which the senior chaplain and his assistants were responsible.

*** In short, the years following the departure of William Haig Brown became increasingly challenging for the Mission’s senior chaplain. However the onset was slow and that it was may explain the relatively alarum free five and a half years between 1956 and 1961 that included the shortest and longest periods of service during this most significant time. Elliot Lawlor’s holding action as senior chaplain had lasted only from May 1956 until the Reverend Anthony Lindsay Nind relieved him. Anthony Nind was a young man, like so many Mission chaplains, arriving in Hong Kong aged 30, with his wife and new baby, having only been a priest for three years and with no previous Missions to Seamen experience. Fairly unusually, however, he had some seagoing experience in the Royal Navy.10 Fortunately, his baptism as a Mission chaplain was not only gentle but, in relatively short order, had a major potential blockage to future progress painlessly, indeed effortlessly removed.

17_Strong to Save.indd 278

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

279

The key letter, which came from Cyril Brown, reached Anthony Nind at the end of December when he had been in office for eight months. It seems to come out of the blue because any preceding exchanges are missing though, from the tenor of Cyril Brown’s message, what he wrote was not expected to come as any sort of surprise, With regard to beer, you will probably be aware that there are two things

to remember. The first is that our Society, through its Council, is prepared to give permission for the sale of beer when the Bishop, Chaplain and the Local General Committee are in unanimous agreement that it would be in the best interests of seamen in that particular place.

Evidently, London had been under pressure from various quarters to relax the strict temperance stance, though when the issue first became a significant one is unclear. It is also not clear why Hong Kong’s release had been delayed, since by the time Anthony Nind got his permission to set things in motion, there were already eight overseas Missions to Seamen premises off the wagon — Mombasa, Dar-es-Salaam, Yokohama, Valparaiso, Rosario, Antwerp, Rotterdam Pernis and Rotterdam. There had been no sign of any such flexibility of policy during William Haig Brown’s incumbency, nor during Elliot Lawlor’s brief stay, perhaps because both may have been robust defenders of the status quo. So exactly what provoked the announcement is unclear, although trying to reassemble the sequence of events suggests that the announcement had something to do with the ongoing quest for the new premises in Kowloon, itself connected with changes to the status of the MNSC as a result of an announcement of government plans to redevelop the site.11 The probability is that some sort of plans were being made to make a formal application to government for a site for new premises and that it was thought this might be more likely to have a favourable reception if, as must have been extremely obvious, the Mission backed off on its strictly temperance stance.

17_Strong to Save.indd 279

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

280

Strong

to

Save

Action on the new policy was swift although the relaxation was by no means total since Cyril Brown’s letter went on to specify that it only applied to beer, only when served at a table, not a bar and, preferably only with food.12 Local General Committee member Hugh Dowbiggin replied two weeks later saying that the Local General Committee had approved the change and the bishop had given his permission, so Cyril Brown’s nod “had been immediately acted upon” and beer was being served in the Institute’s restaurants. He also noted that this had been done without regulation 14 of the amalgamation Ordinance, which forbade alcohol, having been amended, although a sub-committee had been formed to deal with this, at the same time dealing with other “out of date clauses.”13 In the meantime, which adds weight to the thought that this all had something to do with the projected move to Kowloon, Dowbiggin let Cyril Brown know that a “new and friendly Director of Public Works” had recently telephoned to say that “the time was now ripe” and that “an official letter (should) be addressed to him thereanent” which, Dowbiggin added, the chairman Hugh Barton had already done. During May there was a flurry of correspondence about changing the ordinance. In addition to the regulation about alcohol, a further thirteen regulations were to be amended. Cyril Brown had spotted that the regulation about alcohol, now to be regulation 15, “does not, however, refer only to beer but to “alcoholic liquors” which latter is a very much wider designation.”14 It was felt to be a step too far: “the Council of the Missions to Seamen has not as yet felt able to agree on exceptions being made to its traditional “dry” policy except in respect of the supply of non-spirituous alcoholic liquors.”15 Cyril Brown also weighed in on another vexed topic that had not raised its head since William Haig Brown’s small set-to with “Old Field” in late 1949: the relationship of the senior chaplain to the Institute’s business manager. What, he asked, has been done in the revisions to clarify and more firmly establish the correct pecking order?16

17_Strong to Save.indd 280

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

281

At the Hong Kong end there was no give. “Alcoholic liquors” would remain the wording in regulation 14. Nothing would be done to change the vagueness of the manager/chaplain duumvirate. However an assurance was given both that London’s wishes about beer only would be respected and that as far as the Local General Committee was concerned, the senior chaplain was the skipper. It is evident from the flurry of correspondence between headquarters and a member of the Local General Committee that once attention had been drawn to the wording of the ordinance, a clear statement of some sort was needed. London noted that “The respective spheres of the Chaplain and the Business Manager are clearly defined … but in no section of the Regulations is there any indication as to which of them is in fact the Captain of the ship.” It was further confirmed that the chaplain had supreme authority “under the General Committee” and, one senses, Hong Kong thought that should be enough.17 By October 1958 all the details had been agreed and a year later the ordinance had been formally and officially amended.18 The determined refusal to settle the ambiguities of the ordinance over management responsibilities is puzzling. The most likely possibility is a general sense that there were those within government who would balk at a change that placed formal, legally enforceable supremacy in the hands of a member of a single religious persuasion, chosen by a body beyond Hong Kong Government control, in a welfare organization that was legally half- and, as we shall see, financially rather more than halfsecular and by origin and formal system of control entirely a Hong Kong body to boot. In short, this was an oblique assertion that the Institute remained and would continue to remain a combined body with two managing elements, not a unitary one.19 In the meantime the momentary promise of movement towards new premises in Kowloon evidently ran into trouble. A file note reporting an opinion from Anthony Nind declares that any move to

17_Strong to Save.indd 281

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

282

Strong

to

Save

Kowloon would be “at least two to four years distant”. A hoped for development site where the Merchant Navy Sports Club had been had evaporated, since it was on Kowloon Canton Railway property and government had designated it for other development, and no other candidate site seemed to be in prospect.20 Nonetheless the Institute was busy, if occasionally struggling. Anthony Nind’s report to the Port Welfare Committee in 1958–59 succinctly expresses the various foci of his efforts. On the high ground was the seemingly unending and, because of the rapid development of Tsim Sha Tsui, endlessly frustrating search for new premises. Though of course the majority of the chaplain’s time was taken up by the busy daily round — in the year there had been 1,730 ship visits, 109 hospital visits, 135 football matches at the MNSC, 725 bundles of magazines and 185 libraries of 40 books apiece sent to ships, and 29,082 seafarers staying in the Institute. There were also the small but important successes — recruiting Captain W.S. Bartlett-Prince as not just the manager of the MNSC, but as a lay helper to make up for the lack of a lay reader.21 A successful Ladies Committee had been formed to help organize events. But there were also the downsides. Trouble in the Middle East and the Formosa crisis had meant the US Navy had been stretched for much of the year leading to fewer and shorter port calls in Hong Kong. That had had a severe impact on the Institute because “the US Navy is the main customer for our restaurants and shops”.22 Perhaps the most interesting element was Anthony Nind’s sense of things undone. This is hinted at when he reported to the committee and mentioned the trial Missions to Seamen’s Chinese Seamen’s Hostel in London that had been begun by Peter Kao. As he put it, “this opens up a vast problem in this port which we have hardly touched, that of dealing with and contacting the many thousands of Chinese seamen.” A few years after Anthony Nind had left Hong Kong, this prescient observation and all that it implied seems possibly to have led to a significant shake-up in the Port Welfare Committee.23

17_Strong to Save.indd 282

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

283

In April 1959 the Taikoo Dockyard-built Dayspring II, after close to exactly ten years work, was not only on its “last legs” but thought to be too small. A replacement was going to cost HK$100,000 for which HK$50,000 had already been raised and, at least by weak implication, there was a hint that perhaps the HK$20,000 that could be raised by sale of the old launch could go into the pot for the new.24 London’s response, in the context of financial troubles of its own, was not only to note that the launch had been bought by them and hence belonged to them, but sought confirmation that the secular “other part” — i.e. the Sailors’ Home — had no claim on any part of the money realized by the sale. That is not to say that London’s financial problems were exaggerated, Cyril Brown spells out very clearly that London’s general fund had been in deficit in 1958 and, at current rates of expenditure the fund threatened to disappear in four years, so London needed all the money it could get.25 On the morning of 30 November Mrs G.M. Goldsack, the wife of the managing director of Dodwell and Co. Ltd., launched Dayspring V at HWD.26 It was quite a bit larger than the old Dayspring II (IV), able to carry 35 passengers as opposed to the 20 of the older boat. After the launching and dressed over all, Dayspring V headed across the harbour to the Police Pier at the end of Arsenal Street to be blessed by Bishop Hall in an afternoon service. It is an interesting comment on the impact of the US servicemen’s use of Fenwick Pier that the Mission’s new launch could not be blessed at the pier that had been serving the Mission since both Mission and pier were built in 1933 and where the most illustrious and longest serving of its predecessors had been sunk in 1941.27

*** By January the following year Anthony Nind had been in post just over three years. In December 1960 his first tour of duty would be ending. As his letter to Cyril Brown on 11 January signalled, he did not intend to return for a second tour. In an interesting reprise of Cyril Brown’s own rather belated reaction to his first tour in Hong

17_Strong to Save.indd 283

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

284

Strong

to

Save

Kong, Anthony Nind announced “I do not feel sufficiently at ease in the work to wish to continue” and went on that he wished to get back to a “permanent congregation” because the Hong Kong Missions to Seamen offered “so little to get one’s teeth into from a priestly angle, and that I feel has a bad effect on one’s own spiritual life.” Reading between the lines it also seems obvious that Anne Nind wasn’t happy in Hong Kong with her very young children.28 London was evidently ill-prepared for Anthony Nind’s decision although they were understanding. As Cyril Brown wrote in his reply, “I do know that the chaplaincy at Hong Kong has its own peculiar difficulties and frustrations.” However, it clearly left headquarters in a fix because there would seem to have been no one to whom they could turn even with a year’s notice. Indeed the net to find Anthony Nind’s successor had to be cast wide, as far in fact as New Zealand. As we learn from Cyril Brown’s letter to Bishop Hall two month’s later, London had found their new Hong Kong senior chaplain in South Island, New Zealand. Alan Edwin Rolleston was a 32-year-old New Zealander and graduate of Otago University, who had been in the marine insurance business before he joined the church. Alan Rolleston would seem to have been a scion of one of South Island’s most distinguished families. At the point of his recruitment he was vicar of St. John’s Church, Horarata, a small farming village about 50 km west of Christchurch.29 Given that London had never met their chosen appointee and that he was a complete stranger to everyone in Hong Kong, this was a very bold choice. There is a sense that London was aware of this because it was seeking to factor in time, between Alan Rolleston’s appointment and his move to Hong Kong, for him to learn the ropes in the Mission’s Institute in Wellington. The ropes were the least Alan Rolleston would have to learn. It is curious that no one in London seems to have thought — as indeed they should have thought — about whether bringing a young New Zealander, who had never worked outside New Zealand, to be senior chaplain in still very stuffily British,

17_Strong to Save.indd 284

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

285

late 1950s–early 1960s Hong Kong was a good idea. That should have been especially so given London’s knowledge of the composition of Hong Kong’s Local General Committee and, above all, the deferential, snobbish, pecking-order dominated, colonial society to which they belonged. One gets a feel of the attitudes Alan Rolleston would have to deal with from a note left by Cyril Brown in the files about a lunch he had with C.G. Smith, the secretary of the Hong Kong Local General Committee. Mr Smith damned Anthony Nind with faint praise, speaking well of him as a person but as someone quite “unrealistic”. The specific failing being advocating air-conditioning for the Institute which was thought “quite unnecessary, quite impracticable and far too expensive.” However the most indicative of Mr Smith’s remarks were his observations about the need to consolidate the Institute’s hold on the MNSC, clearly shared with his fellow committee members. These were that unless the Institute ensured its fief, “the RCs will get in and claim a much larger grant from the Mercantile Marine Assistance Fund and to our detriment.” The RCs were, at least to some minds, still the arch-rivals to be seen off at every juncture. This was to be where Alan Rolleston was to come seriously and irretrievably unstuck.30 The handover between Alan Rolleston and Anthony Nind took place at the turn of 1960–61. The Ninds left Hong Kong on 30 January 1961, the newspaper story about the farewell party mentioning that the Rollestons had come to Hong Kong “recently”, so probably for a four to six week handover period.31 In very short order Alan Rolleston seems to have got the bit between his teeth, but to have done so without bothering to clear his yardarm with London. It was to prove a disastrous first move. The first inkling we get of this in the record is a deferential letter from Alan Rolleston to Cyril Brown beginning “Dear Sir”. After a brief introduction to the initiative to form a joint, ecumenical seafarers’ mission, Alan Rolleston went on to assure Cyril Brown that the Port Welfare Committee was very excited by this new démarche and would

17_Strong to Save.indd 285

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

286

Strong

to

Save

be approaching the governor, that the Apostleship was solidly onside, that the bishop had “expressed his happiness and fullest blessing” and that even the chaplain to the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission wanted to cooperate, provided he kept hold of his existing, separate premises. The Local General Committee was pronounced as being in agreement. So were the senior executives of five leading shipping companies and the Roman Catholic bishop. The carrot, Allen Rolleston implied, was that the director of public works had “mentioned to me a possible chance of securing a really magnificent new site, just beyond Holt’s Wharf on Chatham Road…(the) best possible area with residential surrounds and we would be in the closest proximity to the wharves.”32 Cyril Brown’s reply, which was sent by return, was reproving and not so much lukewarm as distinctly chilly. He took care to copy it both to the bishop and to Hugh Dowbiggin.33 The faux pas would appear to have been that Alan Rolleston had taken the initiative without consulting London first. Worse, he’d then gone public with the results and let London know after the event. Cyril Brown was not amused. In February 1961, a month after his arrival, after whatever he had learned from Anthony Nind and what one can only assume after the briefest canvassing of the direction the wind was blowing with interested parties in Hong Kong, Alan Rolleston had let himself be quoted about a preferred future for the Sailors’ Home and Mission to Seamen in the Sunday newspaper. It was likely to seem from a quick glance that he was speaking as if for the Missions to Seamen itself. From the flurry of subsequent correspondence — some of which was clearly behind Alan Rolleston’s back — it is clear that, with apparent justification, Alan Rolleston thought he’d found solid backing in Hong Kong for pushing ahead. The newspaper story he must have sent to Cyril Brown, possibly with samples of a lively February and March 1961 correspondence between such luminaries as “Islander”, “Ex-Mariner”, “Peninsular”, “Five Seafarers”, “Eight Seafarers”, and “Old Seafarer” bemoaning the absence of a seafarers’ club to stand beside the sort of place the

17_Strong to Save.indd 286

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

287

Merchant Navy Welfare Board was pioneering in Britain, suggests a largely shared view on what Hong Kong needed.34 It came down to a larger, better-equipped building in Kowloon for an institution like the MNSC, with more of an emphasis on general facilities — like a swimming pool — than on it being some sort of offshoot of a religious mission any of which, by implication, were to be added features rather than a core purpose. By inference from the way the story was structured by the reporter, Mary Palmer, Alan Rolleston’s view was in agreement with that of the other seafarers’ missions. Clearly the ideas were congenial to Father Patrick Cunningham SJ for the Apostleship. Even the Reverend Nielsen of the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission was reported to have made approving noises.35 The real red rag was at the end of the story, What a marvellous thing it would be for the increasing unity of the Church and the improvement of international goodwill,” he said, “if voluntary societies represented on the Port Welfare Committee could combine in one well-designed building.36

Looking back from 2015, when what Alan Rolleston envisioned is in most respects what exists, it is hard to understand the reaction he provoked. But provoke an adverse reaction he did. Copying his reply to Bishop Hall and Hugh Dowbiggin, the acting chairman of the Local General Committee, Cyril Brown fired a very clear shot over Alan Rolleston’s bows. Warning him that the newspaper cuttings he enclosed contained “a number of misstatements and inaccuracies”, the general superintendent added that whilst indeed it was vital to be

realistic and progressive with regard to our Society’s approach to Seamen’s Welfare…it would be wise for you to proceed with caution and certainly

to avoid making any statement at this early stage which would seem to commit the Society to which you belong, to any particular plan of action.

Alan Rolleston was told to prepare an outline scheme indicating how it would be financed, how the participating bodies would be

17_Strong to Save.indd 287

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

288

Strong

to

Save

linked with each other and what each of their shares in managing the joint venture and sharing in its ministry would be. Brown went on to say that he could be in Hong Kong for consultation at the end of the year, but would come in September if necessary although “at considerable inconvenience and the cancellation of engagements already made in this country.”37 Alan Rolleston was not dismayed and began to dig his own grave. For almost by return he sent what Cyril Brown had asked for, revealing, one must infer, that in reading the surface message of Cyril Brown’s sharp reply, he had entirely neglected the nuance. He breezily described a modern building with a limited amount of accommodation, restaurant, library, recreation rooms, squash court, swimming pool, tennis court, and bar, etc. Quarters for the Anglican and Roman Catholic chaplains and separate chapels for each denomination. Financing by selling the existing site and fundraising from shipping companies in Hong Kong and Britain (Cyril Brown’s file copy has a large question mark in the margin). And as to the ministry, no problems were conceivable, “The fact of being in a common building together, working from a common base…will express goodwill and unity of purpose in our work.” He went on to describe a “profitable afternoon” he had spent with the Roman Catholic and Norwegian Seamen’s Missions chaplains “discussing all aspects and (we) felt (there to be) no insuperable issues.” Where secular management was concerned, Mr Hawkins seemed on side, though he was talking of retiring when his present tour expired. Failing altogether to hoist in Cyril Brown’s message that he should do nothing until London had met, deliberated, and pronounced, Alan Rolleston noted that the Local General Committee would soon meet when he would run them through things and then report back to London. He added, probably unintentionally adding fuel to a building fire, The Bishop and shipping interests here consider this scheme will not only be in the best interests of seamen, which is our principal concern, but it

17_Strong to Save.indd 288

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

289

will serve the interests of the church generally in a far better way.

He then confirmed that the new site was now “a definite offer — along Chatham Road, a little beyond Holt’s Wharf on the waterfront side, near the road leading to the Peninsula Hotel.” And added, to his elder and superior in a still very hierarchical and deferential system, “The Society would not suffer nor lose its own identity but indeed would gain ‘new life’.”38 To use a modern trope, and reflecting on the

present work of the combined Mission in the Mariners’ Club, what was not to like? The answer in 1961 was plain. What Alan Rolleston had entirely failed to hoist in were two things. One, and possibly the more important, was the history of the specific chaplaincy and mission he was serving. The other was the extent to which the rhetoric of ecumenism and the beliefs and practices of its more ardent supporters were by no means reflective of the attitudes of the more conservative members of the Anglican Church in general and of the more conservative members of the Mission to Seamen’s General Council and Local General Committee members in particular. Where the first was concerned, the Missions to Seamen had been effectively ruling the seafarers’ welfare roost in Hong Kong since 1885.39 It had absorbed and effectively brought under its thumb in 1930 the secular side of port welfare for non-Chinese seamen in Hong Kong. Since the war it had expanded that influence and had neutralized the threat of the secularization of port welfare through its effective annexation of the MNSC and leading role in the PWC. It had also managed, by the same route, by and large to command the largest share from the newly centralized port welfare fundraising and the additional subvention from government, marginalizing the seafarers’ missions of “rival” denominations. Like any organization that has accrued power and influence, dilution or diminution was not something lightly contemplated. The entire weight of institutional inertia was resistant to any efforts, such as those of Alan Rolleston, to bring about any sort of abrupt change.

17_Strong to Save.indd 289

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

290

Strong

to

Save

Alan Rolleston had not seemed to have understood that what he had sketched as his forward plan threatened to ensure the loss of two things. One was the Missions to Seamen’s control of the provision of secular maritime welfare in Hong Kong. The other was the premises — largely financed by Hong Kong sources, but of which the Mission was the beneficiary — through which welfare was provided and in which the Mission had its church. This could happen either by dilution as a result of sharing with other denominations on an equal basis. Or it could happen through the loss of management control to a new, entirely secular management to which spiritual welfare would be a multi-faith adjunct, not a core and driving purpose. This would especially be the case in the more secular post-war climate. Cyril Brown lost little time in calling out the cavalry. His first reaction would seem to have been to muster the horses of experience, to which end he had obviously written to George Waldegrave, from whom, swiftly, came a letter of support, It seems inconceivable that any chaplain should rush so far ahead without

consulting head office before even allowing mere suggestions of the nature

to be mentioned publicly. It is all very well to think that now is the time for venture like that while Pope John is alive, but it would be far wiser to

wait…those Italian Cardinals are capable of wangling anything any way to suit themselves, including Popes.40

He also marshalled his troops in Hong Kong, mindful of the Missions to Seamen nominees on the Local General Committee to one of whom he wrote, copying the letter to the new acting chairman, Michael Herries and to the other Mission member, Hugh Dowbiggin. He reminded them that Rolleston was “a newcomer” and he was sure that “no step is taken without full consultation with the Council of the Society and due representation of its views.”41 He received such an assurance. The next move came from the bishop who wrote to Cyril Brown a month later. From Bishop Hall’s letter it is clear that at this point, whether he had gone about it the right way or not, Alan Rolleston

17_Strong to Save.indd 290

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

291

had significant local support in Hong Kong. The letter reveals that Bishop Hall was enthusiastic about the plan and quite happy with the idea of two chapels and two chaplains with a single lay manager, who was to be appointed not by the Local General Committee, but by a sub-committee which — the bishop is vague — was to have some connection with the PWC. He also said that he saw the proposal as continuing in the line he had pioneered with the Roman Catholics in establishing the Servicemen’s Guides Association. However, the real reason for the bishop’s letter was to invite Cyril Brown to come to Hong Kong to talk everything over, offering to pay the airfare because a spike in share prices had suddenly made the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen £20,000 the richer. Perhaps in its way, given the relatively cash-strapped London headquarters, that was another alarm bell.42 A letter from Michael Herries that followed indirectly revealed that Hugh Dowbiggin had gone back to London and briefed Cyril Brown. He assured London that “no positive steps whatever would, or could, be taken without full consultation with the Council and due representation of its views.”43 The matter plainly had a momentum of its own. By May the General Council in London, for whom Cyril Brown’s position paper on the proposal, if it was not actively hostile, was certainly damning with faint praise, was discussing the issue. It recapped the history of the amalgamation, noted the need to move to Kowloon and the decline in Royal Naval use, introduced Alan Rolleston’s idea of an ecumenical mission in terms that indicated its starry-eyed and impractical naiveté, reported that the general secretary had warned Alan Rolleston to do nothing without London’s approval, and finished by noting the bishop’s support for what was proposed, qualifying this by adding “it would appear”.44 The result was a decision by the standing committee, conveyed to the Local General Committee in Hong Kong, which came down to saying, we have significant doubts, Colonel Dowbiggin has indicated he does not think the government’s offer of a site is certain and

17_Strong to Save.indd 291

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

292

Strong

to

Save

the previous senior chaplain, Anthony Nind, has doubts as to the feasibility of a joint, ecumenical mission. It ended by requiring the Local General Committee to “inform the Rev Alan Rolleston, Chaplain, that he must not lead anyone to suppose that The Missions to Seamen will endorse any plan unless it has first been approved by the Council of the Society.” Waspishly it added, probably knowing that the answer would be no, because the Servicemen’s Guides Association did not count, that the Local General Committee should ask Bishop Hall “if there is any local precedent for a joint Church of England-Roman Catholic scheme in any other sphere.” Finally, Cyril Brown was instructed to tell Hong Kong that he would accept their invitation to visit and would arrive in September or October.45 At this point everything was hanging in the balance. At the Local General Committee meeting held on 11 April, two things are clear. One is that what Alan Rolleston told the press in March really did have backing from the majority of the committee, though there were also widely shared worries about how things would actually work. The second, and a portent for what was about to torpedo the whole thing, was the first indication that Alan Rolleston, as a person, seemed to lack the ability to fit in with the Hong Kong way of doing things. In the summary of the meeting C.G. Smith sent to Cyril Brown, there must have been at least two quite serious alarm signals. The first item minuted was that everyone was in agreement on the need for “a general Seamen’s Club” and that “all agree that it should be possible for all Missions to work together in such a Seamen’s Club building in which each Mission would have its own office and separate chapels…”. Subsequent minutes record approbation for a single, nondenominational building and, from the bishop no less, that it should be managed by the Local General Committee with co-opted members from other missions. The chairman, meanwhile, noted that the management should be responsible to the Local General Committee and not to the chaplain of any individual mission. It was also reported that a representative of the Ministry of Transport had recently been in

17_Strong to Save.indd 292

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

293

Hong Kong and had asked that the ministry be kept informed. In short, the post-war consensus for non-denominational, quasi-public sector provision for seafarers’ welfare was actively present in Hong Kong’s decision making. However, London could draw comfort from two things. One was that nothing was going to happen quickly. According to the director of public works, whose comments were relayed by the chairman, it would be five or six years before any potential site became free for development. And concerns over the delicate matter of interdenominational cooperation and how well it could be hoped to work were expressed by both the bishop — whose experiences of the Servicemen’s Guides Association had not been entirely positive — and Hugh Dowbiggin. Finally came the indication that the new senior chaplain was himself a stumbling block. A request from Alan Rolleston was minuted for him to be relieved of the requirement to live in the chaplain’s spacious flat, on the grounds that Wan Chai was no place to bring up children. He wanted the Institute to stump up the rent for a flat elsewhere. With the bishop’s backing, because all the other diocesan clergy got houses with gardens, this was grudgingly agreed to. It was the first clear sign that Cyril Brown’s doubts about the new chaplain might be shared. By extension the ideas upon which Alan Rolleston seemed unduly keen might be successfully undermined.46 This was confirmed by a typically Hong Kong, closed circle bit of chummery that reached London later that month. Coard Squarey, the general manager of Ocean Travel Development in London, was a member of the General Council of the Missions to Seamen and evidently a personal acquaintance of Hugh Barton of Jardine, Matheson, who was a member of the Local General Committee in Hong Kong. In a private letter, which Squarey had evidently sent on to Cyril Brown, Hugh Barton made clear that all was very far from well in Hong Kong.

17_Strong to Save.indd 293

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

294

Strong

to

Save

Our new chaplain, straight from the backwoods of New Zealand, has waded

into his new job with the maximum of enthusiasm and the minimum of

tact. He is handicapped by a wife who does not appear to be interested in anything but making herself comfortable — and in a big throbbing City to which she has not taken kindly.

He then reveals that far from this being a minor problem while Alan Rolleston found his feet, to some members of the Local General Committee he’d had the rope and hanged himself, though Hugh Barton himself seemed equivocal. It seems that Alan Rolleston's and his wife’s approach was enough to condemn them and they had to go. Cyril Brown’s marginalia on this letter are perhaps the most notable. They are clearly those of a hanging judge, who has already decided on the guilt of the accused. Every negative comment is underlined. Every indication that Alan Rolleston was at least aiming at a goal that had government and shipping industry sympathy in Hong Kong and that, sooner or later, London would have to aim at too was ignored.47 Reading the rest of the correspondence of 1961 is to read one of life’s less illuminating chapters, most particularly given that we are dealing with a Christian mission. As Alan Rolleston was to complain at the end of May, when he had been summoned by the bishop because of a letter from Cyril Brown about him of which he had no warning, “All this has gone on behind my back, with no one coming to me directly to see me about these things, as I feel they should and for this to go on in a Christian mission is disgraceful.”48 Not to Cyril Brown it wasn’t. Like some of the older and more conservative members of the Hong Kong Local General Committee, it is pretty clear that he wanted to see the back of Alan Rolleston as quickly as possible. In fairness this was for two reasons, one good and one less palatable. The good reason was that Alan Rolleston and his wife were clearly unsuited to Hong Kong and its ways and the longer they stayed, the more damage they were going to do to the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong. Cyril Brown’s job was to look after the

17_Strong to Save.indd 294

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

295

Mission’s interests and that entailed moving Alan Rolleston along. His first effort in that direction had been to try to find an alternative berth in Singapore, though this had been rejected because of the problem of Singapore’s climate. In Cyril Brown’s view, that left no option but to send Alan Rolleston and his family back to New Zealand as soon as that could be arranged.49 Reading the communications between Hong Kong and London as, over the next two weeks, the bishop and St John’s Cathedral’s new dean, the Very Reverend Barry Till, did their best to try to get Alan Rolleston to be less confrontational, is hard. Good people were working desperately with someone who was evidently at heart a good man. However, there was such a fundamental clash of styles as between the obliquities and circumlocutory politesse so essential to social interaction in colonial Hong Kong and, as Hugh Barton so tellingly put it, Alan Rolleston’s “backwoods” bluntness that the best of efforts foundered. Inevitably the style of the people, who were trying to help Alan Rolleston, shared a strong family resemblance to the style of the members of the Local General Committee and others in Hong Kong that Alan Rolleston found insupportable. Inevitably the bishop and the dean ran into exactly the same problem.50 London’s less palatable reason — perhaps unconscious — was clearly a sense that with Alan Rolleston’s energetic, if clumsy efforts, Hong Kong was threatening to move in a direction that in Cyril Brown’s view, was antithetical to the interests of “our world-wide Society.”51 The next month saw Alan Rolleston, given sufficient rope, truss himself so tightly and weigh himself with so many millstones before jumping that he was to sink without trace. If, evidently, Alan Rolleston found the too often devious urbanities that served as the main means of communication for upper echelon Hong Kong decisionmaking impossible to get used to, Hong Kong and London’s practised committee room cavaliers and cosy clubmen found Alan Rolleston insufferable.52 It all came to a thumping halt in mid June when Cyril

17_Strong to Save.indd 295

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

296

Strong

to

Save

Brown, asked by Hong Kong if he would consider giving Alan Rolleston a three-month stay of execution, sent a cable to C.G. Smith, “Committee today carefully considered situation under Dean’s and your advice and decided terminate contract giving three months notice Rolleston STOP”53 There was some further toing and froing because, as a letter from C.G. Smith to Cyril Brown put it, “It is quite clear that the decision of our Committee (about Alan Rolleston) on Monday will not be unanimous either way”, Alan Rolleston was not without support despite his rebarbative style. But inevitably so ill-suited a senior chaplain, whatever the merits of the course of action he had embarked on, had to go. What was at issue was fundamental. If what some of the Committee, the Ministry of Transport, the Marine Department, probably other elements of the Hong Kong Government and the shipping members of the Local General Committee wanted were to come to pass, then the Missions to Seamen’s position in Hong Kong was going to change drastically. It would cease being in effective sole charge of the provision of non-Chinese seafarers’ welfare in Hong Kong. It would also stop being in the driver’s seat both in planning future developments and in thereafter running them. Without some careful manoeuvring, the de facto supremacy of the Missions to Seamen in the running of the dual-fuel Hong Kong organization could threaten to come to a sharp halt. Whether there was any inkling in London of a third element, namely the extent to which a highly successful, Missions to Seamen dominated operation in Hong Kong in the 1970s to mid 1990s would be an important source of financial support to the Londonbased organization is impossible to determine. Certainly the bishop’s revelation of the dynamism of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s investments in 1960s Hong Kong, when he offered to pay Cyril Brown’s airfare, may have been a straw in the wind. Making sure that the sort of plans that Alan Rolleston was mooting were realized

17_Strong to Save.indd 296

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

Sea Changes

297

only slowly and in ways that did not threaten the Missions to Seamen’s dominant position would prove an extremely beneficial strategy. By this date Alan Rolleston’s fate was not only decided, his successor had also been chosen.54 This was to be the Reverend John Robert (Bob) Precious. The contrast between the outgoing senior chaplain and his replacement could not have been starker. The brash young New Zealand “backwoods-man” was to be replaced by a 53-year-old, ex-merchant navy ship’s officer who had served the Mission with distinction throughout the Second World War in Middlesbrough and post-war in Durban, South Africa.55 He was also, as many of the Local General Committee were but one suspects Rolleston was not, a Freemason.56 Despite the possibility that Bob Precious had been deliberately chosen to maintain established ways of doing things in the context of a potential threat to the Mission’s local pre-eminence in Hong Kong, the record shows that he was also pretty much the only available recourse given the urgency of Hong Kong’s need. All his children had left home. He had recent service in South Africa, Western Australia, and Lagos, so he and his wife had overseas experience. And he was eager to leave his present largely administrative job as a Missions to Seamen area secretary for a hands-on mission role.57 London was conscious that the Rolleston debacle had made clear that the way ahead was going to require some careful thought and planning. To that extent, Bob Precious’s wish to commit himself for only two years offered a compromise solution; a “safe pair of hands” that could be trusted with the helm while London and Hong Kong’s Local General Committee focussed on strategic planning and finding the “right” senior chaplain for the next major stage. Exchanges between London and Hong Kong spelled the issues out clearly, [It is] probably true that in the course of the next year or two some pretty

radical rethinking about the work of the Mission in Hong Kong will have to

be done. It maybe that a man of the age of Mr Precious will not be the ideal person to see this through the committee.58

17_Strong to Save.indd 297

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

298

Strong

to

Save

Later on Cyril Brown, joining the conversation, concurs and, in doing so agrees that the Mission needs a chaplain, preferably a younger man, who would be the “bridge” between the older world and the new.59 In the light of who was actually chosen for this role, it seems probable that another effect of the Rolleston experiment had been to make Cyril Brown and the London General Council, and almost certainly the Hong Kong Local General Committee too, extremely wary of younger men. This sad episode in the history of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong came to an end in the second week of October when, after delays occasioned by difficulties in finding berths on a ship bound from Australia and New Zealand for the Rollestons, Bob Precious eventually took over.

17_Strong to Save.indd 298

6/7/2017 6:40 PM

18

Passage Planning

rom the moment Bob Precious assumed control of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong until the opening of the Mariners’ Club on Middle Road in Tsim Sha Tsui in 1967 there is a remarkable gap in the Missions to Seamen archives. What had been a steady flow and occasional spate of communication between the various actors involved in Hong Kong’s maritime mission story starts to dwindle during Bob Precious’s two years in Hong Kong, and all but disappears between the spring of 1963, when Bob Precious handed over to Elliott Lawlor, and May 1967, when the new Mariners’ Club in Tsim Sha Tsui opened. There is no obvious reason for this, since the six years in question were amongst some of the most important since the amalgamation and the building of the Gloucester Road premises almost exactly 40 years beforehand. The most significant event for Hong Kong seafarers was the emergence from a century of relative obscurity — or at least comparative official and seamen’s welfare organization indifference — of Hong Kong Chinese seafarers in merchant marine service. We have noted that for various reasons, although they had always been the most numerous of Hong Kong’s seafaring community by a very large margin, from spiritual and material welfare points of view Chinese seafarers had been in most ways ignored. The port authorities had more or less left welfare concerns to families; native place, clan, or village associations; traditional seamen’s recruiting systems, or the private market. And the maritime missions were so orientated

18_Strong to Save.indd 299

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

300

Strong

to

Save

culturally, religiously and otherwise that Asian seafarers in general and Chinese seafarers in particular were for the most part largely off the radar. Part of the problem there — which was apparent by the end of the 19th century and had a significant impact in Britain in the early 20th century — was a perceived conflict between British (and by extension other western) seafarers and those from Asia. The Asiatic Articles and equivalent terms under which Chinese seafarers were employed were by the early 20th century seen to be necessarily undercutting and therefore displacing western seafarers. It followed that the predominantly western organizations engaged in looking after the welfare of seafarers could be torn between a duty to the less privileged and often badly exploited Chinese seafarer, and a duty to the better paid and therefore more expensive western seafarer, who was the main focus and whose job was considered to be under threat. For a western Mission chaplain working in a “British” port like Hong Kong, whose “parish” was primarily the “foreign” sailor in Hong Kong there was an institutional tendency not to see the other side.1 Equally, when it came to the exploited Chinese sailor, underpaid by the industry when compared with the rates for similar work by westerners and often ripped off by the crew boss who found him the job, life was probably easier all round if that was simply not one of the problems the chaplains had to deal with.2 If the Mission’s remit was exclusively the foreign sailor in a port that to him was foreign — as by definition Hong Kong was to all but Hong Kong seafarers — then the resident Hong Kong sailor could safely be ignored.3 This had been a problem that had been ignored for so long that back in the mid 1930s it had spawned a home-grown response from within Hong Kong’s Chinese community. Little is known of this remarkable effort, save that it seems to have lasted from its founding in 1935 through the Japanese occupation, and on into the early 1960s. With the exception of the war years, there are regular records of the

18_Strong to Save.indd 300

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

301

activities of what is variously called the Christian Mission to Chinese Seamen or the Chinese Seamen’s Mission.4 The founder and main engine of this interesting but doomed exercise was a Mr B.J. Tan, who is sometimes referred to as Reverend, sometimes not. Mr Tan had been working as a missionary to the small Chinese community in London before returning to Hong Kong to work for Hong Kong’s neglected Chinese seafarers in c.1933. He seems always to have been affiliated with one of the non-conformist denominations, by inference one related to the To Tsai Church (道濟會堂), and so Congregationalist, Baptist, or Presbyterian.5 B.J. Tan’s motivation to care for Chinese seafarers is not far to seek since he very possibly served in some maritime role in the First World War, had undoubtedly come across the largely ignored Chinese seafarers in 1920s London and, once he came to Hong Kong, cannot have failed to notice how Chinese seafarers were almost entirely overlooked by established seafarers’ missions of all kinds. As the first newspaper story about the Reverend Tan’s mission put it,

There is a fine Mission to Seamen in Hongkong, but it is only for Europeans. Though Hongkong has been in the hands of the British for over ninety

years, nothing yet has been done for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese seamen constantly passing to and fro.6

Fascinatingly the story goes on to note that at this stage Mr Tan was being lent Dayspring by Cyril Brown so that he could make ship visits, though the arrangement seems not to have lasted long.7 To begin with Mr Tan worked out of his own home on the second floor of 95a High Street, in Sai Ying Pun on Hong Kong Island, not far from the original site of the Sailors’ Home. What happened to B.J. Tan and his mission during the war is unknown. Post-war, after what may have been a temporary relocation to or at least a brief representation in Manila, the mission resumed work in 1947.8 Revived, it was still very much the child of Mr Tan and

18_Strong to Save.indd 301

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

302

Strong

to

Save

of his supporting church and reports continued fairly regularly until 1961. One possible indication that the mission may have continued to work in Hong Kong during the Japanese occupation is that in 1959 the president of the mission was claimed to be the late Mr Li Tse-Fong (李 9 子方, 1891–1953). Although from start to finish there was steady voluntary financial support for Mr Tan’s work, including from major shipping companies like the Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. (Jardines) and the China Navigation Co. (Butterfield and Swire), and from individuals like Sir Shouson Chou (周壽臣) and also, before his involvement with the Missions to Seamen, Hugh Dowbiggin, it was always extremely modest. Despite regular appeals, B.J. Tan’s mission never raised sufficient funds to be able to acquire its own premises.10 Instead it lived hand-to-mouth and always seems to have worked out of Mr Tan’s home, until 1938 on Hong Kong Island and thereafter, until all trace is lost at the beginning of the 1960s, in Kowloon. Recalling his pre-war service in Hong Kong, in 1952 Cyril Brown had remarked of Mr Tan’s work, Perhaps the Mission ought to be working amongst Chinese seamen as well

as European, but the difficulties are obvious and the practical need far from clear. A curious fellow named Tau [sic] is still carrying on a Mission to Chinese Seamen, but he is just as much suspect now as he was years ago.

He is certainly a little eccentric and it is doubtful if the money he collects is used for much more than his own maintenance.11

Despite this disparaging view, it seems clear from Mr Tan’s annual reports that he was doing something no one else was doing. Had Cyril Brown read sympathetically what Mr Tan reported he might have formed a different opinion. Reading those reports it is clear that Mr Tan did not work alone. Pre-war, when his mission’s fundraising had gone well, he had the services of up to eight in his staff, who were able to record 400–700 visits a year to ships alongside — lacking a launch they could not work mid-stream vessels — and, rather more important, visits to

18_Strong to Save.indd 302

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

303

60–100 boarding houses, which would have constituted a very high proportion of both the legal and illegal kun. By the early 1960s the insouciant disregard of Chinese sailors of earlier years was rapidly ceasing to be an option, although it would be 20 years and more before the message fully penetrated Hong Kong’s seasoned expatriate carapace. We noted Bishop Hall’s concerns for the neglect of Chinese seafarers in London, which had resulted in the recruitment of Peter Kao first as a lay reader and, after his ordination, as a port chaplain. This had been followed by Anthony Nind’s worry that nothing was being done in Hong Kong for Chinese seafarers, referred to in the previous chapter, once he saw the response to Peter Kao’s services in Cantonese during the latter’s brief few months at the Mission in Wan Chai in 1956. The same concern was being felt by the Mission in Australia.12 The International Labour Organization and the International Transport Workers Federation continued to be concerned with the potential abuses of the boarding house recruitment system and the lack of any welfare provision for Asian seamen since they had first taken an interest between the wars. Hong Kong’s effort, in the Committee on Seamen’s Recruitment formed in 1949 in response to union representations had resulted in no agreement on any way forward and discussion had then stopped. At the same time, Hong Kong’s Port Welfare Committee had remained and was to remain significantly skewed against the interests of local Chinese seafarers, although it had had a Chinese representative in Mr Hon Yan Lam since 1949. Eventually, following the final report of the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee in March 1964, change came — if, again, slowly.13 It took until 3 May 1966 before the Seamen’s Recruitment Office and its modern, international style seamen’s recruitment system opened, finally doing away with the practices of the seamen’s boarding houses and crew bosses which, in some respects thanks to government housing policies on the one hand and the effective closure of the

18_Strong to Save.indd 303

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

304

Strong

to

Save

border with China on the other, were in any case in decline. This world of change for Hong Kong’s majority Chinese seafarers seems a little remote from the story of the maritime mission in Hong Kong as it has been so far, but it was part of a sea change coming over the shipping world in Hong Kong to which the Institute was going to have to adapt. At the same 1953 ILO conference attention had also focussed on welfare facilities for Asian seafarers in Asian ports; the very issue that had been an important focus of the Chinese Seamen’s Mission during its active life. Interestingly where, with respect to recruitment systems, the preliminary report for the meeting had been fair and accurate, the preliminary report on welfare provision was distinctly disingenuous. So far as Hong Kong residents are concerned, the boarding- house system

is in full operation and, according to local accounts, answers the needs of the various groups of Chinese seafarers reasonably well.

But where, for example, Missions to Seamen records suggest a minimal use of the Wan Chai Institute by Asian seafarers, the 1953 report goes on to note: “Other Asian crews, when in transit, stay at the Sailors' Home run by the Missions to Seamen Society.”14 To describe this as disingenuous is to be kind. To see the Institute’s provision for Asian crews as in some way comparable to what was on offer in the kun would need one to fail to notice the difference between a lodging costing HK$2 a month and one costing HK$1 a night.15 In short and in fact welfare facilities for Chinese seafarers in Hong Kong were close to non-existent, their recruitment systems were archaic and not a lot appeared to be being done with much energy to change things.16 For Asian seafarers in general, as crew in ships visiting Hong Kong, things were better, but given systemic biases within the maritime welfare system, at best marginally so. *** The first half of the 1960s was a period of movement in the world of welfare provision for seafarers in Hong Kong. It was also, however, a

18_Strong to Save.indd 304

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

305

period during which the Institute seemed rather inwardly focussed as chaplain succeeded chaplain, each being rather a placeholder whilst, as the record has it, the “right younger man” was looked for, who could take up the running and provide the sort of medium- to long-term commitment the Mission had found in Gurney Goldsmith, Charles France, George Waldegrave, and William Haig Brown. Part of the problem here, with what level of complicity from the established seafarers’ welfare organizations one cannot say, was that when the issue of Chinese seafarers’ welfare was raised at the Port Welfare Committee or in the Legislative Council, it was effectively — though, in the habitual Hong Kong Government way, obliquely — shot down. The reasoning was simple. Port welfare commitments were to provide for seafarers far from home, strangers in a strange land without family or familiar places to turn to. It therefore followed that to take money devoted to this purpose to spend on those from whom Hong Kong was their home port was wrong.17 It is at this point that the documentary dearth in both the Missions’ and the government archives is particularly irksome. For in respect of these issues it is clear that 1964 was a key year. What we lack is any documentary guidance, bar Sir John Cowperthwaite’s retrospective reference, but a reasonable surmise is that in fact the Missions and some of the lay members of the PWC were being fairly active in support both of greater government commitment to seafarers’ welfare and to extending these provisions in some way or another to Chinese seafarers. This seems probably to have worried the shipowner and operator side of the fence. We have no idea other than this as to an explanation of what happened next. Between its full formal establishment in 1949 and 1952 the PWC had had ten members. With the establishment of the Apostleship this had then been expanded to include the two other Mission chaplains (Apostleship of the Sea and Norwegian Seamen’s Mission) to bring the total to twelve. This is where it had stayed until sometime in 1963. Then, in 1964, the whole committee was rejigged

18_Strong to Save.indd 305

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

306

Strong

to

Save

to exclude all members of maritime missions and seafarers’ union or professional ship’s officer associations and the committee was slimmed down to just seven members from government and the shipping industry. The terms of reference were slightly amended to read,18 a. To coordinate on behalf of government arrangements in Hong Kong

for the social and recreational welfare of all serving seamen, with the exception of those who are residing in Hong Kong.

Coincidentally, this change coincided with the repeal of the Lascar Act by the British parliament, though there is no documentation to establish any link between the two. The one obvious inference to draw from this is that the “heat” that may have been on the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s Local General Committee as a result of Alan Rolleston’s impetuous joining of forces with the Apostleship and whoever else thought that the time had come for a less Mission to Seamen’s dominated port welfare system, was promptly quenched. Whilst one member of the PWC, C.K Hui (Hui Chun Keung, son of Hui Oi Chow, see below) was a Roman Catholic, he was also above all a scion of one of Hong Kong’s “Four Big Families” (香港四大家族), so not likely to rock the establishment boat.

*** For Bob Precious and the Local General Committee however, whatever may have been the claims of local Chinese seafarers to better services, there was a far more urgent issue. Almost as Bob Precious arrived and Alan Rolleston left, the matter of a potential site for a new Institute in Kowloon suddenly moved up the agenda. Part of the reason for this is that in late 1961, more or less as Bob Precious took the helm, the Local General Committee’s building sub-committee, which seems to have left no records of its deliberations, finally filed its report on the potential move to Kowloon. The main impact of this in London was to raise again the vexed issue of relative “shares” in the

18_Strong to Save.indd 306

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

307

organization as between the original — and richer — Sailors’ Home and the less well-endowed Seamen’s Institute. Two months after this, in mid-January 1962, Cyril Brown arrived on what was a very important visit. Infuriatingly, other than newspaper stories on various cocktail parties for the Browns, there are few records of what meetings were held, who was involved, and what was discussed. The sole initial signal that emerged was from a press meeting held at the end of Cyril Brown’s stay in which he announced the “New International Seamen’s Club” that was being proposed. He was quoted as mentioning modern facilities and saying: “The club would be open to seamen of all ranks and nationalities.”19 In coming to these ambitious conclusions clearly a lot of ground had been covered, and in a follow-up memorandum sent by Hugh Barton to Charles Smith, copied to all the members of the planning sub-committee, the key meeting of Cyril Brown’s visit is revealed. In summarizing the meeting Hugh Barton’s later memorandum also indicates that, even if at that point exactly where the new premises were to be was uncertain, there was no longer any doubt that they would indeed be. What had transpired was that government was in principle in agreement with new premises. It is indicative of the thinking on the official side however, and probably a pointer both to interdenominational tensions amongst the missions and the continuing influence of Ministry of Transport thinking, that at this point everyone exclusively uses the descriptor “International Seamen’s Club” for what was being planned. The site would be approximately 20,000 sq.ft. (1858 sq.m.) and would be paid for by government being handed whatever remained, after the new building was up, between what the building had cost and price paid by government for the Wan Chai site. And just in case anyone had toyed with the thought that with fast rising land values there might be so much money left over from the exchange of sites and building the new premises that something could

18_Strong to Save.indd 307

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

308

Strong

to

Save

be added to the endowment fund, Mr Burgess had poured some very cold water, indicating that government would not allow any money to be put aside for “maintaining the Mission.” Where the premises were to be was either on a site the Local General Committee chose, with plans then drawn up to show what could be done and how much it would cost, or by stating what amenities were needed and being allocated a suitable site as decided by the Public Works Department. Not surprisingly the Local General Committee preferred the former, but was prepared to defer to the architects. As another sign of how much had been achieved by the Local General Committee and during Cyril Brown’s visit, the architects, Leigh and Orange, who had built the first Wan Chai Institute, had already been chosen. It is another indicator of how far Hong Kong representatives of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen had still to travel in terms of seeing all seafarers as entitled to equal welfare that in discussion of facilities, London wanted single cabins as against the sub-committee’s original choice of dormitories. But in case one leapt to the conclusion that London was racing ahead of Hong Kong, when it came to dealing with the Local General Committee’s “doubts about the need, at present, to provide European style facilities for Asian seamen”, both sides agreed that one floor could initially be flats for officers, convertible to Asian seamen’s facilities later if there proved to be sufficient demand, it being a clear implication that at this stage demand was not at that level. That government was interested in seeing a somewhat different system of governance was not mentioned directly by Cyril Brown, but had nonetheless been indicated by the colonial secretary’s requirement that the Local General Committee be expanded, although — testament to the quality of Cyril Brown’s pitch — it was accepted that the major governance would still come via the Missions to Seamen. For the International Seamen’s Club, the management committee would have to include a Chinese member to represent

18_Strong to Save.indd 308

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

309

Chinese shipping interests with the two other port chaplains as, extraordinarily, non-voting members. As a further snub to the other denominations, and an index that the phrase the “established church” still had bite in early 1960s colonial Hong Kong, whilst it was agreed that the Roman Catholic chaplain should have a consecrated space, as the Mission would have a transferred St. Peter’s Church, it was only to be “a small oratory or at most a very small Chapel to seat a maximum of, say, 50 people.”20 In short, what the colonial secretary had got the chairman of the Local General Committee and the Missions’ general superintendent to agree to was pretty much what Alan Rolleston had been arguing for and putting backs up about a year previously. However, from Bob Precious at least, there is a subdued signal of what one divines to be continuing London and Local General Committee reservations about joining forces with the Apostleship. Where timings were concerned the conservative estimate was at least three years before any new club would open — an opinion that proved not conservative enough by a large margin. Bob Precious closed by indicating that there was an urgent need for someone to help him “no later than October 1962” in order to fill the gap caused by the approaching retirement of the manager, Joe Hawkins. The idea was for the new assistant chaplain to be taken on for a five-year contract to ensure continuity through the expected move to Kowloon sometime in the middle of 1965. Indeed the next we read, in a late spring exchange, is that the chosen new assistant was to be Ivor Paget who, whilst a relative newcomer as a priest, had had some previous experience as a layman with the Missions to Seamen and was a veteran of the Murmansk Convoys.21 The reservations about the Apostleship surfaced forcefully just a week later following a meeting of the PWC, at which the new club was discussed. It seemed that Father Cunningham of the Apostleship had exploded because of the interview that Cyril Brown had given before leaving Hong Kong about the planned new International Seamen’s

18_Strong to Save.indd 309

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

310

Strong

to

Save

Club. Evidently during Cyril Brown’s visit not the slightest effort had been made to consult or inform the Apostleship — or probably any other seafarers’ mission — of the plans for this high cost, Anglicandominated relocation that, at least in government’s eyes, was to be non-denominational if, initially, rather dependent on the Missions to Seamen’s greater expertise and experience. What Father Cunningham saw, with some justification, was a large new club planned to replace the Mission to Seamen’s existing large old club, whilst the Apostleship was still being cold-shouldered. It was also clear that plans had advanced far enough for the press to be told without anyone ever having discussed anything with the Apostleship. It had been taken, understandably, as the snub direct. That this was not a misunderstanding is made abundantly clear by Cyril Brown’s reaction to the letter from Michael Herries, who was standing in for flu-stricken Hugh Barton. Herries spells out the position that the PWC seemed to be prepared to go along with. The Apostleship was offering HK$2 million towards the new club on condition that it was given a lay representative on the board of management. Michael Herries glosses this by noting that Jim Mullion would be prepared to stand down and the Dodwells’ representative on the Local General Committee, George Goldsack, and his successor were proposing a Chinese Roman Catholic, Mr Hui Sai Fun, “With only one Catholic nominee on our Committee, apart from the nonvoting Catholic Chaplain, we would retain complete control.”22 Michael Herries ended by asking whether Cyril Brown thought such a set of arrangements would be accepted by the General Council, noting in passing that Hugh Dowbiggin was dead against any such agreement!23 That Cyril Brown was probably of Hugh Dowbiggin’s opinion is suggested by the way he covered the letter with copious underlining of every mention of the Roman Catholic member of the PWC. And it is endorsed by his reply, sent to the chairman of the Local General Committee, Hugh Barton, a month later. He lays his and the General Council’s cards directly on the table, noting that any

18_Strong to Save.indd 310

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

311

offers of accommodation or anything else to the Roman Catholics would be acceptable only if it “can be done with due safeguards to the established position and identity of The Missions to Seamen.” Rather more indicatively he expressed London’s doubts about “the desirability of inviting the Roman Catholic Apostleship of the Sea to participate in the scheme at Kowloon”, noting that the General Council was of the view that “extreme caution must be exercised” because of experiences at other ports of similar ventures. With a wondrously Elizabethan ring, he noted that, “there are some members of the Council who are not unaware of the world strategy directed from Rome.” Cyril Brown noted that things had to be played carefully and back-up plans developed. His General Council was evidently digging their heels in, claiming that the risk of including the Apostleship in the Kowloon project were “too grave”. Accordingly he was worried that any exclusion of the Apostleship might result in the Hong Kong Government balking, hence the need for an alternative. Cyril Brown asked Hugh Barton whether, in the light of the project losing government support, there might be “any real possibility of rebuilding in the compound of St. Andrew’s Church, Kowloon”, given that Bishop Hall had apparently suggested the vicarage there could be demolished and a new Seamen’s Institute built in its place. It is clear in the context that, in the event of the Signal Hill project being stopped in its tracks, London was contemplating abandoning the amalgamated entity cooked up in 1930 and going it alone as a church-based Mission with smaller facilities.24 That all of this was a fall out from Alan Rolleston’s gung-ho push for a joint, ecumenical project becomes evident from a stray piece of paper in the Mission archive of the minutes of the PWC from earlier in the year. Minute 921, responding to Father Cunningham’s explosion about Cyril Brown’s press briefing reads, In the discussion which followed it was pointed out that the Port Welfare Committee had no assets to provide a Club on the lines suggested in last

18_Strong to Save.indd 311

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

312

Strong

to

Save

year’s report of the Chaplains of the three voluntary societies, but that the report had been accepted as a good basis on which to work.

Evidently by sometime in 1961 the government’s duly appointed port welfare supremos had thought they had some sort of a joint mission agreement, as had Father Cunningham of the Apostleship. The trouble was that the then spokesman for the Mission, Alan Rolleston, had been speaking out of turn without ensuring that before he galloped ahead, he had the backing of his Local General Committee and London. The result, as minute 921 shows, was to give everyone a perfect excuse for passing the parcel. The PWC declared that because of legacy issues all initiative as to moving on the project rested with the Missions to Seamen, and that therefore it was to that Mission’s chaplain that Father Cunningham should be speaking. Of course that’s what Father Cunningham had supposed he had done, when things had been discussed in Alan Rolleston’s day. But Bob Precious told the meeting that he “was not empowered to speak on behalf of the Missions to Seamen and suggested to Father Cunningham that he should seek further information from Mr Barton, Chairman of the Local General Committee of the Missions to Seamen.” Father Cunningham seems to have been his own worst enemy as well as seemingly oblivious to the stratagems of committee work.

*** By mid 1962 Bob Precious’ health was giving cause for concern and a warning note was sent by London to Bishop Hall informing him that Bob Precious would have to leave before summer began the following year.25 In some ways this was not as worrying as it might have been, for although finding the right young man seemed to be giving as much trouble as ever, there was no indication that the pace of change in the work over the new premises was picking up. This was as well since there was a general shifting about in the air with Joe Hawkins departing on retirement leave and his place being taken by a Church of Scotland minister.26 Cyril Brown was evidently displeased

18_Strong to Save.indd 312

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

313

at this, “It does seem, however, a little odd that one who is presumably a Free Church minister should be appointed to a lay position in what is virtually a Church of England organization”, but Bob Precious’ reply was pointed, “I do not wish to comment on your fourth paragraph,” but otherwise focussed on the many balls he was trying to juggle.27 A month later the Kowloon issue got a mild fillip when the formal application for war department lot no. 11, Blackhead, Kowloon was submitted to government. It was for a 27,000 sq.ft. site for which plans outlined a new International Merchant Navy Club — again the carefully non-religious designation. This was to have an open air swimming pool, bowling alleys, entertainment hall, games rooms, officers’ and seamen’s bars, lounges, dining rooms, a library, a “mixed” lounge and bar (there is no clarification as to who was to be mixed with whom), residential accommodation for officers and seamen, selfcontained flats for seafarers in need of them, accommodation of SHSM staff and a “small chapel available for Anglican and other Protestant religious services”. In short, a larger, improved but not greatly different Wan Chai Institute, though one, evidently, not at this juncture including the Apostleship.28 Focus on Kowloon loosens rather, because with Bob Precious’ impending departure, the need for someone with “outstanding qualities of leadership and negotiation” to take over was clearly a key issue. There is no hint in correspondence as to how thoughts on this matter were trending, at which point all sight of any future issues gets lost by the impact of one of the worst typhoons to hit Hong Kong in living memory. Typhoon Wanda swept into Hong Kong on 1 September 1962 and caused widespread damage, staking a claim that at the time was for the highest winds and the lowest pressure ever recorded in Hong Kong.29 Twenty ocean going ships were driven ashore, 600 fishing boats were sunk and up to 2,000 sunk or damaged altogether, 2 tugs were lost with all but one member of their 40 total crew, over 180 people were killed — most in the Sha Tin area where an almost 5 m

18_Strong to Save.indd 313

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

314

Strong

to

Save

storm surge swept down Tolo Harbour — and some 75,000 were made homeless.30 Compared to many the Institute got off lightly. Its neighbour, the Servicemen’s Guides Association Pier on the waterfront off the end of Fenwick Street, opposite the Institute, was destroyed. So Bob Precious found himself not only catering for the scores of almost naked or lightly clothed seafarers, who had swum ashore from the many ships in trouble, but also providing premises for the Servicemen’s Guides Association operations until their pier could be rebuilt. To try to meet the demand for clothing from the stranded sailors who had lost everything, and as with the larger, territory-wide relief fund appeal that raised nearly HK$5 million, the Mission put out a call for old clothing.31 Bob Precious was so busy it was his wife Mary, who wrote in an account for Head Office in London, Every bed in the place is occupied, even the small room in our flat! It really was “a day of terror”, but fortunately no one at the Mission was hurt — a

few broken windows and 4’ of water in the gymnasium, courtyard and all the basement rooms.

She goes on to describe the destruction of Fenwick Pier such that the Servicemen’s Guides Association were now working out of the Institute officers’ lounge with the US Navy Shore Patrol in the billiard room. Meanwhile the Turkish and Greek crews from two wrecks had filled the accommodation to the brim.32 In a letter written later that day, when the pressure began to die down, Bob Precious noted that if the damage to the Institute was relatively easy to clean up, one or two of the staff, who lived in squatter settlements had lost their exiguous homes, though he was able to say that they had found alternatives, even the carpenter who had ten children. He particularly singled out the Chinese steward, Mr Wong Kam Moon for his indefatigable and calming help, “who during the whole typhoon grinned happily and did not worry about anything.”33 As Hong Kong recovered from the damage and life got back to normal, the wheels of government decision-making ground slowly on.

18_Strong to Save.indd 314

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Passage Planning

315

In November a meeting was held with government over the question of the site for the planned new International Seamen’s Club, as the government were now offering 10,000 sq.ft. less. There was to be a final meeting on 1 December with the Public Works Department and the Colonial Secretariat at which a decision was to be made, after which, Bob Precious noted, the matter would go to the Legislative Council.34 In January 1963 there is a copy of a letter from the acting chairman of the Local General Committee, Hugh Dowbiggin, to Bob Precious, reminding him that the preliminary plans for the new building had to be sent to London for approval, “even though the Missions to Seamen is only a partner”. That coincided with London receiving a copy of a letter from the Institute’s solicitors, Deacons, sent to the acting superintendent of Crown lands, Mr R.C. Clarke that indicates, loosely, that the 22,500 sq.ft. counter-offer had been accepted for a building of 123,776 sq.ft. floor area. Perhaps the most interesting part of this letter is a key justificatory paragraph indicating that the long period of catering almost exclusively for western seamen was ending, …perhaps the most important feature (of the new building) from the Government’s point of view is that the intended new premises would provide facilities for both European and Asian seamen. The latter are

at present not catered for due to the lack of suitable kitchens, but this

problem would be overcome in the new building. Thus the project itself would conform to Colonial Office policy in providing facilities of all races and faiths, and the premises would, it has been suggested, be known as the “Mariners’ Club”.

The cost of the project is sketched as being HK$7,965,807.91 and assumes that the Wan Chai premises would be worth HK$9,197,600, stamp duty and all legal expenses paid, that the Institute would be allowed to retain HK$500,000 to tide over the “low initial earning period” and that the balance would be treated by government as the cost of the new site. Deacons’ letter concluded, “It is a fundamental consideration … that payment of the price of the new site should be

18_Strong to Save.indd 315

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

316

Strong

to

Save

deferred until the balance of the purchase price for the old site has been received.”35 As ever, the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen was able to benefit from the status of the chairmen of its Local General Committee. Hugh Barton, Jardine Matheson and Co.’s taipan, had stepped down as Chairman of the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen on 5 March and was due to leave Hong Kong on retirement in June at which point he was to become the first of the ex-Hong Kong Local General Committee chairmen to become a member of the Missions to Seamen’s General Council in London as vice-president. He very much wanted to be able to have finalized the decisions about the move to Kowloon, especially by the government, before he left Hong Kong. So with his successor at Jardines and as chair of the Local General Committee, Michael Herries, he brought all his influence to bear, directly lobbying the financial secretary, Sir John Cowperthwaite, to make sure that any remaining obstacles, including government’s “stickiness” over the issue of land values, were removed.36 Before things were finalized Bob Precious’ time in Hong Kong came to an end. On 17 March, 1963 his replacement, Elliot Lawlor, arrived and four weeks later, on 11 April, Bob Precious noted in the service book that was faithfully kept for each week, “The Reverend E. Lawlor takes charge of the H.K. Missions to Seamen”. On 15 April the same source notes, “Chaplain and Mrs Precious left Hong Kong”, on board the P&O liner Arcadia we learn from the local newspaper.37 Evidently either all searches had failed or London had been having second thoughts. The archival record does not suggest which is the correct answer, but for the senior chaplain to take the Kowloon project forward and ensure that the Missions to Seamen’s pre-eminent role in maritime mission in Hong Kong was protected, London played safe. Elliot Lawlor had been brought in to steady the ship following the sudden departure of William Haig Brown. He knew the ropes and the people and so, seven years after he was last at the helm of the Mission in Hong Kong, he could be relied on to make sure things went as London wished.38

18_Strong to Save.indd 316

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

Part V

Definitive Moves

19_Strong to Save.indd 317

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

19_Strong to Save.indd 318

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

19

The Mariners’ Club: Laying the Foundations

t the point that Bob Precious handed over to Elliot Lawlor we get a snapshot of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen at the beginning of its last few years in its Hong Kong Island home. Despite Elliot Lawlor being, as it were, an old Hong Kong hand and evidently carefully chosen by Cyril Brown for the job, Bob Precious had done his duty and left behind a set of handover notes for his successor. They are fairly skeletal — the bare bones — but they give an interesting view of how things ran. The head management team in early 1963 consisted of the senior chaplain backed up by an assistant chaplain, the European manager (Ian Findlay), the Chinese manager (Mr Wong Kam Moon) and a parttime secretary. The catering side was still looked after by a comprador (Mr Lai Leung, who had taken over from his brother, and who seems not to have lived in-house), and a resident catering manager Mr Chan. Bob Precious noted that the Chinese staff, who are neither enumerated nor named, are “nothing to do with the chaplain”. With changing times came changing staff. Before Bob Precious left he had to deal with inducting a new assistant chaplain, since his assistant chaplain for the previous year, Ivor Paget, had left.1 In his place had come the Reverend Roy Chalkley who arrived on 7 April but was not destined to stay in Hong Kong much longer that his predecessor.2 Finding and keeping assistant chaplains seems always to have been difficult.

19_Strong to Save.indd 319

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

320

Strong

to

Save

There are various details about committees, including the Ladies Committee with some 15 members that met variously every month or every two months and dealt with flower arranging, organized barbecues and drove the Mission’s car for hospital visits. The King George V Hall — the main entertainment space — was used by both the Garrison Players and by the Dutch Players and, as we know from newspaper advertisements for auditions and performances, was busy. The four-year-old launch, Dayspring V, continued to pay no license fees and was operated by a crew of a coxswain and four hands. The chaplain was the official Church of England prison visitor for all Europeans in gaol, not just seafarers, and there was the weekly “Ship Ahoy!” radio broadcast on Commercial Radio to keep up. It was a portrait of a busy life but one still rather remote from everyday maritime Hong Kong and its large and growing number of Chinese seafarers. It was also one from which it was easy to conclude that the major work done was primarily a form of social welfare. The sole note that related to either author or recipient being a clergyman, other than his role as diocesan prison visitor to Europeans, relates to St. Peter’s Church, with respect to which Bob Precious contents himself with describing the routine he followed (three Sunday services with matins in Cantonese) and noting that all decisions on what services to hold when are at the discretion of the senior chaplain.3

*** Meanwhile efforts to push forward the move to Kowloon continued. Hugh Barton’s lobbying efforts seemed to him to have borne fruit, since he was able to call Elliot Lawlor on 20 May 1963 and tell him, as relayed to Cyril Brown, that, “it was almost certain that the matter of the site for the new building is through. In fact the Government department is drafting a final letter for signature.” It seems that one plan the government had in mind to make this fairly sweetheart deal publicly acceptable was to use some of the new premises — specifically the floors with flats that would mainly have been for

19_Strong to Save.indd 320

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

321

European ship’s officers — for quarters for civil servants. This new idea had been devised to make sure there was enough money to build the planned new high-rise — for those days — building.4 That plan did not survive. By August Elliot Lawlor was writing again, this time with some extra details and news of a final meeting on 28 August to finalize things. For the first time we learn that the site swap deal that was being finalized required the Wan Chai site to be left ready for redevelopment. The cost of leveling the old Palmer and Turner building was to be borne by the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen and it therefore mattered a lot that all that was required was razing the building to ground level, since removing the basement and backfilling would be very expensive. By this date there are very precise valuations being mentioned of HK$5,972,500 for the new site and HK$10,347,300 for Wan Chai. The architect had worked out that given the probable cost of the new building and despite the HK$5.5 million total available cash from government,5 the Mission was going to have to be able to find HK$2.5 million to be sure it could pay the bills. It was a daunting prospect.6 A letter from Michael Herries two weeks later helped clarify some of the detail, though there was clearly much still to worry about. The main problem was going to be finding the money to pay for the whole project since government had decided to back off on its plans for civil service flats. Evidently some sort of public money carrot was still being dangled. But it was clear that government was not going to seal, sign, and deliver until the Mission had come back with “a fully detailed proposal”.7 That there were some problems yet to be sorted out with respect to such detail, especially in cutting costs, emerges in an update note by someone in London following a telephone call from Michael Herries on 15 October. It would seem that Precious, when Chaplain, had advised the inclusion of a

number of non-essential items including an excess of bars — one of which would have been located in the plans just outside the chapel!

19_Strong to Save.indd 321

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

322

Strong

to

Save

Clearly the old tensions between the provision of both secular and spiritual welfare were alive and manifest. But dealing with Kowloon was always only part of the story. There was the perennial problem of the Missions’ senior staff. For Elliot Lawlor one problem was that his assistant did not like his job. Roy Chalkley was 43 years old when he arrived in Hong Kong, having started his working life as a boy seaman in HMS Ganges and serving through the Second World War and beyond in the Royal Navy. He did not like playing second fiddle to anyone and, in Cyril Brown’s words, “needed to be replaced by a younger man”.8 To add to that, the man the senior chaplain relied on to run the secular side of the ship, Ian Findlay, was by this time well advanced in years and “could not serve much longer both on account of age and because he would not have the ability to manage what would virtually be a new hotel.” Finally for London, it was clear there were problems with their chosen safe pair of hands since, reading between the lines, Elliot Lawlor, was “touchy” about the terms and conditions he was serving under, seeing himself as deserving a better deal than he was getting.9 Much more significant in the medium term, though the significance was not to emerge until the new Kowloon premises were completed and the rapid changeover of 1960s senior chaplains brought to an end, was the need to find a new manager. This wasn’t just a question of filling the shoes of Ian Findlay, it was a question of finding someone fully capable of running what, by 1960s standards, was a large and complex hotel. The matter was not urgent whilst the timing of the impending move was still uncertain. But when the provisional agreement was signed with government in November 1964, it required completion of the new premises by the end of 1967. Naturally at that point the matter moved up the scale of priorities. The obvious question then became, how did one find someone with the abilities to run a major hotel who was also au fait with mission

19_Strong to Save.indd 322

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

323

and welfare work with seafarers and with working with a majority Cantonese-speaking staff? It says much about 1960s expatriate Hong Kong, when one reads the advertisement that was placed in the South China Morning Post in January 1966, that the last issue was not even in anyone’s sights. All that mattered was the relevant institutional experience and, again indicative of the mindsets that still prevailed both in Hong Kong and the Missions to Seamen of the day, what seemed to provide the most likely background for what was being looked for was the British armed forces! The result was to reveal some of the cracks in the institutional structure that over the years may have come to seem sealed over. *** It is some three years before this point that the gap in the record opens between October 1963 and an annual report for 1967 filed in London by Elliot Lawlor’s successor, Reverend Frank Roe, in February 1968. A good starting point for filling these lacunae, although with the advantage of hindsight, is to summarize what the period that was about to begin represents in the wider history of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen and seafarers’ welfare in Hong Kong. For the one thing that is clear is the remarkably astute and well-orchestrated campaign that had been undertaken by London in the just under 20 years since the re-establishment of the institution at the end of the Second World War. When what was then the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute reopened in 1945, there had clearly been tides running rather against the domination of seafarer welfare provision by religious bodies and especially in Hong Kong against the de facto quasi-monopoly of the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen. The fairly swiftly established Port Welfare Committee, with its wider denominational scope and specifically secular purpose, and the founding of the Merchant Navy Sports Club were straws in the wind, as were the establishment of the Apostleship of the Sea and the re-establishment of the Norwegian

19_Strong to Save.indd 323

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

324

Strong

to

Save

Seamen’s Mission. In government too there were manifest signs that a more secular, less European-dominated institution was looked to in the future. The Missions to Seamen was quite well aware of this as its note about the Colonial Office policy had indicated, when it had closed the deal on the new Tsim Sha Tsui site in 1963. As the 1950s moved to the 1960s, various international and local pressures had also begun raising the profile and the welfare needs not just of seafarers in general, but specifically of both Asian and local Chinese seafarers, which added to the mix of issues that any future planning had to take on board. One of the least readily explicable of the developments relevant here — and equally inexplicable silences — concerns the fact that between 1963 and 1964 the membership of the Port Welfare Committee underwent a dramatic change. From its inception in 1949 until 1963, with some minor changes here and there, its membership had always included representatives from government, from the shipping industry (including an accountant), from the Chinese side of the shipping industry (though never, it seems, the Chinese seamen’s unions), from the Merchant Navy Officers’ Guild, and from the three European seafarer missions. In 1964, with no explanation as to why, the membership was drastically slimmed to include only the three official members and four representatives of the shipping industry, two of them representing Chinese shipowners. There is no visible commentary in the newspapers about so major a change. Nor was there any discussion in the Legislative Council. However, a few straws in the wind are suggestive. Perhaps the most obvious is the extent to which we know that the missions, and the shipping and seafarer community were a constant source of demands for increased expenditure. They were also, although here the evidence is extremely patchy, beginning to argue in favour of welfare provision for seafarers to be extended to cover the growing population of local Chinese seafarers serving on foreign flagged as well as locally flagged ships.10 However, it is also

19_Strong to Save.indd 324

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

325

clear that between the missions there were significant tensions, with rival claims over the “cake” and respective shares. In short, decisionmaking by the preferred Hong Kong method of engineered consensus that fitted with what government had planned or was prepared to do was facing problems. Finally, with Hong Kong’s rapidly increasing population and the growth of light industry with its demands for land and services, government itself was facing increasing calls on its revenues with its heavy investment in public housing, infrastructure, and education.11 Concomitant with this swelling of demand for expenditure on Hong Kong’s own people, there was a stated intention to scale back the government’s like-for-like matching subsidy to the Port Welfare Committee, whose expenditure was stated exclusively to be for the benefit of visiting “foreign” seafarers. One way or another, to have a Port Welfare Committee that could more or less be relied on to toe the government line and agree that, where seafarer welfare was concerned, the shipping industry should be self-supporting in providing the acceptable regional minimum makes sense. That there is no published record of the discussions — and no public commentary of it either — speaks volumes about both contemporary government attitudes and the nature of public discourse in Hong Kong. Underpinning the more strategic considerations with which the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong had to wrestle, though very much in the background, were all the still unresolved tensions within the formal structure of the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen. On one side was its secular, Sailors’ Home component and those on the Local General Committee who “represented” that side of the joint entity. And on the other was the membership “representing” the Hong Kong Anglican Church and London Missions to Seamen: servants to the spiritual welfare of seafarers. Between the two was the unresolved, and probably unresolvable issue not so much openly about who “captained” the ship, which had been at least de facto decided for

19_Strong to Save.indd 325

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

326

Strong

to

Save

some 30 plus years in the senior chaplain’s favour, but whose ship the joint body actually was. Put at its bluntest, was it London’s local fief or was it an autonomous Hong Kong entity, affiliated with but not subordinate to, or a part of a primary London local mission? Meanwhile the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission was interested only in Norwegian seafarers, extended where needed to other Scandinavians.12 And the Apostleship of the Sea, which at least in principle wanted to shape up as a genuine alternative with an equal call on government support, had proved unable to marshal the financing and the commitment of church resources for a sustained push to build itself to critical mass. Indeed so uneven had been the support from its own church body and so taxing had been the resultant demands on its greatly overworked chaplains during these critical years, that having at last been given premises of its own in the old Kowloon Wharf customs office in January 1964, the Apostolate had to close down operations and abandon the premises for want of funds in May, just four months later, when its debts ran to four figures.13 The Apostleship was unable to restart its work until September 1964 although it remained homeless until Mrs Freda Noronha gifted a 14th floor apartment in a high-rise building on Chatham Road, Kowloon, in October the following year, under Father Cunningham’s one time assistant, Father Joseph McAsey, SJ.14 As all this was going on an early push towards ecumenical sharing of services to mariners, pioneered during the short-lived chaplaincy of Reverend Alan Rolleston, had run very firmly onto the rocks and shoals of inter-denominational distrust. Any further progress was blocked by the effective refusal of the main decision makers on both sides to compromise, for all that within both churches there were supporters for such a move, since it would have eased the financial strain both missions were facing and would have had the support of the Port Welfare Committee. But where happenstance provides some of the answer as to why it was that by the end of 1963 it was the Missions to Seamen that

19_Strong to Save.indd 326

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

327

was effectively the only significant player when it came to planning the International Seamen’s Club, extremely astute maneuvering by London provides the rest. Looked at dispassionately from the comfortable distance of half a century, one can see how the obduracy over Alan Rolleston’s “premature” initiative provided a vital breathing space. The Missions to Seamen both in London and Hong Kong were recovering from the demands and costs of wartime and facing the challenges of the new international, British, and British colonial official involvement in seafarers’ welfare in its first flush of enthusiasm. In Hong Kong, for the Missions to Seamen to continue to be a major player, whenever possible it had to position itself so that it appeared to decision makers as the sole significant institution because it had the resources, the experience, and the international and local connections to be entrusted with leadership responsibility. The pattern of developments in Hong Kong over the first two post-war decades, and especially as the 1960s progressed, suggests that, whether consciously or more intuitively, this strategic appreciation informed decision making. Domestically, perhaps because it had become by this time the default operating principle, successive senior chaplains continued to assert themselves as the unquestioned “captains” of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. They and the Local General Committee also acted as though the first port of call on any questions of seafarers’ welfare, whether from government or the shipping community, should be Gloucester Road, Wan Chai. In consequence they were able to ensure that their management of the Merchant Navy Sports Club and their 70% plus portion of the annual funds raised for supporting seafarers’ welfare were maintained. Simultaneously, and whether consciously or unconsciously, by conservatively holding back against the slowly rising tide of ecumenism, much abetted in this by equal or greater conservatism in the Apostleship, they also ensured that during the crucial period when the new, larger International Seamen’s Club idea emerged and the

19_Strong to Save.indd 327

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

328

Strong

to

Save

resultant institution was first being planned, it was seen as purely and simply a replacement for the existing premises in Wan Chai. Meanwhile, from an internal perspective, two things seem pertinent. One is that a Local General Committee, which in the early 1950s had showed some signs of supporting a more secularist stance for the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute, inclining towards seeing chaplaincy services as an add-on, with the core secular welfare tasks being dealt with by a lay manager and team, had been, or at least appeared to have been steadily brought on side. By the early 1960s, as the record shows, the chairmen of the Local General Committee were no longer dealing with a London-based organization that was the minority partner in a joint Hong Kong project in which the majority share was held by the secular, Hong Kong-founded and based Sailors’ Home. Rather, they were writing as the chairmen of what was, in practice if not constitutionally, a Local General Committee of a Missions to Seamen mission that merely happened to have a name reflective of the existence, way back when, of two parent entities one of which was now no more than an historical memory. By the early 1960s, as the new Kowloon premises were being planned, the still lurking issues of the authority relationship between the senior chaplain and the manager, and the relationship between the governing Europeans and the governed local Chinese had more or less dropped below the institutional radar. The ageing Ian Findlay seems to have been happy to work within the achieved status quo and was in any case serving out his time. The Chinese staff, whose continuity and loyalty to the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen is one of the most remarkable features of this story, had no interest in changing arrangements with which they were familiar and by which they were, in the context of 1960s Hong Kong, well served. And both Bob Precious and Elliot Lawlor seemed able to carry their staff with them without any of the issues that had seemed so potentially troubling to Cyril Brown back in the early 1930s ever intruding. No doubt a final influence in ensuring the achievement of this

19_Strong to Save.indd 328

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

329

happy state of affairs will have been some combination of the wish of the Hong Kong Government to work with a single stakeholder in planning the new premises, and of the standing of what was very much the established church in Hong Kong’s still very colonial system. Put altogether these various threads, that had become woven together over the ten years since the issue of the move to Kowloon had moved towards centre stage, had placed the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen — and especially the last — in the driving seat of seafarers’ welfare provision in Hong Kong at a crucial moment. That there were unresolved organizational issues, a changing Hong Kong society, greater awareness of the welfare needs of Hong Kong’s own seafarers and, as we shall see, huge impending changes in the nature and manning of the shipping world that served Hong Kong were at this point no more than ripples on the surface of the water. What mattered was a steady hand on the helm and the giving of no hostages to fortune while the critical decisions were being made. In that light, despite London’s apparent eagerness to find the right younger man, Elliott Lawlor’s chaplaincy, like that of Bob Precious before him, makes perfect sense. Both were old Missions to Seamen hands. But Elliot Lawlor, during whose chaplaincy everything was to be brought to fruition, had 23 years of experience in the organization, all of them in one or other kind of supervisory or coordinating position. He was also very much what was known as a “broad churchman”, so could be trusted to cleave to a middle line favouring the status quo, with no more independent ventures at ecumenical outreach.15 It was the perfect recipe for ensuring that nothing untoward would upset the subtle but steady continuation of the Missions to Seamen’s leadership in seafarers’ welfare provision in Hong Kong that it had been working towards since Gurney Goldsmith had arrived in 1885. *** Finding out when the final agreements for Kowloon were settled and signed proved an interesting quest. The actual date only

19_Strong to Save.indd 329

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

330

Strong

to

Save

appears in the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s own Hong Kong archives buried in a footnote to the 1965 balance sheet. The agreement also required that the new building “of not less than 12 storeys” had to be completed by 31 December 1967. Despite that detail the accounts then make clear that negotiations were still proceeding.16 Whatever hadn’t been agreed as to fine detail can’t have delayed things long. By the time of the 1965 accounts some sort of work was certainly under way since an expenditure of HK$329,319.72 on the new premises had already been disbursed during the year. By the end of 1966, that had risen to HK$3,152,826.50. We know from a summary in the 1965 accounts that the Wan Chai premises had been operating at a loss at least since 1962. It had only been kept in the black by a regular return on the invested endowment fund. Happily the final agreement that had been come to with government had helped square the circle. The first advance against the c.HK$5.5 million that had been agreed to be the expected difference between the land values of the Kowloon and Wan Chai sites was handed over during 1966 and came to HK$2.276 million. There was some small help from London in the form of a loan of HK$72,700 and a promised grant from the Merchant Navy Welfare Fund.17 The balance had to come from the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s reserves and, pending the final payment by government for the Wan Chai site, from a bank loan. But somehow the cost to the Sailors’ Home and Mission to Seamen had been kept manageable. Whenever the decision was made that ensured the final green light, ground was broken at the new Tsim Sha Tsui site towards the end of 1965 and quite literally too. Some of the foundation of the site was solid rock and this had to be shaped to form part of the foundations of the subsequent building. One of the most intriguing photographs of the site’s early days is of the rock sculpted into the shape of the future swimming pool. There is an intriguing tale, unsubstantiated in any written documents, that when the moment came for moving

19_Strong to Save.indd 330

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

331

onto the site to start work, some British military buildings were still there. Government was informed of this but since the paperwork in the government office declared the site vacant, that there could be any buildings on the site was stoutly denied. It took an insistence that the civil servants actually came and looked for them to realize that the site was not in fact ready for occupation. It rapidly was. With the first work underway it was soon possible to lay the foundation stone, which was done in a fairly low-key ceremony on 1 February 1966 by Colonel Dowbiggin, with Elliot Lawlor conducting the service of dedication. No other denomination seems to have been invited. It was to be the last major service for the Mission by Hugh Dowbiggin, who died on 21 March, aged 81.18 Once the foundation stone had been laid, and given the less than two years that remained before the new premises were to be in operation, the issue of finding Ian Findlay’s replacement had swiftly moved up the agenda and an advertisement had been placed in the South China Morning Post in the month before the foundation stone was laid stating that applicants should be ready to take up post by April 1966. There are no records of the interview or date of appointment. All we know is that sometime in the first half of 1966 the Local General Committee appointed the new manager of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Jim Thornton. The advertisement had seemingly found the sort of person it had been looking for. Jim Thornton was joining the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Mission not long after leaving the Royal Navy. He had been a lieutenant-commander (S) with some 30 years of service in Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Australia as well as Hong Kong.19 He had been serving as the paymaster of HMS Tamar until 1964, when he returned to Britain for his final year’s service. He was exactly the person with experience of the armed forces the advertisement seems to have been seeking. Indeed there is a mild puzzle between the date of Jim Thornton’s retirement after 30 years in the Royal Navy and his applying for and

19_Strong to Save.indd 331

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

332

Strong

to

Save

getting the job of manager two years later, which proves to have been occupied by various unsatisfactory post-retirement jobs.20 The probability is that his learning of the Mariners’ Club job was a typical example of Hong Kong expatriate “circles within circles” and that the advertisement had been the window dressing required to jump through procedural hoops, the actual person everyone had in mind having already been identified and decided beforehand. The commodore in charge was a member of the Local General Committee and the senior chaplains had always had close connections with HMS Tamar. In Jim Thornton’s case there was also Freemasonry that had for a long time closely embraced both the Mission and the Royal Navy in Hong Kong, for he was a lifelong and senior Mason.21 Whenever Jim Thornton took complete charge, he will have had his hands full because the building of the Mariners’ Club was speeding ahead and he will have been involved in decisions about fixtures and fittings, planning the move from Wan Chai and, we can assume, finalizing arrangements for a smooth operation. Assuming he had come on board by April 1966, it follows that he had barely a year to get everything sorted out before the Mariner’s Club was to be opened by the governor in spring 1967. There will have been an additional task for Jim Thornton, which would have been connected with the final piece of the financing jigsaw. We know from subsequent news stories that the original plan to have the old Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen pulled down was not in fact what happened. Instead the government bought the old premises for its own use.22 The financial records are not clear as to how much the government paid, when or how. All we do know is that the Mariners’ Club building was fully paid for, the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen was able to pay back its bank loan and the accounts do not seem to show any shortfall in financing. So in addition to his role in helping oversee the completion of the new Mariners’ Club and making sure that at the Wan Chai end the move would go smoothly, he would also have had to liaise with whoever in

19_Strong to Save.indd 332

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

333

government was handling the handover of the old premises and make sure that these were left as required. The plan for the old Wan Chai building was to turn it into offices to bring together the bureaux of the Hong Kong Police Criminal Investigation Branch. Two years later a second announcement, that at least suggests that the building had continued to stand vacant, revealed a new plan, which was to turn the building into living accommodation for civil servants.23 That in turn seems to have gone nowhere because it was not until towards the end of 1972 that the old building’s fate was finally determined. Rather pleasingly, given its 34-year career looking after seafarers, its new role was to look after student nurses training at Queen Mary Hospital in Pokfulam.24 In April 1973, under the new name of Harcourt House, it opened its doors to its first 60 residents. It served until the nurses’ hostel was closed in around 1981 when, at last, the old building was demolished and the site leveled for sale. In a nice historical twist, the company involved in the wheeling and dealing over the site back in the late 1920s, Hong Kong Land, bought the site for an office block development in 1983. The new Harcourt House was opened in 1988, its historical connection to the sea through the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen already forgotten.25

*** Jim Thornton was one of the two key appointments that it fell to Elliot Lawlor to make before, with the opening of the new premises, he headed out on his retirement. The other was his own replacement, who was to be, one assumes, “the right young man” for whom the organization had been looking since the fraught departure of Alan Rolleston. The person chosen is interesting. It was the Reverend Frank Roe, a 35-year-old British priest from the Portsmouth area, who had arrived in Hong Kong to take up the post of cathedral chaplain in 1961. The newspaper story announcing his arrival mentioned that he had spent two years of national service as a rating in the Royal Navy and had then been “a solicitor’s clerk, a factory-hand, a farmer, a

19_Strong to Save.indd 333

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

334

Strong

to

Save

newspaper seller, a swimming bath attendant, waiter, night watchman and an Earl’s Court Exhibition attendant” before going to theological college in Cambridge in 1955, after which he had returned to his old home to serve his curacy. Two years after arriving in Hong Kong he had married a young solicitor, Helen Lo, a member of an eminent Hong Kong legal family.26 In Frank Roe, it would seem, the Local General Committee and London had found “the right young man”. For he was someone who had seagoing experience, was well thought of by the local diocese, and well-established in and familiar with Hong Kong. Although the exact date of Frank Roe’s move is not recorded, it seems from such data there is that he took up post at the Missions to Seamen in mid 1966.27 Once Roy Chalkley had left to be his own boss in Port of Spain, Trinidad, his place as assistant chaplain had been taken by the 30-year-old Reverend John Berg. After his national service, John Berg had immediately entered the church and had spent the four years before his arrival in Hong Kong in parish work in his native Suffolk.28 He arrived in Hong Kong during 1965 and, with Elliot Lawlor as his mentor, by the time Frank Roe came on board, had had a full year to learn the ropes. That left Elliot Lawlor free to make sure Frank Roe could have as much help as possible to prepare him for taking over the whole ship as of the spring of 1967, when the new Mariners’ Club was due to open. On the face of it, with a new, mature, and experienced manager in place and with two young and energetic chaplains fully inducted into the workings of the system, the Mariners’ Club was beginning life as well set up as could be hoped for. For various reasons things were not to work out quite so well. The final stages of the building of the new Mariners’ Club and the move out from the old premises seem to have gone smoothly, though working out when and how the actual move took place is a question of piecing things together from disparate sources. These reveal a complex operation. An advertisement in the South China Morning

19_Strong to Save.indd 334

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

335

Post announced that the formal removal of the business address from Wan Chai to the new premises would be as of 26 April, so by that date one assumes that the core office operations had moved across the harbour.29 St Peter’s Church, however, held its last service on Sunday, 7 May with services at the new church in the Mariner’s Club announced to begin on 14 May.30 Formal moving in day for the front-of-house side of things would seem to have taken place on 10 May and the next day it was announced that “the Club will be ready for use shortly.”31 From that we can reasonably conclude that the Mariners’ Club must have been ready for occupation by 25 April and that the next two weeks were spent getting everything ready for the relocation of all the staff, who were in place on 11 May, a Thursday. With the first church service arranged for 14 May — in a church that had not been dedicated — the inference is that the Club probably opened for its first business on or immediately after Monday, 15 May. The formal side of things began with the welcoming of Cyril Brown at Kai Tak Airport by Elliot Lawlor, John Berg, and Frank Roe on 26 May.32 That was in preparation for the major Missions to Seamen exercise, which was the dedication of the new St Peter’s Church on 28 May by Bishop Baker. Like its Wan Chai predecessor St Peter’s was on the first floor, though in the finished design without the nearby bar that Bob Precious had let slip in. The order of opening events is interesting, for the dedication was an entirely in-house affair for the Missions to Seamen with no salience for the secular, Sailors’ Home side of the old duumvirate. The order of service for the dedication, that took place at 7.00 p.m. in the evening, was marked by the moment just after the lesson, which had been read by Frank Roe as “assistant chaplain”, when Elliot Lawlor took his erstwhile assistant and placed him “in the Chaplain’s Chair, thus installing him as the Senior Chaplain of the Missions to Seamen, Hong Kong.”33 With that very important ceremony completed, attention could shift to the secular side of the new establishment when, on the following day the governor, Sir David Trench, formally opened the new Mariners’

19_Strong to Save.indd 335

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

336

Strong

to

Save

Club. This was a much more public and distinctly secular occasion, attended, as the newspaper coverage noted, by “a large gathering including members of the Executive and Legislative councils, members of the Port (Welfare) Committee and the Port Executive Committee, businessmen and shipping executives.” The governor’s speech was careful to specify both that the club was a product of negotiations between the government and the “Committee of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen” as well as emphasizing that it would serve “all seamen who visit this great port regardless of their race or creed.” In his speech thanking the governor, Michael Herries, the chairman of the Local General Committee, gave a quiet reminder of the context in which this significant moment in the history of seafarers’ welfare in Hong Kong was taking place. Congratulating the governor on his recent recovery from an illness, Michael Herries went on, “I pay a very humble tribute to the wonderfully patient and yet firm leadership which you have displayed in the difficult times we are facing.”34 Hong Kong had in fact been facing “difficult times” since April the previous year when, between 4 April and 10 April, public disturbances had been occasioned by a rise in the fare of the Star Ferry. These had led to significant unrest, especially amongst the young, to police riot squads, British military patrols with fixed bayonets, the firing of of tear gas rounds, baton rounds, and carbine rounds, curfews for three nights, over 1,000 arrests, 258 prison sentences, and an estimated HK$20 million worth of damage. Despite the evident threats of inflation and other economic and social stresses for the least advantaged of Hong Kong’s very unequal society that had been the tinder, the official enquiry managed simultaneously to denigrate and demonize those who it saw, like Mrs Elsie Elliott, as the “misfits”, “cranks” and troublemakers, who had fomented the protests, and failed fully to comprehend the disaffection that underlay the brief flare-up.35 It had been a locally triggered warning shot, but not one that the colonial authorities or the comfortable expatriate world in which the Mariners’ Club was so fully ensconced took seriously enough.

19_Strong to Save.indd 336

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Laying

the

Foundations

337

A preliminary showdown in the Li Ka-shing-owned Hong Kong Artificial Flower Works factory in San Po Kong in April 1967, when 650 members of the Communist HK Federation of Trade Unions were sacked, had fed the troubled brew, not least given the contemporary madness that had seized China with the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution as of May 1966. Then, just four days before the final move from Wan Chai to the new Mariners’ Club, a relatively minor incident proved the trigger that caused an explosion. On 6 May 21 workers picketing the factory were arrested and in the process there were a number of injuries. When union representatives protested at police stations, they in turn were arrested. The next day, 7 May, violent protest erupted and, after 127 arrests, that evening a curfew was imposed. During the next two weeks, in part boosted on 15 May 1967 by a protest statement about British conduct in Hong Kong passed to the British chargé d’affaires in Beijing by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Waijiao bu 外交部), a fairly low-key campaign involving sporadic strikes and mass demonstrations was run by the newly formed Hong Kong and Kowloon Committee for Anti-Hong Kong British Persecution Struggle (港九各界同胞反對港英迫害鬥爭委員 會). On 22 May, a week before the scheduled opening of the Mariners’ Club, this had escalated into stone throwing and physical struggle between demonstrators and the police. It was the beginning of what would prove to be a long, anxious summer that, at its end, had seen 4,498 arrests, 1,525 bombs, and 51 deaths.36 It was not the most auspicious moment to be opening a luxurious new facility for foreign seafarers run by a British Christian mission and backed in important ways by British colonial government funding. Looked at another way, however, such a pivotal moment could be read by the Mariners’ Club itself as indicating a new path forward and the need for change. But before any such transformation could take place, the new institution would need more completely to put its own house in order.

19_Strong to Save.indd 337

6/7/2017 6:43 PM

20

Who is Captain?

n principle, as the new premises began business, everything looked set for steady progress once the clientele had got used to the new location, Hong Kong had settled down, and business picked up. There were two young and energetic chaplains, a new, experienced manager and a long-established, loyal and generally happy Chinese staff to do the heavy lifting. Up to a point, everyone had every incentive to pull strongly together in the troubled context of the last half of 1967. It had been a hard beginning. As Frank Roe’s report of the first seven months in the new premises noted, the curfew had been ordered within 24 hours of the move from Wan Chai with the result that the Marine Department advised against shore going and ships’ captains limited leave ashore. That wasn’t the only hit to the business model of the new premises. In the same report the senior chaplain mentioned the 120 places of entertainment and 80 bars within five minutes walk, with hundreds of shops open for business until 11.00 p.m. every night. There was also perhaps the first intimation in Hong Kong of major changes to the shipping industry that would be felt more and more strongly as the 1960s moved into the 1970s. The signal in 1967 was the faster and faster turnaround times of ships in port that was having an effect on patronage as presaged by the container report the previous year which suggested,1 “a completely new shore terminal designed to attract the container ships which are expected to pass Hong Kong’s door by 1970.”

20_Strong to Save.indd 338

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

339

Frank Roe’s report indicates how alive he was to these developments. But he was also aware of the hurdles he and his staff were facing. Above all, as his report stressed, there was an impending sea change in the composition of its main clientele. He noted the large and growing number of Hong Kong Chinese seafarers — 42,000 in 1967 with 6,000 in port at any one time — to whom the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen were not yet reaching out. He signed off by telling London that the future was for “much of (our) work being with Asiatic seamen and less with Europeans.” That said, with the 1967 riots now behind them, which by October had for the most part become the case, other pointers were encouraging. The new premises had already shown that they were more convenient for seafarers. The number of ships in harbour was also steadily increasing. In 1967 despite the troubles, 6,920 ships had called, an increase of 10% over the year before. The Mission had managed to visit nearly 20% in Dayspring V. And the Merchant Navy Sports Club, now conveniently just up the road from the Mariners’ Club, was doing good business. But it was not these intimations of a fast-changing shipping world that would prove the immediate obstacle. Instead and initially, although the details are obscure, it was the sudden re-emergence of what would appear to have been the inability of the Missions to Seamen in London, the Local General Committee, and the diocese to find a senior chaplain who could deal with the Local General Committee-recruited manager in what was formally the autonomous Hong Kong Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. *** Frank Roe had seemed an excellent choice: young, energetic, progressive, outgoing, relaxed, and clearly popular with younger seafarers. Even better, he was by inference committed to Hong Kong in the long term. With their young son Francis, he was happily married to a Hong Kong lawyer and businesswoman. However, problems arose, related to what turned out to be not only utterly incompatible

20_Strong to Save.indd 339

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

340

Strong

to

Save

understandings of the respective roles of senior chaplain and manager, but what seem to have been significantly conflicting sources of their respective claims to the powers and authority of each, that it seems reflected differences within the Local General Committee. That this was a signal problem is evidenced by a collection of various documents and letters in the Mission to Seafarers’ archive in Hull, all focussed on the single issue of manager/senior chaplain relations. Evidently, from a side remark by Michael Herries, the tensions between Frank Roe and Jim Thornton must have manifested themselves fairly quickly. What actually happened is unknown, but that something had before the end of 1967 is strongly suggested by Michael Herries referring to the relationship between Frank Roe and Jim Thornton being an “armed truce”. By the beginning of 1968 it seems that this stand-off had ended. As Michael Herries put it to Cyril Brown very much after the event, “I thought you might like to know that the armed truce finally exploded at the end of January for no apparent reason but it was obvious that something had to be done.”2 The fairly obvious problem must have been the chasm in experience, understanding, and approach that will have separated Frank Roe (and probably John Berg as well) and Jim Thornton and that was to separate manager and chaplains one way another for the next decade. Jim Thornton had over 30 years’ experience working as a sailor at every level in the Royal Navy. Given his particular specialism he had spent his days helping to run the accounts, stores, catering, and personnel of naval ships in what would sometimes have been arduous conditions during his war service. By contrast, Frank Roe, though also with naval experience, parish experience, and five years in Hong Kong, was a young man; to someone like Jim Thornton probably still wet behind the ears and certainly short of knowledge of how to run things. Given that Jim Thornton had no doubt pretty much set up every aspect of the operating systems of the Mariners’ Club, adapting existing Wan Chai practices and devising new ones where they were needed, and would have been deferred

20_Strong to Save.indd 340

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

341

to by Elliot Lawlor and relied on by the Local General Committee, he will have expected a similar approach from Frank Roe. Whatever the root of the matter, it seems clear that the two did not hit it off, each expecting from the other a recognition that was not forthcoming. When the explosion finally came, Michael Herries had no option but to try to get things sorted out. The chosen approach, presumably to identify where the main sources of friction lay, was to get both Frank Roe and Jim Thornton to set out individually what they thought to be their terms of reference.3 Unfortunately, as seems generally to be the case with the lay side of the Hong Kong organization’s records, we do not have Jim Thornton’s version, only Frank Roe’s. The latter’s views move around the rather weak implications of the “captain’s” role accorded to the senior chaplain under the ordinance. But that does reveal, without explicitly spelling it out, where the problem lay. It came down to what was needed to run a financially well-managed institute. And the answer very plainly was that senior chaplains were neither trained nor equipped to do this and in addition, what they actually did, whilst unquestionably worthy and the core of the work of the Missions to Seamen, was a net loss in financial terms, which income from the lay side, plus donations, had to subsidize 100%. So possibly this was not the core responsibility of the lay descendant of the Sailors’ Home, the new Mariners’ Club. What wasn’t said, but is clearly implied, was that the dual authority under the “captaincy” of the senior chaplain had a fundamental problem. The manager had a duty to produce a budget for the year and to ensure that it balanced, including making provision for harsher times. It followed that the manager had some sort of oversight role, for example, over fuel and lubricant costs, crew overtime and maintenance schedules for launches, operating costs for the church, printing and publishing costs for promotional literature relating to spiritual and welfare services, and so on. To solve this the two viewpoints were taken and compiled into a memorandum that set out clearly the relative responsibilities of

20_Strong to Save.indd 341

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

342

Strong

to

Save

the chaplain and the manager.4 The result is exactly what one would expect, with the manager in charge of everything that had a clear cost or revenue implication and the chaplain dealing with the “soft” issues of spiritual and welfare services, though with their costs worked out in consultation with the manager. The next move was for each of the aggrieved members of the senior management team to have meetings with the key members of the Local General Committee. Frank Roe met with the chairman, vice chairman, and Bishop Baker; Jim Thornton with the chairman, vice chairman, and honourable secretary. It obviously wrought some sort of truce, though it left Frank Roe baffled as to what in fact his authority was and where it lay. The problem was that the issue was not resolvable without one party subordinating himself to the other or leaving. There was evidently no way Jim Thornton was ever going to take orders from Frank Roe. There was equally obviously no way Frank Roe was going to accept that in practice if not in principle, the chaplaincy services were an “add-on” to the Mariners’ Club, which would be budgeted, and therefore run in whatever way the manager deemed operationally best. Nor was he going to accept that the recreational facilities and how they were to be run were entirely the manager’s bailiwick. Things must have simmered for the next few months, with neither side finding any way to cooperate more fully. In part it would seem, and as became clear as the 1960s moved into the 1970s, the problem had roots in a similar division of opinion in the Local General Committee. This was that the Mariners’ Club was two things: on the one hand a secular seamen’s club with accommodation and on the other a spiritual mission service. What it emphatically does not seem to have been and should not ever be understood to be, to some unstated but obviously influential quantum of the Local General Committee, was an outstation of the Missions to Seamen to be operated as such by a chaplain and the chaplain’s staff, one of whom was a lay person hired to cope with the operations and the books, in the interests of seafarers as understood by the Missions to Seamen.

20_Strong to Save.indd 342

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

343

The final explosion came later in the year, though precise details are lacking. The family recalls that Frank Roe resigned in dudgeon when he was unable to insist that Chinese seafarers should be allowed to use the bowling alley, though Frank Roe himself places the onus elsewhere.5 One can imagine that discrimination would have been a problem not least from a flyer, issued by the Seamen’s Recruitment Office in August 1967 in English, Norwegian, Chinese, Dutch, Italian, German, Bahasa Melayu, and French, which had advertised the Club’s facilities as open to all.6 But if discrimination was the proximate reason and the chaplain-manager relationship the underlying problem, it went far deeper, since otherwise the results would seem disproportionate. Frank Roe not only resigned from the Mariners’ Club, which would be understandable, but also quit the Anglican ministry for almost a decade, which is not. The proximate issue was the chaplain-manager relationship and therefore whose writ should run over rules of admission to the bowling alley. A second question was the extent to which the Mariners’ Club was primarily intended to be run for the benefit not merely of western seafarers, but specifically British ones. Insofar as the average British seafarer of the late 1960s was in many respects a walking repository of long-standing discriminatory and usually patronizing attitudes towards non-western seafarers, one can instantly appreciate the kind of management dilemma that had caused the upset that had led to Frank Roe’s resignation. As Frank Roe puts it,7 It was…the general discrimination…exercised in the Club towards Chinese seafarers. It was a lot easier to be an air-hostess to use the facilities of the

club and this was encouraged by management. Mind you the atmosphere in general towards the Chinese in a British Colony was inclined to be discriminatory in those days.

In its way this was a rerun of the “should we offer house room to black seamen” issue of the late 1930s. The difference was that in Charles Strong’s day the chaplain was unequivocally on the side of

20_Strong to Save.indd 343

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

344

Strong

to

Save

a management decision that decided to pander to the prejudices of the white seafarer majority. For someone of Frank Roe’s generation and disposition, any such pandering would have been unacceptable in principle and in practice, however much it may have helped the management’s bottom line. The Mission’s own records have nothing but two mentions of the matter. In November 1968 Michael Herries referred to the need for a new senior and a new assistant chaplain, and that he was anxious to narrow the gap between Frank Roe’s departure and the arrival of the two replacements as much as possible.8 The stand of principle cost Frank Roe dearly both in the short term and the long. In quitting the ministry, he felt he had also to leave Hong Kong,9 That meant he not only had to find whatever job he could once back in Britain preparing for his family to join him, but was not in Hong Kong when his wife had a bad riding accident. Once he rushed back to Hong Kong to be with her, he had to find what work he could, ending up both helping run the riding stables he and his wife had founded in the New Territories and taking a job as the night manager at the still fairly new Hilton Hotel in order to help ends meet. In the meantime, the stresses and strains resulting from his stand of principle led indirectly to the end of his marriage. It wasn’t until 12 years later in Australia that he resumed his ministry, and his work for the Missions to Seamen, where he has served as the Mission’s honorary chaplain ever since.10 All we can conclude from this from the perspective of the Mariners’ Club is that with John Berg leaving for Yokohama,11 which had been early in the year, and then the sudden departure of Frank Roe in the late autumn, by the last months of 1968 the Mariners’ Club was without not only a senior chaplain, but any chaplain at all. The consequence of that — which is of great subsequent importance — would have been that power and authority within the Mariners’ Club would naturally have gravitated more towards the manager, Jim Thornton. Fortunately for the spiritual side of the Mission there was a lay helper, Mr Peter Beard, who was able to help out from 11

20_Strong to Save.indd 344

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

345

December until June the following year, and who held the fort until Frank Roe’s replacement, the Reverend Geoffrey Shrives, arrived in Hong Kong in early 1969. The likelihood is that in addition someone was drafted in from the diocese, at least for Sunday services, and that perhaps the Royal Navy’s chaplain at HMS Tamar may have helped out.

*** Geoffrey Shrives, Frank Roe’s successor, arrived in Hong Kong at some time in late January or early February 1969. He was an interesting choice, perhaps revealing that at least some of the lessons of the recent fracas had been learned. Although he was 41 and married with a young daughter, he had been a priest only some five years, having spent the previous 17 as a practising engineer. He would be difficult to treat as wet behind the ears and, perhaps, was thought likely to be able to handle Jim Thornton and establish a better relationship than Frank Roe had managed. But before Geoffrey Shrives could get his feet fully under the table and address the problem of the manager, the more demanding matter of the ecumenical initiative commanded his attention. For apparently unknown to him,12 whilst Frank Roe was still senior chaplain, one of Cyril Brown’s last ventures before he retired had been to resurrect a dialogue with the Apostleship of the Sea, only this time direct with Reverend Monsignor Francis S. Frayne of the AOS headquarters in Rome. Cyril Brown’s letter, which he had copied to Michael Herries, was most carefully phrased. He first makes the point — somewhat disingenuously given the de facto situation — that de jure the Mariners’ Club was entirely autonomous, having been established by ordinance in 1933 in which the Missions to Seamen has “only advisory status” and the power to nominate, though not appoint, the senior chaplain. He then swiftly, if extremely skewedly recaps the failed essay at an ecumenical mission back in 1961, pushing all responsibility away from the Missions to Seamen by noting “the time was not ripe and

20_Strong to Save.indd 345

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

346

Strong

to

Save

Father Cunningham preferred to go in another direction.” At the same time he was anxious to correct a suggestion by Monsignor Frayne that the Missions to Seamen was a centrally controlled, authoritarian structure akin, one imagines, to the supposed world of the Church of Rome.13 The society is no longer national in constitution or administration. More than ten years ago it became international — or if you prefer it panAnglican — through a change in its constitution and the setting up of

virtually autonomous bodies in Canada, South Africa and some of the States of Australia.

One rather admires the “virtually” and the careful elision of any references to the Mission outposts in crown colonies like Hong Kong. Back when the Mariners’ Club had first been announced in 1964, it looked as though any question of an ecumenical seafarers’ mission based in the Mariners’ Club had been ruled out by the Missions to Seamen on both doctrinal and organizational grounds. Analysis suggested that this made strategic sense for the Missions to Seamen and political and economic sense for the Hong Kong Government. At the time the intentions of the Apostleship were not plain, though whatever those intentions were that the Missions to Seamen in both Hong Kong and London had treated the Apostleship with intense suspicion and distrust, perhaps deserved, perhaps not, is manifest. This was followed by the unilateral announcement of plans for an International Seamen’s Club after meetings between the Local General Committee, Cyril Brown for the Missions to Seamen, and government, with the pointed exclusion of input from any other seafarers’ mission body in Hong Kong and, insofar as any subsequent gesture was made in their direction, with a clear intention to treat them as second class citizens. That Father Cunningham had “preferred to go in another direction” is hardly surprising. However, once the Mariners’ Club was open and the Missions to Seamen was in the driving seat where it wanted to be, and perhaps

20_Strong to Save.indd 346

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

347

because Monsignor Frayne had re-opened liaison at a different level, evidently Cyril Brown had been prepared to leave as a legacy the reopened issue of an ecumenical chaplaincy. It was this that was to occupy much of Geoffrey Shrives’ time for the first nine months of his chaplaincy. His first instruction arrived very shortly after he had arrived. Tom Kerfoot had met Francis Frayne and sounded him out, “The idea would seem to be that an office would be granted to the AOS chaplain and that he should be allowed to take his part in the social and recreational activities…”. Noting that AOS had hinted at some sort of financial contribution to costs, he asked Geoffrey Shrives to make contact with AOS “off the record” to sort out fairways and shoal water and report back both on what he learned and on what he himself thought of the idea. Only then, Tom Kerfoot noted, would any formal proposal be made to the Local General Committee.14 Geoffrey Shrives wrote back almost by return literally bubbling with enthusiasm, writing that he would “welcome this opportunity with both hands”. However, he did see obstacles and what is interesting is that these all had to do with the Mariners’ Club and, as he saw it, the position that the Missions to Seamen had worked to establish for itself. The biggest obstacle was the Mariners’ Club itself, which, as far as Geoffrey Shrives could see, was not regarded primarily as a mission but only as a seamen’s club. And it is at this point that the managerchaplain relationship resurfaced. For it seemed that Geoffrey Shrives had been talking about the nature of the Mariners’ Club with Jim Thornton, who had flatly denied that the club was primarily a Mission to Seamen. This had taken Geoffrey Shrives distinctly aback and it had led to a heated discussion “long into the night”, with the result that at least for the nonce Jim Thornton had apologized, acknowledging “that this is a problem that has been on his conscience for the last two years,” and promising that he would henceforward “join in the spiritual life and worship…which he has never been able to do in the past.”

20_Strong to Save.indd 347

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

348

Strong

to

Save

The rather muddled point Geoffrey Shrives wanted to make was that as far as he could see, unless the lay/spiritual emphasis could be resolved in favour of the primacy of the Mission, any ecumenical venture would never get off the ground. Although his immediate problem had been Jim Thornton, behind this he saw two bigger concerns. One was the absence of a dominant, Missions to Seamen presence on the Local General Committee — “there is not one dedicated member of the Missions to Seamen on the Local General Committee” — with the weak implication that it was also biased to the lay, “only a seamen’s club” point of view. Noting that he had discussed this with Bishop Baker, who agreed that a remedy was needed, what is significant was his second concern. In Geoffrey Shrives’ view, precisely because the AOS was led by a driven, dedicated man, Father Joe McAsey, with 30 years of service to seafarers in Hong Kong, unless the Missions to Seamen was very firmly in the driving seat, there was a danger of the Apostleship “affecting a takeover” despite their parlous financial position. And then there was the problem of joint use of the chapel.15 From the exchanges that followed over the next two months, it is clear that Tom Kerfoot was moving on two fronts. He was aware of the various problems in Hong Kong created by personalities and by history, so was ensuring that things were pushed along by bringing pressure to bear via Francis Frayne in Rome.16 A key figure who appears in the story at this point, and whose role in the final solution would be critical, is Francis Hsu, bishop of Hong Kong.17 We know from the Apostleship’s own history that by 1968 their 14th-floor “hermitage” home had been declared too expensive to maintain given the many demands on the exiguous resources of the diocese and the closely held purse strings of the Vatican.18 It followed that the Apostleship was looking for a new home and Bishop Hsu could see that the Mariners’ Club could be a good solution. It is interesting to see that just as Cyril Brown could recall history with a useful spin, so could the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Just as Cyril Brown

20_Strong to Save.indd 348

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

349

had identified Father Pat Cunningham as the person who “preferred to go in another direction”, so now Bishop Hsu and Monsignor Frayne were happy to identify the stumbling block as poor Father McAsey, who had made a good job of going it alone when the Apostleship had been neatly excluded from the development of the Mariners’ Club and his own church had been unable to offer him any financial support. So the fault lay with the poor old watch-on-deck, who would have “to be prepared to change with the times.” Now that their admirals had got into contact, all was to be well.19 Bishop Hsu was headed back to Hong Kong to meet Bishop Baker and finalize a deal and “make whatever changes and arrangements necessary to ensure a realistic, updated and co-operative approach to what he considers to be a highpriority sector of the apostolate.” The astuteness of the Missions to Seamen strategy between 1964 and 1967 was now to pay dividends because, clearly, the Apostleship and the Roman Catholic diocese needed the Mariners’ Club more than the Mariners’ Club needed them. For Michael Herries, chairman of the Local General Committee, who was soon apprised of the new proposals, the need to capitalize on a commanding position was vital. He had consulted with Geoffrey Shrives and Bishop Baker and all were agreed to go ahead “provided … that the Missions to Seamen chaplain remains in the predominant position as leader of the ecumenical team”. He wanted London’s blessing for Hong Kong to go ahead “on the basis that they (AOS) will work as partners in a team which will be led in perpetuity by the Missions to Seamen.”20 With the advantage of hindsight, it is fascinating watching two large ecclesiastical organizations manoeuvring for advantage in a business deal, albeit one ostensibly focussed on maritime mission. Bishop Hsu’s letter to Francis Frayne sketching the heads of agreement and copied to Tom Kerfoot in London is brilliant for what it doesn’t say as much as for what it does. Having specified that all were agreed that “religious worship and the sacraments will yet be separate”, Bishop Hsu agrees that the “(Apostleship) chaplains, in the present circumstances,

20_Strong to Save.indd 349

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

350

Strong

to

Save

will work under the captaincy of the Senior Chaplain who is an Anglican.” The quid pro quo is that the Mariners’ Club will maintain the Apostleship’s launch, Stella Maris, and provide the two Roman Catholic chaplains with offices. As far as contributions to funding were to go, the Apostleship would hand over their minute share of the funds disbursed by the Port Welfare Committee and Bishop Hsu would “seek Vatican aid where such is needed, but I cannot promise success.”21 What is clear from the correspondence over the next month is that agreement in principle is one thing, thrashing out the details is something else. What actually transpired reflects enormous credit on the level-headed good sense and shared commitment of Geoffrey Shrives, Tom Kerfoot, Michael Herries, Francis Frayne, and Bishop Hsu. That said, however, there were some clear differences in approach. Whilst all concurred that any agreement “(kept) to basic guidelines which must be clear and firm … but allow for growing together in partnership”, there were some differences over whether this was best arrived at via what Geoffrey Shrives called a “honeymoon period”. Neither Michael Herries nor Tom Kerfoot warmed to this, but Geoffrey Shrives’ point was that without one, which allowed a mere “exchange of letters (of intent)” to get things started, movement forward might be stalled. The trick was going to be to arrive at jointly agreed terms of reference that were both very clear and very flexible and, from Bishop Hsu’s point of view, there had to be an unequivocal administrative hierarchy that ensured that the Missions’ senior chaplain was solely administrative “captain” and had absolutely no spiritual authority over his Roman Catholic peers.22 The result of such willingness in all to compromise and feel their way forward was a press release, put out by Jardine Matheson on behalf of the Mariners’ Club on 15 August 1969, announcing an agreement between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in Hong Kong “to form a single united team for work among seamen in the Port of Hong Kong using the Mariners’ Club as the centre of activities beginning 1 October.” St Peter’s was to be a

20_Strong to Save.indd 350

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

Who

is

Captain?

351

combined church, though with separate communion services but a combined evensong, and the two club launches were to work a pool service.23 What wasn’t mentioned was the “honeymoon” aspect of the agreement, which meant that, as Bishop Hsu put it in a letter to Francis Frayne, “(it) will give us the necessary experience before we enter into a permanent agreement.”24 By early September the terms of the letter of agreement had been finally settled. What the Mariners’ Club had agreed was remarkably generous since the letter specified that,

Roman Catholic chaplains working in the Mariners’ Club will be provided with necessary offices and working facilities free of charge. If necessary

and when practical, free residential facilities will be provided. Roman Catholic chaplains will be supported from Diocesan funds. However, when

a full-time resident chaplain is appointed, he is to receive free food and accommodation and expenses from general income…

On the other hand, it did get agreement that the senior chaplain “shall remain in perpetuity a chaplain of the Missions to Seamen” and got Bishop Hsu to agree on behalf of the Apostleship that he “accepted and approved this particular stipulation”.25 It turned out that the honeymoon period was important because, once everyone had begun focussing on the fine print in the run up to signing the letter of agreement, it was realized that the ordinance under which all this was taking place was in fact going to have to be amended. At a meeting of the Local General Committee on 11 August, which unanimously approved what was being proposed, it was agreed that the new arrangements would run until 31 December 1971, and that “the position would be reviewed in 1970, so that whatever changes are required in the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen Incorporation Ordinance could be considered.”26 It must have been evident to Geoffrey Shrives, aware as he was of the problem of the manager-chaplain relationship that had been eased but not really solved after his heart-to-heart with Jim Thornton, that

20_Strong to Save.indd 351

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

352

Strong

to

Save

the new ecumenical arrangements may have added to the problem. A hint of this is given in a letter from him to Tom Kerfoot discussing the various details that were going to have to be sorted out vis-à-vis the ordinance for the new arrangements to be made permanent. Given that his only power and authority in the new arrangement was with respect to the organization and administration of the joint mission, what if this in its turn was limited quite literally to visits to ships, prisons, and hospitals, service times, and so forth because all the other aspects — accommodation, food, payment of expenses from the Club’s income, running the recreational and other aspects of the premises as far as seafarers were concerned — depended on the manager? He signaled that worry to Tom Kerfoot when he noted what he saw to be the main issue that had to be resolved, yet that by definition the agreement with the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t going to touch. It was that, as he put it, There is and I suspect has been for a while a very strong desire to regard

this club as something separate from the Missions to Seamen on the ground that the “Sailors’ Home” is a body which is autonomous and has no responsibility to London other than the acceptance of a chaplain appointed by the society.

With the momentous agreement conditionally a done deal and despite the remaining worries, Geoffrey Shrives, who must have been sprinting to stand still since his feet hit the ground at the beginning of the year, finally got some help. At the end of August 1969 a new assistant chaplain, Jon Robertshaw, arrived with his wife Vivien.27 The new team would soon not only be dealing with forging the joint mission, but facing a dramatically changing maritime scene that would add to the burdens in ways as yet only shadowily perceived.

20_Strong to Save.indd 352

6/7/2017 6:44 PM

21

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out the Wrinkles

ooking back over the history of the work for the welfare of seafarers in Hong Kong 1969 stands out, perhaps more than any other year since Robert Morrison first raised the Bethel flag at Whampoa in 1822, as the year the tide could be said to have definitively turned. From this point onwards, albeit with the occasional lurch, the story of the Mariners’ Club is the story of the fulfillment of the project Robert Morrison cogitated during his long sea voyage back to Britain, and published in his “Proposal” in 1824. But it is more than just a local turning point for Hong Kong because it also stands for three other changes in the world of shipping that were to have a significant impact not just on the Mariner’s Club but on the welfare of seafarers everywhere. These were the beginning of an epochal shift in the dominant nationalities that provided the crews of the world’s merchant fleet. Equally, or possibly even more epochal, was the change in the nature of shipping itself with the advent of containerization and an increasing specialization of both ships and the port facilities required to handle them, and the resultant transformation of the world’s waterfronts. And finally there was, if not so obviously transformative, what we can read as a key moment in the long struggle to give the welfare of seafarers a higher salience with public policy makers and, thereby, with the shipping industry.

21_Strong to Save.indd 353

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

354

Strong

to

Save

The most important for the Mission in the long run was the last, even though its full realization took the best part of a generation. On one side of 1969 lies the long struggle not simply to put seafarers’ welfare — meaning all seafarers, not just westerners — so firmly on the local and world shipping industry radar that it could never again be ignored, downplayed, or circumvented. On the other side of the tideline lies what will no doubt continue to prove an equally long struggle, but one in which the favourable tide has gradually strengthened, signaled most recently by the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention, which entered into force in August 2013.1 In short, from 1969 onwards the tide has flowed only one way. But in the shorter term, for Hong Kong 1969 was equally pivotal. It was just before the 1970 peak of one of the shipping industry’s periodic cycles when, for maritime charitable organizations, it is usually easier to get things done.2 It was the year in which two Roman Catholic priests joined the Mariners’ Club as part of a new, ecumenical mission and in which the first ecumenical services were held in St Peter’s Church.3 It was the year when the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen had welcomed Thomas Chow, the man who would become the first — and as it turned out only — Chinese member of the chaplaincy team. On the larger, maritime mission canvas, it was the year in which the Missions to Seamen had been a key member at the international consultation on services to seafarers held in Rotterdam from 24–28 August, leading to the founding of the International Christian Maritime Association. Fittingly this happened just two months before Hong Kong’s ecumenical chaplaincy was established in a joint church service.

*** Down on the waterfront where the grittier detail commands the eye, for Hong Kong 1969 was again a hinge year. For the lifeblood of the Mariners’ Club — ships — epochal changes were underway, though their impact took longer to be fully felt. Hong Kong’s key moment came on the night of 30 July 1969 when the SeaLand Service

21_Strong to Save.indd 354

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

355

Inc.’s 16,395 ton, SS San Juan berthed at the one-year-old Ocean Terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui, just down the road from the Mariners’ Club. “Container era comes to Hong Kong” the headline read.4 It was a sign of what would prove to be a more far-reaching change in the seafarers’ world than perhaps anyone bar few had or could foresee at the time. In fact for the Mariners’ Club the headline said less than it could have done. For whilst the San Juan was the first purpose built container ship to call on a scheduled service, ships carrying containers had been making their appearance for three years or more, though with an accelerating rhythm.5 In hindsight it was clearly the wave of the future although initially, and in a very Hong Kong way, it was a wave that proved to break remarkably slowly. The modern cargo container had been invented in the US in 1956, however, in the context of the times, containerization was just one of a number of unitized cargo-carrying solutions in play, and one that was not likely to realize a revolution unless three things happened.6 One was that the containers in question became standardized so that they would fit on any suitably built ship. The second was that other transport modes — road and rail — had suitably designed vehicles to move the containers to and from ports and the hinterland. And finally and most important, that ports and other road and rail infrastructure were redesigned and reorganized to accommodate the new form of carriage. The last was to be a hugely expensive business with specific implications for Hong Kong. In terms of urban planning, approach roads, container parks, and handling systems needed very large amounts of flat space, which in Hong Kong was always in short supply. In terms of port works containerized cargo handling was illsuited to existing cargo handling cranes and systems, especially Hong Kong’s main strength, its large harbour with its many buoys and wellorganized mid-stream operations. In terms of naval architecture, containers were extremely unsuited to the standard designs of Hong Kong’s cargo-carrying mainstay, the extant world fleet of breakbulk

21_Strong to Save.indd 355

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

356

Strong

to

Save

general cargo vessels. And for Hong Kong’s terrestrial infrastructure, generations of urban development with a tight grid of narrow streets and, more recently, an upwards development of the famous flatted factories, combined with the small scale of the vast majority of Hong Kong factories meant that the entire distribution system implicit in containers needed Hong Kong to undergo a radical overhaul. Inevitably that was a gradual process, especially for Hong Kong, which has never been a pioneer in anything. Hong Kong’s business world has always modeled itself on the “second mouse at the mouse trap” principle, since the first mouse risks a lot and often with fatal results, whilst the second mouse usually gets the cheese. Hong Kong’s shipping world was no different. The government worked on a parallel public policy principle, which entailed never leading but always following and, in general, leaving it to private business to invest in infrastructure development that was understood primarily to serve private business. The newspaper coverage in Hong Kong during the 1960s makes it very clear that the majority of decision makers were sat firmly on the fence as far as containerization was concerned. These issues matter as far as the Mariners’ Club is concerned for two reasons. One is that the benefits gained by the long-wished for move to somewhere with hugely improved accessibility for merchant seamen were to be comparatively short-lived. The other is that any awareness of a need to plan for such an outcome was delayed both by what actually happened and the part played in that process by leading figures in the Local General Committee. By the mid 1960s arguments in favour of shifting shipping to containers begin to appear in the Hong Kong press. The Government Container Committee explored many options and by February 1970, finally, the government offered seabed leases at Kwai Chung to private sector firms or consortia interested in creating the first terminals. Whilst the long debate was going on, the march of containerization, even if slow for the reasons we have considered, did not stop. And because it did not stop, Hong Kong’s port was forced to adapt as best

21_Strong to Save.indd 356

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

357

it could. That is the significance of the arrival of the San Juan, because one of the lead players in this process of adaptation was the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company (Wharf Co.), at the time within the Jardine Matheson stable. Ever since the closing decade of the 19th century, the Wharf Company had been Hong Kong’s largest operator of alongside berths for cargo handling. Combined with the Butterfield and Swire partowned and managed Holt’s Wharf, just round the corner from the Mariners’ Club, between them they created a large focus for exactly the port calls that put the Mariners’ Club and its attached Merchant Navy Sports Club in a perfect location. So when the Wharf Company faced up to the challenge of containerization in 1967, proposing to government the creation of a container handling facility in Tsim Sha Tsui large enough not just for known traffic but for what was thought probable for some years into the future, it looked like containerization would prove the move from Wan Chai to Tsim Sha Tsui had been prescient. This was of course not least because the chairman of the Local General Committee was Michael Herries of Jardine Matheson, and the man in charge of the Wharf Company, David Newbigging, was to be a future chairman. Both, understandably, were convinced that the Sea Terminal, as the new project was called, would take off. When the declining Kowloon Docks jumped onto the bandwagon in 1969 and began extending and converting its southern part to a container terminal and the nearby part-Butterfield and Swire owned Holt’s Wharf held to the middle ground by sticking mainly to breakbulk, it began to look like Kowloon was indeed the place to be.7 Another important change did not happen in Hong Kong but in Europe, but its knock-on effects on the world of shipping were to change forever the entire face of maritime mission in Asian waters. Put bluntly, not only did the era of western colonial dominance in Asia come definitively to an end, but in addition the tocsin sounded for what the French call “les trentes glorieuses”: the 30 years that followed the end of the Second World War that had brought unprecedented

21_Strong to Save.indd 357

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

358

Strong

to

Save

economic growth and prosperity to western Europe. This was accompanied by a peaking of the shipping cycle, with the resulting problems exacerbated by the 1973 oil shock.8 From the point of view of the Mariners’ Club, these shifts heralded a change, initially slow but accelerating through the 1970s, in the composition of the crews of the ships that called in Hong Kong.9

*** Precisely because the move to Tsim Sha Tsui seemed initially to have been exactly the thing to have done, to begin with the focus during what would be a decade of rapid change on all fronts was on building one of the world’s first ecumenical seafarers’ missions. Happily for the Mariners’ Club, in Geoffrey Shrives it had a natural leader for such a venture; someone with the facility for harmonious coordination essential for creating a team albeit, as it would turn out, at some personal cost. In like manner the other three members of the team, Jon Robertshaw, the assistant chaplain, and the new chaplains from the Apostleship, Father George Dopchie CICM and Father Fedele Giannini PIME, were gifted with the willingness to work together despite the occasional tensions and misunderstandings. If, as the agreement had stipulated, Geoffrey Shrives was primus inter pares, he managed to be so in the only way that could work as it did. In short order the new team had agreed a division of labour. Jon Robertshaw and Father Giannini, who could speak Japanese, worked the ships in the harbour, George Dopchie, who was fluent in Chinese, dealt with the sudden influx of Chinese seamen using the Club.10 Meanwhile Geoffrey Shrives coordinated everyone whilst coping with the welfare cases.11 Both organizations involved were also lucky in their “back-up” in that Bishop Hsu continued to provide full support and excellent communication was maintained with London thanks to John Rowlands.12 Meanwhile, what the government’s container report had suggested in 1966 had set in train changes out at the far north western edges of Victoria Harbour, just outside the official harbour limits. There in the

21_Strong to Save.indd 358

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

359

last quarter of 1970 the first steps were being taken which would put in question the value of the Missions to Seamen’s move to Kowloon.13 For when the shift to containerization rapidly gathered pace, which it did with dramatic speed once the new facility opened on 27 June 1972, it was soon obvious that with the location of the new facility and the faster turnaround that containerization allowed, the Mariners’ Club in Tsim Sha Tsui was too far away to be useful. It took two busy years for this to become fully apparent, during which the first anniversary of the ecumenical mission was combined with a celebration of the 50th birthday of the Apostleship of the Sea. However, this did not lead as had been hoped to a final arrangement, only to an extension for a further year to the letter of agreement. It is clear that sorting out the finer details of a fully integrated ecumenical mission was likely to take rather longer than had been optimistically hoped. Nonetheless the first year had been promising and before the implications of the new container port had begun to sink in, Geoffrey Shrives was able to report a busy and very typical year. A helping hand had been given, at what proved to be an irrecoverable cost to the Mission, to the distressed mariners of the Greek-owned MV Artemis left in the lurch by the shipowner.14 The first of what would become a 24-strong team of Flying Angels had been recruited.15 Over 2,000 ships had been visited and the same high numbers of boxes of books exchanged. And there had been the usual round of regular social events for sailors, of hospital visits and of church services.16 The latter, however, revealed the glimmer of a problem, and one also graphically witnessed in the records of St Peter’s Church. The church side of the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen had always had some trouble filling the pews. But this had more or less been taken to be par for the course, reflecting not just the average sailor’s minimal churchgoing but also, over the years, the secularizing trends in European society. Whilst church attendance mattered, therefore, it was not treated as what today’s management-speak would call a “deliverable”.

21_Strong to Save.indd 359

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

360

Strong

to

Save

With the arrival of the ecumenical mission a rather different picture began to emerge. In small part this was simply due to the greater proportion of Hong Kong’s minority Roman Catholic community that were churchgoers and the rather stronger view of Roman Catholicism as to the need for the faithful to be regular attendees. But to this needs to be added the simple point that during the 1970s, in the first wave of change in the world of crewing, arguably the largest contributor of new personnel, especially in Asia, was from the strongly Catholic Philippines. The result was that the shared church in the Mariners’ Club was soon being disproportionately used. Of the figures available for 1971, or within two years of the ecumenical mission being established, there had been 1,750 attendees at Anglican services compared to 5,600 at Roman Catholic services.17 From the Anglican and hence Missions to Seamen perspective this was not good news, nor was it helped by the extent to which it seemed that the majority of the church attendees were not seafarers in any case, especially for the Roman Catholic flock. Whatever the denominational balance as to churchgoing, the balance between the religious side of the Mariners’ Club, as earlier with the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen, was emphatically secular. That it was, and that increasingly the preponderance within the churchgoers was Roman Catholic, brings us back to the continuing problem of the manager/senior (Anglican) chaplain relationship. The early years of the new Mariners’ Club reflect steady use. From the manager’s reports for the first three years it is clear that once the early months were past and the Mariners’ Club was established, occupancy of the accommodation was regularly at 80% or more. However, it seems also clear that the users of the accommodation were neither significant users of the Club’s other facilities nor, in numbers, enough to use it to its full potential in any case. The manager accordingly had a major problem if he was to manage to get the Mariners’ Club at least to pay its way. Sadly, there are no financial accounts in the Hull archives and

21_Strong to Save.indd 360

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

361

what does exist in Hong Kong is vestigial. From what there is, and from remarks in letters, it is clear that at an operational level the Club struggled to pay its way. Costs were generally slightly greater than income, with the gap being closed by a grant from the Port Welfare Committee and any additional sum coming from income from the Mariners’ Club’s endowments. Given that there were clear expectations in the seafaring community that the Mariners’ Club should charge close to at-cost prices, that in any case, as a charitable institution, the Club was debarred from making a profit by Hong Kong’s tax rules, and that all the chaplaincy operations cost money and generally made none, the job of the manager was by no means plain sailing.18 The numbers show that the total number of seafarers both resident and non-resident, using the Mariners’ Club each month from 1968–71 was between 16,000 and 20,000. This was evidently not enough to keep the Club solvent because the same data shows that seafarers only constituted around 40–45% of the 40,000–50,000 monthly users, in ten nationality groups, who were recorded.19 Evidently Jim Thornton was trying to make ends meet by bending the rules to allow the Club to be used by non-seafarers. Some of these could be finessed — for example members of the Marine Police or those affiliated to, or in some way connected to the shipping business, including those long retired from the sea but resident in Hong Kong. Inventively he also reached out to the growing numbers of aircrew needing accommodation, as international air travel displaced the passenger liners that had once been Hong Kong’s mainstay and, though not without protest, applied a light hand to sanctioning use by the general public. In short, one way or another he stretched the implicit and explicit rules on “membership” to extend it to a far wider constituency than solely visiting or locally resident seafarers. These very different experiences and expectations on either side of the Mariners’ Club’s hierarchical divide go a long way towards explaining the emergence to problem level of the recurring if

21_Strong to Save.indd 361

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

362

Strong

to

Save

diminishing feature of all the chaplaincies until the late 1990s: the relationship between the senior chaplain and the manager. For Jim Thornton it is clear his brief as he saw it was to run a tight financial and organizational ship. In that, in his view, he was answerable only to the people who employed him: the Local General Committee and, specifically, its house committee. From that vantage point the chaplaincies were a costly added extra to the Club’s main business that contributed nothing to the Club’s revenue and worse, seemed to suggest the manager alone was the arbiter as to the desirability of any addition the chaplaincies wished to make to the costs of what they did. To the manager, the purpose of the Mariners’ Club was to provide accommodation and recreational facilities for seafarers of all nationalities. Because of the way the Club had been planned the main users would predominantly be Europeans who, unlike their Asian counterparts, both wanted to patronize bars and were generally able to afford to do so. So when the senior chaplain or one of the other chaplains seemed to ask for things additional to the running costs of the launches, the church, their offices and residential accommodation, and their welfare work, all of which had at least been budgeted, Jim Thornton seems to have felt it was his job to say no. From his point of view such things meant he had to find the money from somewhere to pay for whatever it was. From the other side of the divide, of course, the core purpose of the Mariners’ Club was to be a mission. That meant providing not just room, board and a beer for a sailor on a run ashore, but spiritual and human succour to those far from home and showing them how these could be found through the message of the Gospels. It therefore followed, given that the senior chaplain was “captain” of the good ship Mariners’ Club, that when something was asked for in service of this greater task, it was the manager’s job to set to and make sure the wherewithal to provide it was forthcoming.20 Inevitably these two incompatible positions led to clashes. The

21_Strong to Save.indd 362

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

363

truce, indeed almost capitulation that Geoffrey Shrives seemed to think he had gained in his heart-to-heart with Jim Thornton not long after he had arrived proved short-lived and when he got back from his first spell of leave in September 1970, there was a major set-to. The resolution, as temporary as all proved to be, is interesting mainly to the extent that it revealed, despite the move to the Mariners’ Club and the manner in which this seemed to have established the leading role of the Missions to Seamen, that older patterns persisted. Geoffrey Shrives was inclined to place the “blame” for the continuation of the older pattern whereby Hong Kong saw itself as the seat of control not London, on David Newbigging the chairman, “… because I suspect he has had no experience at all or real knowledge of the Missions to Seamen and its purpose or international role.” It seemed at the time that John Rowlands agreed, since in his reply to Geoffrey Shrives he noted that London saw the general issue as a longstanding problem fomented, in Jim Thornton’s case, by “one or two members of your committee who…are at least backing Jim Thornton in his persistent stand.” Such members did not see the Missions to Seamen as in any sense “in charge” of the Hong Kong organization. To both London and Geoffrey Shrives at least one source of worry was “the financial implications…should it ever transpire that the British position in Hong Kong is radically altered.”21 In short, whatever may from time to time have been agreed about the senior chaplain being “captain of the ship”, this was obviously only meaningful insofar as either the senior chaplain and the manager got on well together, each respecting the other’s field of expertise and neither seeking to tell the other what to do. The only alternative, whatever the theoretical position, was that one was accepted in practice as being unquestionably subordinate to the other. With a strong and determined manager of Jim Thornton’s views neither applied and the result, as from his point of view Geoffrey Shrives described the atmosphere on his return from leave, was “appalling vindictiveness…and complete non-cooperation” arising from “stirring

21_Strong to Save.indd 363

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

364

Strong

to

Save

and maneuvering to gain independent control of the club” while he had been away.22 Sadly we do not have Jim Thornton’s side of the story. That the problem was probably irresolvable without London or the Hong Kong Local General Committee making a major concession, or the senior chaplain and manager approaching their respective responsibilities in a quite different way became clear six months later when David Newbigging visited London. As John Rowlands noted after the visit, “Newbigging obviously feels unable to support Geoffrey Shrives’ wishes to be in charge of all departments. He says Thornton is an efficient Manager who regards himself as responsible to the Committee but not to Geoffrey Shrives.”23 It was stalemate and would continue to be so. We do not know why or how, but after the obvious problems in late 1970 when Geoffrey Shrives had returned from leave, by mid 1971 some sort of compromise had obviously been achieved. This may well have been because Geoffrey Shrives found his attention drawn to other, greater concerns.

*** In May 1971, just before he had left on leave and as work on Hong Kong’s new container port quickly pushed ahead, he had been asked by the Local General Committee “to submit a full recommendation and details of our requirements for the new container port here in Kwai Chung.” Everyone seemed to have come to the conclusion that the new facility was going to “take a very big slice of Hong Kong’s shipping beginning next August.” What was being foreseen only four years after the long-hoped for and extremely expensive move to Tsim Sha Tsui was a great deal of extra expenditure. Part of this was a knock on effect of the ecumenical mission, which required proper residential facilities for the additional chaplains to replace the existing ad hoc arrangements. But the bigger component was going to be what it was imagined would be needed in Kwai Chung — “a chaplaincy centre, with somewhere for seamen to relax, perhaps a separate bar and cafeteria, a small chapel and chaplain’s office…”. Unspoken would

21_Strong to Save.indd 364

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

365

be the additional transport costs and the organizational headaches ensuring effective coordination of a scattered team.24 But as 1971 moved into 1972, in addition to the problem of Kwai Chung there was all the work of the ecumenical mission. Perhaps closest to Geoffrey Shrives’ heart was the formation in 1971 of the combined Flying Angel and Stella Maris Christian Men’s Society, dedicated to working as a sort of think tank for coming up with better ways of “caring for seamen.” There were links to maintain with other Missions to Seamen that also served Chinese seafarers in London and Australia, whilst dealing with concerns about Hong Kong’s solution to the care of their Chinese seafarers. Thomas Chow, the recently appointed Chinese assistant chaplain, had been submitting reports to London with “a note of militant socialism” associated in John Rowlands’ mind with having possibly developed “stronger Chinese feelings.” This was a problem that would recur and is in its way hardly surprising given that it seems Thomas Chow was “the only Asian chaplain working in the Far East.”25 There were also the cares involved with dealing with the movement of the Mission’s staff as the Robertshaws left to return to Britain and arrangements were put in hand to find a replacement.26 And Geoffrey Shrives’ focus was also being divided by a need to look out of Hong Kong and to active engagement in creating more ecumenical forums and helping foster greater regional cooperation as a result of the founding of the ICMA. There were also the arrangements to make for the Hong Kong conference of the regional Missions to Seamen chaplains, and decisions as to whether this should be extended to include the Apostleship chaplains in the region.27 But despite all the work, something was clearly missing. It came to a head when Geoffrey Shrives got back from leave at the end of 1973. Exactly what the trigger was is unclear, though one chance remark by Geoffrey Shrives suggests a pointer noted above when he wrote, “There has been a radical change in the shipping pattern here in

21_Strong to Save.indd 365

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

366

Strong

to

Save

Hong Kong while I’ve been on leave. The Europeans have nearly all been boxed up overnight.” He saw as symptomatic of this change the likelihood that the Norwegian Mission would close their Hong Kong operation because there were no Lutheran Norwegian seamen any longer.28 Whether this was what focussed Geoffrey Shrives’ mind we cannot know, but what followed a month later out of the blue was a letter to London to tell them he was resigning. He felt that in returning to Hong Kong he had made a mistake but in his reply to an anxious and worried query from Tom Kerfoot in London he made it clear that his reasons did not have to do with the Missions to Seamen itself, only with the Mariners’ Club. He gave his reasons pithily and angrily in his half yearly report to London, stating that he found it hard to justify his current role and the relevance of the Mission’s work. Put bluntly, with British seamen becoming exceedingly rare, and when most seamen are either Hong Kong Chinese, Filipino-Roman Catholic [sic] or Marxist-

Leninist Chinese, there is an imbalance which would appear to radically alter the Missions to Seamen role and needs.

He thought the Anglican senior chaplain had become no more than “a coordinator” since, by inference, he had no seafarer “flock” of his own to tend.29 Some of this, at least, can be put down to the great contrast between the very typical, monoglot Anglican chaplains who, especially when from an older generation like Geoffrey Shrives, were very Britain focused, and the Apostleship chaplains who were accomplished linguists and who had spent their working lives in Asia. In a rather pointed letter sent to Tom Kerfoot, George Dopchie put the Apostleship’s case, noting that whoever replaced Geoffrey Shrives would have to be strongly pro-ecumenical, but above all must be able to like and get on with Asiatic seafarers: “Geoffrey told me once that he ‘hated [sic] the Filipinos’ and that was one of the reasons why Father Tom Ferrarese left.” To George Dopchie, at least by inference, the Missions to Seafarers simply was not training its chaplains for the

21_Strong to Save.indd 366

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

367

new world of seafaring in which the majority of seafarers was ceasing to be European and, above all, British and Anglican.30 This difference cut both ways since, at least from Geoffrey Shrives’ point of view, actually keeping ecumenism going required someone like him, in effect a coordinator rather than an active, engaged pastor, to sustain the Mariners’ Club complex, geared as that was not just to seafarers of all creeds and languages, but to their material and psychosocial as much as or more than their spiritual needs. It doesn’t come out in the archival material, but Geoffrey Shrives’ reactions must also have been the product of the considerable strains he was under. With the rapid development of the new container port, he could see that a new Kwai Chung offshoot was going to be important, but had clearly become exasperated with the red tape in which he saw the project having become mired.31 Geoffrey Shrives was also showing concern over the extension of responsibilities to Hong Kong’s own seafarers, which was signaled by the appointment of Christina Law, a Baptist College-trained social worker, in June 1973. As he put it in a letter of advice about an ecumenical mission that had been solicited from Archdeacon C. Goodwin in Sydney, in his view a “quite separate” advisory bureau for Chinese seafarers was needed, not something grafted onto the Mariners’ Club. In passing he also vented his other frustrations with the Mariners’ Club because it was proving unsuitable for seafarers reading for their tickets, was failing to provide an adequate home for retired seafarers, and didn’t offer anywhere for Christian teaching or helping rehabilitate alcoholics! Inevitably too he must have been sharing in the tremendous shocks reverberating in the global economy and the shipping industry in the aftermath of the 1973 oil shock and pondering their implications for the work of his team. In addition, Hong Kong had been chosen to be the star of a new, Missions to Seamen-financed film about its work. I Was a Stranger, as the film was called, had begun being planned in 1971. The aim had been to make a film that avoided the “pietism and sentimentalities”

21_Strong to Save.indd 367

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

368

Strong

to

Save

that at least one Missions stalwart thought had characterized previous efforts. The hope was to be able to portray accurately what life in an active mission was like and, perhaps because it was a photogenic location, as well as being a pioneering ecumenical mission in what had been one of the world’s busiest ports for all of the 20th century, to do so in a way that would be visually gripping. After initial deliberations, a year later the choice had centred in Hong Kong. The saga of planning the film then ran on for a further year as the right film-maker was found and the right treatment decided.32 The choice was for Keith Hulse of VisNews and for a cinéma verité approach using unscripted material to put together a look at a ship visit to Hong Kong and seeing one seafarer’s experience in the context of the busy life of the ecumenical mission. The film was finally shot during the autumn of 1973. The rough cut was ready by the end of the year and then came the long process of reconciling the film-maker’s approach with the opinions of the Mission to Seamen’s chosen viewing panel.33 The film was premiered at the National Film Theatre on 8 October 1974 and had an extremely interesting reception. Mission supporters have not been very enthusiastic, whereas those who are not touched by our work have expressed great surprise in the scope

of our work demonstrated in the film…experience so far suggests that its impact will be greatest on those occasions when it is shown to audiences which have little or no experience of our work…34

The film is a fascinating record of Geoffrey Shrives chaplaincy and how and why it worked during a period of extraordinary change. For many people the most telling moment in the film was the scene of a mass being held on the Philippine Admiral, the captain of which had been murdered by several unknown members of the crew in a case that had been extensively covered in the Hong Kong news media.35 But the backdrop to that moment of high drama was the more everyday work of the Mission. Thomas Chow and Christina Law’s work with the welfare problems of Hong Kong seamen. The daily work of the

21_Strong to Save.indd 368

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out

the

Wrinkles

369

chaplains’ ship-visiting and meeting seafarers in the Mariners’ Club. The sharing of an ecumenical church service. And all against a backdrop of a port the work in which ranged from the traffic of sailpowered cargo junks to the last word in contemporary container ships. Given the ever present Mariners’ Club, the salience of nonwestern seafarers, and the new emphasis on ecumenism, the film expressed well the pivotal moment represented by Geoffrey Shrives’ four years’ service. His own summary is perhaps the sharpest, coming as it does from a report he wrote for a regional Missions to Seamen meeting in Korea in the month before his departure, The church in Asia today faces a challenge…Has (it) and particularly the

Anglican church any responsibility for Asian seamen, shipowners and the people ashore who are employed in servicing the shipping industry?

In short, was the model devised and developed by John Ashley and his successors one that still had application in the late 20th century world, especially in Asia? Having done his best to grapple with this challenge, but it seems with something of a feeling that he had failed, Geoffrey Shrives left Hong Kong on 15 July 1974. He never worked for the Missions to Seamen again.

21_Strong to Save.indd 369

6/7/2017 6:45 PM

22

Many Shepherds, One Flock

he new senior chaplain, Ted Matchett, an experienced Missions to Seaman hand and, like Elliott Lawlor, from Northern Ireland, arrived a few days after Geoffrey Shrives had left. His chaplaincy was to prove one largely characterized by steady progress, perhaps thanks to the simple fact that at 55 he was, like the steadying hand of Bob Precious, an older, more seasoned maritime pastor. He had had nearly 30 years of experience as a Missions to Seamen chaplain and more than knew the ropes. He and his wife Phyllis made their flat very much a social centre for the entertaining of seafarers and others on which the success of any Mission often depends. It also helped greatly, in continuing to build the ecumenical team, that not only was he much liked by his Roman Catholic colleagues, especially with respect to fellow Northern Irishman Father Dan Fitzpatrick, but was personally responsible for managing to bring the next ecumenical chaplaincy, the Danish Seamen’s Mission, into the fold without offending the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission with whom they had previously been working.1 He had also served as a Royal Naval Reserve chaplain in the early 1960s, so that would have at least helped him begin on the right foot with Jim Thornton although, as we shall see, that wasn’t to last. But perhaps what Ted Matchett’s chaplaincy marks most is the period during which we can see emerging a clear acceptance of the realities within which the Missions to Seamen would have to work in Hong Kong if the Mariners’ Club was to move forward. Needless to say

22_Strong to Save.indd 370

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

371

this was not an overnight achievement. But from the outset it does seem that from this point forward, not just with Hong Kong but also with the steer that was coming from London, there was an acceptance not only that Hong Kong was different, though that certainly seems to have been the case, but that the whole business of running a maritime mission had become different too and especially in a modern Far Eastern port. In effect the Missions and their chaplains became welfare workers, who believed in and served their God whilst they ministered to their heterogeneous maritime flock, rather more than priests bringing God to those they saw to be in spiritual need. It is not that the latter disappeared. It was approached differently and placed within, rather than above, the more general business of seafarer welfare. What that had almost achieved by the end of Ted Matchett’s time, and which has continued through the chaplaincies that have followed, is the de facto achievement of a united institution. For the two disparate elements so roughly spliced in 1930, this was the turn into the fairway that, by the early 21st century, was to lead to the change from a lay Sailors’ Home and a religious Mission to Seamen that happened to both occupy the same building. Instead, from the Local General Committee through the chaplains to the manager, it was finally to become the Ecumenical Mission to Seafarers in Hong Kong. Nothing signals this more than the way in which, just before the end of Ted Matchett’s chaplaincy, Hong Kong’s Local General Committee took the first steps towards becoming a major source of financial support for the Missions to Seamen. *** Hong Kong was to be Ted Matchett’s penultimate posting with the Missions to Seamen bringing him, after his final three years in Cornwall, UK, to 42 years service. In staying in Hong Kong for eight years, he became the longest serving chaplain since the Reverend William Haig Brown had left in 1956. If 5 senior chaplains had served in the 13 years thereafter, the 14 years from Geoffrey Shrives’ arrival in 1969 to Ted Matchett’s departure in 1983 confirmed a new, more

22_Strong to Save.indd 371

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

372

Strong

to

Save

stable pattern. Clearly, in choosing two older men to get the Mariners’ Club established, albeit with widely different priestly backgrounds, London seemed finally to have settled on a formula for Hong Kong that worked. When he arrived Ted Matchett had a team that must have been a little shell-shocked at Geoffrey Shrives’ fairly abrupt departure. In Hong Kong as assistant chaplain was the young Peter Ellis, who would end his Missions to Seamen career with a total of 20 years service as a Mission chaplain in Hong Kong. Thomas Chow was continuing as the resident Chinese assistant chaplain, George Dopchie and Dan Fitzpatrick remained as the two Apostleship chaplains and Christina Law had settled in as the resident social worker looking after the affairs of Chinese seafarers. But for all that there may have been a tendency to shift towards more of a social welfare orientation, the system as a whole was still in some parts holding to older entrenched verities. Almost as soon as Ted Matchett’s feet had crossed the brow the limits to how a more welfare-based approach might be approached were clearly set. Christina Law was submitting a regular report on what she was doing as she tackled the often harrowing affairs of Hong Kong’s far from privileged Chinese mariners. Very much a product of Hong Kong welfare teaching of the era, which was understandably critical of the comfortable-for-some arrangements of a still colonial world, Christina Law’s reports ruffled feathers. Two months after he arrived Ted Matchett was sharply told by London that its shipping expert reader of reports from Hong Kong, an ex-Shell Tankers man called Ian Barton-Wright, thought her reports too “pro-seamen” and too “anti-Jardine (i.e. shipowner)” leading to the possibility that “she (would get) into the position which would jeopardize her value in the eyes of Jardines.”2 The gap between London’s reader’s perceptions and Hong Kong seafarers’ actualities was palpable. A year previously Geoffrey Shrives had summarized for London a Seamen’s Recruiting Office

22_Strong to Save.indd 372

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

373

report finding that Hong Kong seamen had special needs not met by any existing welfare provisions. The result was not just misery for families — Christina Law’s first report had highlighted children’s poor school results attributable to their absent fathers — but high rates of desertion.3 It was hardly surprising. As Geoffrey Shrives had summarized it,

…almost no Hong Kong seamen get unemployment pay, long service gratuities, retirement pay, medical benefits or vocational training, their families are insecure (when they are at sea children are kidnapped and

houses burgled) and they are paid far below international standard[s] (slightly more than half the ITF standard).4

It was a depressing catalogue. Three months after London’s bleat, in January 1975 the survivors of the Wah Yick had been offered help from only the Mission and some fellow seafarers from the Sheba. Ted Matchett’s comment had been, “We have found great reluctance on the part of some Hong Kong agents to help in cases of distress.”5 Nonetheless he responded to London by starting out as he meant to go on and assured them he was offering Christina Law guidance, though he also pointed out that she needed an assistant.6 Much was also in hand that Geoffrey Shrives had been pushing forward. Not least of these was the seemingly swift cutting through the red tape that had been holding up the new Kwai Chung premises. By the end of 1974 things had advanced to the point that the opening was being planned for the first half of 1975. It had not been difficult to get the new container terminal operators to back the project, though Ted Matchett did worry about the quid pro quo, which had been accepting, as “honorary” members of the new Mariners’ Club in Kwai Chung, 50 of the terminal operators’ staff. That was part of a more general worry about use of the Mariners’ Club, in which seafarers seemed to be the minority, and the mismatch between income and expenditure that loomed for Kwai Chung and about which Jim Thornton had expressed serious doubts from the very first.7

22_Strong to Save.indd 373

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

374

Strong

to

Save

The core of the problem was the changing composition of ship’s crews and the extent to which what was being provided by the clubs — and what was planned to be provided in Kwai Chung — were basically facilities for developed world seafarers that Asian seafarers could not afford. As Peter Ellis put it, “(the) club’s facilities do not seem to be able to attract Asiatics … The number of bars might have been an attraction to thirsty British seamen but they are certainly not used by other nationalities.”8 This was a learning curve that it would take many years to climb. That was partly because the shipping boom times of the 1980s eased the pressure as the impact of the decline in western-crewed ships was somewhat masked by the overall increase in traffic.9 But it was also an inevitable function of the various costs, both financial and in terms of personnel, involved in changing a building, a management team, and a system geared to a world that was disappearing, into something that catered for the new reality. But before May 1975, when Peter Ellis left for Singapore and Prebendary S.S.C. Thomson arrived to fill in,10 the Kwai Chung project came to fruition with the opening of the Mariners’ Club Kwai Chung and the dedication of its small St Paul’s Chapel, for which the pioneering container shipping line OCL (Overseas Containers Ltd) gave the ciborium, chalice, and patten.11 As soon as the new building opened the plan was to gear it to the new reality. As Peter Ellis noted,

The shipping of the future in this Port will be to a large extent centred near our new club and it is important for the committee and management to

remember that there are very few British ships and that this will have to be run as a truly international seamen’s club if it is to welcome the people it was built for….12

Meanwhile down on the waterfront the monthly station reports are full of the often grim actuality of the Mission’s work and of its fairly starkly welfare character. As Prebendary Thomson put it, referring to the work he was doing at Kwai Chung, as the chaplaincy team swung into a new routine whereby chaplains spent a full day in Kwai Chung

22_Strong to Save.indd 374

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

375

on a regular basis, “…at Kwai Chung we are 100% welfare officers and not chaplains at all.”13 The work ran the gamut. At the institutional level, apart from the running chaplaincy/management struggle, there were the usual problems with staffing. These ran from such occasions as the sad death of the long time Mariners’ Club coxswain, Mr Lui Sai, who died on 3 March 1975 just before Kwai Chung opened, having served for 23 years, through to the attrition of the club’s younger staff as they got lured away to Hong Kong’s booming hotel and catering industry for higher wages.14 There was the changeover in senior staff too. Not surprisingly in the light of her heavy case load and manifestly hard work, by the end of 1976 Christina Law needed a break and had resigned to pursue further study in Britain, so there was a need to find a replacement.15 The assistant chaplains initially had a rapid turnover with the loss of Peter Ellis after just 14 months, a temporary replacement for three months and then the arrival of Noel Stone, who was to stay only one tour. Noel Stone’s decision to leave, which was partly due to his wife and young family not taking to Hong Kong, was probably cemented when, for uncertain reasons, the Chinese assistant chaplain Thomas Chow developed an intense antipathy to him. This was another cross for the senior chaplain to bear because, rather worse from his point of view, Thomas Chow was also being affected by the strong anti-colonial sentiments understandably current amongst Hong Kong’s more educated Chinese community in the early 1970s, which were spilling over into his sermons and his conversation.16 Thomas’s sermons have been causing some concern. He has radical and

socialist ideas. He criticizes those who come from the West. He is also against the Establishment in Hong Kong…(last Sunday morning at early

communion) Thomas referred to me personally as having “a piece of paper MA” but no heart. He referred to Father Dopchie as having over 20 years in

China but did not understand the Chinese. He also said that when people

22_Strong to Save.indd 375

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

376

Strong

to

Save

asked him how he liked his job here, he always replied to them “I like working with the sailors —but I do not like the Team”.

The responses to this fitted the respondents. Bill Down took a very Missions to Seamen attitude that basically Thomas Chow should ship out and that any Chinese replacement should either shape up or ship out in his turn. The bishop thought things should be played softly because of fears of rifts with Hong Kong’s predominantly Chinese clergy since “there might be a reaction in favour of Thomas from the younger Chinese clergy in particular.” Meanwhile David Newbigging made the obvious and important point that however things were played, what mattered was having a Chinese priest on the Mariners’ Club team. The actual outcome was that Thomas Chow was gradually moved sideways into parish work, first going part time and finally ceasing altogether to be part of the Missions to Seamen chaplaincy in 1980. More interesting is that, despite David Newbigging’s view, since the departure of Thomas Chow there has never been another Chinese priest in the joint chaplaincy.17

There were also the innumerable problems Christina Law had to deal with as Hong Kong’s seafarers’ families tried to deal with their frequently unenviable lots.

Christina Law every month has one or two poignant welfare cases involving Hong Kong Chinese seamen or their families — injury, poverty,

threatened destitution or loss of schooling with loss of breadwinner, poor living conditions and insecurity.

Typical was the partially paralysed mother of a young cadet who had died when his ship, the Kinabalu Satu, was lost in Typhoon Flossie on 21 October 1975, leaving the mother almost destitute, being helped only by the grieving wife of the ship’s dead second engineer. Or there were the three seamen and their captain, who had been suffocated while discharging cargo in Japan, and the chief officer, who lost both his legs when a wire parted in a berthing accident.18 The list is long and often appalling.

22_Strong to Save.indd 376

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

377

For the chaplains there were the almost unbelievable frustrations caused when purblind bureaucracy blocked much needed welfare. In October 1975, when Typhoon Flossie sank the Kinabalu Satu, it also sank the Ming Sing the following day, both in the waters south of Hong Kong. Of the 47 crewmen, 44 were drowned, including 16 of the 17 who came from Hong Kong. Both ships were example of flag of convenience ships with approaches to standards that seafarers’ welfare workers saw, often correctly, as a major cause of concern. Both were timber carriers working between Borneo and Taiwan and Hong Kong, and not manned to the highest standards. Both seemed to have foundered because of bad loading and then poor decision-making in worsening conditions.19 But for those who survived, once they reached Hong Kong it was not made easy for those offering comfort like George Dopchie and Thomas Chow to access them. Three survivors from the former (the Kinabalu Satu) after spending eight

days in a lifeboat, were found and brought to Hong Kong. These were two

Philippinos [sic] and one Hong Kong Chinese. Father Dopchie and Thomas Chow went to see them in hospital. After great argument Father George

was allowed to see the Philippinos briefly but neither chaplains [sic] were allowed to see the Chinese.20

The chaplains also had to face not just the interpersonal problems of the sort that vexed the relationship between Thomas Chow and Noel Stone, but the implicit problems raised by declining religiosity and different patterns of churchgoing. Through Ted Matchett’s tour of duty, despite his manifestly appealing personality and evident faith, Anglican attendance at church continued to fall. Meanwhile, as the Filipino presence shipboard and in Hong Kong continued to rise, so the Roman Catholic side of St Peter’s church attendance rose in tandem.21 The monthly reports are scattered with the disparity. For the senior chaplain, who was the central processor for all these trials and tribulations in his organization and his team, there were similar individual stresses and strains too. Ted Matchett took

22_Strong to Save.indd 377

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

378

Strong

to

Save

on comforting the accused and coping with the distraught family who had flown to Hong Kong to be with their son, when a young British seaman from the P&O liner Arcadia was on trial for the murder of a prostitute.22 He also dealt with hospital visits to dying ships’ masters and the death in the Club of one 49-year-old New Zealander master who was out of work and had literally worried himself to death over his future job prospects. On top of that, of course, were all the other problems the Mariners’ Club skipper and coordinator had to handle, not least his running battles with Jim Thornton. It is little wonder that by May 1977 Ted Matchett was diagnosed as suffering from a duodenal ulcer. The problems Ted Matchett was having to deal with were succinctly summarized by Prebendary Thomson in October 1975. In his view the Mariners’ Club was a white elephant whose days were numbered. It was well run and friendly. Its prices were reasonable but “the atmosphere of the Club is overwhelmingly secular.” More problematic it was “designed to serve European seamen”, who were no longer present, so instead it relied heavily on “hon. Members and staff friends who get a cheap deal (pay no subscriptions, do nothing to help the Club, have no connection with the sea) but without whom the Club would be half empty.” On top of which “accommodation use is in free fall.” He noted, because he could hardly fail to, the evident and worrying tensions between the manager and the chaplains. Sidney Thomson’s judgment of Jim Thornton showed an unreflective British snobbery but was glowing, “A very efficient manager with a wealth of knowledge.” It is easy to say they [the chaplains] should concentrate on the spiritual side and leave the management to manage; but there is much overlap causing constant irritation, and trivial things become issues because none of the Chaplains “like” the Manager.

Prebendary Thomson concluded by opining that both clubs were at least four or five times too big for the purposes the Missions to

22_Strong to Save.indd 378

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

379

Seamen had in mind. This wasn’t helped in his view because as a result the chaplains were in some ways there on sufferance, which he saw as the basis for the management/chaplaincy tensions.23 Or as Roy Chalkley had put the matter two years previously, reflecting on the decidedly secular flavour of things, I attended my one and only House Committee meeting on Wed. 29 August

and I found it rather a depressing affair. Although obvious attempts were

made to make me feel “wanted”, I gained a distinct impressions that as long as the dollars and cents side of things was in order there would be no need to worry about much else.24

Against which can be placed Jim Thornton’s nuts and bolts summary in August 1975 when he noted that “only 20% of the restaurant revenue and 35% of the bar revenue comes from the seafaring element.”25 Hong Kong had problems of a kind that placed an extraordinary burden on the senior chaplain. Some of these were almost certainly shared with Missions to Seamen chaplaincies worldwide as the shipping industry went through some of the most cataclysmic changes of the 20th century and as society as a whole moved in a more and more secular direction. But some were unquestionably unique to Hong Kong and its peculiar hybrid organization, still suffering as it was from all the unresolved fissures that had been papered over to consummate a deal half a century earlier. *** It may have seemed that there was a solution to this seemingly interminable senior chaplain/manager issue when it became clear in early 1978 that Jim Thornton was going to retire. For Jim Thornton this was something of a compromise since he had made clear back in 1971 that he wanted to soldier on until 1980, when he would have reached 65, the pensionable age in Britain. However, even then he had recognized that this might not happen because his wife, Eileen Thornton, who was seven years older than him, was not that happy in

22_Strong to Save.indd 379

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

380

Strong

to

Save

Hong Kong and wanted to return to Britain.26 By 1978, when Eileen Thornton reached 70, evidently she and her husband had decided between them that it was time to go. Jim Thornton gave notice not long after it had become clear that Noel Stone would not renew his contract because he and his family were not happy in Hong Kong. London’s response to Noel Stone’s departure had been to organize a successor, the Reverend Joe Humble, but to let Ted Matchett know that he would be without an assistant chaplain for a month.27 The departure of the manager must have seemed an opportunity to solve the senior chaplain/manager problem once and for all. If it did, it seems only likely to have seemed so to what we might style London’s and the senior chaplain’s way of seeing. It is evident from the files that as the system swung into gear to begin a recruitment process, the old divide between the secular and spiritual goals of the dual organization had not gone. When David Newbigging wrote to Bill Down he made clear, if in soothing terms, that the new manager was to be much as the old.28 Ted Matchett wisely saw that the main hope for overcoming past problems was going to be ensuring a good working relationship. To that end he indicated to Bill Down that what he thought was needed were daily meetings between the manager and senior chaplain and at least weekly meetings between the manager and the whole chaplaincy team.29 For all that everyone was clearly committed to trying to avoid the problems of the past decade, lines were nonetheless being drawn. David Newbigging followed up his earlier letter to Bill Down with a gentle but pointed reminder, that although the manager should have,30 “a direct pipeline to the House Committee […]Please do not infer from this that one is in any way trying to erode the position of the Senior Chaplain.” Two pointers ensued as to exactly how these comments are to be read. The first can be seen in the advertisement for a new manager placed in the South China Morning Post. No reference is made to the Mariners’ Club being a mission, nor is any indication made that the

22_Strong to Save.indd 380

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

381

manager would be expected to be an adherent to the Christian church, or indeed any other religion, or that a regular churchman might be preferred. The sole requirement that made reference to anything other than competence and experience in management, preferably in the hotel and catering profession, was that a candidate should have “…a genuine interest in the general welfare of all seafarers, thus some connection with the sea is preferred.”31 Jim and Eileen Thornton flew out of Hong Kong on 25 March 1978,32 after which there was a three-month interregnum until the new manager, Allister Hall took up his new post on 16 June. Hall was a seafarer, an ex-Ben Line master mariner, who had been in Hong Kong for 20 years. In the meantime Mr Wong Kam Moon, the deputy manager, took the weight. Meanwhile Noel Stone’s replacement had run into one of those bureaucratic obstacles that only governments can dream up and then blindly enforce. Both to economize and to help ensure that their chaplains had experience of the lives of those to whose welfare they were to minister, the Missions to Seamen in London had arranged for Joe Humble to work his passage on the OCL container ship Osaka Bay. Unfortunately for both the Mission and Joe Humble, when he arrived at Kwai Chung he promptly ran foul of regulations and wasn’t allowed ashore. The rules said that seafarers signed on in a foreign port and on the crew manifest were not allowed to sign off in Hong Kong and take a job ashore.33 It was eventually sorted out, but was a typical example of the sort of bureaucratic stumbling blocks those involved in seafarers’ welfare constantly tripped over. Meanwhile the next major move in the development of the ecumenical mission, which had been brewing since early in 1976, began coming to the boil. The first signs had been back in March 1976 when the question of the Danish Missions to Seamen coming to work in Hong Kong and to some sort of arrangement with the Mariners’ Club had first come up. Over the period 1976 to 1977 there had been much thumb-sucking over the implications of this because there had

22_Strong to Save.indd 381

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

382

Strong

to

Save

been “a history of animosity between the Danish and Norwegian Missions and Churches in other ports.”34 As far as Ted Matchett could see, that there were increasing numbers of Danish container ships calling at Kwai Chung, as the Maersk Line began their charge to the front rank of world container shipping, and at the same time dwindling numbers of other western seafarers, all argued in favour of finding a way to embrace the Danish Seamen’s Church. Against that were the fear of offending the Norwegians, who had been using Kwai Chung since March 1977,35 the difficulty in finding room for another mission in the Mariners’ Club and the fact that there was no accommodation available in Kwai Chung. In early 1978 the matter came up again when Reverend Palle Nielsen, then the head of the Danish Seamen’s Church in Foreign Ports asked whether Bill Down’s offer “that a Danish Seamen’s chaplain might use the facilities in the Mariners’ Club in Kwai Chung, Hong Kong is still open.”36 A quick round of letters and cables swiftly resulted in an agreement in principle on the basis that the “Danish pastor should be independent and not a member of our team.”37 The records go silent until, in April 1979 Pastor Ronald Pedersen and his wife Inge arrived in Hong Kong on the Adrian Maersk. Whatever worries there had been about the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission evidently proved illusory — perhaps a product of the famous British ability to expect foreigners to be odd — because as soon as he arrived Pastor Pedersen was able to speak of being able to “invite (Danish) seamen to use the recreational facilities of the Norwegian Seamen’s Church and the Mission to Seamen’s two “Mariners’ Clubs” in Kowloon and in Kwai Chung.”38 It was a coup for Ted Matchett since two years later the Danish community and their new pastor, along with help from the Danish government and shipping industry, financed the creation of the Danish Room at Kwai Chung, which was opened by Queen Margarethe II of Denmark on 28 April, 1981, shortly after she had launched the Carlsberg brewery out on the Tai Po Road! For his efforts in creating

22_Strong to Save.indd 382

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

383

this new strand to the ecumenical mission Ted Matchett was awarded the Order of the Dannebrog by Queen Margarethe.39 In addition to his efforts with the Danes Ted Matchett had also been active in continuing the development of regional cooperation amongst seafarers’ missions in maritime Asia. Because he was the senior Missions to Seamen chaplain in the region, he hosted Bill Down’s visit to the region in 1979 during which they visited Singapore, Indonesia and South Korea, as well as a visit to Rangoon (Yangon) in Burma (Myanmar) and during his chaplaincy the shape of the future of the Missions to Seamen organization in Asia began to take on the form that became fully formalized 20 years later in 2014. While the ecumenical mission was pushing forward and the shipping industry rushed into its new world, Hong Kong was also undergoing huge changes. The 1970s were the “MacLehose years”, named after the governor from 1971–82, to whom is ascribed, not entirely fairly, a wholesale change in the complexion of Hong Kong’s colonial regime, with its long reputation of comparative indifference to the welfare of its less fortunate, overwhelmingly Chinese citizens.40 During his governorship a series of landmark policies were introduced, from giving equal status to the Chinese language to introducing nine years of free, compulsory education for children, from the campaign against corruption to the first new towns, from the ten year housing scheme aimed at eradicating squatter settlements to the creation of the country parks and, perhaps most important, the implementation of some of the first, if paltry, welfare protection for the unemployed, the elderly, and the disabled, and a major overhaul of public health care.41 For the Mariners’ Club, as the 1970s moved into the ’80s and the last two years of Ted Matchett’s incumbency, probably the most significant effect, riding as the MacLehose reforms did on the back of Hong Kong’s huge surge in prosperity, was the sudden, rapid collapse in the numbers of Hong Kong seafarers. In its wake came a shift in the issues with which the Club and its new social worker, Ms Juliana Soo,

22_Strong to Save.indd 383

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

384

Strong

to

Save

who in March 1979 had filled the vacancy left by Christina Law, had to cope.42 Hong Kong seafarer numbers in employment had peaked in the mid 1970s. Economic growth had meant that alternative jobs on land opened up, especially in construction. In a mid–1980s survey Juliana Soo noted that although the number of registered seafarers was still close to its all-time high of over 87,000, the number actually working at sea was consistently dropping, with just 18,167 posts filled in 1980, 16,954 in 1981 and 14,624 in 1982.43 In the meantime Hong Kong faced one of the major challenges that came to it by sea in the closing years of the 20th century, which has become known as the Vietnamese boat people issue. The details of this troubling episode are not here relevant, save to observe that almost despite itself Hong Kong eventually emerged from the 20-year episode with a well-deserved reputation for generosity to those in adversity. Given the intensive involvement of ships and the port, the Missions to Seamen could have been awkwardly placed, but Ted Matchett handled the matter with both firmness and diplomacy. With the arrival of the Bank Line MV Sibonga on 22 May 1979, for reasons that are obscure, the question evidently came up as to what the Mariners’ Club was going to do about it.44 Ted Matchett’s response in his June report to London was short and to the point:45 From the Missions to Seamen’s Chaplain’s point of view there was not

much we could do. We do not involve ourselves in the refugee problem. It

is too controversial a topic here in Hong Kong. We interest ourselves in the law-abiding ship’s crews.

But if that was the official position given the Club’s need to avoid controversy of the kind that could have an adverse impact on its core purpose, the practical response was warm and helpful. If the Mariner’s Club as a mission to seafarers could not itself do anything, it could help those who were less constrained. That is what we learn happened from the following monthly report in which Ted Matchett noted,46

22_Strong to Save.indd 384

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

385

Each Monday our launch Dayspring is loaned to the Services; Chaplains who visit a refugee camp on Lantau Island with Army, Navy and Air Force

wives. They bring comforts to the refugees in a converted prison camp on the island.

It was a characteristic and a generous response. 1982 was also the year of the Falklands War, the drums of which beat faintly but very, very audibly in Hong Kong. In this near final episode of the British Empire saga, the Royal Navy’s stunning achievement in launching a brilliantly successful amphibious assault 8,000 miles away from its home base with a fleet that had been decimated by defence cuts, had its local content. Ever since the end of the 19th century Hong Kong Chinese seamen had served in Royal Navy ships. The large British fleet of 127 vessels that set out piecemeal for the Falkland Islands had an unknown number of Hong Kong Chinese crew in total, but of them eight were killed.47 The theatre of war was

far from Hong Kong but the Mariners’ Club was nonetheless involved. Two of its Chinese welfare workers were temporarily seconded to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Office at HMS Tamar to help handle the anxious enquiries from families and the compensation awards for those killed. As a follow-up in October and November, the Club acted for King George’s Fund for Sailors,48 which had made an award for seaman Yeung Shui Kam, whose family was suffering from the loss of their breadwinner.49

*** Ted Matchett had evidently been wearied by the workload of his time in Hong Kong and by early 1982 was already discussing his replacement with London. Meanwhile, plans were afoot for the first visit to the Mariners’ Club by a member of the British royal family. David Newbigging had been approached earlier in the year by Rear Admiral Jock Miller, the Missions to Seamen’s assistant general secretary, about a possible visit by the Duchess of Kent on the visit by her and the Duke of Kent to

22_Strong to Save.indd 385

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

386

Strong

to

Save

Hong Kong in October. It was a deserved success and proved to be the first of two more visits by a member of the British royal family before the end of British rule in 1997.50 Another decision made in this period, indicative of how very slowly established social and political attitudes amongst Hong Kong’s expatriate colonial community changed, was the result of a roundrobin plea sent out by London to its missions around Britain and the world asking for a financial helping hand. The income of the Londonbased Missions to Seamen was suffering from the massive downturn in the British shipping industry, and it had never quite recovered from the flirtation with near bankruptcy of 1971. If the Missions to Seamen’s core organization was to survive, some other funding model was going to have to be found. The first recourse was to turn to the missions its efforts had helped to set up since the mid 19th century.51 From Hong Kong the response was positive. By early March, 1982 David Newbigging was able to write to Bill Down, the general secretary at the London headquarters, letting him know that the decision had been made that Hong Kong would send a donation and, “subject to our finances remaining in sound condition”, had committed to do the same thing in 1983. He also stated that as long as the Mariners’ Club’s monies stayed on an even keel, the arrangement was a firm commitment and would be regularly reviewed in the light of inflation and the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen’s general financial situation.52 This is an interesting index of exactly the mindset that we shall see still dominating thinking in the Mariners’ Club when, in 1984, Wally Andrews, Ted Matchett’s successor, drew up the Mariners’ Club’s submission to the Hong Kong Government’s Assessment Office on the acceptability of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of that year. Put bluntly, a colonialist attitude still ruled. The Mariners’ Club was in some sense beholden to its colonial metropole and had duties thereto. Given that during this high growth, boom period of Hong Kong’s

22_Strong to Save.indd 386

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Many Shepherds, One Flock

387

commercial world, the Mariners’ Club’s investments were doing extraordinarily well, it was deemed right and proper that when head office called for help, help should be forthcoming. This loyal deference to British interests and ways of seeing was a posture that had governed the response of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong to the two great conflicts of the 20th century, to the strikes of the 1920s, and to Hong Kong’s troubles in 1956 and 1967. “We are a British organization under British rule.”53 The generous response to London’s plight was no surprise.54 Ted Matchett’s final months were spent planning the 1983 Far East Chaplains’ Conference, which Hong Kong was to host. It was to coincide with a visit to Hong Kong by Bill Down and to make sure everything went smoothly, that involved making sure that no feathers were ruffled. The potential for something of the sort had arisen when Reverend Paul K. Chapman, the feisty director of the Centre for Seafarer’s Rights at the New York Seamen’s Church Institute wanted to visit Hong Kong with his team on work connected with the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF). Naturally he had thought the Mariner’s Club should figure in their itinerary and by inference had been angling for an invitation to the conference. Ted Matchett was obviously worried. He noted to Bill Down that given the belligerent stance the ITF took on flag of convenience ships and the high incidence of flags of convenience among the ships of Hong Kong shipowners, having Paul Chapman around would be “counter-productive.” Not surprisingly Paul Chapman did not get the invitation to the conference it appears he may have been hoping for.55 With that Ted Matchett was done and, from all evidence, hugely looking forward to finally being able to ease off and spend a year or so in a small port buried in rural Cornwall before finally retiring. On 4 June 1983 Wally Andrews arrived for a short, one-month handover period and on 7 July Ted and Phyllis Matchett boarded an aeroplane for Britain. It had been a path-breaking eight years during which Ted

22_Strong to Save.indd 387

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

388

Strong

to

Save

Matchett had put the Mariners’ Club on course for a future in a Hong Kong transformed beyond recognition from the place it had been just 16 years earlier when the new Mariners’ Club premises had opened at 11, Middle Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

22_Strong to Save.indd 388

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

23

On Course for the Future

hen the Reverend Walford “Wally” Andrews took over as senior chaplain in mid 1983, it seems fair to say that the Mariners’ Club may have seemed almost to have reached open water and the possibility of less anxious sailing. The major shifts in the maritime world and in Hong Kong, even if they had not exactly played themselves out, had at least ceased being so radically unsettling, and the patterns for the future in terms of the main concerns of Hong Kong’s Mariners’ Club had become manifest. With Wally Andrews too we can see a continuing of what had become, at last, an apparently successful model for Hong Kong’s still innovatory ecumenical mission. Probably the most important shift, though again the full — indeed staggering — impact it was to have on maritime Hong Kong had yet to make itself fully apparent — was the consequence of a major event that had happened in the last period of Ted Matchett’s chaplaincy. It had really begun with the fall of the Gang of Four in China in 1976 and the return of Deng Xiaoping to power. By December 1978 Deng and the reformist group in the post-Mao Communist party launched the first stage of “Reform and opening up” (改革開放, Gǎigé kāifàng), addressing head-on the need for China to recover from the serial policy disasters of the Maoist period, which had held back China’s economic development for two generations. It was a path that would lead in directions few could have dreamed of a decade previously. The following year Deng became the first Chinese leader to visit the United

23_Strong to Save.indd 389

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

390

Strong

to

Save

States of America. In 1980 he launched the first special economic zone in Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong. By the first year of Wally Andrews’ chaplaincy the Chinese economy had begun to accelerate, nowhere more vigorously than the Pearl River Delta, throughout the last decades of the 19th century and until the Japanese invasion in 1941, Hong Kong’s natural hinterland but effectively closed since the 1950s. It was this shift that would utterly change the pattern of Hong Kong shipping, moving it ever faster towards a new role as the main gateway for containerized cargo movement into and out of the growing and booming Pearl River Delta economy and within less than two decades changing the port into a massive container shipping hub. From under 2 million TEU1 in 1981, by 1997 the port would be handling 14.6 million TEU, a phenomenal 800% growth.2 This shift, allied with the larger changes to global shipping, and especially crewing, that were taking place, would transform the world the Missions to Seamen and the Mariners’ Club existed to serve. It would also raise more prominently into focus what had only been a niggling worry thus far, the ever-vexed issue of the location of the Club’s centre of operations. At the same time as the port began its transformation, Hong Kong began to change economically in a major way as the mainstay of employment for the previous generation, industrial production, moved across the border and the economy shifted into services, especially in finance.3 In 1980 the manufacturing sector of the economy had employed 42% of the work force. By 1995 that figure was to sink to just 18%.4 This had already begun decimating crewing opportunities for Hong Kong’s seafarers, which in its turn was placing unexpected burdens on the Club’s social workers and staff. In their way, the years that were to follow Ted Matchett’s chaplaincy would prove as testing as any in the post-war period. ***

23_Strong to Save.indd 390

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

391

Walford Brian Andrews, like Geoffrey Shrives and Ted Matchett before him was, at 49 years of age, not only an older man and a mature and experienced priest, but a seasoned chaplain in the Missions to Seamen. Although he had no working experience outside the priesthood, he had already served in Madras (now Chennai), Rotterdam twice, Bunbury in Western Australia and Hull in the United Kingdom, before his posting to Hong Kong. That had cumulated to 21 years’ service as a Mission chaplain: older, steadier hands had clearly come to be seen as the key to success. Over the Mission’s first 71 years, 1885–1956, ten chaplains served an average of nearly eight years each. In the Mariners’ Club, after a slightly wobbly start, over the 42 years between 1969–2011, there were just four chaplains serving an average of ten and a half years in post. Clearly for Hong Kong, both through periods of dramatic change and in quieter times, an experienced and older senior chaplain had proved himself the only route to take and both London and the Local General Committee had hoisted in the message. Quieter times are, however, a very relative concept. If the internal problems of chaplain/manager relations and the dramatic changes in the Mariners’ Club’s clientele as a result of a fast changing shipping industry had moved into more easily managed zones, life was by no means all plain sailing. Soon after Wally Andrews arrived everyone’s attention began to shift to two apparently quite unrelated issues. The more immediate was the impending centenary of the beginning of the work of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong, though there was uncertainty whether this had been in 1884 or 1885!5 Not that in the end it was going to matter whether the date should be taken as given by when London made a decision or whether it was when Gurney Goldsmith arrived. Wally Andrews was convinced that the date for any celebration was going to be chosen to suit David Newbigging, the chairman, who had major plans he wanted to see realized before he stepped down as chairman and left Hong

23_Strong to Save.indd 391

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

392

Strong

to

Save

Kong.6 The plans were to mark the centenary with the creation of a major educational trust for the benefit of the children of seafarers. However, long debates and legal advice saw this plan (and centenary celebrations along with it) slowly sink from view as it became apparent that the ever-vexing 1930 ordinance effectively ruled out any use of funds of the corporation on any objects that did not directly provide for “the care of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine … a suitable institute or home for the seafaring classes and officers and men aforesaid…and the spiritual welfare of the seafaring classes.” It must also have become obvious that whenever the centenary of the Missions to Seamen arriving in Hong Kong was, it was not before December 1884, so if David Newbigging’s time in Hong Kong was up before that month, his time as chairman of the Local General Committee would end before the champagne corks could be popped. From what seems from the record to have been to everyone’s surprise, exactly that unhappy turn of events is what transpired. David Newbigging’s rather swifter departure than had been expected was the product of a boardroom coup in Jardine’s. The detail — tortuous and complex — need not detain us. When the Hong Kong property market collapsed in the early 1980s, Jardine, Matheson found itself in difficulties with a resulting risk of the Keswick family losing control.7 Some fast and expensive footwork had been needed restructuring the group, and Jardine’s reputation for prudent management had taken something of a beating. David Newbigging was the scapegoat and Sir William Johnstone “Tony” Keswick and his brother Sir John Keswick are said to have orchestrated his ousting, hence the swifter than planned departure.8 After 13 years as the chairman of the Local General Committee David Newbigging stepped down in December 1983, handing over to Jardine’s Martin Barrow rather than the actual taipan, Simon Keswick, who had replaced him.9 The reason was the same as had brought David Newbigging the chairmanship in 1970, when under the ordinance the then taipan, Henry Keswick, would normally have

23_Strong to Save.indd 392

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

393

occupied the role: both Keswick brothers were Roman Catholics. The ordinance is in fact silent on the faith of the chairman of the Local General Committee, but both Henry and Simon Keswick thought it wrong for them to chair the managing committee of an institution required by its incorporating ordinance to pursue its spiritual objects through “the use of every means consistent with the principles and received practice of the Church of England.” But ordinary life also went on. Everyday concerns with staff are a recurrent part of the senior chaplain’s work and before Wally Andrews’ first year was out he was having to find a replacement for Juliana Soo as the Mariners’ Club social worker. He also had to deal with the problem of his lay reader, Mr Eric Griffiths, who was not in good health, with whom, reading between the lines, Wally Andrews did not see eye-to-eye. And behind the every day problems and routine work as Wally Andrews was settling in was a looming issue that at least potentially represented yet another, quite unforeseen peril just as the Mariners’ Club and its ecumenical mission seemed set on a steady course in open water. It had been four years before Wally Andrews had arrived that, quietly, in the upper corridors of power, the first moves had been made in what would be Hong Kong’s greatest challenge possibly since the end of the Second World War. At the end of March 1979 the governor, Sir Murray Maclehose, had made his first official visit to Beijing during which he had raised with Deng Xiaoping the issue of the end of the lease on the New Territories, which had been granted by China for 99 years in the “unequal” Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898. There had already been worries voiced by Hong Kong’s business community, which argued that without a clear set of arrangements for 1997 when the lease ended, all manner of difficulties would arise, if they had not already arisen, with respect to such things as long term loan arrangements and mortgages. In reply to Sir Murray’s query Deng Xiaoping had indicated that there would be no negotiating over the return of Chinese territory to Chinese

23_Strong to Save.indd 393

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

394

Strong

to

Save

control: that was going to happen. However, he assured Sir Murray that arrangements would be made so that “Hong Kong can continue to implement its capitalist system for a rather long period from this century to early next century, while we, the Mainland, practise socialism.” What had first been an informal overture rapidly became a major bilateral negotiation playing for what both sides in their different ways deemed to be high stakes. On the Chinese side was the chance to put right a major past wrong that might have just been let drift had it not been raised as an issue. With Hong Kong’s future on the table, however, the Chinese authorities deemed it vital that they should use the opportunity the British had created to bring Hong Kong as a whole back within the nation.10 The British, aware that were there to be no renewal of the lease on the New Territories, Hong Kong and what had once been called “British Kowloon”, namely the ceded territory of the Tsim Sha Tsui peninsula south of Boundary Street, were not economically, socially, or politically viable, we now know to have been remarkably complacent. Recently released files show that there was a belief that a new lease could be negotiated if only the Chinese leadership could be brought to see “sense” — as that appeared from the British perspective.11 Meanwhile, in what was at the time and is in retrospect a telling index of real British attitudes to Hong Kong’s Chinese population — an issue that has run as a sub-current through much of this story — British citizenship laws had been changed to make sure that whatever deal ended up being done over Hong Kong’s future, Hong Kong’s majority population would have to like it or lump it.12 So when in December 1982 the formal negotiations had been opened during the visit to Beijing of the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, general British — and expatriate Hong Kong — attitudes had been gung-ho. It was, after all, at the end of the year when she had been the triumphant leader of a short, sharp war to wrest back the Falklands Islands following an Argentinian invasion.

23_Strong to Save.indd 394

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

395

In the words of the title of the popular second film in the Star Wars series that had been released just two years before, to many in Hong Kong, especially expatriates and those comfortably ensconced in its cosy and self-appreciative wealthier enclaves, the empire had struck back showing that it was no enfeebled lion caged by the rising forces of the developing world. Surely the Chinese authorities would see reason? The broad thinking had therefore been that taking a tough line would bring the Chinese leadership to understand that without major concessions in favour of some sort of continued British role in Hong Kong, the result would be a disastrous loss of confidence, and a flight of capital and of people that would lead to collapse. It was a blinkered understanding that woefully underestimated the Chinese leadership and the extent to which they, almost certainly with the tacit backing of most Chinese people, had a century of what they felt to be snubs, humiliation, and racism to begin to put right. Backing down on the issue of sovereignty over Hong Kong was accordingly not negotiable. A blindness to that reality had the result, during the first year of Wally Andrews’ chaplaincy, of a gradually growing sense that, with some suitable adjustment of costumes and amendment to the standard script, the British show might go on. In July 1983 as David Newbigging was pushing ahead with his plans for the educational trust and, perhaps, beginning to feel the chilly winds of impending defenestration at Jardines, in the context of Hong Kong’s long term future endgame was beginning. On 15 August in an interview with the Japanese Mainichi newspaper the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Hu Yaobang, for the first time named a date on which Hong Kong would return to Chinese rule: 1 July 1997.13 It was a signal that the British pitch was failing. Indeed as we now know the British foreign secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, had reported back to London that Margaret Thatcher’s continued insistence that the 19th century treaties that had led to the creation of British Hong Kong were valid was running a grave risk of pushing the Chinese side to

23_Strong to Save.indd 395

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

396

Strong

to

Save

unilaterally end negotiations — with the 1 July 1997 date set firm.14 By December 1983 the British had finally realized that there was no way the Chinese side would change their fundamental position: Hong Kong would become Chinese territory and return to Chinese rule on 1 July 1997.15 The effort accordingly shifted to trying to make what would therefore happen “more acceptable and workable”.16 Suddenly 1997 had become a significant issue for every organization that understood its future in Hong Kong to extend into a time when Hong Kong would be under Chinese rule. Naturally that included the Mariners’ Club, since whatever the political outcome, Hong Kong’s port would still have seafarers and there would still need to be someone to look out for their welfare. From the Missions to Seamen’s point of view, that “someone” should be its ecumenical operation in Hong Kong, the Mariners’ Club. The negotiations on Hong Kong’s future entered their second and final phase as 1983 changed to 1984, when the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Qi Huaiyuan, reiterated that China would be resuming sovereignty on 1 July 1997 and would announce no later than September 1984 — by implication unilaterally if necessary — how it planned to run things thereafter with an eye to maintaining Hong Kong’s “prosperity and stability”. Mr Qi also made it crystal clear that if there were any “problems” — he clearly meant any significant social unrest — resumption of sovereignty would almost certainly be brought forward.17 It concentrated British minds. By January 1984 the basic framework of an agreement had been come to. Its broad details were published, to official “no comments”, by veteran journalist Murray Sayle in London’s Sunday Times on 22 January. China would take back Hong Kong, pledge to maintain the territory’s capitalist system for 50 years after 1997 and entrust the administration of Hong Kong to local people. However, Britain was to have no future role and Hong Kong people would have no right to appeal to Britain should they feel China was reneging on the deal.

23_Strong to Save.indd 396

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

397

From that point until the end of the negotiations in the autumn Hong Kong was like a ship in a rough sea, one minute optimistically cresting, the next plunging into a trough. Finally in early September it was announced that formal talks had been completed and a joint declaration — formally the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong — would soon be published and, later, signed.18 On 26 September the text was published, after two years of sometimes ill-tempered secrecy, spelling out exactly what had been agreed.19

*** Clearly the whole nine month see-saw had focussed minds in the Mariners’ Club and in London. On 25 September, just before the public revelation of what had been agreed between Britain and China over 1997, Wally Andrews told Bill Down that he was drawing up a “state of Hong Kong” report for the London head office.20 When it appeared later in the year or early the next — the archive file copy has no date — it was an interesting document.21 It would seem — the evidence is equivocal — that the proximate cause for Wally Andrews putting together his review was the need for the Mariners’ Club to make a submission to the Assessment Office, which had been established by the Hong Kong Government to allow Hong Kong people and organizations to submit their views on the “overall acceptability” of the Joint Declaration.22 The invitation was generally interpreted to be asking for comprehensive views as to how it was felt the proposed arrangements would affect people and organizations and where perceived concerns lay. To that end Wally Andrews prepared his submission to illustrate the importance of the Mariners’ Club in the provision of seafarers’ welfare — 100,000 seafarers catered to each year with 150 in residence at the Club at any one time served by an ecumenical ministry supported by two Chinese social workers, an expatriate manager, a Chinese assistant manager and around 100 local staff. The Club was reported as largely self-

23_Strong to Save.indd 397

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

398

Strong

to

Save

financing save an annual subvention of c.HK$170,000 from the Port Welfare Committee. With the groundwork laid the submission moved on to the key elements felt to be essential to the Club’s future work, whoever was sovereign. Paramount was the freedom of religion which in the context Wally Andrews — one assumes after consultation with London — noted came down to the need to ensure that in a Hong Kong under Chinese sovereignty not only could the London-based Missions to Seamen continue to work, but also continue to appoint the senior chaplain and, where London felt it possible and desirable, appoint Chinese chaplains to other overseas or British missions. Secondly, assurance was needed that the Mariners’ Club lease would remain unchanged, specifically as a lease to a charitable body, that it was free as at present to recruit its staff as, where, and when it pleased, that it would continue to be able freely to visit all ships in the port and — which was an interesting pitch — that it was free to extend its operations to the creation of similar institutions in China’s special economic zones. More generally there were uncertainties to be aired as to the Mission’s future role in catering to visiting foreign naval vessels when asked; the security it would continue to enjoy with respect to its endowments; the rules that would apply with respect to the repatriation of distressed or destitute foreign seafarers; and the extent to which the rights of foreign seafarers to seek employment in Hong Kong would continue to be protected. Read between the lines this came down to saying, “We are a British organization that has been established in Hong Kong and operated under British rule within the norms of British port administration and international Christian seafarers’ welfare principles for the last century and more. Can we be sure that under the terms of the Joint Declaration we can continue to operate in the future as hitherto?” It was an interesting moment in which to take stock, as it were. For during the year the negotiations had been under way, Juliana Soo, assisted by Louisa Chan, the second of the two social workers

23_Strong to Save.indd 398

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

399

employed by the Mariners’ Club, had undertaken their General Survey on the Chinese Seafarers Residing at the Mariners’ Club23 and more or less at the same time Wally Andrews had chosen to put together a decadal census projecting forward to 1992, just five years before 1997. The first appeared more or less as the employment of Hong Kong Chinese seafarers began to collapse. Juliana Soo’s summary noted that there were 87,424 Chinese seamen on the register of the Seamen’s Recruiting Office, though only 22,302 were active of whom only 2.5%, or about 550 had actually been to sea in the preceding 12 months. It followed that of the 63 respondents to the survey from those residing in the Mariners’ Club, the majority were both middle-aged and overwhelmingly no longer at sea.24 The upshot was that the resident local seafarers were fast threatening to become a set of permanent residents despite the Club’s clear rules to the contrary. This downturn in seagoing employment for Hong Kong seafarers was matched by what Wally Andrews noted was the case with western seafarers, who were increasingly a minority as Asian seafarers’ numbers kept on growing. The results were that the Club’s business was stagnating and in operational terms it was failing to make ends meet. It was not clear whether there was a solution to the problem. Curiously despite the lack of much by way of cheerful data, Wally Andrews and his team were evidently in pretty good spirits and busy with plans. One important problem was the bad distribution of the ecumenical mission’s effort between Kwai Chung and Tsim Sha Tsui. As it stood in late 1984, there was one person permanently in Kwai Chung and five in the Mariner’s Club where in Wally Andrews’ view the correct balance should have been three and three. The problem was not only that Kwai Chung just didn’t have the space for more, it was that the possibility of an extension, which would take two years to be realized, was in any case uncertain. Worst, as Wally Andrews tersely put it, even with the extension, Kwai Chung “will be a terrible place to live”.

23_Strong to Save.indd 399

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

400

Strong

to

Save

A second focus was the plans for the centenary. Firmly on the agenda was a major refurbishment of the Mariners’ Club and the purchase of the new, GRP launch — rather unimaginatively, if politically sensibly, to be called something like Mariner I — to replace the ageing Dayspring V.25 There were also plans to have a four-day celebration that either Queen Elizabeth II or HRH Princess Anne was to be asked to launch. It would include a Chinese Seafarers’ Day with their families, and a ground cutting ceremony for the extension at Kwai Chung. However the whole grand scheme seemed to disappear,26 perhaps because for one reason or another the celebration of the centenary had drifted to 1986 and, evidently, a disconnect with the actual arrival of Gurney Goldsmith. One of the outcomes of the signing of the Joint Declaration had also been the need to establish a Hong Kong shipping register separate from its old British roots, since that link would cease on 1 July 1997. The secretary for economic services, under whose aegis this was being planned, had invited comments in May 1985 and Wally Andrews had taken the opportunity to try to make the new register one that took seafarers’ welfare into account.27 He wanted any proposal to mention the existence of the welfare and pastoral services offered by the Mariners’ Club. But his real focus was to make any new Hong Kong register one that, like Singapore’s, built in the welfare of the seafarers serving in the ships that it registered. He felt that before 1997 rolled round this had to be done and that in the process, the right of the welfare agency (the Mariners’ Club) to belong to its respective international bodies should be written in. He also wanted the register to ensure that it made provision for at least one sea-trained social worker. And he wanted the proposed Shipping Advisory Board to include a welfare representative.28 It was a visionary call though predictably when the register was established in 1990 the Shipping Advisory Board had disappeared to become two separate bodies: a Port Development Board and a Seafarers’ Advisory Board. And welfare organizations were (and are) quite pointedly not part of either.

23_Strong to Save.indd 400

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

401

*** Probably the most fascinating eye to the future in the year that followed the British House of Commons rubber-stamping the SinoBritish Agreement on 5 December and, in Beijing, Mrs Thatcher and Premier Zhao Ziyang signing it on 19 December, was a sudden surge of interest in steering the Missions to Seamen back into waters it had last navigated in 1949. Before the Joint Declaration had actually been signed, London was already planning for Hong Kong to help set up a Missions to Seamen visit to Shanghai to meet people there dealing with seafarers’ welfare.29 The visit actually came off in early 1986 and the motivation, whilst undoubtedly focussed on seafarers, also had 1997 in mind, “… I think we have made positive progress in not only bringing our message to Shanghai, but also in safeguarding our future here in Hong Kong.”30 In 1987 a similar venture was being planned with respect to Nanjing but above all to Beijing.31 There are records of a visit to the Mariners’ Club by a team from the Shanghai Huangpu Club, one of over 20 international seamen’s clubs in China financed by the All China Trades Union.32 And there is another interesting story from the mid 1990s, of two people in Shekou, who planned to run a seafarers’ club there once its new container port was up and running, trying to get the Mariners’ Club involved, between the lines one understands as much in material or financial terms as any other. Wally Andrews was clearly leery, “My past experience is that clubs in China are badly organized and strapped for cash.”33 It seems to have come to nothing, perhaps because at around about the same time Wally Andrews was being pursued by someone he had met on the visit to Nanjing, who was asking the Missions to Seamen to help get his daughter into the US Maritime Academy either by arranging a visa for her…or via Wally Andrews finding her a husband.34 The obvious point here is that any such Chinese entity was purely and simply a secular organization catering for the secular welfare of sailors. In that sense any parallels with the Mariner’s Club connected

23_Strong to Save.indd 401

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

402

Strong

to

Save

only with its secular social welfare and amenities provisions. As things stood in China, there was no obvious opening for the Missions to Seamen since it was extremely unlikely any such club would officially be allowed to have a resident Anglican chaplain. In the meantime life in the Mariners’ Club struggled on. Despite the very generous donations that were being sent to London each year, making ends meet on the operational side was proving impossible.35 This probably reflected the big changes that were taking place in Hong Kong’s shipping world, changes that Wally Andrews was to reflect on two years later when he pondered the future of the Mariners’ Club. We can look forward at this point because what Wally Andrews concluded in 1988 was that what we would today call the Mariners’ Club “business model” would seem to have reached its plateau and routes forward and upwards were not apparent. He noted in 1988 that whichever way he looked at things statistically — and there were a lot of statistics — seafarer attendance at the Mariners’ Club had been static since 1977 at around 6,000–7,000 a month, or 200–225 people a day. Meanwhile the slide in Chinese seafarers he and Juliana Soo had noted in 1983 had kept heading down.36 The same was true for the actual use of the Club with seafarers forming only around a quarter of users and income coming from the 94% of non-seafaring users, a pattern seen also in the Mariners Club Kwai Chung.37 Looking forward to the witching year of 1997 Wally Andrews took the view that the Mariners’ Club and the ecumenical mission should be planning to downsize. He saw a need for accommodation for no more than 70 mariners at any one time split 40:30 between dormitories and cabins. They would need no more than one bar, a small restaurant and small chapel, a swimming pool, telephone and postal facilities, and sufficient space for the chaplains and staff. He thought the existing premises should be rationalized with the lower three floors rented out commercially and the rest used by the ecumenical mission for seafarers. Long term he advised that if somewhere suitable came up around 1997,38 selling the existing site and moving or, failing that,

23_Strong to Save.indd 402

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

403

getting agreement to redevelop to build the smaller, less costly to run premises needed was the only way forward. It was to prove prophetic. The centenary celebration on 25 June 1986 featured no visit by royalty — an attempt by the Club to have a royal call during the visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Hong Kong that year had been very firmly squashed by the government official responsible, Mr Alan Scott.39 Press coverage of the low key celebration, with a birthday cake being cut by Martin Barrow, Wally Andrews, and George Dopchie, was minimal.40 We have no record of what the centenary exhibition featured. A second event shortly afterwards, unconnected with any thought of the centenary, had been the placing in the Mariners’ Club of a plaque commemorating the eight Hong Kong seafarers who had died in the Falklands’ War. The event was very low key because that is the way the families of the sailors wished it and its timing connected only with the arrival in Hong Kong of the British Royal Navy Global 86 Task Force in Hong Kong, whose commander, Rear Admiral Robin Hogg, unveiled the plaque.41 However whatever the “front-of-house” markers of the event, the main thrust of the Missions to Seamen marking its century in Hong Kong had been to celebrate in a practical way by bringing the nearly 20-year-old Mariners’ Club up to date, to put in hand improvements to the facilities at Kwai Chung and to get the new launch into service. As the story in the South China Sunday Morning Post noted, by the time the centenary week came round HK$6 million had been spent on refurbishment of the main club and HK$3.5 million had been earmarked for a major upgrade in Kwai Chung. Among other things the latter was to feature a resident chaplain’s flat, the first occupant of which was to be Eric Griffiths, who had just returned from leave by the time it was finished in February 1987. On 18 December 1986, the new launch was commissioned. The naming ceremony took six swings of the bottle and the first Mariners Club took over the role of Dayspring V. The new launch was to take

23_Strong to Save.indd 403

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

404

Strong

to

Save

over all ship visiting and beach party duties, with the sale of Stella Maris relieving the burden of coping with two vessels. With the launching of Mariners Club, a centenary year marked by small, but to the club important events, came to an end. ***

Wally Andrews’ chaplaincy marks the beginning not so much of a marked reduction in the level of media coverage of seafarer related issues, which had already begun to slide during the 1960s, as something close to the arrival of complete neglect. It was part and parcel of a general public re-orientation away from shipping and the harbour, itself an echo of a similar shift in the developed world as a whole.42 Since their beginnings featuring a page and later a whole section devoted to shipping, by the mid 1980s few Hong Kong newspapers bothered to have any special shipping coverage. By that year, indeed, shipping had become just another business in the business section and since around 1990 listings of ships in port, and their arrivals and departures have entirely disappeared.43 It seems that by 1987, not long after he had begun his second tour of office, Wally Andrews may have been feeling, when that tour was up, that he would have done enough. Certainly he had told Bill Down that he didn’t want to renew again.44 There are two factors which may have influenced his decision. The first was the possibility of a new location for the Mariners’ Club amidst the major port development being considered for Kai Tak International Airport.45 Although an economic downturn in fact scuppered the project,46 whilst it was in prospect it is at least possible that Wally Andrews did not fancy the enormous amount of work that would have involved, as well as probably thinking that whoever took on the task would need to be someone who would be spending the decade or more in office it would take to see such a project through. The second possible cause for unease may have been the very sad death of Father George Dopchie. By 1987 George Dopchie had been

23_Strong to Save.indd 404

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

405

in harness with the Apostleship since the launch of the ecumenical mission, a job he had taken on and thrown himself whole-heartedly into when he was already 53 years old. That had followed four years of missionary work in Zaire, seven of the same in China — in Mongolia — and, following his expulsion from the young People’s Republic, 15 years as a parish priest in Hong Kong. He had still been working at full tilt on 4 May when he checked into hospital for what he believed would be a short stay.47 Evidently London had other plans and Wally Andrews does not seem to have raised the subject again. In the meantime a small cloud had appeared on the horizon, child yet again of the ordinance that often seemed as much friend as foe to progress. Just as the ordinance seems to have done for the praiseworthy plans for an educational trust, so it now put in question the regular donation that Hong Kong had been sending back to London.48 In some respects it is surprising that the question had not arisen earlier. Questions or no, the donations continued anyway with the ordinance finally being changed to relax the perceived restrictions in 1989 and the regulations a year later.49 The Princess Royal’s visit on 17 September went well although for some reason it got no mention in any of the newspapers that covered her lightning two-day stay, the Mariners’ Club’s name never appearing on the itinerary.50 Rather under-documented royal visits seem to have been a minor feature of Wally Andrews’ last period of service. The next came two years later when Queen Margarethe II of Denmark paid her second visit to the Club; this too fails to get a single mention in any local newspaper, and surfaces only in the Mariners’ Club’s own historical notes, with an undated photograph, and as a side mention in a letter from David Newbigging to Glyn Jones, soon to take over from Bill Down as secretary general, about something else entirely.51 Despite the major upheaval of the Joint Declaration and the thunderbolt of the clearing of Tiananmen Square in Beijing on 4 June 1989 reverberating from the recent past, especially the latter’s enormous shock to Hong Kong confidence, life in the Mariners’ Club

23_Strong to Save.indd 405

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

406

Strong

to

Save

was little affected, beating as it always had primarily to the rhythm of the port. The port reports for the period give a vivid picture of the daily round and common task of the ecumenical mission, which explain well why the wider world of Hong Kong’s taut and troubled civic life makes no appearance in the record. Rather we see the chaplains having to cope with the problems and perils of life at sea, as present in the late 20th century as they had been a century earlier. Defalcating shipowners leaving unpaid crew in the lurch are a typical trope. From April to June 1991 the plight of the crew of the 16,009GT, Peruvian built and registered bulk carrier Hermanos Carcamo was a problem for several months and cost the Club money it probably couldn’t afford. When the case first came to the Club’s notice, after the crew had written to them asking for support, they had not been paid for six months. The Club wound up putting up some of the crew awaiting repatriation until July. The owners and the Peruvian consulate both claimed that the crew were not telling the truth, though the Mariners’ Club was faced with taking legal action to recover the HK$18,000 that providing the crew with food and accommodation had cost.52 That was one example of at least three occurring at the same time along with other irksome and time-consuming problems like worrying about ships’ officers needing to update their certification, but Hong Kong providing no courses in English. Meanwhile Filipino, Burmese, and Malaysian crew were being signed onto vessels engaged in smuggling goods into the People’s Republic of China, which provided no ship’s articles for them to sign. All was well with them until their ships were caught, at which point they became effectively destitute, and the Club was left as their only recourse. By July 1992 there were eight ships in Hong Kong with unpaid crew, one of which was again the ill-fated Hermanos Carcamo, whose stranded crew was only able to get ashore thanks to regular runs by the Mariners Club.53 The Club was also faced with an increasingly polyglot world. In one of Wally Andrews’ port reports for early 1992 he mentions that

23_Strong to Save.indd 406

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

407

during 1990 and 1991 8,250 seafarers of 54 nationalities had stayed, although the majority were from Asia. This not only faced club staff with the obvious problem of dealing with people with limited English, it also led to difficulties with Hong Kong immigration formalities, a problem that seems to have been particularly acute in the early 1990s with sailors from the newly re-emerged state of Russia, who were still treated as if the collapsing Soviet Union was the same entity of cold war days. In one memorable case, in October 1991, a relief crew was refused permission to land at Kai Tak, so had to be brought by sea for a transhipment in international waters at which point, when their new ship arrived in Hong Kong, they were free to wander the streets like any other visiting seafarer.54 Wally Andrews summarized it succinctly, Apart from contractual problems of salary, working conditions and unpaid

overtime we are increasingly confronted by cultural and personality clashes between multi-national crews. Japanese officers and Filipino crews,

or Hindu and Moslem, sometimes four or more different nationals of different countries share the same confined space aboard ship for months

on end. It is a tribute to our Club that we are usually the first people to whom these people turn.55

He could have added Father Joss Nijssen’s comment that it wasn’t just the seafarers who appreciated the Mariners’ Club’s work, it was also the majority of responsible ship owners and operators, amongst whose number Hong Kong owners were “regarded by the priests (of the ecumenical chaplaincy) as some of the best in their treatment of crews” and who were “on the whole…keen to support attempts to clamp down on poorly maintained vessels because it reflects on them.”56 Both could also have added tragedy to their list of the regular calls on the Club’s mercies. For in the early 1990s maritime calamities seemed very present. Two in particular stand out because of the press coverage and the involvement — and non-involvement — of the Club, but they were two among many.

23_Strong to Save.indd 407

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

408

Strong

to

Save

The harrowing tale of the derrick barge DB29, operated by McDermott Corporation International, which had capsized trying to dodge Typhoon Fred on 15 August 1991, highlighted how important the Mariners’ Club was when things went wrong. With 195 workers and crew aboard, the DB29 had been stationed out at the new Huizhou field oil wells southeast of Hong Kong working on laying a seabed pipeline that would bring the oil ashore. When Typhoon Fred threatened, the barge had been taken in tow by the Dutch flagged tug Typhoon to try to get it clear north of the typhoon’s track. The barge had a diving and decompression chamber in tow beneath it in which were four divers decompressing after working deep below the sea surface attaching the pipeline to the HZ26 oil rig. Some heavy buoy covers broke loose on the barge’s deck opening the barge’s interior to seas breaking aboard in the worsening weather. Within five hours so much water had got below that the barge capsized and a frantic race began in increasingly severe conditions to rescue the scores of people thrown into the sea, huddled in life rafts or clinging to wreckage. Heroic work by helicopters of the Royal Air Force and Hong Kong’s then Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force, and by the crew of the Typhoon managed to rescue 172 of the survivors between them, 100 of whom were initially taken to the Mariners’ Club to be looked after and 26 taken to hospital, who in turn were looked after at the Club when they were discharged. In all 22 or 23 — the exact number seems uncertain — died, including all four of the divers in the decompression chamber. The role of the Mariners’ Club was so valuable and appreciated that in early September McDermott International Inc. presented a cheque for HK$500,000, as well as meeting the HK$98,000 bill that the Club’s efforts had cost. Perhaps more touching, one of the survivors sent a cheque for HK$1,000 to mark his appreciation of all that had been done for him and his shipmates. The larger gift was given for the renovation of the Club’s reception area.

23_Strong to Save.indd 408

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

409

Rob Henderson, the manager who had replaced Alistair Hall when the latter had retired in 1991, put the Club’s role into perspective when he noted that the Hong Kong Government had absolutely no organization or facilities for coping with a marine disaster of such a magnitude. Indeed when he had called government stores for emergency camp beds, he was told none were available. By contrast, when government had failed him, he was able to organize for the British Army to provide 100 camp beds and sleeping bags. They had been delivered before the first survivors even made it ashore.57 However other shipping disasters, involving as many crew in equally dire circumstances, did not call on the aid offered by the Club. This patchwork quality of the involvement reflected, as Rob Henderson put it, the “communication problem” evident in Hong Kong, whether with government agencies or the shipping industry, where seafarers’ welfare was concerned.58 Wally Andrews had enjoyed a long and very event-filled senior chaplaincy. There had been no major landmarks or drama during his tenure, but his steady hand had helped the Club navigate some fairly complex passages. Not the least had been the ever-growing awareness of the implications for the Missions to Seamen of the vast changes underway in the world of ship crewing. As he had noted to Glyn Jones in mid 1991, of the then 1.5 million seafarers in the world, two thirds were Asian and this was requiring something of a rethink of the traditional chaplain’s role.59 Earlier that year, at the Far East Chaplains’ Conference of the International Christian Maritime Association, it had been noted that most chaplains were isolated from their host diocese because of language problems.60 Indeed only three delegates to the conference were actually working in their own countries and cultures. But despite those worries, the pastoral cares that they gave rise to and the challenges of humanitarian relief when catastrophe struck, everyday domestic niggles had been as much part of the scene as ever. Curiously, when Alistair Hall had retired in 1991, and almost

23_Strong to Save.indd 409

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

410

Strong

to

Save

certainly in a repeat of the same recruitment process that had found him 13 years previously, the Local General Committee and its house sub-committee had followed their previous instincts in choosing a replacement for one half of what they can only have continued thinking was a duumvirate.61 Rob Henderson, the new manager, had been the catering manager at HMS Tamar. As is obvious from the news coverage of the DB29 and other incidents, he was a very handson character. Not surprisingly — though evidently Wally Andrews handled the issues with finesse — there had been at least some of the old, old problems. As Wally Andrews put it in his extensive handover notes to his successor Peter Ellis, of whom he noted “there is no one better in the Mission to act as Senior Chaplain here”, the “chaplain/manager relationship is a grey area. My four predecessors had a ministry of constant fighting for their corner.” He went on to note that “Occasionally with both of the managers that have worked with me I stamp hard.” However, the impression he conveyed in what he wrote suggested that in general major clashes were few and because the organization was so large — 161 employees in Tsim Sha Tsui and 20 in Kwai Chung — it was impossible for the senior chaplain to run things as in a traditional Missions to Seamen mission so “in the main the manager is left to do his job.”62 It is clear from the handover notes that since 1984 Wally Andrews had very much had a weather eye cocked for 1997. To that end he had established “contacts with mainland clubs — some of whom [sic] committees have been guests here — and am well in with the local communist union with whose help we solve many ‘rights’ cases for foreign seamen.” So with respect to 1997 he was “optimistic that changes will not be excessive, and so far as the clubs are concerned there will be no change at all for many years.”63 But where matters operational were concerned he was more concerned. This came down to patronage on the one hand and the vexed ordinance on the other. The latter restricted use of the

23_Strong to Save.indd 410

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

On Course

for the

Future

411

Club to “only seafarers.” To respect it literally, however, would be financially suicidal. The trouble as he saw it was that ever since the major refurbishment to celebrate the centenary, “the public are swamping us.” He thought he had a solution, which he hoped to have in place before Peter Ellis arrived, that envisioned some sort of new membership arrangement such that the Mariners’ Club would become a “seamen’s and members association”. He thought the new membership might come from HMS Tamar and the China Fleet Club, both of which were “winding down”. It is not clear that this happened nor how it squared with the ordinance. The matter is not mentioned again.64 The handover notes gave a quick rundown on the team Peter Ellis would be taking over. Joss Nijssen was running the Roman Catholic chaplaincy single-handed. The Danes, with their Lutheran pastor Hans Jensen, along with an assistant and a house matron, looked after “their own”, which was mainly Kwai Chung based. Keith Taylor, who had replaced Eric Griffiths as lay reader and assistant chaplain in 1992, lived out at Kwai Chung and looked after the Missions’ business there where, Wally Andrews noted, “the bulk of our visiting” now is. Rather sadly he noted the passing of the world of ships working midstream such that even Father Joss was now “lucky to have 10 (Masses) a month” where, when Wally Andrew had arrived in 1983, there had been “at least one Mass per day aboard ship.”65 On 28 September 1992 the Reverend Peter Ellis arrived from ten years service for the Missions to Seamen in the northeast of England. Like Wally Andrews, Peter was a Welshman and had also been a career chaplain with the Missions to Seamen. Like his three immediate predecessors, by the time he took over when Wally Andrews left on 1 October, he was 46 years old. The new lesson of experienced and seasoned hands on the tiller had been well and truly learned.

23_Strong to Save.indd 411

6/7/2017 6:46 PM

Epilogue

ith the arrival of Peter Ellis and the beginning of his chaplaincy, which lasted from 1992 until 2011 and is the longest of any in the Mission’s 130-year history in Hong Kong, we come to the end of the main story of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. Writing history about events and people within living memory is troublesome from a number of perspectives, not least a dearth of archived files and a surfeit of anecdotal information, little of which can be checked against written sources and none of which has been winnowed by the passage of time. It is more appropriate to step back and reflect on the most recent two decades of the Mariners’ Club’s life in the long, 195-year story of caring for the welfare of seafarers in the waters of the Pearl River Estuary. To match Prologue with Epilogue. By the time Peter started his watch all of the main threads of this story had come together and, before he left, many of the more immediate issues still remaining had found various resolutions. 1997 had come and gone and, as Wally Andrews had suspected, little had changed for the Mariners’ Club. The declining tensions between senior chaplain and manager had not just dwindled but for the most part had entirely disappeared with Rob Henderson’s resignation and the arrival of the first Chinese manager, Stephen Chow. The trepidations about the Club’s location and operational problems had been addressed, beginning a long, long saga that has still not come to an end. The ecumenical mission had widened further. The outreach to seamen’s

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 412

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Epilogue

413

welfare organizations in China had continued but, as might perhaps have been expected, has not yet borne any significant or lasting fruit.1 And the Missions to Seamen itself changed its name to reflect new realities, becoming the Mission to Seafarers in 2001. Of course it hadn’t all been plain sailing, but Peter’s jovial and friendly presence, as welcome aboard a ship as at a shipowner’s cocktail party, must certainly have helped make things appear more smoothly accomplished than perhaps they were. The years immediately after Peter Ellis’ arrival saw the ecumenical chaplaincy expand further. In 1995 the German Seaman’s Mission, whose presence had been first indirectly felt in Hong Kong a century earlier, was welcomed to the Mariners’ Club and the Reverend Martina Platte began her ministry, which is today, 22 years later, the longest incumbency of any Hong Kong chaplain in this nearly two centuries of China Coast maritime mission history.2 A year later the Church of Sweden Abroad, which also looks after visiting Swedish mariners, made St Peter’s Church its Hong Kong home. That brought the ecumenical mission to a total of five Christian denominations. Many of the issues with which we began this story time itself had dealt with. By the date Peter Ellis had arrived there were virtually no local Hong Kong Chinese seafarers still working on foreign-going ships under any flag, and numbers of working Hong Kong seafarers were down to the low hundreds, almost all of whom were officers with their own club, the Merchant Navy Officers Guild. A Marine Department report in 2002 noted that from over 60,000 Hong Kong Chinese seafarers employed in the 1970s, the number in work in 2001 had been 518. However, this did not entirely eradicate the legacy of past times as became clear when a major outstanding issue came to be dealt with, starting a saga that is still incomplete today. Wally Andrews had noted in his forecast back in the mid 1980s that he thought the Mariners’ Club both too large and in the wrong place. As is the way with such prophecies, quite when they will come true is always moot and often, before they do, the volatility of any

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 413

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

414

Strong

to

Save

trend line seems to suggest the prophet was wrong. Indeed by the time Wally Andrews handed over to Peter Ellis the Club was booming. Peter Ellis was able to report in November 1992, just two months into his new job, that occupancy rates were running at 85.02% and Kwai Chung was enjoying good use. Two months later, as the new year dawned, he was able to report that the newly instituted membership system, which had found a way round the seafarer/other imbalance by eradicating the distinction, had significantly increased patronage. For the nonce it seemed that maybe a booming port, albeit with ships’ crews of quite a different composition to that for which the club had been planned, had helped the issue of location and layout go away. However, before the truth struck home, and while all the old problems of seafarers not being paid, ships being arrested, and regular casualties had to be coped with, a new seafarers’ problem suddenly leapt to the fore. In the mid to late 1990s (peaking in 2000 and disappearing in 2004) the South China Sea suddenly became a hotbed of piracy reaching as far as the waters of Hong Kong.3 Peter Ellis’ February 1993 report mentions eight incidents that had taken place in January as reported by the International Maritime Bureau’s Anti-Piracy Centre, some very close to Hong Kong.4 The use of firearms by the attackers was almost a constant — a member of crew of one victim, the Marine Peace, had been wounded — and in some cases, fortunately not close to Hong Kong, ruthless tactics had been employed.5 The worrying feature of some of the attacks was that they seemed to be the work of rogue elements from China’s security forces using their official positions and equipment to effect lucrative shake-downs, or worse, of vessels they claimed they were stopping for breaching or having breached some or other “regulation”.6 In April the port report noted that in the first four months of 1993 there had been 28 cases of interception of ships in or near Hong Kong waters with eleven happening actually in Hong Kong waters. There had even been a robbery of cargo comprising cotton and traditional Chinese medicinal

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 414

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Epilogue

415

herbs worth HK$1 million from the ship Tricolour Song in the Western Anchorage.7 In all, Peter Ellis had an exciting introit, but the long haul began two years later with what must have been the most devastating bombshell. New fire regulations, made applicable by the Club (Safety of Premises) Ordinance that had been passed in 1991, had resulted in an inspection and an order for compliance. The cost of bringing the 30-year-old building up to the new standard was going to be of the order of HK$36 million. It was a huge sum and, as the manager, Rob Henderson, was reported as saying, “If we made the improvements we would still be left with a 30-year-old building.” So the resolve had been to cut losses and go for a complete redevelopment. That was to be financed by building a much larger building than the 11-storey Mariners’ Club in partnership with a developer. Of the hoped for 29-floor building the Club would occupy nine and the revenue from the rest would help support the Club’s activities.8 It was an ingenious plan and Peter Ellis recalled that getting the idea in principle agreed to by government was very much down to sterling efforts by the Local General Committee chairman Martin Barrow, whose access to decision makers was unrivalled.9 However, the devil turned out to be in the details. The plan evidently ran into strong currents and head seas, which have caused protracted delays and major changes to what has been planned. Six years later nothing concrete had resulted and indeed some 25 years later negotiations are still ongoing. One plan, to turn the building into serviced apartments, had met a brief check when their land use list for their site had serviced apartments removed from the list. The Town Planning Board rejected the appeal against this decision by saying, bizarrely, that “they could still build hotel rooms on their sites and rent them as serviced apartments.”10 However, a critical move that had at least unblocked one obstacle had been getting the Town Planning Board in November 2001 to agree

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 415

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

416

Strong

to

Save

to rezone the Club’s land lot from being for “community” to being for “commercial” use.11 A year later another reason for the decision for a partnership approach emerged when the new chairman of the Local General Committee, Jardine’s taipan Percy Weatherall, who had replaced Martin Barrow in 2001, revealed that because of the delays the club had been forced to upgrade its fire sprinkler system anyway and, worse, because of a major downturn in business, was making significant losses on its operations, having lost HK$8 million in 2000 and HK$9 million in 2001. Patently that sort of bleeding could not go on for long and a solution had to be found and found swiftly. Subject to government approval over matters like plot ratio,12 the developer charged with creating the new Mission and attendant buildings was to be a large property company, which would be able to arrange for temporary accommodation for the Missions’ core services while demolition and redevelopment were under way. The new building was to devote 10,000 sq. ft. (930 sq.m.) to the administrative offices of the ecumenical mission, plus whatever was needed for a church and basic recreational facilities for seafarers. The old provision of accommodation, which had been the historical link to the Sailors’ Home side of the 1930 amalgamation as well as one of the features of the old Seamen’s Institute, was to be done away with. Instead, when it was necessary, arrangements would be made through the hotel market to organize what was needed for seafarers in transit. That decision would obviously also hugely assist in controlling costs and increasing the feasibility of finding accommodation for the Mission during the transition period.13 Looked at another way, the new plan also aimed squarely at the Missions’ costs. When Peter Ellis had taken over from Wally Andrews the total number of people working for the organization had been between 150 and 200. In a Hong Kong in which real wages had quadrupled since the late 1950s, a large workforce was a significant cost and finding ways to slim down were vital. By dispensing with accommodation, with its need for cleaners, floor attendants, laundry

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 416

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Epilogue

417

services and so forth, and by reducing the scope of the recreational facilities staff could be reduced to less costly levels. It must have been a hard decision given the very long, intensely loyal father-to-son, mother-to-daughter lineages of some of the families who worked for the Mariners’ Club.14 When the proposed redevelopment was announced by the Town Planning Board and public comments invited, an objection had been lodged by “a local sailor”, who had claimed that the proposed rezoning would “result in reduced floor space for the mission and British companies would have too much of a colonial influence on the Mariners Club.” It seems the same complainant also argued that the Local General Committee should include local seamen’s union representatives, something it had never done or, one suspects, even contemplated, in its near 150 years’ history. It was a proposal that Percy Weatherall roundly dismissed. Whoever the “local sailor” was though, his objections were not his alone. The Merchant Navy Officers’ Guild had also voiced its disquiet over the reduction of seafarers’ facilities by 85%.15 By November 2002 the formal shape of the proposal became clear when the Town Planning Board gave its final approval. What was described was a startling increment on the earlier replacement of the old 11-floor building with a new 29-floor building. The new plan was for two very tall towers, one of 42 and the other of 43 floors, both sitting on top of an 8-level podium for a total of over 50 floors from Middle Road to the top of the roof. The podium was to be a combination of the 10,000 sq. ft. Mission plus 16,000 sq. ft. of retail space with between 361 and 461 flats in the towers above.16 Three months later a statement from Swire Properties put a price tag of HK$500 million on the development exclusive of the land premium.17 Evidently the objection voiced in 2001 had failed to derail approval in principle. However, it would seem that the “local sailor” either was a proxy for the Hong Kong Seamen’s Union or his objection alerted the union to the redevelopment proposal. For reasons that

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 417

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

418

Strong

to

Save

are obscure, but very likely can be traced back to the Mariners’ Club’s outreach to Hong Kong seafarers during the 1970s to 1980s, the Hong Kong Seamen’s Union felt that it had rights to be involved in the redevelopment. When this had first arisen in 2002 the then chairman, Percy Weatherall, had robustly rebutted any such pretension. The report paraphrased him as saying that “the mission's primary duty was to offer help to visiting sailors.” And then quoted him, "Local seamen are covered by a network of welfare from the government and their unions…The truth is that there are virtually no Hong Kong people working as sailors nowadays.”18 However, records show that the committee had second thoughts and proposed delaying further, in the words of the minutes of a 2006 Town Planning Board meeting put it, “to allow time to negotiate with the seafarers and seamen’s unions regarding the re-provisioning of facilities in the Mariners’ Club.”19 However, the logjam, whatever it was, remained unbroken. In doing so it also exposed the plan to Hong Kong’s growing awareness of its responsibility for its natural and historical environment. In the 1960s, before the Mariners’ Club had been built, on top of the hill next door to the east, Signal Hill, had stood a signal tower, a saluting platform and a lighthouse. The tower had been built in 1907 to house the time ball, used in Hong Kong since 1886 to give a time signal to ships so that they could check their chronometers, the original at the old Water Police Station having been eclipsed by the growing height of buildings around it.20 In 1971 the Tsim Sha Tsui Point Lighthouse had been demolished and the seaward side of Signal Hill ruthlessly cut back.21 But this was happening just as the more thoughtful of Hong Kong’s inhabitants had begun acquiring a sense of the devastation of Hong Kong heritage that three decades of breakneck development had wrought. Gradually a concern to preserve what was left resulted in action at government level, including the creation of an Antiquities Advisory Board and an Antiquities and Monuments Office in 1976.

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 418

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Epilogue

419

This was to have its influence on the Mariners’ Club redevelopment project. Although the project was still apparently stalled in negotiations with the Hong Kong Seamen’s Union, in the meantime the growing concerns over Hong Kong’s built environment had shifted the once ignored signal tower from benign neglect to a grade II listed building, then a grade I and eventually a monument in 2015.22 The impact on the Club’s plans emerges from Town Planning Board minutes for when an extension had been applied for in 2006, at which point there were concerns that the proposed new buildings would adversely affect the Signal Hill tower both by cutting down trees within the Mariners’ Club site and by dwarfing the adjacent tower. The development had been amended to meet these concerns, but nonetheless two years later a height restriction was imposed that stood in the way of any re-design that aimed higher.23 A bigger problem had been that when the 2006 extension had been granted, it was made clear that there would be no further extension to the approval. If the Mariners’ Club and the HK Seamen’s Union could not agree before 8 November 2010, the whole approval process would have to start again with a new application. By the time Peter Ellis sailed away to a well-deserved retirement, the proposed redevelopment of the Mariners’ Club was still in limbo. However, his 20 years working in Hong Kong, 19 of them as senior chaplain, had seen many other achievements and left him with many good memories. The Mariners’ Club had found new sources of income through hiring its facilities out to suitable organizations for meetings. New crewing patterns, with crews being shipped into and out of Hong Kong as ships’ companies were changed by crew agencies, gave the Club new sources of use for the otherwise underused accommodation. And active work helping to build regional cooperation over seafarers’ welfare had pushed ahead. Above all Peter Ellis had been the Flying Angel’s friendly face in Hong Kong, as the award of the International Committee on Seafarers’ Welfare

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 419

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

420

Strong

to

Save

Personality of the Year in 2011 had noted.24 If the Mariners’ Club and its ecumenical mission had not yet managed to adapt themselves fully to the form all knew to be necessary for it to meet the challenges of the 21st century, those challenges had been recognized and the important first steps taken. In any case, in the rapidly changing world of the sea, there have always been developments no one has predicted and that will almost certainly continue to be the case in the years to come. When Peter Ellis left in May 2011, his successor, the Reverend Stephen Miller, was another example of the sort of senior chaplain that everyone knew was best able to rise to Hong Kong’s particular challenges. He is a career Mission to Seafarers chaplain, who started his work for the organization in 1999 in what was at the time the world’s largest port, Rotterdam.25 In 2002 he went to Dubai where he made his mark in creating the Mission to Seafarers’ first ever support craft, aimed at providing a full-service Mission that could visit ships far out in offshore anchorages. The 27-metre long Flying Angel had been commissioned by the Prince of Wales in Dubai in 2007, and enabled the Mission to Seafarers there to reach out to the up to 2000 seafarers effectively marooned aboard the 100 to 150 ships at the bunkering anchorage 13 miles offshore.26 Once in Hong Kong his major challenge, apart from trying to push the Mariners’ Club redevelopment past the last, obdurate obstacles has been to help remodel the regional structure of the Mission to Seafarers in East and Southeast Asia to suit the changing maritime and geopolitical shapes of today’s world. In 2014 the Mission to Seafarers announced a further return to its federal origins by extending the regional structure that had begun when the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand/Oceania had become self-governing independent regions. The new structure involved adding three “UKfunded and Grant-funded Charity” regions — East Asia, Europe, and United Kingdom, and the Gulf and South Asia — which would exercise

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 420

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Epilogue

421

a similar sort of autonomy within the Mission to Seafarers’ system. Each is to be headed by a rotating regional director, the first of which for East Asia is Hong Kong’s Stephen Miller, now the Reverend Canon Stephen Miller.27 This new structure will be what the Mariners’ Club and its ecumenical mission will work within as the expected Pacific Century refocuses the world’s shipping industry even more than has already occurred.

*** With the arrival of Stephen Miller we can step back and contrast the world in which we started out, with Robert Morrison raising the Bethel flag on the American ship Pacific of Philadelphia in an era in which seafarers had almost no legal protection and in which there were no shoreside facilities to care for them at home or abroad, to the world of seafarers’ today. Robert Morrison’s dream had been for a world in which the health, education, and spiritual and moral welfare of seafarers was looked after. It would by implication be a world in which ship owners and ships’ captains took seriously their responsibilities to the men who worked for them and under them and governments accepted their responsibilities to regulate the ships that sailed under their flags and and regulate and operate their ports in ways that ensured the safety and welfare of seafarers and port workers. By 2011 much of that dream was well on the way to fulfilment. And leading the way for, respectively, 146 and 126 of the 189 years that had passed since that Bethel flag had been raised had been the Hong Kong Sailors’ Home and Mission to Seafarers in their various guises. If sometimes they had not been pioneers, they had always done their best by their lights and as the pace of change quickened in the last decades of the 20th century, had worked their hardest to keep pace. When it opened in 1967 the Hong Kong’s Mariners’ Club and, two years later, its ecumenical mission had been in the forefront of developments. They provided a service to seafarers that had developed

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 421

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

422

Strong

to

Save

from its early, evangelical, temperance, Anglican, and colonialist start to become an open-minded, open-hearted organization “there to listen and help…irrespective of religion” as Peter Ellis put it. In Stephen Miller’s words,28 We’re there just to say hello, first of all, and to see how people really are… Seafarers understand the power of the sea, the power of creation, and

their small part within it. I find that they’re really very spiritual people.

They understand that they’re not responsible for the storm and wind. That

perhaps this is God doing this and they feel much more part of His creation. Whereas we tend to forget. We’re in a concrete city, we kid ourselves that we are all responsible for our own destiny, but it’s very different when you’re on a ship and you’re being tossed around by the power of the sea.

In short, the modern Mission to Seafarers has come to see its primary duty to be the provision of welfare, without that welfare being divided, as it was in Robert Morrison’s day and perhaps in the first years of the Mission in Hong Kong, into compartments labelled “secular” and “spiritual”. In the words of the Mission to Seafarers’ 2015–20 strategy statement, for today’s Mission to Seafarers — as is true of all the other denominations in Hong Kong’s ecumenical mission:29 “Its simple mission is to care for the shipping industry’s most important asset: its people.” It does that in a wholly transformed world in which the welfare of seafarers is now an unquestioned part of a global agenda. There are international bodies at all levels concerned with the lives and welfare of seafarers, from those associated with the United Nations like the International Labour Organization and the International Maritime Organization, to bodies like the International Chamber of Shipping, the International Christian Maritime Association and the International Transport Workers Federation. The last two organizations are core members of the International Seafarers Welfare and Assistance Network (ISWAN), itself the result of a merger between the

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 422

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Epilogue

423

International Committee on Seafarers' Welfare (ICSW) and the International Seafarers Assistance Network (ISAN) in 2013.30 ISWAN now has 47 member organizations including traditional seafarers’ welfare groups, national seafarers welfare agencies, and commercial ship and crew management agencies and other elements of the international shipping industry.31 From the work of all those involved in seafarers’ welfare, not least those in the maritime missions, came what is probably the most important step forward in the welfare of seafarers that has occurred in the 195 years covered by this story: the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006. With amendments made in 2014, it came into force in 2015 having been ratified by 67 countries representing 80% of the world’s tonnage. As the Mission to Seafarers Canon Ken Peters observed, the convention at last extended to seafarers “The basic principles of employment which (most) of us take for granted.”32 The future for Hong Kong’s Mariners’ Clubs — both in Tsim Sha Tsui and Kwai Chung — is perhaps less certain as the port begins to cede ground to the fast growing ports in mainland China, as ships get larger and their crews smaller, and above all as automation threatens to change the entire way ships are operated at sea.33 Hong Kong is poised at a moment in its history when changes as momentous as those that began as sail gave way to steam, as the tide of western imperialism turned in the closing decades of the 19th century, or as the western dominance of the world’s sea trade faded away as the 20th century drew to a close.34 As the 20th in the long line of senior chaplains skippers the Mariners’ Club onwards into the 21st century, all we can be sure of is that whatever transpires, as long as there are seafarers visiting Hong Kong, the Mariners’ Club and its ecumenical mission will be here to offer them solace.

24_Strong to Save_Epilogue.indd 423

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Acknowledgements

y first debt goes to the present senior chaplain of the Mariners’ Club, the Reverend Canon Stephen Miller, and to the other chaplains and staff, especially the always jovial encouragement I received from Hans Aage Koller Nielsen. The history was Stephen’s idea, and if its scope and size have ended up vastly exceeding the initial more modest intentions, he has only his interest, enthusiasm, constant generous encouragement, and his tolerance for an ever expanding timetable to blame. Chairman Anthony Nightingale was always supportive and bore with fortitude, just, the stretching deadline. Anne Harris made sure my research trip to Britain was properly planned and was always a smiling and helpful presence when I was trying to navigate the complexities of the Mission’s finances. Captain Luca Ferrerio could be relied on to offer steady encouragement and stimulated my thingsthat-float eagerness to track down all I could about the Missions’ launches. I owe a special debt to Stephen Miller’s secretary, Ms Rebecca Wong, who always made me welcome, kept me plied with excellent coffee and ensured I could lay my hands on the records I was looking for if they existed. At the London head office of the Mission to Seafarers the Reverend Canon Ken Peters, director of justice and public affairs allowed me to pick his brains. The Reverend Andrew Wright, the present secretary general, was both interested and encouraging when we met at the Hong Kong Mission to Seafarers’ centenary banquet in 2014.

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 424

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Acknowledgements

425

Every author of a history of anything stands on the shoulders of legions of past writers of letters and reports, drafters of minutes, journalists doing their daily round and sundry others, all probably with scant thought of some future history being written, yet without whose work there would be no raw material for the historian to quarry. For making the most important of such potential quarries visible, accessible and relatively easy to mine, an equally large debt is owed to the assiduous archivists, librarians and individual owners of relevant and sometimes not so immediately obviously relevant original material. I have been luckier than many in the huge range of direct and indirect help I have received in plotting my courses through the intricate channels of the history of maritime welfare in Hong Kong, and being able to identify where the main fairway trended sufficiently well to avoid going disastrously aground or heading up the proverbial dead-end creek. My prime source of raw material has been the Mission to Seafarers’ archive at the Hull History Centre in Hull in Britain. Ms Judy Berg, at the time the archivist, and her staff were knowledgeable, patient, and extremely generous in identifying, in preparation for my visit, the most important Hong Kong material in a huge archive that had not at the time been fully processed. The result was that a necessarily shorter-than-ideal visit could be optimally used. My stay in Hull was much enhanced by the warm welcome from Sister Colette and Carole Torrance at the Institute of Our Lady of Mercy’s Endsleigh Centre now, sadly, closed after 110 years, but a lovely place to rest between frenetic visits to the History Centre. Hull itself too often gets a bad press, but I found it warm, welcoming, fascinating, often beautiful and huge fun. Being content as well as absorbed in what one is doing does more for competent research than is often realized, so a kind thank you is owed to the people of Hull too. Newspapers and government documents here in Hong Kong have been key sources for adding detail and colour of the sort that for obvious reasons the Missions to Seamen archives tend to leave out.

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 425

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

426

Stong

to

Save

I would have been lost without the resources, physical and digital, of the University of Hong Kong Libraries and the help of the staff of the Special Collections. I am also grateful both to the library’s dissertations and theses collections and to the many graduate students of the university, who have had the generosity to make their work on the highways and byways of Hong Kong’s past readily available. I owe a similar debt to the reference collection and the old newspaper resources of the Hong Kong Central Library, especially its MMIS system, much though from time to time the slowness and eccentricities of the last make one’s teeth itch. Thanks too to Hong Kong’s Public Record Office. It is not to blame for the shortcomings of its resources and does its best with what it has and for that I am grateful. Outside Hong Kong the National Library Board of Singapore’s excellent digital newspaper files have been most helpful, as have the truly brilliant Australian Trove and the National Library of New Zealand’s Papers Past — all three systems are very much more user friendly and far quicker than Hong Kong’s MMIS variant and could often provide a snippet of information that had proved elusive in Hong Kong. Many online digital newspaper systems are designed solely to make money, but most can usually be cajoled into providing bare bones that help one avoid wasting money before one is mulcted, and for that one must be grudgingly grateful. The British Library’s British Newspaper Archive stands out as a particularly mercenary and peculiarly British response to the cultural value and importance of historical data. Ms Barbara Homrighausen of the London City Mission was a quick and helpful respondent. Mrs Heather Johnson of the Library of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth helpfully sorted out an otherwise intractable and extremely arcane puzzle with blithe good humour. Ms Emily Rumble and the staff at the Lambeth Palace Library were always swift to reply and generous with their time. In Hong Kong I am grateful to the Moon Chu Foundation and

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 426

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Acknowledgements

427

Mr Wong Nai-kwan of the Hong Kong Museum of History, who have allowed me to use one of the only two known photographs of the old Seamen’s Institute on the Praya East. Mr Michael Wong, recently director of marine, and his staff of the Marine Department did their best with respect to the many, many missing records of the Port Welfare Committee, but with the Hong Kong Government’s not so much cavalier as grossly negligent attitude to its archival responsibilities to the future, it was a forlorn hope. No book can be written without somewhere to write it. I have been enormously fortunate in finding a welcome and accommodation at the University of Hong Kong both from old friends and from new. Professor Angela Leung, director of the Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, of which I am an honorary fellow, made a room available to me for almost two years. When the need to make changes to the institute’s ground floor forced a move, I was very fortunate when my colleagues and friends professors Lawrence Lai and Daniel Ho of the Department of Real Estate and Construction, were able to offer me my present room. The Reverend Peter Ellis and Mrs Judi Ellis put me up in their lovely cottage in north Yorkshire, plied me with good food, good drink, and good conversation and patiently answered my many, many questions — as Peter has continued to do by e-mail since. They also gave me a tour of the maritime delights of Teesside and Tyneside, including a close-up of the Mission to Seafarers’ Seafarers’ Centre in South Shields, and provided me with a myriad photographs. For a city that has been one of the world’s greatest ports for over a century, Hong Kong’s maritime history has been and is being too little studied, so I owe much to Dr Elizabeth Sinn and Dr Christopher Munn for their encouragement of my tarry-handed maritime historical work and especially of this project. To Elizabeth I owe special thanks for her guidance through the world of the hang shun kun, which my pathetic abilities in the Chinese language would otherwise have failed to penetrate, and for introducing me to Mr Francis Roe.

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 427

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

428

Stong

to

Save

In addition to Elizabeth and Chris, Hong Kong has many committed local historians and I owe tremendous debts to many, whom I hope I have always remembered to acknowledge in the footnotes. I am likewise indebted to the historians of maritime mission, especially Roald Kverndal, R.W.H. Miller, and Alston Kennerley. The list of the historians on whom I have depended is very long and I have done my best to remember to acknowledge them all at the appropriate places in the text. Here I hope those who have loomed largest in the sourcing of Hong Kong material will forgive me if I list them in alphabetical order: Ms Amelia Allsop and the Hong Kong Heritage Project, Mr Tony Banham (and through him Mr David Deptford) for William Valentine Field, Dr Bert Becker for his inestimable help with the Deutsche Seemannsmission, Mr David Bellis and his many, wonderfully informative Gwulo contributors, who have illuminated many things from historical buildings to internment camp life in Stanley during the Japanese occupation. With respect to the end of the Japanese occupation in Hong Kong, Dr Brian Edgar’s website was invaluable. Mr Michael Broom (and through him Messrs Martin Thomas and John Morris) for the world of the Freemasons in Hong Kong, Professor John Carroll, Dr Patricia Chiu, Dr Peter Cunich, Father Louis Ha, Mr Ko TimKeung, Dr Julia Kuehn, Professor Paul Van Dyke, and Jonathan and Vicky Wattis. Mr Anthony Nightingale and Mr Martin Barrow, former chairmen of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, were helpful in guiding me through the not always well-charted channels connecting the chairmanship of the Local General Committee to the successive taipans of Jardine Matheson Ltd, as were Mr Neil McNamara and Ms Amy M.L. Chan of Jardines. Individuals with direct and indirect connections to the Hong Kong Mission to Seafarers’ story have been both generous and keenly interested. The Bickerton family, especially Art and Tim Bickerton, descendents of Captain Frank Baylis, were very generous with

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 428

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Acknowledgements

429

information and images and I am very grateful to Mr Brian Wates for helping to get the Bickerton ball rolling via his family website. Captain Ian Farquhar sent me information and some charming photographs of the Reverend Wally Andrews’ time as senior chaplain. Mr Reg Hellings very kindly gave me a copy of an annual report of the Hong Kong Servicemen’s Guides’ Association, that he had acquired during his time with the British Army in Hong Kong, which included an extremely useful summary of that organization’s history. Ms Barbara Matchett shared her fond memories of her father’s nine years’ service in Hong Kong with flair. Between them Mr Francis Roe and his father, Reverend Frank Roe, made sure I had the complicated story of the first year and a half of the Mariners’ Club straight. Sean Olson and his energetic work on the fascinating history of his greatgrandfather, John Olson, helped me to a very clear insight into the workings of at least one of the privately run hotels that accommodated sailors in the late 19th century. Ms Elizabeth Ride helped me close down some fruitless lines of enquiry with respect to the fate of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen during the Japanese occupation. Dr Roy Thornton of Fresno, California shared memories of Jim Thornton, his father. I feel very strongly my need to express my thanks to the Internet Archive and to Google Books for their work in making long out of print and obscure works accessible to those of us who do not live in the major western cities, like London or New York, with their massive research resources. They stand in dramatic contrast to the moneyobsessed approach entities like the British Newspaper Archive are forced to adopt by philistine governments. Long may the inroads they make on the mercenary control of scarce sources of information grow and prosper. That acknowledgement also needs widening to a general thanks for the creation of the Internet, for the vast expansion of research resources it has made possible. For its resolute resistance to the snarling hounds of the authoritarian control of information, who lurk

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 429

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

430

Stong

to

Save

in every corporate and government bureaucracy. For the extent to which it manages to resist the greedy hands of all who would make a buck, any buck, out of restricting access to information they have made no effort to garner, save by pillaging what was freely available and using copyright law to divert money into their own pockets. At its best the Internet puts those not fortunate enough to live in major resource foci like London, or to have access to large research grants, on more of a level footing with those who have both. It also gives a platform to local historians, family genealogists, hobby specialists and a myriad others, thereby opening up sources of information one could not have dreamed of two decades ago no matter where one was nor how well endowed one’s sponsoring body. Every historian’s resource base has been vastly enhanced and enlarged by the Internet and, one hopes, his or her work thereby improved. Mine certainly has been. Conversations with Jonathan Wattis during the year he asked me to help out in unravelling some of the recherché details of the lives of the maps and images in his Wattis Fine Art Aladdin’s Cave were always fun and unfailingly illuminating about the highways and byways of Hong Kong’s past. And I shall ever be in his debt for his gift of a Hong Kong Stage Club programme, for a performance held in the King George V Hall of the Wan Chai Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen in October 1947, in which my father looms large during his time as chaplain of HMS Tamar at the beginning of my own first sojourn in Hong Kong. No author’s work is ever anything but improved by the help of a good editor. Here too I have been extremely lucky in Joanna Pierce of City University of Hong Kong Press, whose editing has been exemplary. Joanna seemed almost ineffably to have a sense of the story being told, what really mattered to it and what really didn’t. Like too many authors I get so close to and so involved in my subject matter that I tend to lose all perspective such that anything and everything seems to be both interesting and important. Joanna knew the difference and in putting aside the merely interesting and focussing on the

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 430

7/7/2017 11:21 AM

Acknowledgements

431

important has turned a wandering and woolly ramble into a more tightly orchestrated guided tour. If the result is still, like its author, a tad overweight and inclined to puff on the steeper inclines, the author alone bears the responsibility. As ever not just in my scholarly work but in my life as a whole, my biggest debt is owed to my partner Elaine Morgan, who is remarkably and consistently tolerant of my tendency to bang on for hours about obscure events a long time ago involving people and places of which she knows nothing. I know she will never read the book: it’ll be too heavy in every sense. My personal Stella Maris has lived it instead, always encouraging, always understanding and, in making sure we went sailing regularly in our lively little J80 sports boat, FG3, always keeping my batteries fully charged. Stephen Davies Hull, Corneilla de la Rivière and Eliot Hall, University of Hong Kong

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 431

7/7/2017 11:22 AM

25_Strong to Save_Acknowledgements.indd 432

6/7/2017 6:47 PM

Appendix 1 Timeline

1822 1829 1832 1834 1839

1840 1841

Rev. Robert Morrison raises the Bethel Flag on the US ship Pacific of Philadelphia at Whampoa. Rev. David Abeel of the American Seamen’s Friend Society forms first mission to seamen in Whampoa.

Rev. Edwin Stevens of the American Seamen’s Friend Society succeeds Rev. David Abeel until 1836. Chinese Repository argues for a seamen’s hospital to be founded in Whampoa and at Lintin or Macao.

Founding of a Seamen’s Friend Society at Canton by Rev. Elijah Coleman Bridgeman of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, James Matheson, and others. Rev. Thomas Boaz active for the Seamen’s Friend Society at Whampoa. First ghaut serang opened in Macao for lascar seafarers.

First ghaut serang opened in Hong Kong for lascar seafarers.

1843

Seamen’s Hospital opens in Wan Chai, Hong Kong.

1846

Ghaut Serang and Lascars Ordinance amended to exclude Chinese seamen.

1845

Hong Kong Government passes the Ghaut Serang and Lascars Ordinance, No. 13 of 1845, establishing a basis for licensed seamen’s boarding houses.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 433

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

434

Stong

to

Save

1847 1848 1850

1851 1852

1855 1856 1857

1859–61 1861 1862

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 434

Rev. George Loomis of the American Seamen’s Friend Society arrives in Canton. Ghaut Serang and Lascar Ordinance amended to allow more than one ghaut serang. Rev. George Loomis begins operating a locally built floating Bethel in Whampoa. Rev. E.C. Bridgeman raises the Bethel flag in Shanghai. Sailors’ Home first established in Singapore.

A “mariner’s church” exists somewhere in Hong Kong believed to be for all seafarers including the crew of junks and fishing boats.

Desertion of Seamen Ordinance, No. 6 of the year effectively replaces ghaut serangs with a related system of licensed seamen’s boarding houses. Boarding houses must meet specified standards and are not allowed to sell liquor.

Regulations specifying licensed seamen’s boarding house standards expanded. On 1 January 16 licensed seamen’s boarding houses exist in Sheung Wan on Hong Kong Island with capacity for 592 seamen.

Rev. J.J. Irwin, colonial chaplain, and Rev. W.R. Beach propose a sailors’ home for Hong Kong. Venereal Diseases Ordinance, No.12 of 1857 imposes legal duties on seamen’s boarding house licensees.

American Seamen’s Friend Society opens a floating Bethel in Shanghai.

Rev. James Beecher temporarily operates a floating seamen’s chapel in Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong

Hongkong Sailors’ Home formally established as an organization, with four trustees and an eight-person Board of Directors, though without premises.

Up to 25 seamen’s boarding houses in business catering for c.900 seamen of all nationalities.

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 1

1864

Foundation stone of Sailors’ Home laid.

1866

Shipping Office moves to Hongkong Sailors’ Home from Harbour Master’s Office in Central.

1865

1867 1868 1869 1871 1872

435

Hongkong Sailors’ Home opens on the waterfront in Sai Ying Pun. Weekly religious services begin at the Sailors’ Home. Shanghai Sailors’ Home opens.

Contagious Diseases Ordinance, No. 10 of 1867 further tightens and extends duties of seamen’s boarding house licensees. Captain Algernon Overbury becomes superintendent of the Hongkong Sailors’ Home.

American Seamen’s Friend Society establishes chaplaincy in Shanghai. Foundation stone of St Peter’s Church laid at eastern end of the grounds of the Hongkong Sailors’ Home.

St Peter’s Church consecrated and becomes the Seamen’s Church, later Seamen’s Mission Church.

Incumbents jointly funded by Hong Kong diocese and British Army, first Seamen’s and Military Chaplain Rev. Thomas Talbot. Further changes to licensing requirements for seamen’s boarding houses.

First recorded founding of a Chinese seamen’s boarding house, the Yihetang (義和堂).

1876

Hong Kong Temperance Hall founded.

1881

Hong Kong Sailors’ Shelter founded.

1880 1882 1885

Missions to Seamen established in Yokohama. American Seamen’s Friend Society opens mission in Kobe, Japan.

Rev. A. Gurney Goldsmith becomes first resident Missions to Seamen grant chaplain in Hong Kong.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 435

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

436

Stong

to

Save

1886

Sailors’ Shelter closes around this time.

1890

Mission launch Dayspring begins service.

1888 1891

Temperance Hall closes around this time. First independent premises of the Missions to Seamen at the Kowloon Institute, a mat-shed building on Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui. Sunday Cargo Working Ordinance enacted.

1893

1895

1896

Schedule K, Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance No. 26 amends and extends regulations for seamen’s boarding houses.

Second independent premises and first on Hong Kong Island for the Missions to Seamen, the “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House open in rented premises on Queen’s Road, Central. First Roman Catholic Seamen’s Clubs formed in Montreal and London.

First official mention of Chinese seamen’s boarding houses; 67 in operation housing 1,120 seafarers.

6–8 seamen’s boarding houses in operation for sailors of other nationalities. First permanent premises for the Missions to Seamen, Kowloon Institute, opens on the north corner of West Bund (today Canton Road) and Elgin Road (today Haiphong Road), Tsim Sha Tsui.

Proposal to build a Seamen’s Institute on the grounds of the Sailors’ Home founders for lack of funding. 1897 1899 1900 1901

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 436

Missions to Seamen chaplaincy established in Shanghai.

Regulations issued for seamen’s boarding houses for Chinese seamen, amendment to schedule K, 1897 Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance. “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House in new, purpose built 40 bed premises on corner of Pottinger Street and Queen’s Road. Praya East reclamation scheme first mooted.

Praya East reclamation scheme approved by government.

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 1

1902/03 1905

1907 1908

437

“Star” Seamen’s Coffee House closes on Queen’s Road/ Pottinger Street, moves to premises in a “bye-street near Queen’s Road” but soon closes permanently. Seamen’s Institute of the Missions to Seamen opened by Sir Matthew Nathan in rented premises at 72 and 73 Praya East in Wan Chai in early May. Praya East reclamation scheme shelved because of lack of demand for space in Wan Chai.

Norwegian Seaman’s Church establishes itself in Hong Kong, though only briefly.

Fundraising meeting for new Seamen’s Institute premises on Praya East begins, chaired by Sir Matthew Nathan. Mr H.N. Modi pledges $35,000 and campaign raises a further $27,285.95. Marine Lot no. 295 bought for $37,000.

1909

1910 1911 1913 1916 1917 1918

Mr H.N. Modi (partner of Sir Paul Chater) increases his donation to $50,000 to build permanent home for Wan Chai Seamen’s Institute.

Sir Frederick Lugard lays foundation stone of new Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute designed by Leigh & Orange at 8 (later 9 and then 21) Praya East on the corner of Fenwick Street and Praya East.

New Hong Kong Seamen’s Institute building opened by Sir Henry May. Kowloon Institute closed and rented to Freemasons, Lodge Eastern Scotia No. 923. Missions to Seamen chaplain relieved of responsibility for St Peter’s Church, Sai Ying Pun. Dayspring sold.

Boarding House Ordinance passed establishing the class vii hang shun kun (行船館), or Chinese seamen’s boarding house.

104 licensed hang shun kun in operation.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 437

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

438

Stong

to

Save

1919

Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong Incorporation Ordinance passed as No.10 of 1919.

1920

Praya East scheme revived and requires Seamen’s Institute to move. Three new sites totalling 35,272 sq.ft. offered at $1.50 per sq.ft.

A replacement Dayspring bought.

Hongkong Sailor’s Home in Sai Ying Pun in financial trouble and considers move to Kowloon. 1922 1923

1924 1925

1926 1927 1928 1929

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 438

Apostleship of the Sea formally founded in Glasgow.

Kowloon Institute returned to Mission with consolidation of Freemasons’ lodges in Zetland Hall. Pope Pius XI formally constitutes the Apostleship of the Sea.

The Missions’ to Seamen Chater Endowment Fund established with a gift of $50,000 from Sir Paul Chater. Kowloon Institute reopens.

Government approves scheme for Sailors’ Home to move to new site on Salisbury Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

Sailors’ Home move to Kowloon shelved because of financial difficulties. Kowloon Institute closes for financial reasons.

Trustees of the Sailors Home incorporated by the Sailors’ Home Ordinance, No.5 of 1925.

Missions to Seamen and Hongkong Sailors’ Home first contemplate full merger. Kowloon Institute unsellable because of dilapidated condition, so demolished. Missions to Seamen chaplaincy established in Singapore.

Merger between Missions to Seamen and Hongkong Sailors’ Home formally planned.

Final agreement on site for new Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute at corner of Fenwick Street and Gloucester Road.

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 1

1930

Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen Ordinance passed and formal merger agreed.

1931

Work commences on new building at 40 Gloucester Road.

1933

439

Seamen’s Institute address changes to 18 Johnston Road. Chapel of St Peter in new building consecrated.

Old Sailors’ Home converted to police accommodation.

Old Seamen’s Institute on Johnston Road becomes government offices.

St Peter’s Church becomes home of Street Sleepers’ Shelter Society Trustees Incorporated. Mercantile Marine Assistance Fund Ordinance passed. 1934

1937 1938 1940 1941

1942

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission returns to Shanghai.

Christian Mission to Chinese Seamen (Chinese Seamen’s Mission) founded in Hong Kong by Mr B.J. Tan at suggestion of Rev. H.R. Wells (London Missionary Society) based in Sai Ying Pun. Norwegian Seamen’s Mission transfers to Hong Kong.

Chinese Seamen’s Mission moves to 98 Connaught Road West. Chinese Seamen’s Mission at 54 Jordan Road, Yau Ma Tei.

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission in premises at 2 Chatham Road.

Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute requisitioned as emergency refuge for seafarers and HKRNVR dependents. Dayspring II sunk by enemy fire on last trip from Kowloon with HKRNVR dependents. Building captured, becomes Imperial Japanese Navy canteen and St Peter’s Chapel a Shinto shrine.

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission premises on Chatham Road requisitioned by Japanese occupying forces. Chinese Seamen’s Mission has operatives in wartime Manila.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 439

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

440

Stong

to

Save

1945

Badly damaged building re-occupied by pre-war Chinese manager, Mr Lo Tau-lai, and Rev. Charles Strong.

1946

Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute returned to owners and resumes partial service, though still in use for naval personnel accommodation. St Peter’s Chapel re-hallowed.

Requisitioned for naval personnel and named HMS Aorangi, for which accommodation ship it was a shore base.

A replacement Dayspring III acquired (possibly from Singapore, Shanghai, or Australia). Ministry of Transport Merchant Navy Welfare Officer resident in Hong Kong.

First Port Welfare Committee established with members only from government to care for European and American seafarers visiting Hong Kong. 1947

1948

1949

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission returns to Shanghai.

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission leaves Shanghai and returns to 2 Chatham Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

Chinese Seamen’s Mission re-established in Hong Kong at 4 United Terrace, Ho Man Tin. Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute fully repaired and resumes full operations. First Apostleship of the Sea port chaplain appointed: Fr M.C. Pelly SJ.

First effort to move Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute to Tsim Sha Tsui, swap proposed with Hong Kong Police. Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute to be HK Police HQ, Marine Police Station, Tsim Sha Tsui to be Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute. Proposal rejected by Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute because new site too big. Port Welfare Committee reconstituted to cover all merchant seafarers irrespective of race, creed, or nationality. First Seamen’s Recruitment Committee formed, but no report seems to have resulted.

Merchant Navy Sports Club opens on Chatham Road, Tsim Sha Tsui. Unofficially operated for Port Welfare Committee by Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. Dayspring III disposed of, a new Dayspring, called Dayspring II (actually Dayspring IV) commissioned.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 440

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 1

1950 1951

1952

441

Cap 1056, Norwegian Seamen’s Mission Incorporation Ordinance passed. Norwegian Seamen’s Mission occupy new, purpose built premises at 5 Cox’s Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

Port Welfare Committee formally hands over management of Merchant Navy Sports Club to Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute. Apostleship of the Sea becomes a Secretariat in the Roman Catholic Church. Hong Kong Apostleship of the Sea Council formed.

Apostleship of the Sea launch Stella Maris I commissioned. 1953 1954

1955

1956

Apostleship of the Sea premises on Canton Road.

Servicemen’s Guides Association formed and working at Fenwick Pier outside the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute. Mr Peter Kao becomes lay reader operating first Missions to Seamen hostel for Chinese seamen in London. On his leave he takes services in Cantonese in St Peter’s Chapel, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen. St Peter’s Church building in Sai Ying Pun demolished.

Apostleship of the Sea premises on Canton Road returned to government.

Apostleship of the Sea temporarily suspended during the year. Centenary of the founding of the Missions to Seamen.

Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute renamed Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen.

Rev. Peter Kao ordained and spends one year at Hong Kong Mission before returning to London. Dayspring, film of work in Hong Kong Mission made. 1958

Stella Maris I out of service.

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission launch Maaken (Seagull) commissioned. Stella Maris II, a converted lifeboat, in service.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 441

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

442

Stong

to

Save

1960

1961

1962 1963

Dayspring II sold, Dayspring V commissioned.

First proposal for an ecumenical mission jointly with Apostleship of the Sea.

Stella Maris II out of service. New launch, Stella Maris III, commissioned. Merchant Navy Sports Club registered with the registrar of societies.

Formal application to PWD for Blackhead Point site for new building. Old Seamen’s Institute at 18 Johnston Road demolished.

Formal application to superintendent of Crown lands for new site. Appointment of new Seamen’s Recruitment Committee.

Interim report of the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee.

Apostleship of the Sea in new premises in the Catholic Centre Building, Connaught Road, Central.

1964

Apostleship of the Sea premises move to old Department of Commerce and Industry building, no. 1 Gate, HK & Kowloon Wharf & Godown Co., Canton Road. Final report of the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee issued.

Apostleship of the Sea temporarily suspended and Tsim Sha Tsui premises closed. Port Welfare Committee reconstituted to exclude membership of all representatives of the seafarers’ missions.

1965

1966

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 442

Apostleship of the Sea reactivated and moves to new premises, The Hermitage, Chatham Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

Missions to Seamen headquarters agree loan for new building and work begins. Centenary of the opening of the Sailors’ Home in West Point.

Servicemen’s Guides Association extend their Fenwick Pier premises. Foundation stone of new building in Tsim Sha Tsui laid. Opening of Seamen’s Recruiting Office on 3 May.

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 1

1967

1968

1969

443

Mariners’ Club, 11 Middle Road, Tsim Sha Tsui opened by HE the governor. St Peter’s Church consecrated.

40 Gloucester Road reverts to the government.

Merchant Navy Sports Club building closed in January and in use only when matches scheduled. Sports grounds still in use. 40 Gloucester Road HQ for Hong Kong Police Criminal Investigation Branch. Pioneering ecumenical mission established at Mariners’ Club with Apostleship of the Sea. Apostleship of the Sea premises at The Hermitage closed. First ecumenical service held in St Peter’s Church.

International Christian Maritime Association founded. 1971

North Wan Chai reclamation closes Fenwick Pier.

First moves made to find a site for a Mariners’ Club in Kwai Chung.

Stella Maris III sold. New Stella Maris IV launch commissioned. New Fenwick Pier for the Servicemen’s Guides Association built on Lung King Street.

1972 1973 1974 1975

40 Gloucester Road renovated and converted, intended to be for government residential building.

40 Gloucester Road to be a hostel for trainee nurses at Queen Mary Hospital and renamed Harcourt House. Chinese seamen’s mission no longer reporting activities. Building begins on the Mariners’ Club, Kwai Chung. First nurses move into Harcourt House.

Premier of I Was a Stranger, Missions to Seamen film shot in Hong Kong. Harcourt House in full use as nurses’ hostel. Mariners’ Club, Kwai Chung opens.

St Paul’s Chapel at the Kwai Chung premises dedicated.

Merchant Navy Sports Club vacate sports ground on Chatham Road for road development. Government phases out supplementary subvention to funds raised by donation by the Port Welfare Committee.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 443

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

444

Stong

to

Save

1979 1981 1982 1983

1985 1986 1988 1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 2001 2007 2008 2009

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 444

Danish Seamen’s Church starts work in Hong Kong and joins ecumenical team at Mariners’ Club based mainly in Kwai Chung. Official opening of the Danish Room, Mariners' Club, Kwai Chung on 28 April, 1981 by Queen Margrethe II of Denmark. Visit of HRH, the Duchess of Kent.

Norwegian Seamen’s Mission leaves Hong Kong after 57 years. Harcourt House site acquired by Hongkong Land, building demolished at around this time. Centenary of the Mission to Seamen’s presence in Hong Kong. Mariners’ Club substantially refurbished.

Dayspring V disposed of. New launch, Mariners Club, commissioned, the first in GRP. Apostleship of the Sea launch Stella Maris III sold. Visit of HRH, the Princess Royal.

Visit of Her Majesty, Queen Margrethe of Denmark. New, larger launch Mariners Club II commissioned. Visit of HRH, the Princess Royal.

German Seamen's Mission joins the ecumenical team at Mariners' Club.

Church of Sweden Abroad establishes base at the Mariners’ Club. Visit of HRH, the Princess Royal. Visit of HE, the Governor.

Missions to Seamen changes name to Mission to Seafarers. 4th and 5th floors of Mariners’ Club renovated.

Danish Room, Mariners’ Club, Kwai Chung renovated.

Planning for complete redevelopment of Mariners’ Club begins.

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 1

2014 2015

445

Mission to Seafarers reorganized to confederal system with Hong Kong the first regional headquarters of the Eastern Region.

150th anniversary of the opening of the Sailors’ Home at West Point

Mariners Club II sold. New launch Dayspring VI commissioned.

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 445

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 446

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 2 Chairmen of the Local General Committees (of the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute/Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen/Mariners’ Club)

Chairmen of the Sailors’ Home Committee 1865–1874

James Whittall

1886–1890

John Bell-Irving

1874–1886 1890–1901 1902–1906 1906–1911 1913–1919 1919–?

1922–1928 1928–1930

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 447

William Keswick James Johnstone Keswick

Charles Wedderburn Dickson Henry Keswick David Landale

John Johnstone

Dallas Gerald Mercer Bernard

Benjamin David Fleming Beith

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

448

Stong

to

Save

Chairmen of the Missions to Seamen Local Committee 1885–1897

Bishop John Shaw Burdon

1907–1920

Bishop Gerard Heath Lander

1898–1906 1920–1930

Bishop John Charles Hoare

Bishop Charles Ridley Duppuy

Chairmen of the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute/Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen/Mariners’ Club 1930–1945

John Johnstone Paterson

1951–1956

John Keswick

1945–1951 1956–1962 1962–1969 1969–1983 1983–1995 1995–2000 2000–2006 2006–

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 448

David Fortune Landale

Hugh David MacEwen Barton

Michael Alexander Robert Herries David Kennedy Newbigging Martin Gilbert Barrow Alisdair Morrison

Edward Percy Keswick Weatherall Anthony John Liddell Nightingale

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 3 Chaplains, Assistant Chaplains, and Readers

Seamen’s and Military Chaplains 1872–1874

Rev. Thomas Talbot

1877–1880

Rev. J. Henderson

1874–1876 1880 1881

1881–1883/5

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 449

Rev. W.H. Baynes Rev. C.G. Booth

Rev. J.B. Ost (temporary) Rev. H. Wilson Lee

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

450

Stong

to

Save

Missions to Seamen Senior Chaplains/ Chaplains 1885–1895

1896–1898 1898–1908

Assistants, Locums, and Readers

Rev. A. G. Goldsmith, snr chaplain

1888

Rev. A. Iliff, snr chaplain

1896

Rev. J. H. France

1899–1904

1889

1896–1897 1906–1908

1908–1912

1913–1915 1914–1919 1919–1934 1934–1941

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 450

Rev. C. E. Thompson, snr chaplain

1909–? 1912

Rev. D. B. Reynolds, snr chaplain

Rev. W. T. Featherstone, 1915 snr chaplain Rev. G. T. Waldegrave, snr chaplain

1924–1925

Reverend C. J. Brown, snr chaplain

1939–1940

1929–1930

Mr Makeham, parttime reader Mr Makeham, full reader

Mr Wright, temporary reader Mr Robins, reader

Rev. T. Wright, asst chaplain

Rev. C. E. Thompson, asst chaplain

Rev. A. P. Crofton, asst chaplain Rev. W. T. Austen, locum

Mr Everton, reader and manager

Rev. N. A. Peel, locum

Rev. R. H. V. Brougham, locum Rev. C. Strong, locum

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 3

Senior Chaplains/ Chaplains

1946–1949 1949–1956

1956–1960 1961

Rev. F. W. Weaver, snr chaplain

Assistants, Locums, and Readers

1946

Rev. W. Haig Brown, snr chaplain

1951–1953

Rev. A. L. Nind, snr chaplain

1956

1953–1956 c.4.1956– c.11.1956

Senior Chaplains/ Rev. A. E. Rolleston, snr 1961 Chaplains chaplain

1961–1963

1963–1967 1967–1968 1969–1974

1974–1983

Rev. J. R. Precious, snr chaplain

1962–1963

Rev. F. Roe, snr chaplain

1965–1970

Rev. J.E.C. Lawlor, snr chaplain

1963–1964

Rev. A. G. Shrives, snr chaplain

1969–1972

Rev. E. J. B. Matchett, snr chaplain

1972–1980

1971–1973

1974–1975

1976–1980 1981 26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd

Rev. Wally Andrews, 451 snr chaplain

Rev. C. J. W. Faulkner, temporary

M.K. Beacham, reader J.R. Taylor, reader

Rev. Peter Kao, asst chaplain Rev. J. E. C. Lawlor, locum

Assistants, Locums, Mr Leslie Giles, reader and Readers

1975

1983–1992

451

1982–1990

Rev. A.I. Paget, asst chaplain

Rev. Roy Chalkley, asst chaplain Rev. John Berg, asst chaplain

Rev. Jon Robertshaw, asst chaplain Rev. Michael Palmer, asst chaplain Rev. Thomas Chow, asst chaplain

Rev. Peter Ellis, asst chaplain

Rev. Noel Stone, asst chaplain

Rev. Joe Humble, asst chaplain

Rev. Martin Saunders, asst chaplain

Mr Eric Griffiths, asst chaplain

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

1961–1963 1963–1967 452

S1967–1968 tong to Save

1969–1974

Rev. J. R. Precious, snr chaplain

Rev. J.E.C. Lawlor, snr chaplain

1963–1964

Rev. F. Roe, snr chaplain

1965–1970

Rev. E. J. B. Matchett, snr chaplain

1972–1980

Rev. A. G. Shrives, snr chaplain Senior Chaplains/ Chaplains

1974–1983

1962–1963

1974–1975

1976–1980 1981

1992–2011

2011–

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 452

Rev. Wally Andrews, snr chaplain

Rev. Roy Chalkley, asst chaplain Rev. John Berg, asst chaplain

1969–1972 Rev. Jon Robertshaw, Assistants, Locums, asst chaplain and Readers 1971–1973 Rev. Michael Palmer, asst chaplain

1975

1983–1992

Rev. A.I. Paget, asst chaplain

1982–1990

Rev. Peter Ellis, snr chaplain

1990–1994

Rev. Stephen Miller, snr chaplain

1998–

1995–1997

Rev. Thomas Chow, asst chaplain

Rev. Peter Ellis, asst chaplain

Rev. Noel Stone, asst chaplain

Rev. Joe Humble, asst chaplain

Rev. Martin Saunders, asst chaplain Mr Eric Griffiths, asst chaplain Mr Keith Taylor, asst chaplain Rev. Joy Porter, asst chaplain

Captain Luca Ferrerio, asst chaplain

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 3

453

Chaplains in the Ecumenical Mission Apostolatus Maris Chaplain 1948–1953

Fr M.C. Pelly SJ

1953–1959

Fr K. O’Dwyer SJ

1953

Fr Gilligan MM

1959–1964

Fr P.J. Cunningham SJ

1969–1987

Fr George Dopchie CICM

1964–1969

Fr J.J. McAsey SJ

Assistant Chaplain

1955

Fr J Howatson SJ

1969-1970

Fr Gianni PIME

1970–1972

Fr Thomas Ferarese PIME

1955–1956

1970

1963–1986 1987–2012 2012–

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 453

Fr J.H. Nijssen CICM

1986–1987

Fr M.C. Corbally SJ

Fr John Politi PIME

Fr Dan Fitzpatrick SJ Fr J.H. Nijssen CICM

Fr Valan A. Arockiaswamy SVD

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

454

Stong

to

Save

Danish Seamen’s Church Chaplain 1979–19

Rev. Ronald Pedersen

1985–1998

Rev. Hans Vestergaard Jensen

1982–1984 1998–

Rev. Knud Holm

Rev. Hans Aage Koller Nielsen

German Seamen’s Mission Senior Chaplain 1995–

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 454

Rev. Martina Platte

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 455

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Mr Sellwood

Rev. I.H.D. Findlay**

Mr Rob Henderson

Mr Andy T.F. Chan

Mr Stephen Chow

* Brother of Lai Leung

2014–present

2007–2014

1999–2007

Capt. Alistair Hall

1991–1999

1978–1991

Lt Cmdr J.B. Thornton

1966–1978

Mr J.W. Hawkins

1961–66

1952–61

Mr W.V. Field

1944–1941 & 1946–1951

Mr R.W.W. Bristow

1921–1928

1919–1921

Mr Davies

Miss Forster

Manager

In post 1913

c. 1905–?

Mr Stephen Chow

Mr Wong Kam Moon

Mr Hugh Watt

Mr Everton

Mr Chan

Mr Lo Lau Tai or Lam Tai

Ah Woo

Post abolished at a date hereafter

1950s

193?–?

c. 1928–

Unknown

Chinese Steward

1950s

Mrs Haines

Lady Warden

1950s

< 1950s

** Reverend Findlay was a Presbyterian and a school teacher at Diocesan Boy’s School pre-1961

1990–?

1947–1990

1931–1940

1915

Assistant Manager/ Steward

Seamen, Merchant Navy Sports Club and Mariners’ Club)

Mr Lai Leung

Mr Lai*

Unknown

Comprador

(of the Seamen’s Institute, Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute, Sailors’ Home and Mission to

Appendix 4 Managers

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 456

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 5 Superintendents, Stewards, Assistants, and Clerks of the Sailors’ Home Superintendent 1865– 1866

1868– 1869 1870– 1872

Captain William Punchard

Steward

1867

Captain Algernon 1871Overbury 1872

1875– 1879

1880– 1886 1887– 1889

1890– 1900

Assistant

David Brown

Richard Cruce

1867 No record 1871

William Marsden

1874

Alexander Bleecker Jacob Fritz S(c)huster

1872– 1873

Jacob Fritz 1875– S(c)huster 1879

John 1880– Robinson 1883 White 1884– 1886

Alexander 1887– Moir 1888

Alexander Moir

1919– 1930

Captain Frank Baylis

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 457

John Keller

John Shepherd Robert Fisher

1894

Henry Bushback

1896

Richard Brothers

1898– 1903 William Davies

Alexander Bleecker

Benjamin Franklin Taylor

1897 Captain Anthony 1905– Alexander 1919 Heron Milroy

John Keller

1904

R. Webster Edward Fisher

David Brown

1890– 1892 1895

1901– 1919

Clerk

Henry Pearce

William Henderson Percy Alexander Hardman

Timothy Cromin

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 458

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Appendix 6 Launches

Hong Kong Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute Launches Name

Sailors’ Home* Dayspring Dayspring Dayspring Dayspring II Dayspring V Mariners Club I Mariners Club II Dayspring

Builder

Power

Year

Means of Disposal

Built

Disposed of

Unknown Unknown

Hongkong & Whampoa Dock Co.

4 oars

1886

Hongkong & Whampoa Dock Co.

Steam

1890

1916

Sold

A(h) King Shipyard, Wan Chai

Petrol

1919

1941

Sunk

Acquired (from Australia)

Petrol

Unknown

1949

Sold

Taikoo Dockyard

Diesel

1949

1959

Sold

Hongkong & Whampoa Dock Co.

Diesel

1959

1985

Sold

Cheoy Lee Shipyards Diesel

1986

1993?

Sold

Cheoy Lee Shipyards Diesel

1994

2015

Sold

Cheoy Lee Shipyards Diesel

2015

* The name is shown thus in a watercolour painting of 1887 by the Australian seafarer Charlie Hammond

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 459

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

460

Stong

to

Save

Apostleship of the Sea Launches Name

Stella Maris Stella Maris II Stella Maris III

26_Strong to Save_Appendices.indd 460

Builder

Power

Year Built

Disposed of

Means of Disposal

Unknown

Petrol

1952

1961

Sold

Unknown

Petrol

1961

1971

Sold

Cheoy Lee Shipyards

Diesel

1971

1986

Sold

6/7/2017 6:48 PM

Endnotes

Epigraph 1. Robert Morrison, (1826) A Parting Memorial Consisting of Miscellaneous Discourses Written and Preached in China; at Singapore; on Board Ship at Sea, in the Indian Ocean; at the Cape of Good Hope; and in England, London: W. Simpkin & R. Marshall, p.378. The hymn first appeared as “a paraphrase of a well-known hymn” in The Christian Herald and Seamen’s Magazine for the year 1821–22, New York: Port of New York Society for Promoting the Gospel Among Seamen, 1822, vol.8, no.20, p.640. The “well-known hymn” was the Welsh Methodist minister William Williams Pantycelyn’s 1762 “Arglwydd, arwain trwy’r anialwch”, that became in English “Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer” to the stirring tune “Cwm Rhondda” (1905), by John Hughes. 2. Written in the Atlantic Ocean, on Board the Ship Mexico, June 1815, Rev. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet (1787–1851). Gallaudet was an American from Philadelphia, who had no connections with the sea other than what appears to have been a single two-way trip across the Atlantic in 1815, at the outset of his lifelong commitment to the education of the deaf, of which the trip in the Mexico (300 tons, S. Weeks, Master) was the outbound leg (Edward Miner Gallaudet (1888), Life of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet Founder of Deaf-Mute Instruction in America, New York: Henry Holt, pp.56–57).

Prologue 1　 Reverend David Abeel (1835), (intro Reverend Baptist Wriothesley Noel), Journal of a Residence in China and the Neighbouring Countries from 1830 to 1833, London: James Nisbet & Co., p.66. 2　 The Sailor’s Magazine and Naval Journal, New York: American Seamen’s Friend Society, November 1837, vol.x, no.3, p.78. The modern take — less red-light district orientated — can be reviewed at the Seafarers International Research Centre, Cardiff University, UK website — http://www.sirc.cf.ac. uk/SIRC_Free_Online_Reports.aspx, accessed 4 November 2013; and in International Transport Workers’ Federation (2006), Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Seafarers, Fishers & Human Rights, New York: ITWF.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 461

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

462

Strong

to

Save

3　 I am much indebted to two sources for background: Roald Kverndal (1986), Seamen’s Missions: Their Origin and Early Growth, a Contribution to the History of the Church Maritime, Pasadena CA: William Carey Library; and R.W.H. Miller (2012), One Firm Anchor: the Church and the Merchant Seafarer, an Introductory History, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. 4　 Ruth Rouse, Stephen Neill, Harold Edward Fey (eds) (1993), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1968, 4 th ed., Geneva: World Council of Churches, ch.7. For China in particular see Christopher A. Daily (2013), Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press; and Paul Cohen (1978), “Christian Missions and Their Impact to 1900” in John K. Fairbank, The Cambridge History of China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol.10, pt.1, pp.543–590. 5　 Kverndal (1986), op.cit., p.388 makes the point that at its founding the Missions to Seamen’s idea of the “seafaring classes”, included “British and foreign merchant seamen…naval personnel, fishermen, boatmen, lighthouse and lightship men, emigrants, even general ship’s passengers”. However Kverndal also notes, “fishermen were not necessarily considered ‘seamen properly so called’”, taking the quotation from the 1829 Proceedings of the British Prayer Book and Homily Society, op.cit., p.302. 6　 “Lascar” — derived from the Persian “laskari” meaning “soldier” via the Portuguese “lascari” was a European generic for Asian crew from the 17th century through to the 20th, though generally referring to those from South Asia more than Southeast Asia or China. See Marika Sherwood (1991), “Race, Nationality and Employment Among Lascar Seamen, 1660 to 1945”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 17.2, January, pp.229–244; and Diane Frost (ed) (1995), Ethnic Labour and British Imperial Trade (Immigrants & Minorities), London: Routledge. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1823, or “Lascar Act”, as this law was known, further entrenched a radical difference between “lascar” and all other crew that had first been made law in Britain in 1814. 7　 It was widely believed that to replace one European seafarer, the shipmaster would need to recruit two or three lascars, who were thereby defined as racially — and therefore physically and mentally — inferior. This understanding was the justification for the lower pay. See Ravi Ahuja (2002), “Subaltern Networks under British Imperialism.
Exploring the Case of South Asian Maritime Labour (c.
1890–1947)”, in Jan-Georg Deutsch and Brigitte Reinwald (eds), Space on the Move. Transformations of the Indian Ocean Seascape in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century, Zentrum Moderner Orient: Arbeitshefte 20, Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, p.40. 8 Yen-p'ing Hao (1970), The Comprador in Nineteenth Century China: Bridge Between East and West, Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press, esp. pp.44–63. 9　 Stuart Wolfendale (2013), Imperial to International: a History of St John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.5. 10 Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.5. 11　 A shipping cycle is the movement of the market for shipping from the peak of one “boom” through the trough of a “bust” to the peak of the next boom.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 462

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

463

The average duration of these cycles since the 1870s has been some eight years with the shortest lasting 5 years and the longest 12 years — see Martin Stopford (1997), Maritime Economics, 2nd ed., London: Routledge, p.46. 12　 As Kenneth Pomeranz and others have rightly pointed out, in 1841 the structures and operations of the modern western business world were still not what they were to become by the end of the 19th century. See Kenneth Pomeranz (2000), The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, and the excellent review article by Professor Patrick O’Brien, Ten Years of Debate on the Origins of the Great Divergence (review no. 1008), URL: http://www. history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1008, accessed on 4 December 2013. 13　 This designation appears in harbour master’s reports from the earliest we have (1870) and was undoubtedly official usage from the earliest days of the British colony. 14 The Bible, authorized or King James Version, Psalm 107, vv.23–30. 15　 Ibid. Acts of the Apostles, 27.14–44, 28.1–10. “Melita” is the Latinised version of the ancient settlement on the island of Malta today called Mdina. Malta has been long believed to be where St Paul was shipwrecked in a storm in c.60CE and much scholarly opinion today concurs (e.g. S. Fiorini and H.C.R. Vella (2006), “New XIIth Century Evidence for the Pauline Tradition and Christianity in the Maltese Islands,” in John Azzopardi (ed), The Cult of St Paul in the Christian Churches and in the Maltese Tradition, Malta: Acts of the International Symposium of Malta, 26–27 June, pp.161–172). Dissenting voices argue for Mljet in Croatian Dalmatia (http://www.croatianhistory.net/ etf/st_paul.html, accessed on 11 February 2015); and Kefalonia in the Greek Ionian Islands: Heinz Warnecke: Paulus im Sturm. Über den Schiffbruch der Exegese und die Rettung des Apostels auf Kephallenia, Nürnberg: VTR, 2000.

Chapter 1

From Whampoa to Hong Kong

1. Robert Morrison (1826), op.cit. The quotation is a footnote in “Proposal for Bettering the Morals and Condition of Sailors in China”, pp.367–371. 2. Ezekiel 36: 20–23. 3. Letter to W.A. Hankey, Esq., treasurer to the Missionary Society, Canton, 12 November 1822. Reprinted in Eliza A. Morrison (1839), Memoirs of the Life and Labours of the Reverend Robert Morrison D.D., compiled by his Widow, 2 vols, London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, vol.2, p.183. 4. The Sailor’s Magazine and Naval Journal, New York: American Seamen’s Friend Society, vol.1, ending August 1829, p.30. 5. The Acts of the Apostles of the Sea: an Eighty Years’ Record of the American Seamen’s Friend Society (1908), New York: American Seamen’s Friend Society, p.8. 6. For a memorable description of a liberty day see William C. Hunter (1885),

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 463

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

464

Strong

to

Save

Bits of Old China, London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co, pp.3–7. Samshoo (三 燒) was a spirit made by distilling fermented boiled rice mixed with rice flour, liquorice, aniseed, and garlic. 7. Robert Morrison (1826), op.cit., p.369. 8. Morrison would have been thinking of the Ark provided by the Port of London Society in 1818 and the converted HMS Grampus, opened as a floating hospital for seamen by the Seamen’s Hospital Society on the Thames off Greenwich in 1821 — see Roald Kverndal (1986) Seamen's Missions: Their Origin and Early Growth, a Contribution to the History of the Church Maritime, Pasadena: William Carey Library, p.xiii and pp.186–190, 336–337. 9. The Friend of China, 10 September 1843. 10. The decision to build such an institution had clearly been made in 1861, see fn.52 below. 11. E.C. Bridgman and S. Wells Williams, The Chinese Repository, vol.V, no.VI, October 1836, pp.274–278 and The Chinese Repository, vol.VII, no.XI, January 1839, Art III, pp.477–484. 12. Morrison (1826), op.cit., pp.372–377. 13. Rev. Abeel had arrived in the same ship, the Roman, that had carried out both his fellow missionary, Rev. Elijah Coleman Bridgeman, and William C. Hunter, see An Old Resident, William C. Hunter (1983), The ‘Fan Kwae’ at Canton Before Treaty Days 1825–1844, reprint, Shanghai: The Oriental Affairs, pp.11– 12 (the 1st edition was 1882). 14. For a good general overview of the evangelical background see Kverndal (1986), op.cit., pp.24–43. 15. The Sailor’s Magazine (1839), New York: The American Seamen’s Friend Society, vol. XI, no.10, whole no.111, pp.321–322. 16. The attendees at the first meeting on 3 January were Messrs J.C. Green, R. Turner, W.S. Wetmore, W. Leslie, H.M. Clarke, F.S. Hathaway, C.W. King, J. How, W.R. Talbot, J.R. Morrison, W. Howland, C.F. Bradford, Rev. E.C. Bridgman, Rev. P. Parker, Mr G.T. Lay, Rev. J.T. Dickinson and Mr J.M. Bull. The meeting reconvened twice in the same place on 7 and 8 January, at the last gathering of which the new society’s constitution was agreed. 17. There is a deep irony to this, as we shall see there was in the foundations of most of the subsequent charitable works for seafarers in Hong Kong. This first charitable and Christian association for the welfare of seafarers in China was founded precisely as the furore over opium smuggling began to reach its climax, yet the board of managers is with but one clear and one possible exception a roll-call of private merchants in the opium trade. 18. In the 15th Annual Report of the American Tract Society a Rev. Thomas Boaz is listed as “Seamen’s Friend Soc., Canton, China”. Boaz, resident pastor at the Union Chapel, Calcutta (Kolkata) 1834–59, may have been talked into a shortterm secondment by James Matheson in 1839 while the search went on for a more permanent replacement.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 464

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

465

19. Captain R. Collinson & Rev. George Smith (1847), Notices of Fuh-Chau, and the Other Open Ports of China: With Reference to Missionary Operations, New York: Carlton & Porter, Appendix D, p.163. Rather wonderfully Rev. Loomis travelled out with the 26 crewmen of the junk Keying, which was en route Hong Kong to London, who had successfully fought a court case against the ship in New York, with the help of Samuel Wells Williams. See also Stephen Davies (2014), East Sails West: the Voyage of the Keying, 1846–1855, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, ch.4. 20. Ibid. 21. The Friend, Honolulu, no.8, 1 August 1850, pp.59–60 quoting The Chinese Repository. 22. The American Tract Society’s 29th (1854) and 30th (1854) annual reports have no mention of any seamen’s chaplains in Canton, although they do mention land-based missionaries from various organizations. 23. Cited in a biography of Beecher forming part of United States Department of the Interior National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet, James C. Beecher House, Tioga County, New York, Section 8, p.3 at http://www.villageofowego.com/PageZoneSiteResources/ bstvillage/Resources/file/OHPC/James%20C.%20Beecher%20House%20 560%20Fifth%20Ave.pdf, accessed on 24 October 2013. 24. This is the story according to an account above, “James Beecher oversaw the completion of a second floating Bethel at Hong Kong, where it remained moored until the winter of 1861”. 25. The Hong Kong Directory with List of Foreign Residents in China (1859), Hong Kong: Armenian Press, p.29. In the same directory on p.42 Dr George Brice is listed as a medical practitioner, “harbor”, and C. Brunstedt as a clerk with the Seamen’s Chapel. 26. The painting is in the collection of the Hong Kong Maritime Museum (HKMM2012.0100.0003). 27. The China Mail, 15 March 1862, p.2. 28. Interestingly, and quite at odds with the standard story, Harvey Newcombe (A Cyclopedia of Missions, Containing a Comprehensive View of Missionary Operations Throughout the World; with Geographical Descriptions and Accounts of the Social, Moral and Religious Condition of the People, (1860), New York: Charles Scribner, p.249) reports that in 1860 there were two floating Bethels serving seamen in Canton. The second was Roman Catholic and, one suspects, probably catered also, or possibly mainly, for the Chinese waterborne population. 29. In the discussion that follows I am indebted to Kverndal (1986), op.cit. 30. For a word that looms large in the world of mission to seamen activity, the emergence of the Bethel flag is owed to a most humble and obscure inspiration. Zebedee Rogers, the poor shoemaker from Rotherhithe who designed and hoisted the first Bethel flag did so because, having come upon

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 465

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

466

Strong

to

Save

the word “Bethel”, he had been told by his sister that in the Old Testament it signified “the House of God”. Biblical scholars are undecided as to this etymology. 31. I owe this care in usage to Rev. Stephen Miller, who pointed out to me that the Anglican Church is not by origin Protestant, unlike those of Lutheran or Calvinist origin. 32. Kverndal (1986), op.cit., ch.17 is a very useful and thorough guide to this very complex period. 33. Kverndal (1986), ch.13 is a useful guide to what he calls “the Anglican dilemma”, that is, the tension between the evangelical and High Church wings of the Church of England with the inevitable “splittism” between evangelical missions and the approved Episcopal Floating Church Society “for Promoting the Diffusion of religion among Seamen of the Empire, agreeable to the Doctrines and Discipline of the Church of England.” 34. Ashley’s approach of direct, personal mission visits to ships is an interesting contrast to the belief in “Bethel captains”, ship’s captains, that is, who were at the same time missionaries to seamen and who would hoist the Bethel flag aboard their ship, which had been a feature of Bosun Smith and also the British and Foreign Sailors’ Society — see Kverndal (1986), op.cit., pp.242– 243 and 366–367. 35. Kverndal (1985), p.750, fn.147, makes the point that Childs’ withdrawal from cooperating with the new body in 1857 was a sad loss occasioned by misunderstandings, the Bristol society’s debts, and new society’s insistence in dating its birth to 1856 instead of 1855, when the Bristol Missions to Seamen was born. 36. Kingston’s income depended on his writing. A quick review of a bibliography of Kingston’s oeuvre reveals a first burst of writing, largely non-fiction, from 1844–56, a hiatus until 1860, and then the bulk of his published work — the total is over 100 titles, between then and his death, see Joanne Shattock (ed) (1999), The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, vol.4, 1800–1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1320–1321. 37. Kverndal (1985), pp.318–394 is an authoritative guide. Other histories of the Missions to Seamen need significant updating and/or contextualizing. 38. Kverndal (1985), op.cit., p.391, fn.152, citing similar work in the 1820s in both Britain and Norway. 39. Kverndal (1985), op.cit., p.390. 40. The image had been come upon by Kingston, his wife Agnes Kinloch and Kingston’s sister, and depicted the angel of the Book of Revelation flying with the gospel across the seas. The Missions to Seamen official history cites Revelations, ch.14, v.6, “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people…”. Even the Christian Bible tends to see the world’s inhabitants as those who dwell on the earth, not on the sea. For Kingston, his wife and sister see Kverndal (1985), op.cit., p.390.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 466

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

467

41. Kverndal (1985), op.cit., pp.245–264. 42. A crimp was a shore-based operator — often a publican or boarding-house owner — who aimed to meet a sailor’s basic needs at the end of a voyage of food, a roof over his head and re-employment at the end of his shore time — to the profit of the crimp no matter the cost to the sailor. The methods used were too often unscrupulous, dishonest, and even violent. See Kverndal, op.cit., pp.337–340 for a comprehensive discussion. What seems unknown is to what extent the western crimp system grew out of and distorted a traditional, locality based seafarers’ recruitment and guild/lodging system like the ghaut serang and hang shun kun (行船館) systems of the Asian seas (see ch.2 infra). 43. George Ticknor Curtis (1841), A Treatise on the Rights and Duties of Merchant Seamen According to the General Maritime Law and the Statutes of the United States, Boston: Little and Brown, pp.11–12 and 24–25. 44. Kverndal (1985), op.cit., p.335 quoting a number of contemporary sources in the same vein. 45. There is no succinct history of the Board of Trade, but for its arguably most important years from the 1850s until the First World War, Adam Kirkaldy’s venerable British Shipping: Its History, Organization and Importance (1914), London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., ch.vii is still of value.

Chapter 2

The View from the Harbour Master’s Office

1. No document now exists containing such a statement. We learn of Sir Henry Pottinger’s proclamation on 16 February 1842 from J.W. Norton Kyshe (1897), The History of the Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, Tracing Consular Jurisdiction in China and Japan and Including Parliamentary Debates, and the Rise, Progress, and Successive Changes in the Various Public Institutions of the Colony from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, 2 vols, Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., vol.1, p.12. 2. For the status of Asiatic Articles/Agreements, see http://www.mun.ca/mha/mlc/ seafarers/lascars/remainder-of-crew.php, accessed on 6 April 2014. 3. An excellent conspectus of early western trade in Asia and its dependence on Asian systems is given in Ernst van Veen and Leonard Blussé (2005), Rivalry and Conflict: European Traders and Asian Trading Networks in the 16th and 17th Centuries, Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University, vol.7 in the most useful Studies in Overseas History series. 4. The Friend of China, vol.13, no.42, 20 October 1840. 5. Section 7 of the 1660 Navigation Act, which was in force until 1849, required the master and three quarters of an English ship importing goods from Asia to be English. See Georgie Wemyss (2009), The Invisible Empire: White Discourse, Tolerance and Belonging, Farnham: Ashgate, ch.6 especially pp.148–152; and Rosina Visram (2002), Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History, London: Pluto Press, ch.2. Bits of successive British legislation: the Irish

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 467

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

468

Strong

to

Save

Mariners, etc. Act, 42 Geo III c 61, s.9 of 1802 and the East India Trade Act, 54 Geo III c 134, 1814 dealt with aspects of the growing issue, but it required an extensive parliamentary enquiry and The Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen, British Parliamentary Papers, 1814–15 (471), 111, 217 to deal with the problem comprehensively. 6. See Georgie Wemyss (2014), “Littoral Struggles, Liminal Lives: Indian Merchant Seafarers’ Resistances”, in Rehana Ahmed & Sumita Mukherjee (eds), South Asian Resistances in Britain 1858–1947, London: Continuum, pp.35–53, esp. p.40. 7. H. Yule & A.C. Burnell (1996), Hobson-Jobson: An Anglo-Indian Dictionary, Ware (Herts): Wordsworth, p.462, a facsimile of the original 1886 edition. 8. See Michael H. Fisher (2006), “Working Across the Seas: Indian Maritime Labourers in India, Britain, and in Between”, International Review of Social History, vol. 51, pp.23–25. For an excellent description of the practice in the late 19th and 20th centuries see http://www.pandosnco.co.uk/crews.html, accessed on 31 March 2014. 9. George Windsor Earl (1837), The Eastern Seas: or Voyages and Adventures in the Indian Archipelago in 1832–33–34 Comprising a Tour of the Island of Java — Visits to Borneo, the Malay Peninsula, Siam & c.; Also an Account of the Present State of Singapore with Observations on the Commercial Resources of the Archipelago, London: W.H. Allen, pp.60–61; and Robert Grenville Wallace (1822), Fifteen Years in India;
or,
Sketches of a Soldier’s Life Being an Attempt to Describe Persons and Things in Various Parts of Hindostan, from the Journal of
an Officer in His Majesty's Service, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, p.256. 10. CO 129/10/740, Woosnam (Richard Woosnam, private secretary to the governor) to Caine (Major William Caine, chief magistrate), 13 April 1844; Hong Kong Register, 4 February 1845, vol.18, no.5, p.19; The China Mail, 14 August 1845, vol.1, no.26, p.103; Hong Kong Register, 12 August 1845, vol.18, no.32, p.129 repeating the Bombay Courier view on the evils of the system; 02 09 1845 CO129/11/171–80, Alexander Lena, acting harbour master to Caine, Proposing the Establishment of a Licensed Ghaut Serang, for the Better Regulation of Lascars, 2 September 1845, vol.13. pp.320–323; ibid., Sir John Davis to (Lord) Stanley, Enclosing Ordinance no.13 of 1845, For Establishment of a Licensed Ghaut Serang, For The Better Regulation Of Lascars, 10 November 1845, vol.13, pp.313–315. I am indebted to Dr Christopher Munn for these references. 11. Ghaut Serang and Lascar Ordinance, no.13, 25 October 1845. 12. CO 129, vol.17, no.95, p.50, 9 July 1846, Ordinance no.4 of 1846, To Explain and Extend the Provisions of the Ordinance to Establish a Licensed Ghaut Serang. 13. Shaikh Moosdeen is a typical example of Hong Kong’s fluid waterfront. His will (HK PRO HKRS 144: Will of Sheik Moosdeen, 18 January, 1873) shows that his wife, Aleesah, otherwise called Lee Yun Tsoi, was Chinese.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 468

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

469

14. William Tarrant (1848), Hong Kong Almanack and Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1848, Hong Kong: D. Noronha, p.41. “Hassan” is a fairly obvious Muslim Indian name, Cawdor, however, defies elucidation. It could be the surname Chaudhuri in any of its several Bengali, South Indian or Marathi spellings, the Konkani names Kuduva or Gadiyar are possibles, but the Karnatakan family name Gowda is the most probable. 15. Carl T. Smith (2010), “Abandoned into Prosperity: Women on the Fringe of Expatriate Society”, in Helen F. Siu (ed), Merchants Daughters: Women, Commerce and Regional Culture in South China, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.133. 16. CO 129, vol.26, no.74, pp.50–51, Bonham to Grey, Enclosing Ordinance no.2 of 1848, to Amend no.13 of 1845 To Establish A Ghaut Serang, 15 September 1848. 17. Tarrant (1848), op.cit., p.41. 18. For a comprehensive review see Leon Fink (2011), Sweatshops at Sea: Merchant Seamen in the World's First Globalized Industry, From 1812 to the Present, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. 19. An example of exactly this is the arrival of the Swedish seafarer Olson brothers in Hong Kong in the mid to late 1860s, the first to arrive entering the hospitality business and eventually becoming a prosperous innkeeper and businessman. On the Olson brothers I am indebted to my long time “virtual” friend Sean Olson, John Olson’s great grandson, whose website with the Olson story is a treasure trove (http://www.thehongkonglegacy.com/Home. html) accessed 7 April 2014. See also Patricia Lim’s fascinating and important (2011), Forgotten Souls: a Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.179–181 an 1854 quotation from the Friend of China, “notwithstanding the attempts of the Government to improve the seamen, shipping and boarding house business…impudent loafers from shore (were) going off to vessels directly they arrive and persuading men to desert.” 20. I owe this knowledge to M. Christian Ramage, lately of the Consulate-General of France to Hong Kong and Macao. See also Patricia Lim (2011), op.cit., p.255 for the desertion of British army personnel to American whalers. 21. Desertion of Seamen Ordinance, no.4, 17 December 1850. 22. An Ordinance for the Prevention of Desertion, and Better Regulation of Merchant Seamen in this Colony, or the Desertion of Seamen Ordinance, no.6, 6 November 1852. 23. It being understood, that continental European sailors were expected to be able to read English or either Spanish or Portuguese. If they couldn’t, that was their fault. 24. Tarrant (1848), op.cit., pp.40–41, William Tarrant (1850), The Hong Kong Almanack and Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1850, Hong Kong: Noronha’s Office, pp.20–21.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 469

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

470

Strong

to

Save

25. Britannia is the personification of Britain itself and at this period, when in 1847 Queen Victoria had commissioned William Dyce to paint a fresco for Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, “Neptune Resigning to Britannia the Empire of the Sea”, in which Neptune symbolically passes his trident to Britannia, the maritime link became dominant. Britain’s Crown and Anchor, originating in the 18th century, was a popular gambling game for sailors akin to the Fujianese game of Hoo Hey How (魚蝦蟹, Fish-Prawn-Crab). King William IV (1765–1837) who reigned from 1830–1837 was known as the Sailor King from his service in the Royal Navy, 1778–1790 and his brief but important involvement with naval administration as Lord High Admiral, 1827–1828. Neptune was the Roman god of the sea (Greek Poseidon). HEICS Nemesis was the revolutionary iron paddle steamer that played a key role in the First Opium War. 26. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.71, 27 January 1855. 27. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.1, 1 January 1856, p.3. 28. It is generally dated 10 May 1857–20 June 1858. 29. Ibid. p.5. No source is given for the data, but see Philippa Levine (2003), Prostitution, Race and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire, New York: Routledge, p.38 for broad corroboration. 30. Kwong Chi-man, ibid. and Hong Kong Museum of Medical Sciences Society (2006), Plague, SARS, and the Story of Medicine in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.88. 31. Venereal Diseases Ordinance, no.12, 24 November 1857. The ordinance made its first showing in 1856 as the coyly titled An Ordinance for the Better Repression of Certain Diseases, Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.76, 13 December 1856, p.3. This first version made no mention of seamen’s boarding houses. 32. The Lock Hospital had been established by the ordinance to sequester and treat those infected by any venereal disease. Initially it was in rented accommodation — no one is sure where — until in 1858 the purpose built hospital opened between Sai Ying Pun and Tai Ping Shan. 33. Statements of Revenue and Expenditure of Hong Kong for the Year 1854…1915. These are not always reliable since occasionally they fail to differentiate between estimated and actual annual revenue and as of the mid 1890s are distinctly muddled where boarding house revenues are concerned. After 1915 no detailed breakdown of revenue sources is given in the annual statements.

Chapter 3

A Snug Harbour in West Point

1. A “snug harbour” is a sheltered and secure resting place for ship and, by derivation, for a needy or retired sailor. The maritime usage of “snug” goes back to the 16th century and was current in maritime language thereafter — James Cook, for example, often refers to a newly found anchorage as a “snug harbour” (e.g. Friendly Cove in Nootka Sound), and named one part of Prince

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 470

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

471

William Sound in Alaska, Snug Corner Cove. One of the oldest sailors’ homes in the world is the Sailors’ Snug Harbor of New York, founded thanks to a bequest of Captain Richard Randall in 1833. 2. See (1850), The Friend, Honolulu, loc.cit. 3. John M. Carroll (2005), Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press), pp.41–42, citing Robert Montgomery Martin (Hong Kong’s then colonial treasurer), Robert Fortune (the man who carried the tea plant from China to India), Oswald Tiffany, the economist, Rev. George Smith, Rev. Karl Gutzlaff, and J. M. Tronson. 4. Historical and Statistical Abstract of the Colony of Hong Kong (1911), Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., Government Printers, p.2. 5. E.J. Eitel (1895), Europe in China, the History of Hong Kong from the Beginning to the Year 1882, London: Luzac/Hong Kong: Kelly & Walsh, p.192. 6. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.15. 7. Historical and Statistical Abstract, op.cit., p.4. 8. The Victoria Hospital was established to take care of foreign seamen at 1, 2, and 3 Queen’s Road at around the same time (c.1843) as the Seamen’s Hospital, which is the cause of the confusion. It was privately owned and run by two British doctors, James Satchell and Richard Jones but seems to have lasted only a few years. Eitel (1895) op.cit., p.191 is memorably confused and confusing about this, turning the Victoria Hospital into the Seamen’s Hospital. 9. (2006), Hong Kong Museum of Medical Sciences Society, op.cit. p.84. 10. The ball had been set rolling by a promise of Sp$12,000 by Mr Heerjeebhoy Rustomjee in November 1841, though it appears he never paid up and the $6,000 raised by public subscription then had to be topped by David Jardine — see Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China and Australasia, vol. XXXVI, New Series, September–December 1841, London: WH Allen, 1841, November 1841, p.289. 11. Friend of China, Supplement, 17 August 1843. 12. Ibid., 24 August 1843. 13. Maggie Keswick (ed) (2008), The Thistle and the Jade: A Celebration of 175 Years of Jardine Matheson, rev. ed., London: Frances Lincoln Ltd, pp.217, 302. 14. Frank Walsh (1997), A History of Hong Kong, rev. ed., London: HarperCollins, ch.5; and J.Y. Wong (1998), Deadly Dreams, Opium, Imperialism and the Arrow War (1856–1860) in China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch.11; T.N. Chiu (1973), The Port of Hong Kong: A Survey of its Development, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.28–29. 15. Chinese Passenger Ships Ordinance, no.6 of 1859, An Ordinance for providing Hospital Accommodation on board Chinese Passenger Ships, and

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 471

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

472

Strong

to

Save

for the Medical Inspection of the Passengers and Crews about to proceed to Sea in such Ships, accessed at Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, http:// oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/items/show/139 on 2 November 2013. 16. T.N. Chiu (1973), op.cit., ch.2 for a general overview. See also B. Boxer (1961), Ocean Shipping in the Evolution of Hong Kong, Chicago: Dept. of Geography, University of Chicago, Research Paper no.72, p.14 passim for the growth of Hong Kong’s entrepôt trade. See for the importance of passenger traffic Elizabeth Sinn’s authoritative Pacific Crossing: California Gold, Chinese Migration, and the Making of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013, ch.2, especially pp.73–80. 17. A good conspectus is given in Leon Fink (2011), op.cit., chs.1–3 and C.H. Dixon (1981), “Seamen and the Law: an Examination of the Impact of Legislation on the British Merchant Seaman's Lot, 1588–1918”, http:// discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1317735/1/282305.pdf, accessed on 25 October 2013. 18. The China Mail, 31 January 1861, p.1. Given that several members at this meeting were members of the first General Committee of the HKGCC, one can conjecture that the HKGCC was as influential a party to the founding of the Sailors’ Home as was the church (see http://150.chamber.org.hk/eng/ index.html#abt_born, accessed on 4 November 2013). 19. Coming up with accurate estimates that are less massive ballpark numbers than this is a notoriously difficult exercise, see http://www.measuringworth. com/uscompare/relativevalue.php, accessed on 2 November 2013. 20. Inglis was a sick man at this point. 21. The Oriental Bank Corporation, founded in Bombay in 1842 as the Bank of Western India had been restructured and given its new name in 1845 when the headquarters moved to London. In the 1860s it was the dominant bank in India and China. It finally failed in 1892 — see John McGuire (2004), “The Rise and Fall of the Oriental Bank in the Nineteenth Century: A Product of the Transformations that Occurred in the World Economy or the Result of its Own Mismanagement”, paper delivered at the Asian Studies Association of Australia Biennial Conference and accessed at http://coombs.anu.edu.au/ SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/McGuire-J-ASAA2004.pdf, on 7 November 2013. 22. A.D. Blue (1973), “Early Steamships in China”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.13, pp.45–54. For the building of Hong Kong’s first steamship, the Queen, by Capt John Lamont at his East Point yard see George Henry Preble (1962), (Boleslaw Szczesniak (ed.)), The Opening of Japan, A Diary of Discovery in the Far East, 1853–1856, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp.292–316, who gives Capt. Charles Wollett Bowra as the owner. 23. China Mail, 7 February. No one is sure of the exact location of the first Civil Hospital in its purchased, two storey bungalow — see Hong Kong Museum of Medical Sciences Society, Taipingshan Medical Heritage Trail, Hong Kong: HKMMSS, 2011. The hospital was destroyed in the great typhoon of 1874, and

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 472

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

473

although the drama and damage are graphically described in the report from the surveyor general, no address is given, so this cannot be tallied against the building-by-building enumeration by the captain superintendent of police, W.M. Deane, in the same document — see Government Notification No.161, 14 October 1874, The Hong Kong Government Gazette, 17 October 1874, pp.571–581. Interestingly, the new site mentioned by Mr Thomsett as suitable for a Seamen’s Hospital was one that would appear to be close to that chosen for the new British Military Hospital of 1907, the buildings of which still stand. 24. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.66, 22 June 1861, p.186, a notification of a sale of land by public auction in Syingpoon (sic — today Sai Ying Pun), has a footnote that reads, “Lots 26, 27 and 28 have been reserved for a Sailors’ Home, and will not be offered for sale.” Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.402 affirms that the sites were formally granted by government on 5 July 1861. 25. The China Mail, 1 October 1868, p.2. 26. Arnold Wright & H.A. Cartwright (eds) (1908), Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and Other Treaty Ports of China, Their History, Peoples, Commerce, Industries and Resources, London: Lloyd’s Greater Britain London Publishing Co. Ltd., p.189. They list the main donors as “Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co.; Gibb, Livingston & Co.; Dent & Co.; Russell & Co.; Fletcher & Co.; Gilman & Co.; Augustine Heard & Co.; The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company; Messrs. John Burd & Co.; Holliday, Wise & Co.; David Sassoon & Co.; Smith, Kennedy & Co.; Birley & Co., and others.” Most of these companies were significantly involved in the opium trade, the profits of which thus underwrote the building of the Sailors’ Home. 27. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.402. 28. Ibid. 29. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 17 December 1874, p.576 for the damage to the Civil Hospital. 30. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.37, vol.10, 12 September 1863, Notification no.96. 31. To add confusion to muddle, Historical and Statistical Abstract of the Colony of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., Government Printer, 1911, p.8 reads for 1863, inter alia, “Sailors’ Home at West Point opened (31 January)”. This repeats a date given in Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.402 which gets the date wrong but other facts right. 32. Eitel, ibid. 33. The China Mail, 19 January 1865, p.2. 34. There is no clarity at all in the record as to how the seed money for the Home was disbursed or what proportions were spent on the Home and what, if any, was retained for an endowment to help operations and to fund future development.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 473

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

474

Strong

to

Save

35. Identifying a lone, lower deck rating or petty officer in the 1860s Royal Navy in Hong Kong is close to impossible, though one notes a Joseph Dennison, boatswain 1st class (promoted to that rank on 31 December 1864), who would have been a perfect choice for the job — see http://freepages.genealogy. rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pbtyc/Nbd/bosuns/Index.html, accessed on 5 November 2013. 36. “The removal of the shipping and discharging branch of this Department to the ‘Sailors’ Home’ is found a great convenience to Shipmasters and Seamen, and of course assists materially in the support of that very excellent Institution. By the change, Masters and Seamen are more readily brought into contact, they each enjoy better freedom of choice; the former escape the great nuisance of being harassed by Boarding house keepers, the latter claim and receive the willing assistance and advice of the able Superintendent of the ‘Home’”. The Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.10, vol.XIII, 9 March 1867, p.74. 37. The China Mail, 15 August 1866, p.2. 38. The China Mail, 1 October 1868. 39. The Hong Kong ordinances of 1845 and 1849 (no.7 of 1845 and no.4 of 1849) imposed a fairly high property or income standard for jurors — initially an annual income of $1000, reduced in 1849 to $500. Even that was too high and an 1851 amendment (no.4 of 1851) simply required “every male person between the ages of twenty-one and sixty years, being of sound mind, and not afflicted with deafness, blindness, or other infirmity, who shall be a good and sufficient person resident within the said Colony, shall be qualified and liable to serve as a juror therein,” exempting “any person ignorant of the English language.” 40. They can be found at either government records online (http://hkgro.lib.hku. hk/) or the excellently managed Gwulo website (http://gwulo.com/node/6706), which is trying to transcribe the existing pages into a form that is internet searchable, but has so far only managed, through volunteer labour, to get to the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. 41. In 1862 William Punchard had been master of the emigrant ship Abyssinian, 1,072 tons, plying between Britain and Australia. There were two Punchard master mariners in Hong Kong in the late 19th century. In 1879 a “Captain E Punchard, commander of coast steamers” died and was buried in Happy Valley, though whether they were related is not known — see Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.566. 42. The world of working class Europeans in Hong Kong in this period is well reviewed in the late James Lethbridge’s essay, “Condition of the European Working Class in Nineteenth Century Hong Kong”, in H.J. Lethbridge (1978), Hong Kong: Stability and Change, a collection of essays, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, ch.VIII, pp.189–213. 43. Other than the 1871 and 1872 entries in the Jury Lists Richard Cruce has left no trace, appearing neither in the 1868 nor 1873 lists.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 474

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

475

44. An Alexander McDonald Bleecker (1835–82) appears in the family tree at http://webpages.charter.net/bleecker/Family/Jan.Jansen.Bleecker.doc, (accessed on 6 December 2013) and is noted as having died in Victoria, Hong Kong. 45. The Hong Kong Government Gazette, 1 April (sic), 1871, Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, no.3 of 1871, Thursday 30 March 1871, p.148. 46. The China Mail, 21 and 22 March, 1873, p.2 in both editions. I am indebted to Christopher Munn for drawing this to my attention. 47. Seven years later Capt Robert Scott was to be suspended for three months for his part in the total loss by grounding of the Travancore, see the Board of Trade enquiry report at http://www.plimsoll.org/images/14400_tcm4-161603. pdf, accessed on 27 November 2013. This was widely reported in the contemporary Hong Kong press. 48. The Straits Times and Overland Journal, 10 April 1873, p.10. 49. For an excellent, fast-paced account of this crisis see Geoffrey Elliott (2006), The Mystery of Overend & Gurney: A Financial Scandal in Victorian London. London: Methuen. 50. Keswick (2008), p.45. 51. Hong Kong Government Gazette, vol.XII, no.52, 22 December 1866. 52. The harbour master’s annual reports for 1874, 1875, 1876 and 1878, for example, reveal that in Hong Kong by those years 70–80% of British and foreign ships were steamers. If one included the junk trade, of all vessels calling junks were the most numerous at around 50%, then came steamers at around 40% with western sail far astern at around 10%. See Hong Kong Government Gazette, 27 March 1875, pp.120–139; 10 March 1876, pp.124– 138; 17 March 1877, pp.149–165; 20 April 1878, pp.149–166. 53. For the French Consul’s case see Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.484. 54. Historical and Statistical Abstract (1911), op.cit., pp.9 and 13. 55. Supplement to the Hong Kong Government Gazette, 14 March 1885, Government Notification No.116. For a helpful discussion of the world of the 19th century destitute in Hong Kong see H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit. pp.189–213 and for seamen pp.195–197. 56. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 16 April 1887, vol.XXXIII, no.17, CSO 433 or 1887, pp.31–32. 57. Hong Kong Surveyor General’s Department, Report for the Year 1891, no.2 of 1892, pp.113–114, ss.158–164. 58. White died in February 1896 and is buried in the Hong Kong cemetery — see http://gwulo.com/node/8739, accessed on 2 December 2013. 59. Moir died in Grantown-on-Spey in 1920, see the brief obituary in the Straits Times, 6 May 1920.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 475

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

476

Strong

to

Save

60. In September 1919 a Captain A.A.H. Milroy and his wife are listed as passengers on the ss Taiyuan from Hong Kong arriving in Sydney. 61. The 1864 built, 1199GRT Thales was ordered as the US Civil War blockade runner Kentucky from Archibald Denny of Dumbarton but laid up after launch in 1864. In 1865 she was registered as Thales. Nothing is known until she was bought in 1875 by the general secretary of the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Co., David Gillies. He sold it in 1881 to Douglas Lapraik’s son and successor John S. Lapraik. It was transferred to the Douglas Steamship Co. when that was formed in 1883. It was sold in 1904 to E. Eichwede of Qingdao, transferred to the German flag and renamed Veteran. In the same year it was seized by a Japanese warship. It was sold in 1905 to Shimatani K.K. of Tokyo and renamed Yaura Maru, sold again in 1906 and renamed Fushimi Maru. It was sold again in 1907 and in 1909 sold to Sai Zinso of Gensan in Korea and renamed Sun Chang Ho. Following the Japanese occupation in 1912 it was renamed Sun Chang Maru. In 1913 it was sold again and renamed Fushimi Maru. It was bought by Amagasaki Kisenbu Gomei Kaisha in 1930, converted to oil engine in 1935 and renamed Husimi Maru in 1938. Ending an extraordinary, 81-year career, it was sunk two miles NW of Mutsure Sima Light in 1945. 62. See their golden wedding notice in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 September 1943. 63. Hong Kong Telegraph, 28 July 1905, in an editorial on the new Seamen’s Institute in Wan Chai we read that the Sailors’ Home is, “a boarding house pure and simple, and does not take in what we may describe as transient guests.” 64. Captain Milroy’s 227 page Milroy's Guide Book to the Board of Trade Examinations of Masters and Mates for Certificates of Competency, was privately published in 1903. We can assume this reflects the Home’s involvement in maritime education. 65. Initially the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Ordinance no.4 of 1844) was specifically enacted to restrain masters of merchant vessels belonging to Her Majesty's subjects from leaving seamen and others in a destitute state in the Colony of Hong Kong, and from refusing to convey distressed seamen from thence to England, and also to provide for the good conduct of seamen within the colony. Formal provision for actual relief of distressed seamen followed on as an obligation from the 1854 Merchant Shipping Act, and was provided for as a charge on public revenue by the Distressed British Seamen Ordinance (no.5 of 1869). 66. Martin Stopford (1997), Maritime Economics, 2nd ed., London: Routledge, p.45. 67. These numbers are a total of all officers of ships entering the port in a single year and represent an average of around 8 per ship. What this figure does not disclose is repeat visits, which as far as China Coast shipping was concerned were numerous, any one ship making anything between a dozen visits each year and the hundred or more port calls of the regular Canton and Macao ferries. The actual number of individual officers visiting Hong Kong in a year

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 476

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

477

was therefore probably one half to two thirds the harbour master’s statistic, or perhaps 40 to 60 officers a week most of whom would have been China Coast based and not in need of accommodation. 68. See the story of the Kowloon Bowling Green Club’s farewell gift presentation, Hong Kong Telegraph, 22 August 1919, p.4. 69. Hong Kong Daily Press, 12 August 1919, p.2 with a story of retirement presents to Captain and Mrs Milroy by the harbour master at the Harbour Office in Hong Kong; see also Singapore Free Press, 29 September 1919. 70. See http://www.empressofasia.com/npd_sept17_1925.htm, accessed on 5 December 2013. 71. The correct spelling is Baylis. 72. It is interesting contrasting the two draft versions of the bill. The first, presented on 13 January 1925, makes the harbour master the head of the trustees and has three other trustees nominated by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. The second version, that appeared on 16 April, specifies that along with the harbour master the other permanent trustee should be the head of Jardine, Matheson & Co. Someone had evidently done some homework in the interim. 73. CO 129/517/13, p.4 where the governor wrote “the strike and boycott of 1925 meant the Trustees were requested in September, 1925, to postpone the scheme for building the new Home at Kowloon…” and on p.7 David Beith of Jardine Matheson & Co, as chairman of the Sailors’ Home Committee, referred to “the financial collapse which took place in the latter half of the year 1925…” 74. See Chan Lau Kit-ching (1990), op.cit., p.195–196 and Ming K Chan, “Hong Kong in Sino-British Conflict: Mass Mobilization and the Crisis of Legitimacy, 1912–1926”, ch.3, esp. pp.45–54 in Ming K Chan (ed), with John D Young (1994), Precarious Balance: Hong Kong Between China and Britain, 1842– 1992, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 75. He was called Deen and used a Japanese dagger on himself on 6 January 1892, Hong Kong Telegraph of that date. 76. Excerpt from the report, Section VII — Public Works, p.13 accessed at http:// sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkgro/view/a1930/724.pdf. In Appendix F to the 1930 Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Public Works, the Return on all Public Works, Civil Roads, Canals, Bridges, Buildings &c notes that these alterations are entered as costing $180,000, see http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkgro/view/ b1930/51930012.pdf, both sites accessed on 24 January 2014. 77. Personal communication to Rev. Stephen Miller from Asst. Commissioner of Police Richard Morgan.

Chapter 4 A Seamen’s Church 1. G.B. Endacott & D.E. She (1949), The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong. A Hundred Years of Church History 1849–1949, Hong Kong: Kelly & Walsh, p.141.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 477

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

478

Strong

to

Save

2. “Mat-shed” — a temporary structure made of a fir and bamboo framework covered with woven matting. The older English term was “bankshall” with rival etymologies from either Malay or, perhaps more probably, Sanskrit, see H. Yule & A.C. Burnell (1996), p.61. Older style examples were in use in Hong Kong well into the 1970s (and with sheet galvanized steel instead of matting still are used) for temporary Chinese opera venues at major festivals. The generic Chinese would be 涼棚 (liángpéng — Cantonese leung pang), though for opera structures 戲棚 (xìpéng — Cantonese hei pang) is used. 3. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., pp.15–16. The Bellisle was built in 1819 as a 74 gun, Repulse class, 3rd rate and converted first to a hospital ship (1840) and then to a troopship in 1841, serving in that role in the First Opium War and returning to Britain by 1846 (see http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/18-1900/ B/00519.html, accessed on 7 November 2013). Following the 1881 Childers Reforms of the British Army, the 98th was amalgamated with the 64th and became the Prince of Wales (North Staffordshire) Regiment, today merged into the Mercian Regiment (see http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/ Devices_and_Badges.pdf, accessed on 7 November 2013). 4. Board of Managers of the Baptist General Convention (1845), The Baptist Missionary Magazine, Boston: John Putnam, vol. XXV, no.11, November 1845, p.199; Boards of Foreign and Domestic Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention (1846), The Southern Baptist Missionary Journal, Richmond: HK Ellison, vol.1, p.10. 5. E.J. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.190. 6. Ibid. 7. E.J. Eitel (1895), p.246. Interestingly the original intention had been to build a Union Church on the site of where St John’s Cathedral was later built, but the government objected to this, as it did to the plan for the building to be multidenominational, and so Anglicans who did not attend the Union Chapel had to make do with the “Mat-shed Church” until St John’s Cathedral was completed, ibid. p.190. 8. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.467. 9. Ibid., (1871) “Ecclesiastical Return”, Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Return of the Number of Churches, Livings, etc.”, p.119. 10. Carl T. Smith (2005), (intro C. Munn), Chinese Christians: Elites, Middlemen and the Church in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.5. Stringer left in 1869 and was replaced by Rev. Charles Warren. 11. G.B. Endacott & D.E. She (1949), op.cit., p.141. 12. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.467. One cannot help but suspect that the land the Sailors’ Home had to spare for St Peter’s Church was the land that had been intended in the original plans for the accommodation of Asiatic seafarers. It would very probably have been a separate building, but could not be built because of the paucity of funds. 13. It is almost certainly not the Church Missionary Society, since the salience of that organization in the Anglican Church in 19th century Hong Kong is

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 478

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

479

such that its involvement would not have been ambiguous. Rev. Stephen Miller has suggested that the most probable candidate is the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (as of 1965 the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and today “Us”), which began missionary work in China in 1863. 14. Endacott & She (1949), ibid. 15. See ch.2, fn.16 above. Canon Beach was a major advocate of reform to army chaplaincies in 1885, see Michael Snape (2007), The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, 1796–1953: Clergy Under Fire, London: Boydell & Brewer, p.132. 16. It would appear to be the case that until the late 1880s or possibly later British army chaplains were either member of the Chaplaincy Department, from whose numbers regimental chaplains were drawn, or they were members of a more irregular body, the officiating clergymen and garrison chaplains, especially in India and the Far East, see Snape (2007), op.cit., ch.3. Hong Kong did not get an official, Army Chaplain’s Department garrison chaplain until 1904, when the Rev. Gustavus Searle — a chaplain 4th class with only two years service with the colours — was appointed, see (1904), “Ecclesiastical Return”, Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Return of the Number of Churches, Livings, etc.”, p.2. 17. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.101. 18. St Nicholas of Myra (he of Santa Claus) is the more commonly chosen, as St Andrew the Apostle is for fishermen. 19. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.467 for the information about the cathedral bell. 20. The Margesson family whose brother, H.D. Margesson, had been the opium trading Lindsay & Co.’s manager in Canton in 1859, who had drowned in a shipwreck in Japan in 1869, gave $300 in their brother’s memory, Endacott & She (1949), ibid. 21. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.101 states 200 seats and gives us the number reserved for seamen. In fact St Peter’s capacity went through some interesting changes over the years. According to the “Ecclesiastical Return” for 1873 its nominal capacity was 180. This remained the case until 1878 when it is reduced to 172, returning to 180 again in 1880, then dropping to 160 in 1881, rising to “about 200” in 1882. It then dropped back to “about 150” until 1896 when it leapt to 205 where it stayed until rising to 210 in 1911. That remained the nominal capacity until 1923. In 1924 the number was reduced to 184, dropping to 180 in 1929 and 160 in 1931. In 1933 St Peter’s stopped being used as a church. 22. (1872), “Ecclesiastical Return”, Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Return of the Number of Churches, Livings, etc.”, p.129. This shift may be a parallel to the end of St Peter’s active life when it was turned into a Chapel of Ease of St John’s Cathedral. It may thus be that in this first year or so St Peter’s was treated as a chapel of the cathedral served by the clergy of the mother church. 23. Endacott & She (1949), p.142.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 479

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

480

Strong

to

Save

24. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.101. 25. Endacott & She (1946), p.142. 26. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.15 makes the point that St John’s Cathedral was in part founded as a garrison church. 27. Crockford’s Clerical Directory, which lists the names and brief biographical details of all Anglican clergymen who are willing to submit their details (probably the vast majority) was first published in 1858. It is now in its 103rd edition. 28. The standard history of army chaplains is Michael Snape (2007), op.cit., and for the Royal Navy, Gordon Taylor (1978), The Sea Chaplains: a History of the Chaplains of the Royal Navy, Oxford: Illustrated Press. A more general overview of military chaplaincy can be found in Doris L Bergen (ed) (2004), The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the First to the Twenty-First Century, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. None of them has much to say about chaplains, who were not part of the established system. 29. (1874), “Ecclesiastical Return”, Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Return of the Number of Churches, Livings, etc.”, p.128. 30. In British Army thinking Hong Kong did not initially seem to have counted as “one of the larger foreign stations”, and so was not entitled to a full army chaplaincy, whether from the Army Chaplains Department or as a garrison chaplain. A House of Commons debate in 1900 was told by Mr George Wyndham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Member for Dover, “Commissioned chaplains are, as a rule, sent only to the larger foreign stations. There is an acting chaplain at Hong Kong who devotes his whole time to the troops. He is at present, however, on leave, and his duties are being discharged by the local clergy.” See House of Commons Debate, 19 July 1900, vol.86, c462, at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ commons/1900/jul/19/army-chaplain-at-hong-kong, accessed on 8 November 2013. As noted in fn.17 above, in 1904 Hong Kong was finally assigned a full time Army chaplain from the Army Chaplains’ Department. 31. Endacott & She (1949), pp.49–54 and Wolfendale (2013), pp.81–82. 32. (1877), “Ecclesiastical Return”, Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Return of the Number of Churches, Livings, etc.”, p.132. Interestingly in this year we find the first mention of a Roman Catholic Chaplaincy to Troops. A Presbyterian Chaplaincy to Troops had first appeared in the 1874 Return. 33. I have been able to learn nothing of this Mariners’ Chapel. No mention is made of it in Kverndal (1985), op.cit., Birkenhead seems to have had a most anomalous set of ecclesiastical arrangements, comprising as it did until the 1840s seven “extra-parochial chapelries”, one of which was St Mary’s — see http://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Birkenhead,_Cheshire, accessed on 3 December 2013. There is a guide to these curious arrangements at http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_parishes_of_Cheshire. The standard authority is FI Dunn (1987), The Ancient Parishes, Townships and Chapelries of Cheshire, Chester: Cheshire Record Office and Cheshire Diocesan Record Office.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 480

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

481

34. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.566 records him and his death as “Reverend C.G. Booth, Military Chaplain, 14 January 1882”. The “Ecclesiastical Return” gets the initials of his given names in the wrong order. For the inscription — appallingly conserved in a recent botched exercise, see http://www.findagrave.com/ cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=23592231&PIpi=8808330, accessed on 16 December 2013. 35. For the Freemasonry link — Booth was “chaplain to several lodges” see Patricia Lim (2011), op.cit., p.488. 36. J.B. Ost’s wife, who was niece to Bishop Burdon, ran an orphanage in West Point, see Carl T. Smith (2010), “Abandoned into Prosperity: Women on the Fringe of Expatriate Society”, in Helen F. Siu (ed), Merchants Daughters: Women, Commerce and Regional Culture in South China, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.140. Both J.B. Ost and John Piper belonged to the Church Missionary Society. After Hong Kong John Piper went to Japan and J.B. Ost to Central China, D. MacGillivray (1907), A Century of Protestant Missions in China (1807–1907), Shanghai: American Tract Society, p.39. For Mrs Ost’s relationship see Endacott & She (1949), op.cit., p.101. 37. (1880), “Ecclesiastical Return”, Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Return of the Number of Churches, Livings, etc.”, pp.02, 1881, p.02, 1882, p.02, 1883, p.02. 38. For the Cambridge alumni see http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ search-130418.pl?sur=Lee&suro=w&fir=Henry+Wilson&firo=c&cit=&cito=c &c=all&tex=&sye=&eye=&col=all&maxcount=50, accessed on 2 December 2013. 39. See Jason Wordie (2002), Streets: Exploring Kowloon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.17, 30 & 52; Gillis Heller & Andrew Yanne (2009), Signs of a Colonial Era, Hong Kong: Hong University Press; and AG Harfield (1990), British and Indian Armies on the China Coast 1785–1985, London: A. and J. Partnership. 40. See the short history of the present site of the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence at http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/ce/Museum/Coastal/en/section1-3.php, accessed on 8 November 2013. 41. A point of which one must always remind oneself in this story is that until the late 20th century, the Chinese side of maritime Hong Kong is conspicuous by its absence in most narratives although, as we know from the harbour master’s reports, during the last half of the 19th century it comprised 40–50% of the vessels using the harbour, around 80% of the seafarers and at least 40% of the tonnage handled. So although the West Point area was in decline as a locus of western shipping business, nothing of the sort was true of Chinese port life. Towards the Chinese area of Taipingshan, the waterfront had shipyards run by Tsang Fai (曾發), Pang Ar Wah (彭亞華, later sold to Li Sing (李陞)) and by the family of Kwok A Cheong (郭亞祥), ex-pilot of HMS Nemesis, compradore of the P&O Steam Navigation Co. and, by the time of his death in 1880, the third largest rate payer in Hong Kong and owner of a fleet of steam ships. For Kwok Acheong, see May Holdsworth & Christopher

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 481

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

482

Strong

to

Save

Munn (2012), A Dictionary of Hong Kong Biography, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.233–234. For the Chinese yard owners, see Ir Ma KoonYiu (馬冠堯), “History of Dockyards in Hong Kong and the City development”, a presentation given on 27 April 2013 at the Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre and kindly translated for me by my onetime colleague, Ms Phoebe Tong Lai-yi. 42. In time this became Diocesan Boys’ School that, under the headmastership of ex-Missions to Seamen Hong Kong chaplain Rev. W.T. Featherstone, moved to Kowloon in 1926. When St Peter’s was deconsecrated in 1933, the new Christ Church in Kowloon acquired the altar and font. 43. Endacott & She (1949), p.142.

Chapter 5 Uneasy Berth and the Demon Drink 1. See in general Brian Harrison (1971), Drink & the Victorians, The Temperance Question in England 1815–1872, London: Faber and Faber; and Lilian L. Shiman (1986), Crusade Against Drink in Victorian England, New York: St Martin’s Press. 2. Jack S. Blocker, David M. Fahey & Ian R. Tyrrell (2003), Alcohol and Temperance in Modern Society: a Global Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara CA: ABC–CLIO, pp.155–156. Fascinatingly the “moderate” stance of the Church of England Temperance Society advocated total abstinence for the working class and “reform” for the “better-class”! 3. For maritime missions and the perennial issue of temperance, see Kverndal (1985), op.cit., part V, passim. 4. For a brief and helpful look at seafarers, drunkenness, and temperance in late 19th century Hong Kong, see H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit., pp.200–208. 5. The China Mail, 15 March 1888, p.3. 6. Hong Kong Government Gazette, XVII, no.10, 11 March 1871, no.43: “Report of the harbor (sic) master”, with returns annexed for the year 1870; Supplement to the Hong Kong Government Gazette, 5 June 1886, Notification 215, no.41, “Report of the Acting Harbour Master for the year 1885”. 7. Louis Ha (2005), “The Sunday Rest Issue in 19th Century Hong Kong”, in Lee Pui-tak (ed.), Colonial Hong Kong and Modern China: Interaction and Reintegration, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.57–68. I am indebted to Father Ha for the substance of what follows. Father Ha argues that this issue dates from 1844 and a letter to The Friend of China, Hong Kong’s first locally established newspaper, beginning publication on 17 March 1842 — see Historical and Statistical Abstract (1911), op.cit., p.1 and Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.196. 8. The topic of the need for such a day of rest in Hong Kong, evidently nationally syndicated, appeared in the Dundee Advertiser on 21 July 1890, p.7. Praise for its instantiation appeared a year later in, for example, the Nottingham

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 482

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

483

Evening Post of 21 October 1891, p.2 — evidently another nationally syndicated story. 9. With temperance and Sunday cargo working campaigns in addition to ship visiting and other mission duties, Gurney Goldsmith’s workload was considerable, and it is not surprising that in 1888, we find reference for the first time to a chaplain’s assistant, a Mr Makeham, who started as a part time reader in 1888 and went full time in 1889, though when he departed is unknown. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, document dated 20 October 1965 comprising a brief history of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong possibly by H Stangs. Mr Makeham’s name does not appear in any jury list 1887–1890. 10. Hong Kong Daily Press, 10 March 1890. 11. That drunkenness was a problem in Hong Kong at this time is shown by the level of government concern exhibited. For example a commission was established to investigate the general problem and reported in 1898 that there were 23 licensed public houses and bars and 47 stores licensed to sell alcohol on Hong Kong Island alone. However the real problem was the firewater sold at Samshu Corner (on Upper Lascar Row), which was beyond the reach of the licensing system and that, along with whisky of dubious provenance, could be delivered to bored sailors (and others) at their place of work or lodgings. Hong Kong Sessional Papers, 1898, no.1, Report of the Commission on Alcoholic Liquors. The problem for people like Alexander Moir is that respectable bars got tarred with the general brush of alcohol as an inevitable path to drunken delinquency. 12. Hong Kong Daily Press, 1 January 1891. 13. Commander Rumsey was a member of St John’s Church Body in 1897 and contributed to the new Sanctuary Fund in 1899 — see Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.88 & 90. Captain Thomsett had been party to a memorable spat in the annals of St John’s Cathedral when in 1865 seating in the cathedral was “adjusted” following a complaint by the Admiral C-in-C of the China Station and Capt Thomsett felt that his proper status was being impugned. See Endacott & She (1949), op.cit., pp.35–37 and Wolfendale (2013) op.cit., p.48–49. 14. A 4-oared gig, the smallest ship’s boat and usually the captain’s personal craft when in harbour, was 17 ft (5.2 m) to 25 ft (7.62 m) long, had four oarsmen and if over 20 ft (6.1 m) a coxswain. They carried a single passenger who, in the smaller variants, was also the coxswain. 15. The Bible, Gospel of St Luke, 1.76–79, “76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” This is from the Song of Zechariah, or Benedictus, part of the Anglican service of Matins. Zechariah was the father of St John the Baptist, the saint who, “crying in the

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 483

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

484

Strong

to

Save

wilderness (made) straight the way of the Lord”, a double resonance for a missionary. From the Lloyd’s Registers, “Dayspring” was an unusual ship’s name, but two missionary vessels with the name preceded Hong Kong’s Dayspring: the launch of the 1857 Niger Expedition, part paid for by the Church Missionary Society and the series of three Daysprings, 1865–1898, serving the New Zealand Presbyterian Missions in the New Hebrides. 16. The service sheet is in an unmarked envelope in what is presently identified in the Hull History Centre’s Mission to Seafarer’s archive as U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. 17. An early practice in the maritime mission field had been to take improving reading material out to ships so that sailors would have something to read when off watch. This still forms an important part of mission activity. 18. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.457 and T.N. Chiu (1973), op.cit., ch.2. 19. I am indebted here to the efforts of Jeremy Lowe of Wellington, NZ, whose careful statistical work has culled indicative, though as he cautions by no means definitive, data from Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, the post 1886 Lloyd’s Universal Register and Bureau Veritas’ Répertoire Générale, see http:// homepages.ihug.co.nz/~j_lowe/Maritime2.htm, accessed on 10 August 2012. Lowe’s findings are in general endorsed by work by Martin Stopford, based on Clarkson Research Services data, see “The Great Shipping Cycle — End of the Beginning or Beginning of the End?” presentation to the 2nd Cyprus Economic Forum, 31 January 2011, slide 3, “Shipping Cycles 1741–2010”. Stopford identifies the dominance of steam occurring as early as the 1870s. 20. Hong Kong: The Harbour Master’s Report for 1890, Presented to the Legislative Council, by command of His Excellency the Governor, 30 April 1891, p.196. It is important always to bear in mind that because of multiple entries by coasting vessels and ferries, the number of actual ships calling was far less than the number of entries recorded.

Chapter 6

Parting Brass Rags

1. “To part brass rags” is a Royal Naval phrase referring to two shipmates, who normally share cleaning duties when working part of ship, fall out and split up, finding new partners and, in the process splitting their stock of cleaning equipment and so, parting the rags they share to clean brass work. 2. There is some uncertainty over the name of this establishment. “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House would appear to be what was on the sign outside, though we also find “Star” Coffee House and in anecdote from a decade later the simpler Seamen’s Star — see Hong Kong Weekly Press, 1 May 1909, p.359. 3. A merchant marine officer’s “ticket” is one of the hierarchy of certificates (2nd mate, 1st mate, coastal or foreign going master) that, from 1850 onwards, British merchant mariners were obliged to acquire by successfully passing Board of Trade examinations. As of 1871 Hong Kong had been one of the

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 484

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

485

many ports around the world where Board of Trade examinations could be taken. 4. E.J. Eitel (1895), op.cit., p.517. 5. The China Mail, 17 April 1876, p.2. 6. For the seed information on the Temperance Hall I am indebted — as so many Hong Kong researchers must be — to the excellent Gwulo website (http:// gwulo.com/node/7705) run by David Bellis and also to Sean Olson’s website http://www.thehongkonglegacy.com/Hong_Kong.html, op.cit. 7. It seems probable — Romanization in the 19th century being the shifting sands that it was — that this was Heung Hing Lane in Sai Ying Pun. 8. The China Mail, 8 October 1883, p.3, the letter is dated 7 October 1883. 9. In the third quarter of 1883 the shelter had raised $110.22 in donations in cash and cost only $76.45 to run, 39% being the wages of the caretaker, 19.6% rent at $5 a month and 12.8% direct cash and clothing aid to destitute seafarers 10. Supplement to the Hong Kong Government Gazette, 14 March 1885, Government Notification no.116, p.233–235. 11. See M.A. Crowther (1983), The Workhouse System, 1834–1929: The History of an English Social Institution, London: Methuen. 12. The aims of the Society are given in H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit., p.204. 13. Hull Archive: Hong Kong, Box 432, a newspaper cutting, with the identity of the newspaper missing, in a small collection of memorabilia from Mrs Annie Goldsmith “Various newspaper cuttings from Mrs Goldsmith’s collection. Also various Hong Kong material of hers”, in a brown envelope addressed to Rev KE Collins OBE, Cumberland House, 49 Highlands Heath, Putney Heath, SW15, postmarked London SW1 715PM, 16 October 1953. 14. Hull Archive, Hong Kong, Box 432, ibid. a set of handwritten sheets titled “Hong Kong 1961, General and Local Funds, Chaplains, Readers etc., 1884–1933”. 15. HK Public Library photo PH73.620 captioned, “An Early View of Queen's Road”. The precise location is established by the “Star Seamans (sic) Coffee House” signboard pointing to D'Aguilar Street, on the left. The view is towards west. Hong Kong Dispensary is in the building with covered archways, on the left. The street is busy with pedestrians and rickshaws. 16. Hull Archive, Hong Kong, Box 432, ibid. 17. B.W. Brown, “A Note on the History of the Disease in Hong Kong”, Public Health Reports (1896–1970), vol.28, no.12, 21 March 1913, pp.551–557, accessed at Association of Schools of Public Health, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4569336, on 27 January 2014. 18. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 13 April 1895, Government Notification no.146, Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894, p.374.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 485

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

486

Strong

to

Save

19. ibid., p.367. 20. For a more general treatment of the plague, see E.G. Pryor, “The Great Plague of Hong Kong”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1975, vol.15, pp.61–70. 21. The number is inferred from Bruce Shepherd (1894), Index to the Streets, Houses and Leased Lots of Victoria, Victoria Peak, and Kowloon, in the Colony of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Kelly & Walsh Ltd., p.64. It was built on Inland Lot 22A. 22. Hong Kong Weekly Press, 1 May 1909, p.359. 23. Martin Stopford, “Challenges For Global Shipping in the Wake of the Great Shipping Boom 2003–2008”, 125 years’ anniversary of the Danish Shipowners’ Association, 20 January 2009, p.2 and Maritime Economics (1997), op.cit., pp.45–48. 24. Hong Kong Weekly Press, China Overland Trade Report, 11 November 1899; Hong Kong Telegraph, 5 February 2001 and 8 February 2001. The new home was opened by Mrs F.H. May, wife of the colonial secretary and was, like the Missions to Seamen, strictly teetotal. 25. H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit., pp.203–204. 26. U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, A five page memo by George Waldegrave about Hong Kong, marked confidential and dated 4 July 1948. It roughly sketches the history of the Missions to Seamen in HK. 27. Hong Kong Telegraph, 3 May 1905. On Johnston Road, as Praya East became in the 1920s, and as with the Mission’s second premises, there will have been a renumbering so that what had been 72 and 73 will have become only even numbers (the odd moving to the north side of the street) and something more in the mid’60s. Where this first building may have been would be somewhere between Ship Street and Swatow Street. See Index of Streets, House Numbers and Lots in Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Kowloon, 45th ed., Hong Kong: Land Registry, p.278, available at http://www.landreg.gov.hk/pdf/ All_SI.pdf. 28. Arthur Chapman (1910), Index to the Streets, House Numbers, and Lots of the City of Victoria, the Hill District, Wongneichong, Shaukeiwan Road, Tai Hang, Tung Lo Wan, Quarry Bay, Saiwanho, Shaukeiwan, Pokfulam, Anerdeen, Kowloon Point, Yaumati, Mongkoktsui, Taikoktsui, Fuktsunheung, Hunghom, and Kowloon City Road in the Colony of Hong Kong, 5 th ed., Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., p.61. 29. Hong Kong Telegraph, 28 July 1905. 30. ibid. 31. After all, as Lethbridge pithily puts it, with temperance the order of the day, all that would be on offer “to the average…sailor (was) only tea and buns, prayers and uplift, draughts and dominoes, and the ministrations of… chaplains.” It was not a robust business model. H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit., p.204.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 486

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

487

32. “The Treatment of Paupers in Hong Kong” (authored by E.J. Eitel), Hong Kong Government Gazette, 1880, p.470. That said, the issue remained unresolved. 33. Hong Kong Weekly Press, 2 February 1901. 34. See above ch.2, fn.83 and the Hong Kong Daily Press, 21 April 1925, which reported on a Legislative Council session and noted “the original crown lessees, who were practically trustees of the Sailors’ Home, have all died, and the Home has for many years been conducted by an informal committee which grew out of the body composed of the original Crown lessees.” 35. See Hong Kong Telegraph, 3 May 1905 and especially a letter dated 24 June 1905 from the General Secretary of the Missions to Seamen in London, Commander William Dawson RN, in the Hong Kong Telegraph 27 July 1905, in which he explicitly and disapprovingly mentions the takeover of the Kowloon Institute and affirms the need for its Local Trustees “to enforce our Trust Deed.” Interestingly Commander Dawson mentions in passing that when Gurney Goldsmith raised funds for the Kowloon Institute the “public monies” raised were “for them (sailors) and for soldiers.” 36. Hong Kong Telegraph, 18 August 1905. 37. For an extremely insightful analysis of ossified racial attitudes in Hong Kong in the early 20th century, the late James Lethbridge’s essay, “Caste, Class and Race in Hong Kong Before the Japanese Occupation” is still unsurpassed, see H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit., ch.VII, pp.163–188, esp. pp.167–170. 38. Endacott & She (1949), op.cit., p.143. 39. The Hong Kong Telegraph Mail Supplement, 9 June 1906, p.1. At the time the League had 265 members and 17 associate members. The Navy League had been founded in Britain in 1894 “to promote an awareness in the British public on the dependency of the country on the sea and that the only safeguard was to have a powerful navy” — see http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/ info_sheets_navy_league.htm, accessed on 9 January 2014. In short, it was specifically geared to the interests of the Royal Navy. It was the founder of today’s worldwide Sea Cadet Corps and is today a joint entity, the Marine Society and Sea Cadets. The Marine Society, founded in 1756 to help prepare young men for a career in naval service, is the world’s oldest naval charity but is today focused on seafarers in general. 40. To use the term “merchant navy” at this juncture is an anachronism, albeit a useful portmanteau term. There was no such formally designated service in British maritime parlance until King George V conferred the status following the First World War, in part to indicate that merchant seafarers were as fully engaged in action and as exposed to lethal danger as were members of the armed forces, even if they wore no uniforms, see Ronald Hope (1990), A New History of British Shipping. London: John Murray, pp.355–356. 41. Endacott & She (1949), op.cit., pp.144–145. An important point here is that the main benefactor of St Andrews, when it was built in 1903–04, was Sir Paul Chater who, as a leading Freemason and churchman became a supporter of the Missions to Seamen as did his partner in land speculation and development, Mr, later Sir H.N. Modi, a Parsi.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 487

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

488

Strong

to

Save

42. At home in Britain on leave in 1903, John France had given a speech in which he asserted, “We must again emphasize the need for a Sailors’ Rest and Institute in the City of Victoria”, G.A. Gollock (1930), At the Sign of the Flying Angel, London: Longmans, Green, p.150. 43. Hong Kong Telegraph, 4 August 1906. 44. At some stage in his service in Hong Kong, as seems to have been the cases with both of his predecessors, John France had got married. In all the references to the breakdown in his health that ended his time as chaplain, it is noted that his wife’s health had also succumbed, though no detail as to what afflicted either of them is given. 45. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, 20 October 1965, op. cit. The China Mail of 23 March 1908, p.4 announced that subscription lists were open at the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, Lane, Crawford & Co. and Geo. Falconer & Co. 46. U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, A five page memo by George Waldegrave about Hong Kong, marked confidential and dated 4 July 1948. 47. ibid. note by George Waldegrave, 28 July 1948. 48. The details come from two sources, a long piece in the Hong Kong Weekly Press, 1 May 1909, pp.359–360 to mark the laying of the foundation stone, and from the speech given by the colonial secretary, Sir Henry May. 49. The Praya East reclamation idea goes back to the important report by Osbert Chadwick in 1882, which was aimed at getting rid of the filthy, smelly, and insanitary tidal flats that fronted much of Hong Kong Island’s foreshore. A recommendation to put the reclamation in hand by the then governor, Sir George Bowen, had fallen through because colony funds could not pay for the work without financial assistance, and the Army would not play. See Roger Bristow (1987), Land-use and Planning in Hong Kong: History, Policies and Procedures, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, pp.37–38. Bristow wrongly claims that it was government that refused permission for the reclamation. 50. (1911), “El. Tramway from Kennedy Town to Shau Ki Wan (9¼ m.) Opened for Traffic”, Historical and Statistical Abstract, op.cit., p.21. 51. Hong Kong Telegraph, 13 May 1905. 52. Commander William Dawson R.N., in the Hong Kong Telegraph, 27 July 1905. Strangely, in Mission documents there is no echo of any knowledge of this earlier plan to reclaim the Wan Chai foreshore when in 1921 government resuscitates it, but rather a note of genuine surprise. 53. For the new road see (1911), Historical and Statistical Abstract, op.cit., p.25. Marine Lot 29 was in two parts, 29A occupied the north side of Queen’s Road East opposite where St Francis Street entered on the south side, 29B would appear to have been adjacent to the south, although whether the lot division was north/south or east/west is uncertain. The designation of both sub-lots as Marine Lots would argue the latter (I am indebted to David Bellis of the Gwulo

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 488

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

489

website for his elucidations — see https://gwulo.com/node/37732). The new street was called Gresson Street, after William Jardine Gresson of Jardine, Matheson & Co., who was on the Legislative Council in 1904 and 1906–10. For the Marine Lots Hal Empson (1992), Mapping Hong Kong: a Historical Atlas. Hong Kong: Government Printer and Ir Ma Koon-Yiu (馬冠堯) (2013), op.cit. For the division see Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix P, “Report of the Director of Public Works for 1908”, p.7, para. 28 and for the block of buildings that resulted, Chapman (1910) op.cit., pp.60–61. The whole block contained Marine Lots 24, 25, and 295, see Chapman (1910), op.cit., p.60. 54. Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix O, “Report of the Director of Public Works for 1909”, p.9, para.29. Apart from describing building on ML295, 296 and ILs 1797–1900, this also mentions that the new street has been named Gresson Street. 55. Bishop Lander had been appointed after the brave death of Bishop Hoare in the Bingwu typhoon of 1906 during a pastoral trip in the Tuen Mun area with four St Paul’s College students he had taken with him for training. Bishop Hoare was a good swimmer but stayed behind when his launch sank to try to help the students. Only the two crew of the launch survived. Endacott & She (1949), op.cit., pp.115–116. 56. Flemish Renaissance Revival style was very in vogue in the 1890s through to the early 20th century, being much fancied by the rich and famous. It used brick extensively and was floridly ornate. An odd choice for a temperance mission, but maybe someone had a sense of humour. 57. The Mission had raised $38,872.25 and Mr Modi had donated $50,000. It follows that in 1909 it had been believed that the funds raised were $88,872.25. This is not $90,000, but it is only $1,127.75 not $14,000 short. Given that only $3,534.95 had been raised from individuals and the Royal Navy, it follows that the defaulters were from the major companies who had promised 87% of the total, with $18,500 being promised by just eight of them, the other $5,250 coming from the remaining thirteen. Clearly some of the larger companies had defaulted on their promises. 58. All the detail comes from the Hong Kong Telegraph, Mail Supplement, 24 June 1910, p.208. 59. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, a five page memo by George Waldegrave about Hong Kong, marked confidential and dated 4 July 1948. It roughly sketches the history of the Missions to Seamen in HK. 60. For the Anglo-Japanese Alliance see Phillips O’Brien (2003), The AngloJapanese Alliance, 1902–1922, London: Routledge; and for Fisher’s decision to withdraw the battleships — interestingly two weeks before the Battle of Tsushima, p.90. 61. N.A. Lambert (1999), Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, p.105. For patronage of the Kowloon Institute by HMS Albion, for example, Hong Kong Telegraph 9–5 and 13 May 1905.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 489

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

490

Strong

to

Save

62. H.J. Lethbridge (1978), op.cit., pp.196–197. For details of the lodge history the anonymously authored A Brief History of the District Grand Lodge of the Far East, Hong Kong: 1961, scanned and put on the web at http://skirret. com/papers/dgl/lodge_923_2.html (accessed on 13 January 2014) has been invaluable. 63. Personal communications from Mr Michael Broom and Mr Martin Thomas to whom I am indebted for the fine detail. The Mission’s own data appears in a confidential memorandum from George Waldegrave to the Missions to Seamen headquarters in London, dated 4 July 1948 and appears to be a response to a headquarters’ request for advice on the proposal by the then chaplain, Rev. Frank Weaver, to shift the Hong Kong Institute to Kowloon, see Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. 64. Endacott & She (1949) op.cit., p.143. 65. Stuart Knox’s visit was from 13–18 February 1928. Hull Archive: U DMS/ D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Private and Confidential Report to the Missions to Seamen, London by Stuart C Knox, dated 18 February 1928 and datelined “from the Formosa Channel”.

Chapter 7

Meanwhile Down on the Waterfront

1. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 13 April 1895, p.331, Government Notification no.145, “Report of the Harbour Master for the Year 1894”, 11 February 1895. When his energies were fresh, Commander Rumsey as harbour master does seem to have tried to provide a clearer statistical picture, but it did not last. 2. Carl T. Smith (1975), “The German Congregation in Hong Kong Until 1914”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, vol.15, p.293. 3. ibid. 4. I am indebted to Dr Bert Becker of the University of Hong Kong for his help, for information from the German Archiv und Bibliothek für Diakonie und Entwicklung (ADE), Komitee für deutsche evangelische Seemannsmission, SM I 141, Hong Kong, vol.1, 1908–1927 and his two invaluable articles, (2005), "Deutsche und Schweizer Protestanten in Hong Kong (1844–1919)” in Christoph Hildebrandt-Ayasse (ed), 40 Jahre Evangelische Gemeinde Deutscher Sprache in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Evangelische Gemeinde Deutscher Sprache in Hong Kong, pp.93–139 and his (2005), “Die Gründung der Evangelischen Gemeinde deutscher Sprache in Hong Kong im Jahre 1965” in Hans Hoerschelmann and Bert Becker (eds), 50 Jahre Evangelische Gemeinde Deutscher Sprache in Hong Kong, 1965–2015, Hong Kong: Evangelische Gemeinde Deutscher Sprache in Hong Kong, pp.25–45. 5. 400 cu.ft, it is worth noting, assuming the standard colonial period 8 ft ceiling height, is a space 10 ft x 5 ft x 8 ft (3.05 m x 1.52 m x 2.44 m, or 11.33 cu.m). Cap 447, Bedspace Apartments Ordinance of today specifies no minimum and there are “cage homes” of c.72 cu ft. (2.01 cu.m.). See http://www.legco. gov.hk/yr12-13/english/sec/library/1213in22-e.pdf, accessed on 10 April 2014.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 490

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

491

6. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 1 August 1891, pp.655–710, An Ordinance to Consolidate and Amend the Laws Relating to Merchant Shipping, the Duties of the Harbour Master, the Control and Management of the Waters of the Colony, and the Regulation of Vessels Navigating the Same, ch.VI section 17, ch.VII, section 18 and schedule K. 7. Which of course is open to question especially since, yesterday as today, the tendency is for government departments to act as if regulations are being complied with if they have pieces of paper from subordinates stating that they are. 8. Elizabeth Sinn (1990), “A History of Regional Associations in Pre-war Hong Kong”, in Elizabeth Sinn (ed.), Between East and West: Aspects of Social and Political Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, pp.159–186, especially pp.164–165. I am indebted to Dr Sinn for drawing this article to my attention and discussing the issue of Chinese seamen’s boarding houses with me. 9. The Hong Kong Government Gazette, vol.LXI, no.56, 7 December 1895, Legislative Council no.12, p.1221. 10. In this respect the prevalent western attitudes, pointedly expressed in the colonial surgeon’s reports, that opium was not debilitating, that the vast majority used the drug moderately, and that such use did not exhibit “addiction” any more than did moderate use of alcohol. See the Reports of the Colonial Surgeon, 1879, 1882–1885, 1887–1888, 1890, 1892, 1893 inter alia. 11. See Christopher Munn (2009), Anglo-China: Chinese People and British Rule in Hong Kong, 1841–1880, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, Introduction; and Zhang Wei-bing (2006), Hong Kong: the Pearl Made of British Mastery and Chinese Docile-Diligence, New York: Nova Science, ch.3. 12. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 12 October 1917, p.577, An Ordinance to Provide for the Licensing and Control of Places Where Persons Are Lodged for Hire, no.23 of 1917. 13. For the rules see Hong Kong Government Gazette, 19 November 1917, no. 464, p.602. 14. “Report of the Harbour Master for 1935” gives a total of 726,341 “Asiatic” seafarers passing through the port on ships, the highest figure given for the category between 1905 when this number is first given and the end of the sequence of data in 1940. Indications in other sources suggest over 90% were Chinese seafarers. The number includes a large but unascertainable quantum of double counting but does suggest that on any one day there would have been some 2,000–3,000 Chinese seafarers in port on ships. 15. I am indebted to Dr Elizabeth Sinn for the following references, Xianggang da bagong (香港海員大罷工) [Hong Kong Seamen’s Strike], Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 1955 and “Meeting with the Newly Formed Seamen’s Society” an interview with president of the newly formed society in Wah Tsz Yat Po (華 字日報), 19 October, p.7.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 491

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

492

Strong

to

Save

16. The Directory and Chronicle for China, Japan, Corea, Indo-China, Straits Settlements, Malay States, Siam, Netherlands India, Borneo, the Philippines for the Year…, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Daily Press Ltd., 1879, 1889, 1899, 1905, 1908, 1917, various pages, alphabetical entry under “Boarding Houses”.

Chapter 8

Separate Moorings

1. Ashley Paget Crofton had already had two years experience with the Missions to Seamen as an assistant chaplain in Bristol and after his year in Hong Kong was to work in Shanghai until 1915. 2. In October 1909 he had married a Miss A.M. Baker of Hong Kong, so presumably had not only a successful but a happy stay. 3. The ordination was announced in The Times (of London), 12 December 1891, p.11, “Bishop Bickersteth, of Japan, ordained at Tokyo, just before Christmas, Mr W. T. Austen, who for 11 years has, as the Missions to Seamen reader, ministered to the crews of British and American ship frequenting Yokohama. Mr Austen will be the Mission to Seamen Chaplain for the shipping in those waters.” 4. (1904), Protestant Missionaries in China, Japan and Corea for the Year 1904, Hong Kong: The “Daily Press” Office/London: London Office 131 Fleet St. EC, p.36; Crockford’s Clerical Directory, London: Crockfords, 1930, alphabetical entry; Essex Record Office, I/Pb 1/13, Photograph of Rev. William Austen taken c1910. It is curious that no biographical note of this remarkable career seems to have been written. 5. Denison and Ram had been founded in 1897 and Gibbs had joined them in 1900. The company was responsible for the design of Matilda Hospital (1906), Old Halls (Lugard, Eliot and May Halls), the University of Hong Kong (1913–15), the Helena May (1916), and the Repulse Bay Hotel (1920). 6. The Hong Kong Telegraph, 15 January 1913, p.5. 7. Supplement to the London Gazette, 4 April 1918, p.4082, appointment as of 28 February 1918. 8. A locus classicus of “quick victory” beliefs is Barbara Tuchman’s classic narrative history (1962), The Guns of August: the Outbreak of World War One, London: Macmillan, ch.9. For a more recent take, Max Hastings (2013), Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War, London: William Collins. 9. (1945), Crockford’s Clerical Directory, London: Crockford’s, alphabetical entry, Yee Wang Fung, Mo Wah Moira Chan-Yeung (2009), To Serve and to Lead: A History of the Diocesan Boys’ School in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 10. Hong Kong Government Blue Books, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, Appendix D, “Report of the Harbour Master for the Years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918”. 11. Another source makes this two armoured cruisers, four old destroyers, three torpedo boats, three C-Class submarines and two sloops, see http://1914-

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 492

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

493

1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139454, accessed on 14 January 2014. 12. See The Navy List for August 1914 corrected to 8 July 1914, London: HMSO, p.270a, sadly as of the advent of war, the listing by ships on stations ceases. The best one can do is enumerate from known data as at http://www.navalhistory.net/WW1NavyBritishShips-Dittmar1.htm, accessed on 14 January 2014 13. Wolfendale (2013), op.cit., p.144. 14. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168 Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, five page memorandum by George Waldegrave about Hong Kong marked confidential and dated 4 July 1948. 15. Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 22 October 1914, p.118, 2 October 1915, pp.48–49, 31 October 1916, p.75, 16 August 1917, p.60, 17 October 1918, p.84. We don’t know the Local Committee members of the Mission at this date, but within a few years both the taipan of Jardine’s and Mr Pollock would be members. 16. The company still exists as Hastings & Co., the original 1886 firm of John Hastings having merged with Dennys & Bowley sometime in the early 1920s, see http://www.hastings-hk.com/en/history.html, accessed on 23 January 2014. 17. Hong Kong Government Gazette, May 1919, p.228 and ibid. p.237. 18. Tracing Hong Kong Land Registry lot numbers frequently runs into renumbering of one sort or another as a result of sub-division, new roads or an opportunity to re-categorize following a change of leaseholder. The creation of Marine Lot 295 out of ML29 was caused by the creation of Gresson Street — see Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix P, “Report of the Director of Public Works for 1908”, p.P7. 19. For Geoge Waldegrave’s arrival date see The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser, 18 August 1919, p.10. 20. The Gold Standard (the old fixed exchange rate regime) had been suspended during the First World War and this arrangement continued from 1919–26, see Barry Eichengreen and Peter Temin (2000), “The Gold Standard and the Great Depression”, Contemporary European History, vol.9, no.2, pp.183–207. 21. Hull Archive, Hong Kong Box 432, Hong Kong 1961, General and Local Funds, Chaplains, Readers etc., 1884–1933. 22. For more detail on this fascinating episode see fn.16 to ch.10. 23. Other chaplains and military chaplains known to be masons include Reverends J.B. Ost, Frank Weaver and J.R. Precious, though the true list is almost certainly longer. 24. Christopher Haffner (1977), The Craft in the East, Hong Kong: District Grand Lodge or Hong Kong and the Far East; Thomas W Carr (1981), The Victoria Lodge of Hong Kong: A Century of Fellowship, Hong Kong: Victoria Lodge of Hong Kong. The significant socio-economic and socio-political role of Freemasonry in colonial Hong Kong has never been adequately researched.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 493

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

494

Strong

to

Save

Jessica L. Harland (2007), Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism 1717–1927, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, is good for a broad overview, though the world of what the British called the Far East is largely ignored. The Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism promised much on its establishment in 2009, but along with the University of Sheffield’s Centre for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism, it appears to have folded in 2012 or 2013. 25. See Christopher M. Bell (2000), The Royal Navy, Seapower and Strategy Between the Wars, Stanford: Stanford University Press, ch.3; and especially Andrew Field (2004), Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919–1939: Planning for War Against Japan, London: Frank Cass; and Orest Babij (2000), “The Royal Navy and Inter-war Plans for War Against Japan: The Problem of Oil Supply”, ch.4 in Greg Kennedy (ed), The Merchant Marine in International Affairs, 1850–1950, London: Frank Cass, pp.84–106. 26. The Hong Kong Daily Press, 14 June 1924, p.5, “Work Amongst Sailors at Hong Kong”, address by the Rev. A.T. Waldegrave (sic) given in London. 27. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Private and Confidential Report to the Missions to Seamen, London by Stuart C. Knox, dated 18 February 1928 and datelined “from the Formosa Channel”. 28. Hull Archive, Hong Kong Box 432, Paper E. for Council Meeting 20 September 1961 with brief notes on the Mission’s history in Hong Kong by Rev. Cyril J. Brown dated 15 September 1961. 29. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 29 September 1922, p.377, An Ordinance to amend the Law relating to the Incorporation of the Zetland Hall Trustees. Hong Kong, Haffner (1977), op.cit., p.138 — though Haffner gets in a slight muddle over when Lodge Eastern Scotia first gets mentioned. 30. At this point the Local Committee comprised the Bishop (Rt Rev. Charles Ridley Duppuy), Bishop, Commodore HE Grace RN, senior naval officer Hong Kong, Hon. Mr E.V.D. Parr (of the P&O agents), Hon. Mr A.O. Lang (Gibb, Livingstone & Co.), Hon Mr T.L. Perkins (Director of Public Works), Hon. Mr H.E. Pollock KC (barrister, unofficial member of both Executive and Legislative Councils who served on some occasions as attorney general), Hon. Mr A.G. Stephen (Chief Manager of the HSBC), G.W .Barton Esq., D.G.M. Bernard Esq (Jardine Matheson), G.M. Dodwell Esq (Dodwell & Co Ltd.), Rev. WT Featherstone MA, Rev. George Waldegrave MA (Chaplain & Secretary), T.G. Weall Esq (Acting Hon. Treasurer, Dodwell & Co. Ltd.). 31. G.M. Young Esq MBE (director HSBC), something of a roll call of the good and great but, interestingly, not including the harbour master. 32. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949 Box 168, George Waldegrave to Stewart Knox, secretary, Missions to Seamen, London, 1 March 1923. 33. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168 Hong Kong 1920–1949 Box 168, five page memorandum by George Waldegrave about Hong Kong marked confidential and dated 4 July 1948.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 494

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

495

34. Chan Lau Kit-Ching (1990), op.cit., ch.4, pt.1; G.W. Glick (1969), “The Chinese Seamen’s Union and the Hong Kong Seamen’s Strike 1922”, MA thesis, Columbia University; Ming K Chan (1994), op.cit., p.40–45; and the same author’s 1973 Stanford PhD thesis, “Labor and Empire: the Chinese Labor Movement in the Canton Delta, 1895–1927”. 35. 37 Chinese demonstrators were killed and 80 wounded according to the British and 52 killed and 117 injured according to Chinese sources. Papers Respecting the First Firing in the Shameen Affair on 23 June 1925, London: HMSO, 1926, esp. pp.4–5 (the report of Commander M. Maxwell Scott R.N., Senior Naval Officer in command of defences) for the British sourced data. Chan Lau Kit-ching (1990), ibid. for Chinese sourced data and Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Report for the Year 1925, Hong Kong: HKGCC, 1925, for a typically “British” take on events, particularly pp.12–14 for the Shameen affair. 36. The governor, Sir Reginald Stubbs, whose handling of the strike was singularly inept, had asked for one of the China Fleet’s cruisers, in their summer station in Weiheiwei, to be despatched for a show of force, but the request was declined because of the situation in Shanghai. Chan Lau Kit-ching (1990) ibid., p.188. 37. Chan Lau Kit-ching, ibid., p.194, Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Report for the Year 1925, op.cit., p.16 and pp.16–21 for the overall effect on British flagged shipping. 38. Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Report for the Year 1925, op.cit., pp.17–18. 39. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168 Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from George Waldegrave to Stewart Knox, 2 February 1926. 40. For the 30 years’ work in Hong Kong of the head of the YMCA, John McPherson, I am indebted to Sue L McPherson, “J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905–1935”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch. vol.46, 2006, pp.39–59. The quotation is linked to John L. McPherson & C.C. Rutledge, Joint Annual Report of the Foreign Secretaries 1905–1906, New York: Foreign Department International Committee of YMCAs, 1906, Interestingly John McPherson was a most active Freemason, becoming a member of University Lodge on its formation in 1913, resigning from England after his retirement in 1938. He was a close personal friend of Sir Henry Pollock, an active member of the Mission to Seamen’s Local Committee for many years. 41. That included the Mission’s Chater Endowment Fund, that had only been set up in 1923 and had been invested in a mortgage at 9% through the Hong Kong Land Investment and Agency Co. owned by Sir Paul Chater. It had been paid no interest for eight months because Sir Paul owed his company $70,000. 42. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949 Box 168: Letter from George Waldegrave to London headquarters (no named addressee) 20 May 1920.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 495

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

496

Strong

to

Save

43. What marine lot holders acquired was, with the exclusion of roads and pavements, a right to the entire strip of land, as wide as their existing frontage that went from that frontage to the new waterfront. The size of the potential new Mission plot therefore took in from the south side of today’s Johnston Road across Hennessy Road, Lockhart Road and Jaffe Road to the south side of Gloucester Road.

Chapter 9 Headwinds and Adverse Currents 1. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 16 May 1919, Notice no.218 dated 16 May 1919. 2. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 4 June 1920, Notice no.311 dated 2 June 1920. 3. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, George Waldegrave to Stewart Knox, secretary, Missions to Seamen, London, 20 May 1920. 4. CO 129/485, pp.127a–145, pp.136–139. Curiously the memorandum, in recapitulating the meeting at which Commander Rumsey had declared that “the Home had no responsibility for the Church and that it should be run as a separate unit,” quite explicitly goes on to state that “the Missions to Seamen came to Hong Kong and assumed control of the Church in 1898.” 5. In a debate in the Legislative Council in 1923 a new site for the Sailors’ Home had been described as between Salisbury Road and Blackhead Point, on the land side of the Kowloon Canton Railway line. Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 30 August 1923, pp.82–83. 6. James Henry Thomas (1874–1949), a railwayman and unionist from Newport, Monmouthshire, was Labour MP for Derby 1910–1936 and secretary of state for the colonies, Jan–Nov 1924. 7. Kowloon Point is more or less where today’s Kowloon side “Star” Ferry pier is, Blackhead or Tsim Sha Tsui Point is where the shoreline used to be below Signal Hill. The two places are 600 m apart. The name Blackhead Point became current in the early 20th century. The German ex-ship’s captain turned businessman Friedrich Johan Berthold Schwarzkopf had anglicized his name to Blackhead and founded Blackhead & Co. in the 1850s. The company built a coal depot off Tsim Sha Tsui Point in 1886, which by 1905 was Hong Kong’s largest, eventually being taken over by Butterfield & Swire — see Carl T. Smith (1994), “The German Speaking Community in Hong Kong, 1846–1918”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.34, pp.45– 47. 8. The lease, rather strangely not actually entered into until 1877, was signed by William Keswick the Jardine, Matheson and Co. taipan, who had died in 1912, Samuel Wyllys Pomeroy of Russell & Co., who had died in Genoa in 1901, and Henry G. Thomsett, the harbour master, who had died in 1892. The governor informed the secretary of state that he had told his officials and the committee of the Sailors’ Home to go ahead in the meantime “without reference to strictly legal rights, whatever they may be.”

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 496

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

497

9. ibid. pp.128–132. And for the comment about legal rights, p.128. Interestingly the governor informed the secretary of state that he thought the Sailor’s Home site was worth $1 million at $20 a sq.ft. so the deal would net $150,000 to general revenue! 10. Hong Kong Government Blue Book, 1925, Legislative Council Draft Bill, no. s.80, p.178, A Bill intituled An Ordinance to Provide for the Incorporation of the Trustees of the Sailors’ Home, Hong Kong. 11. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 22 May 1925, p.215 and Hong Kong Government Gazette, Notice no.321, Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 29 May 1925, pp.321–323. 12. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Report by George Waldegrave to London dated 11 December 1931 noting that in 1925 the Sailors’ Home “had plans drawn and site booked for the new building in Kowloon”. 13. CO 129/517/13. p.4. 14. Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix A(1) “Report on the Finances for the Year 1926”, p.A(1)6, para 7 and Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix A(1) “Report on the Finances for the Year 1927”, p.A(1)5 para 7, which show that surpluses in 1922 ($3,728,062) and 1922 ($3,211,858), turned to deficits in 1924 (–$2,516,788), 1925 (–$5,022,452), and 1926 (–$2,393,134), only returning to a $477,491 surplus in 1927. 15. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Private and Confidential Report to the Missions to Seamen, London by Stuart C. Knox, dated 18 February 1928 and datelined “from the Formosa Channel”. 16. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, George Waldegrave to Stewart Knox, secretary, Missions to Seamen, London, 13 September 1927. In the Hong Kong Telegraph for 22 September 1927, p.1 it is interesting to note that the list of subscribers to the Seamen’s Institute includes only one shipping company. The largest donor is the Hong Kong Jockey Club (S1000). A long way second comes the only shipping company, Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Ltd at $153.39, almost certainly from crew whip-rounds. And then with donations of $100 apiece come Hong Kong Tramways, the Hong Kong & Kowloon Wharf & Godown Co., St Andrew’s Church and China Light and Power. 17. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Bishop Duppuy to Hon. E.R. Hallifax of 13 December 1927. 18. ibid. 19. The Hong Kong Daily Press, 15 July 1927, p.4. 20. Built 1914 by Cammell, Laird, Birkenhead, 8983GRT, 145.6m loa, 17.73 m beam, 8.81m draft. She carried 137 adults and 17 children with a crew of 192. Typically for the period, and explanatory of the difficulties being faced by both Sailors’ Home and Mission given their European fixations, these were divided into 53 Europeans, 139 Asians. The Karmala was scrapped in Japan in 1932.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 497

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

498

Strong

to

Save

21. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Private and Confidential Report to the Missions to Seamen, London by Stuart C. Knox, dated 18 December 1928 and datelined “from the Formosa Channel” 22. ibid. 23. In the bishop’s original memorandum the combination of the value offered by government for the Sai Ying Pun site, the foregone Tsim Sha Tsui site and the other Sailors’ Home assets was put at $1,038,200. For the Mission the Praya East site was worth $100,000, it had paid down $70,000 for title to a site on the reclamation, and the Chater Endowment Fund was valued at $50,000, making a total of $220,000. An overdraft and outstanding debts totalled $125,000, leaving a balance of just $95,000 as the Mission’s contribution. To add insult to injury, in the archive copy of the bishop’s memorandum $95,000 has been crossed out and “Bal $72,000” pencilled in. 24. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 24 July 1928. 25. 4084 GRT, 370” loa x 50.5 ft beam x 24.75 ft moulded depth, ON160201, owned Farco Shipping Co., managed Messrs Douglas & Ramsay, 45 West Nile St., Glasgow. Built at Lithgows, Port Glasgow, launched 27 February 1928, sailed on maiden voyage 3 April 1928. 26. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168; Hong Kong 1920 Lithgows 1949, Box 168. A case report from George Waldegrave about a ship visit, etc. 22 December 1928. 27. IL (Inland Lots) 2819, 2824, and 2831. 28. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, unnumbered, 11 page report from George Waldegrave to London, no addressee, date of receipt in London 11 December 1931. 29. The bosses of which were the taipan of Jardine, Matheson Co., a member of both Mission and Sailors’ Home management committees, and Sir Paul Chater, a staunch Mission supporter. 30. Interestingly the amalgamation seems to have gone through before any revised figures emerged from these dealings over the Mission’s new, Gloucester Road site. Insofar as the Mission, at point of amalgamation, was at least nominally the “owner” of the new site, there would seem to be a prima facie case for something closer to parity in the respective contributions of Mission and Sailor’s Home to the new, amalgamated body’s funds. 31. The answer, which became clear in 1929 (Hull Archive: Letter from George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 31 January 1929) was that the Admiralty wanted the site and because the government had needed to take some Admiralty land in order for the Praya East Reclamation to go ahead, this was a quid pro quo. 32. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Letter from George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox 31 January 1929. In the Anglican communion the “Te deum laudamus” (We praise thee, O God) is a canticle

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 498

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

499

sung after the First Lesson at Morning Prayer (the morning service also known as Matins) — see Book of Common Prayer, “The Order for Morning Prayer, Daily Throughout the Year”. It is also sung as a general hymn of thanksgiving for some special blessing (see John Jebb (1843), The Choral Service of the United Church of England and Ireland, Being an Enquiry into the Liturgical System of the Cathedral and Collegiate Foundations of the Anglican Communion, London: John W Parker, pp.343–344) hence Waldegrave’s usage. 33. Hull Archive: Hong Kong — Minutes and General, Box 431, Draft form of the “Agreement for the Amalgamation of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong and the Sailors Home and for the carrying on of their respective objects in the future” drawn up by Deacons at an unspecified date in 1930. 34. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 16 April 1928. An eleven page memorandum had been sent to the secretary of state outlining and justifying the proposed amalgamation, see CO 129/517/13, pp.1–11, 3 June 1929. 35. Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 19 September 1929, Finance Committee, pp.206–207. At this stage it would appear that the new reclamation waterfront in Wan Chai was known as “The Praya”, the designation Gloucester Road not yet having been decided. It is intriguing that the Finance Committee specifically asked to be kept briefed on this “expensive” project, yet no further mention seems to appear in either Legislative Council proceedings or the reports of the director of public works, although we know that by c.1933 the old Sailors’ Home had been turned into police barracks. 36. Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Report on the Census of the Colony of Hong Kong, 1931”, no.5 of 1931, p.111. 37. Crockford’s Clerical Directory, 1945, alphabetical entry and Kenneth Cable, “Cable Clerical Index of clergy who served in the Anglican Church of Australia from 26 January 1788 through to those ordained or serving by 31 December 1961”, accessed at http://anglicanhistory.org/aus/cci/index.pdf, on 29 January 2014. After the regular chaplain at Kobe returned from leave in April 1931, Richard Brougham (1870–1943) returned to London where he worked for the Mission until shortly before his death in a hospital in Ryde, Isle of Wight.

Chapter 10 One Ship, but Still Two Cap Tallies 1. A naval term referring to the ribbon around the rim of a Royal Naval sailor’s hat on which the name of the ship he is serving in appears, naturally only one name, hence the point. The merchant navy equivalent not so applicable here is “Same ship, different long splices.” 2. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Letter from Rev G.F. Trench to Rev. Cyril Brown 3 August 1933, “Whereas when the Missions to Seamen started, it was started by a small body of absolutely convinced (and to you and me, narrow) Evangelicals who were perfectly clear what they believed and what they considered right practice, and nobody else

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 499

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

500

Strong

to

Save

cared a hang for sailors. The work of the Mission and the general uplift of society has tended to create part of the problem we deplore.” 3. For example the Liverpool Sailors’ Home, founded at a public meeting called by the Mayor of Liverpool in October 1844 (see Stephen P. McKay, “The Sailors’ Home: a Short History” at http://www.chesterwalls.info/gallery/ sailorshome7.html, accessed on 10 February 2014); the Sydney Sailors’ Home, founded by a committee of citizens in 1859 (“Sydney Sailors’ Home commemorated”, Baird Maritime, 12 May 2009). 4. This is also called the Sailor’s Institute and, semi-officially by the late 1930s, the Marine Hostel, see National Library of Singapore Infopedia, “Sailors Home” at http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1134_2006-04-07.html, accessed on 10 February 2014. 5. Merchant Navy Welfare Board, Full History of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, London: Merchant Navy Welfare Board at www.mnwb.org/sitedata/ Misc/MNWB_Full_History.pdf, accessed on 15 February 2014. 6. International Labour Organisation (1941), “Organisation for Seamen’s Welfare in Great Britain”, International Labour Review. vol.43, no.4, pp.401–414. 7. ibid. p.404. 8. See International Labour Office (1921), The International Seamen's Code: Note Addressed to the Governments of the States Members of the International Labour Organisation by the International Labour Office, Geneva: International Labour Office; International Labour Office (1927), The International Labour Organisation and the Seaman, Geneva: International Labour Office. 9. For the Cheero Club’s popularity, see for example The Hong Kong Daily Press, 4 November 1930, p.7. Its new building — rated as “a building of importance” in government eyes — was completed in 1934, see Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix Q, “Report of the Director of Public Works for 1934”, para 20, p.Q5. 10. Since 1918, the R.N. Chaplains’ Service had included on a temporary basis “Ministers of Religious Bodies not in conformity with the Church of England and who were rendering full time service in the Royal Navy”. From 1922 they had become permanent chaplains (see The London Gazette, 20 October 1922, p.7365). It is hard to avoid the conclusion that if the Royal Navy had come to see its duty as providing spiritual welfare across denominations the message may not have been lost on the Hong Kong Government. 11. See the version of the founding by originator of the Apostleship, Father Peter Anson, Catholic Herald, 29 August 1941, p.8, which dates the movement from the founding of the Apostleship of Prayer “Work for Catholic Bluejackets” by Miss Mary Scott-Murray and Miss Margaret Stewart in Wimbledon in 1891, with the first chaplaincy emerging in Glasgow in 1920. The Apostolate was formally founded with papal approval in April 1922, though did not get full approval of its laws and constitution until November 1957. The Hong Kong Council of the Apostleship of the Sea, Apostleship of the Sea: serving seafarers from 1895–1995, Hong Kong: Apostleship of the Sea, 1995.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 500

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

501

Interestingly the International Labour Review (1941), op.cit., p.403 argues “the first modern Catholic Sailors’ Club in the world was opened in Montreal in the spring of 1893. This body took the initiative in the formation of an international organisation but the movement was halted by the war of 1914– 1918. After the war, the Montreal Club collaborated with the Glasgow Club in the establishment of the Apostleship of the Sea.” There is what we might call a counter-version of this tale, though in many respects the differences in detail are slight, in R.W.H. Miller (2012), One Firm Anchor: The Church and the Merchant Seafarer, an Introductory History, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2012, chs.16 and 18, where the first glimmerings of a specific Catholic mission to seafarers are identified as early as 1885 in the work of Father Francis Goldie S.J. 12. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Letter from George Waldegrave to Rev. G.F. Trench, 14 April, 1932. The Apostleship’s International Promoter, Father J.E. Rockliff, seems to have been an extraordinary man — if given to painting the lily. He claimed to have been born in Liverpool, attended HMS Conway and gone to sea, qualifying as a master mariner. Given that in 1899 he was a chaplain with the armed forces working on troopships for the Boer War in Africa the claim seems stretched, as does his claim to have served as a naval chaplain in HMS Birkenhead at the Battle of Jutland. After work in the Menevia Diocese in South Wales in the late 1920s, he was appointed international promoter for the Apostleship of the Sea in 1929 and seems to have continued in that role until at least 1939. 13. See, for example, Law Wing Sang (2009), Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press; John Carroll (2007), A Concise History of Hong Kong, Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, ch.2; and John Carroll (2005), Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. For a look at a specific indigenous response to the colonial government’s failures, Elizabeth Sinn (2003), Power and Charity: a Chinese Merchant Elite in Colonial Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Sheilah E. Hamilton (2008), Watching over Hong Kong: Private Policing 1841–1941, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press; and Christopher Munn (2009), Anglo-China: Chinese People and British Rule in Hong Kong, 1841–1880, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, offer two different perspectives on how the broad issues played out in the sphere of law and order. 14. One thinks of some of the arguments in Eric Stokes (1959), The English Utilitarians and India, Oxford: The Clarendon Press; also Douglas M. Peers and Nandini Gooptu (2012), India and the British Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, especially ch.7, Sandra den Otter, “Law, Authority and Colonial Rule”. How far such attitudes penetrated Hong Kong colonial rule is debatable, but a bias towards the appearance of even-handedness is evident. 15. Kennerly (1989), “British Seamen's Missions and Sailors’ Homes, 1815– 1970, Voluntary Provision for Serving Seafarers,” unpublished PhD thesis, Polytechnic of the South West, p.14; pp.181–193 is an excellent guide to these developments.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 501

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

502

Strong

to

Save

16. CO 129/517/13, July 1929, p.2 & p.6A. 17. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Rev. R.H.V. Brougham to Rev. Stuart Knox, 25 August 1930. 18. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Rev. Frank Weaver to Rev. Keith Earle Collins (General Superintendent) 21 September 1948. 19. The first committee of nine was: the Bishop of Victoria (Bishop Duppuy), Rear Admiral Hill of the Royal Navy, Hon. J.J. Paterson of Jardine, Matheson & Co. Ltd., C.G.S. Mackie of Mackinnon, Mackenzie & Co, J.H. Little of Butterfield and Swire, G.S. Archbutt of the Union Insurance Society of Canton as Honorary Treasurer (a condition for his acceptance was the appointment of Lowe, Bingham & Matthews as accountants), Sir Henry Pollock K.C., barrister, Legislative Councillor and sometime Attorney General, H.T. Creasy, the Director of Public Works, and the Rev. W.A. Featherstone. We do not know who the two London nominees were, though probably Henry Pollock (a member of St John’s Cathedral Church Council) and W.A. Featherstone. The HK General Chamber of Commerce seems likely to have nominated J.H. Little and C.G.S. Mackie. 20. S e e h t t p : / / w w w. g r e a t w a r. c o . u k / m e d a l s / w w 1 - c a m p a i g n - m e d a l s . htm#mercantilemedal, accessed on 11 February 2014. 21. The origin of the term “merchant navy” is paradoxically thought to date from The Mercantile Marine (Uniform) Order of 4 September 1918, which created a standard uniform, see The London Gazette, Issue 32551, 16 December 1921, p.10248-10251. In fact the new coining dates from a decade later when the ailing King George V, in honour of the service of the Mercantile Marine during the First World War, created the office of Master of the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleet and appointed the Prince of Wales its first holder, see The London Gazette, issue 33356. 14 February 1928, p.1048. 22. For example the titles of two popular books, Edward Blackmore (1897), The British Mercantile Marine, London: C. Griffin & Co.; and E. Keble Chatterton (1923), The Mercantile Marine, London: William Heinemann. 23. Alston Kennerley (2001), A Century of Welcome to Seafarers in Fremantle: The Flying Angel Club and its History, Perth WA: A. Kennerley, quoted at http:// www.marinerswelfare.com.au/newsletters/newsletterv4n1.htm, accessed on 11 February 2014. 24. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from George Waldegrave to George Trench, 17 October 1932. 25. The annual government salary of the boarding officer and master of the rescue tug Kau Sing in 1932 was £460 a year. The senior chaplain’s salary was £450 in 1931, and for any chaplain who served a third, three year term could reach £630 — see Hong Kong Government Blue Book, “Civil Establishments of Hong Kong”, for the year 1932, p.199; Hull Archive: U DMS/ D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Letter George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 24 July 1928 and List of Heads of Agreement in Connection with the

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 502

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

503

appointment of Chaplains as recommended by the new General Committee of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, 23 April 1931. 26. Hull Archives: Hong Kong — Minutes and General, Box 431, Extracts re Hong Kong from minutes of meetings of the committee, Missions to Seamen headquarters, 5 November 1941 to 18 April 1951, meeting of 5 July 1944. “The Committee agreed that, although headquarters did not accept liability, it was desirable that, if possible, the position should be ascertained.” What if anything happened is quite unclear. There is no post-war record of the issue. 27. Beaconsfield Arcade had been built on the south side of Queen’s Road Central, more or less opposite the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., building, by E.R. Belilios in 1878. Government had taken it over in 1919 and in 1933 were to demolish it. It should not be confused with the old Johnson House-cum-Government House, later Augustine Heard mansion, leased by Belilios in 1880 and called Beaconsfield, that became the French Mission in 1915 and until 2015 housed the Court of Final Appeal. See Solomon Bard, Voices from the Past: Hong Kong 1842–1916, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2002, p.179. 28. The only two candidates are Sir Henry Pollock and Mr W.E.L. Shenton, both of whom were serving on Legco during 1932. Since both were lawyers, either could have felt the weight of this scruple.

Chapter 11 An Interesting Launching on the Wan Chai Waterfront 1. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to Rev. Hugh Coryton, 28 January 1931. 2. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 7 May 1931. 3. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 11 December 1931. 4. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. Long, unnumbered 11 page report on the new building project by George Waldegrave to London. 5. See, for the services offered by the most expensive Chinese establishments, the illuminating article by Elizabeth Sinn (2007), “Women at Work: Chinese Brothel Keepers in Nineteenth-Century Hong Kong”, Journal of Women's History, vol.19, no. 3, pp.87–111. 6. Prostitution for western men (primarily military personnel) had been legalized and regulated in Hong Kong from 1857–94 when, as a result of pressure from Britain, the laws in question had been repealed. However, as a result of local pressure in Hong Kong, as of 1900 the British authorities tolerated the use of discretionary powers to close down brothels. This resulted in the reintroduction, extra-legally, of the entirety of the earlier system that had supposedly been abolished in 1894. It was this that was the target of the 1920s and 1930s reformers. Prostitution for Chinese men was largely

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 503

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

504

Strong

to

Save

unregulated. See (RJ) N.J. Miners (1984), “State regulation of prostitution in Hong Kong, 1857–1941”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.24, pp.143–161. 7. See John M. Carroll (2007), op.cit., pp.109–110. 8. For an excellent summary of the League of Nations activities see Sandy Chang (2012), “A Colonial Haunting: Prostitution and the Politics of Sex Trafficking in British India, 1917–1939”, unpublished MA thesis, University of British Columbia, pp.26–42. 9. For the term “sly brothel” and its meaning see Colonial Office, Return to an Address of the House of Lords, dated 22 March 1880, for Copy of Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong to inquire into the Working of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance of 1867; and Copy of the Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reply thereto, London: Colonial Office, 1880, p.19. 10. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 7 May 1931. 11. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to Stuart Knox, 31 January 1929. 12. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to George Trench, 21 September 1933. 13. George Waldegrave was on his third tour of duty and as a result of an agreement between London and the Local Committee on 23 April 1931, he was paid $700 a month: see Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168. List of Heads of Agreement in connection with the appointment of Chaplains agreed by the new General Committee of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, 23 April 1931. The monthly figure of $27.50 paid to no.1 boy and cook, and $15 paid to the coolie is in Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from George Waldgrave to George Trench, 21 September 1933. 14. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Rev. Cyril Brown to Rev. G.F. Trench 6 July 1933. 15. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Long, unnumbered 11 page report on the new building project by George Waldegrave to London. 16. ibid. 17. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench, 17 October 1932. 18. Time magazine of Monday, 18 August 1930 described Aerocrete as “leavened flooring” invented in Sweden in 1926 and first made in the USA in 1928. Its use in the Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute may have been a Hong Kong first since Palmer & Turner were known for being up-to-date.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 504

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

505

19. Decolite had been around since just before the First World War and was used in public buildings. 20. Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce Report for the Year 1931, Hong Kong: Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, 1932, p.5–6. 21. Hong Kong Telegraph, 22 June 1931, p.1 and more fully, Hong Kong Telegraph, 25 June 1931, p.13. Mr Wagter was so drunk he claimed to have no memory of the event and was sent to hospital for observation. 22. Hong Kong Daily Press, “The Missions to Seamen”, 20 August 1932, pp.7–8. 23. See the governor’s statement to the Legislative Council, Hong Kong Legislative Council, 1 October 1931, p.101; and Hong Kong Sunday Herald, 27 September 1931, p.1; and Hong Kong Telegraph, 28 September 1931, p.1 and 4 24. Hong Kong Government Blue Book, Appendix Q, “Report of the Director of Public Works for the Year 1931”, para.336, p.Q62. 25. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench, 17 October 1932. 26. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench, 8 May 1933 and, for the government department details, same archive listing, letter George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench 17 October 1932. 27. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/153, Box 165, letter Rev. Cyril J. Brown to Rev. JEC Lawlor dated 27 January 1967. Cyril Brown also noted that usually no Missions to Seamen church or chapel on foreign soil was consecrated because there was no expectation of permanency of occupancy. 28. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Long, unnumbered 11 page report on the new building project by George Waldegrave to London. 29. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench, 11 August 1933.

Chapter 12 Threatening Times 1. All the preceding details are from Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letters George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench, 11 August 1933 and 21 September 1933. 2. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letters George Waldegrave to G.F. Trench, 11 August 1933. Toc H. was an international Christian movement with its origins in a servicemen’s rest house in Poperinghe, Belgium in 1915 set up during the First World War by Revs Neville Talbot and P.T.B. “Tubby” Clayton, two army chaplains. The house was named after Rev. Talbot’s brother Gilbert Talbot who had been killed earlier in

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 505

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

506

Strong

to

Save

1915. First World War military phonetic alphabet made “T” “Toc”, hence the first headquarters of this Christian movement, Talbot House, became Toc H. In 1920 Rev Clayton founded a centre with a similar ethos in London, dedicated to community service with a strong affiliation to the working class and all ranks in the armed services. 3. Hong Kong Telegraph, 4 June 1934, pp.1 and 7. 4. Hong Kong Sunday Herald, 5 August 1934, p.11. “Good Joss”’, China Coast pidgin for “good fortune” has an added charm here when one recalls that “joss” is a corruption of the Portuguese “Deos” or “God”. H. Yule & A.C. Burnell (1996), op.cit., pp.464–465. 5. Cyril Brown left the Mission’s Steward, AC Willis in charge. The new chaplain, Rev. A.V. Wardle, arrived in 1935. 6. For a resume of Cyril Brown’s pre-Hong Kong career, see Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser, 1 February 1934, p.7 7. For a brilliant exposition of exactly the point that what became the Second World War began with the invasion of China by the Japanese in 1937, and that China’s pivotal role in the final Allied victory over the Axis powers has been sorely neglected, see Rana Mitter (2013), China's War with Japan, 1937–1945: The Struggle for Survival, London: Allen Lane. 8. “Latest Shipping Intelligence: Hong Kong Sailor’s Home. Over 10,000 boarders accommodated last year”, The Singapore Free Press and Commercial Advertiser, 23 April, 1936, p.12. That no such coverage appears in any Hong Kong newspaper speaks much for Cyril Brown’s downbeat appraisal of Hong Kong’s interest in merchant shipping, except as a vector for money making. 9. See Christopher M. Bell (2000), op.cit., and Andrew Field (2004), op.cit. 10. For a complete China Station order of battle as of September 1939 see http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/017_britain/39_navy/china-station.html, accessed on 20 March 2014 11. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Loose sheet “taken from the minutes of Committee of 2 November 38”. 12. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Copy of file October 1938. 13. Government Notification no. 47, 29 January 1889 proposed the formation of a Naval Guard Force of 40–50 volunteers, which seems to have resulted in nothing. The next apparent move came in 1926 when the Legislative Council approved funding of $40,000 for the formation of a Hong Kong Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. This too seems to have languished, more promise than fulfillment, until the 1933 legislation. 14. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.S479, Ordinance No.37 of 1933, pp.1202–1205, 8 December 1933. The ordinance was first gazetted as a draft presented to the Legislative Council in November. 15. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.332, 26 April 1935.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 506

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

507

16. OU 5513(4)42, The Navy List containing list of ships, establishments, and officers of the Fleet, London: HMSO, April 1942, p.254. Interestingly in this listing Cyril Brown is enumerated amongst RNVR chaplains and not on the strength of the HK Naval Volunteer Force. 17. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Cyril Brown to a (Mr.) Matthew, 23 January 1939. 18. Hong Kong Government Blue Books, “Report of the Medical and Sanitary Department for the Year 1928”, “Medical and Sanitary Department Report for the Years 1929–1939”. The relevant section appears under the heading Venereal Clinics until 1937, when these are coyly renamed Social Hygiene Centres. 19. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Cyril Brown to a G.F. Trench, 8 May 1939, p.2. 20. For the Master Mariner, see L.A.G. Strong (1956), Flying Angel: The Story of the Missions to Seamen, London: Methuen, p.163. His discharge number was 1091481 (see http://search.findmypast.com/results/world-records/merchantnavy-seamen?firstname=charles&firstname_variants=true&lastname=strong& yearofbirth=1902&yearofbirth_offset=2, accessed on 12 February, 2015). 21. Kwong Chi-man and Tsoi Yiu-lun (2014), Eastern Fortress: a Military History of Hong Kong, 1840–1970, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.107– 115. 22. Lawrence W.C. Lai, Stephen N.G. Davies, Ken S.T. Ching and Castor T.C. Wong, “Location of Pillboxes and Other Structures of the Gin Drinker’s Line Based on Aerial Photo Evidence”, Surveying & Built Environment, vol.21, no.2, 2011. 23. Kwong and Tsoi (2014), op.cit., pp.111–112. For the preparations of more passive harbour defences see http://indicatorloops.com/hongkong.htm. 24. Hong Kong Government Gazette, no.794, 12 September 1939 indicating Charles Strong’s seniority dated from 12 May 1939. 25. The Mission headquarters in Buckingham Palace Gardens had evidently been requisitioned for wartime use. The new address was Clermiston, 1 Burghley Road, Wimbledon SW19. 26. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Charles Strong to G.F. Trench, 11 September 1939, p.1. The Naval Control Service, put in train on 26 August 1939 within the Trade Division of the Admiralty under Rear Admiral Harold Burrough, was responsible for organizing merchant ship traffic, at this stage primarily ensuring that essential traffic priorities were met and ships were routed on what were thought the safest routes. See S.W. Roskill (1954), The War at Sea, vol.1: “The Defensive”, London: HMSO, p.45, See also Martin Doughty (1982), Merchant Shipping and War: A Study in Defence Planning in Twentieth-century Britain, London: Royal Historical Society. In the Navy List for August 1940 (p.171) Charles Strong appears as a Royal Naval Reserve Lieutenant serving in HMS Tamar with seniority 1 September 1939.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 507

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

508

Strong

to

Save

27. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Charles Strong to G.F. Trench, 26 September 1939. 28. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Charles Strong to G.F. Trench, 3 November 1939. 29. Gerald Horne (2004), op.cit., ch.1 is a tendentious but thought provoking guide to the extent to which white supremacist racism was a default mindset of many of Hong Kong’s westerners of all nationalities at this period. Against a too simple “they were all third rate racists” view, see https://brianedgar. wordpress.com/. 30. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Charles Strong to the secretary of the General Committee of Management, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen reaccommodation for coloured seamen, 20 October 1939. 31. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, handwritten letter Cyril Brown to G.F. Trench, 5 March 1940. 32. An excellent guide to the background of the building atmosphere in this period is Nicholas Tarling, Britain, Southeast Asia and the Onset of the Pacific War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 33. This was something of a bone of contention, as well as being an index of the extent to which many did not take the Japanese threat sufficiently seriously, because quite a large number of the sufficiently “connected” amongst westerners in Hong Kong found “necessary” work that meant they did not have to evacuate, see G.B. Endacott (1978), Alan Birch (ed), Hong Kong Eclipse, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press; Philip Snow (2003), The Fall of Hong Kong: Britain, China, and the Japanese Occupation, New Haven: Yale University Press; and “Compulsory Evacuation”, Occasional paper no. 20, Sydney: Hong Kong Volunteer & Ex-PoW Association of NSW, August 2013. 34. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Handwritten letter from Cyril Brown to Mr Matthew, 20 July 1940. 35. The Straits Times, 10 August 1940, p.9. 36. South China Morning Post, 1 May 1941, p.13. 37. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168 letter from Cyril Brown to Head Office announcing his resignation, 27 October 1941. 38. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168 letter from Cyril Brown to head office, 27 October 1941. 39. This must have been the living of the parish of St John the Divine, founded in 1905, see Salma Nasution Khoo, Abdur-Razzaq Lubis, Kinta Valley: pioneering Malaysia’s modern development, Ipoh: Perak Academy, 2005, p.230. 40. Hong Kong Government Gazette, 11 July 1941, Proclamation no.5, p.1022. 41. Hong Kong Government Gazette, Proclamation no.8, 30 August 1939; Proclamation no.12, 7 September 39; Proclamation no.14, 2 October 1939;

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 508

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

509

Proclamation no.16, 27 October 1939. The list of names of all members of the HKNVF at the time is given in the Hong Kong Government Gazette, 22 September 1939, p.1027–1030. The purpose of the list was to warn employers of who they might lose to call up so they could make the necessary arrangements. 42. In the Mission to Seafarers’ archive there is a newspaper clipping from The Times of London, The Times of 7 July 1941 annotated as “an interesting article on Hong Kong” with headline “Hong-Kong as a fortress. Defence preparations in Centenary Year. The Drawbacks to Prosperity.” The article was distinctly upbeat. Hull Archive: Hong Kong — Minutes and General, Box 431. 43. Bernice Archer (2004), The Internment of Western Civilians Under the Japanese, 1941–1945, A Patchwork of Internment, London: RoutledgeCurzon, p.37, quoting David Nicol, “Young Shanghailander”, unpublished war memoir, p.8. 44. For the chaotic muddle, bureaucratic obduracy, racism, and general disarray of the matter of evacuating British civilians from Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore, see Bernice Archer (2004), op.cit., esp. ch.1, pp.36–50; and Jean Gittins, Stanley: Behind Barbed Wire, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1982, pp.7–8. For the resentments of senior civil service evasions of their own rules to keep their families in Hong Kong, see Geoffrey Emerson (2008), Hong Kong Internment 1942–1945: Life in the Japanese Civilian Camp at Stanley, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.60. 45. Archer, p.35 quoting Mary Thomas (1983), In the Shadow of the Rising Sun, 2nd ed., Singapore: Maruzen Asia, p.13. 46. $600 a month with furnished quarters, fuel and lighting, 10 months leave on full pay after 5 years service with 1st class passages for self, wife and two children. 47. See Wen-hsin Yeh (ed) (1998), Wartime Shanghai, Abingdon: Routledge, especially Wen-hsin Yeh, “Prologue: Shanghai Besieged, 1937–1945”. For the difficulties of shipping see the closely contemporary E.M. Gull, British Economic Interests in the Far East, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1943, Part V, especially pp.181–190.

Chapter 13 Destruction and Occupation 1. The Shanghai evacuees went via Hong Kong and Manila in November and December 1941, arriving in Australia in late December after Hong Kong had surrendered — see Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December 1941, p.9 and The Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Queensland), 19 February 1942. 2. The Pearl Harbour attack had actually been at 8.00 a.m. on 7 December, but because of the International Date Line, this was 2.00 a.m on the 8th in Hong Kong. 3. The run up to the Japanese invasion — which been being contemplated since 1936 — is very well covered in Kwong and Tsoi (2014), op.cit., pp.154–159.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 509

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

510

Strong

to

Save

4. Kwong & Tsoi (2014), op.cit., pp.182–184. Gerald Horne (2004). 5. For an excellent overview of the tensions lying beneath Britain’s 1930s colonialism in Asia, see also Christopher Bayly & Tim Harper (2005), Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire and the War with Japan, Harmondsworth: Penguin, Prologue: Part 1, Escaping colonialism. 6. For the Japanese estimate of one day, Kwong & Tsoi (2014), op.cit., p.219. 7. Of Hong Kong’s 14,000 defenders, 2,113 were killed and 2,300 wounded. They had exacted 1,996 killed and 6,000 wounded from their attackers, who had also been responsible for 4,000 civilian deaths and 3,000 civilian wounded. The Japanese figures are taken from Tony Banham (2005), Not the Slightest Chance: The Defence of Hong Kong, 1941, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.318. There is no known official Japanese estimate. 8. See C.G. Rowland (2001), Long Night’s Journey into Day: Prisoners of War in Hong Kong and Japan, 1941–1945, Waterloo (Canada): Wilfred Laurier University Press, p.16. 9. The onset of war saw the HKNVF subsumed into the newly established Hong Kong Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, henceforward we shall write of the HKRNVR. 10. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Rev. J. Rutherford Spence to Superintendent, Missions to Seamen, October 1943. 11. Sources for the naval side of the Battle of Hong Kong are few and not always consistent, these figures depend on Stephen Davies, research notes for a “Detailed Land, Structural and Architectural Survey on Battery, Devil’s Peak” funded by the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust, unpublished research report, University of Hong Kong Library, 2006. For the ferry adapted as a minelayer see Stanley Wort (2009), Prisoner of the Rising Sun, Preston: Pen & Sword — this is in many details an extremely unreliable source — but the detail on the Man Yeung is accurate, see Geoffrey B Mason (2006), Royal Navy Minelaying Operations, Part 1 of 2 at http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying. htm, accessed on 31 January 2015. 12. A good account of the maritime side of the battle is in the handwritten “A general report on the activities of the Harbour Department and Air Services during the attack on Hong Kong 1941”, written during his detention in Stanley by Commander James Jolly, see Hong Kong Government Records Office, HKRS163–1–80 Stanley Internment Camp Miscellaneous Papers. 13. All battle details from this point come from Banham (2005), op.cit., whose dayby-day, hour-by-hour narrative of the Battle of Hong Kong is of inestimable value. 14. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, four page report on HK by CJB dated 8 September 1945 giving history 1934–1945, p.1. 15. For a graphic account of the 2nd MTB Flotilla’s battle, see Tim Luard (2012), Escape from Hong Kong: Admiral Chan Chak’s Christmas Day Dash 1941,

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 510

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

511

Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, Parts 1 and 2; and the excellent Hong Kong Escape website http://www.hongkongescape.org/Fleet_C.htm with its excerpts from the diary of the Officer Commanding MTB 08, Lt L.D. Kilby, HKRNVR. 16. For a good, succinct account of the China Fleet Club story during the Battle of Hong Kong see http://www.gunplot.net/main/content/china-fleet-club-waryears, accessed on 6 February 2015. 17. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, four page report, ibid. 18. The tug Jeanette and a barge were returning from the Green Island explosives depot with nine tons of dynamite. Unfortunately it had set off on its loaded return journey two hours earlier than scheduled. Friendly forces took them for Japanese vessels, opened fire and detonated the load, totally obliterating both vessels, their crews, and the Army personnel aboard the barge who had been the loading party, Banham (2005), op.cit., p.63. 19. Banham (2005), op.cit., has excellent examples of the generally upbeat, but detail deficient official communiqués. 20. For the date of the last broadcast, Rowland (2001), op.cit., p.22. 21. Banham (2005), op.cit., p.142. Alternatively it may be that it was directly targeted because it had become a billet for the accommodation of troops manning the pillboxes on the Praya, drawn from the Middlesex, Royal Scots, Indian and HKVDC Regiments (see http://www.gunplot.net/main/content/ china-fleet-club-war-years, accessed on 6 February 2015). 22. For Japanese intelligence on Hong Kong defences see Kwong & Tsoi (2014), op.cit., pp.149–151 — though for a caveat on the Japanese understanding of the larger tactical picture see p.170. 23. Rowland (2001), op.cit., p.23 has the cut off on the 18th. Endacott (1978), op.cit., p.115 says it was 21st. 24. Horne (2004), op.cit., ch.3 has one rather coloured account. 25. Formed by Lt. Col. A.W. Hughes of the HKVDC, which gave them their name. Banham (2005), op.cit., pp.124, 353. 26. Banham (2005), op.cit., pp.206–207. 27. ibid. pp.78, 250. 28. ibid., pp.233, 242. 29. On the fierce fighting see ibid., pp.250, 258 & 262, on the decision to surrender, pp.251–253, 262–263 30. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Cyril Brown to George Trench, 20 May 1942 (received 14 October 1942). 31. Bernice Archer (2004), op.cit., Introduction for the absence of planning for civilians, Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 511

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

512

Strong

to

Save

the Pacific, New York: William Morrow, Author’s Note, and Mark Felton, The Coolie Generals: Britain's Far Eastern Military Leaders in Japanese Captivity, Preston: Pen and Sword, 2008, passim for a similar shortcoming, though very differently founded, with respect to military POWs. 32. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Rev. J. Rutherford Spence, op.cit. 33. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Cyril Brown in Stanley to G.F. Trench, 4 September 1945. 34. Benjamin E. Proulx, Underground from Hong Kong, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1943, pp.127–128. 35. Peipei Qiu, Su Zhiliang, Chen Lifei (2013), Chinese Comfort Women: Testimonies from Imperial Japan's Sex Slaves, Vancouver: UBC Press, p.52 notes that there were comfort women in Wanchai, so the possibility is clear. 36. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Myrtle Brown to GFT, 17 September 1942; Letter from secretary (A.J. Matthew) to Myrtle Brown “sent about 20 October 1942”. 37. ibid. Letter from Marjorie M. Brown to A.J. Matthew, 22 February 1943. Cyril Brown’s 25 word message from Stanley via the Red Cross of 17 July 1942 had confirmed he was well, had food and was anxious about Myrtle because there had been no news. 38. See the brief obituary for Charles Strong, South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 24 November 1959, p.8. 39. See Banham (2009), op.cit., p.65 — where interestingly the Rev. Captain Uriah Laite, of the Canadian Chaplains’ Service, whose diary is being quoted, refers to him as “Capt Strong of the Navy”. Charles Barman (Ray Barman, ed.) (2009), Resist to the End, Hong Kong 1941–1945, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.148 names Charles Strong as one of the four chaplains in Sham Shui Po whose devotion to their fellow prisoners was exemplary. Norman H. Mackenzie “An Academic Odyssey: A Professor in Five Continents (pt. 2)” where Rev. Laite’s misprision is given a different gloss, describing Charles Strong as “a very popular padre, a sea captain” in Clifford Matthews and Oswald Cheung (eds) (1998), Dispersal and Renewal: Hong Kong University During the War Years, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.181. 40. Supplement to the London Gazette 4 June 1946, Issue 37598, p.2767, 13 June 1946. 41. Geoffrey Emerson (2008), Hong Kong Internment 1942–1945: Life in the Japanese Civilian Camp at Stanley, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp.58–64 & p.92, John Stericker, “Captive Colony — the Story of Stanley Internment Cap, Hong Kong”, bound typescript in the Hong Kong Special Collection, University of Hong Kong Library, p.2. 42. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, four page report by C.J.B. on Hong Kong dated 8 September 1945 giving the history of the Institute 1934–1945.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 512

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

513

43. S e e h t t p : / / g w u l o . c o m / 7 0 - y e a r s - a g o ? f i e l d _ b o o k _ d o c _ p a g e _ d a t e _ value%5Bvalue%5D, diary entries by Barbara Anslow for 30 December 1942 and 20 August 1945 and Eric MacNider for 8 August 1942 and 22 July 1943. 44. http://brianedgar.wordpress.com/2012/04/ accessed 10 May 2013. The attribution to Betty Drown is in Alan Birch & Martin Cole (1982), Captive Years, the Occupation of Hong Kong 1941–1945, Hong Kong: Heinemann, p.48. Brian Edgar has a copy of the words, which he thinks has Cyril Brown’s signature — see http://gwulo.com/node/10389 accessed on 19 January 2015. 45. Cyril Brown’s report specifies 16 December 1944 “according to Chinese reports”, but there were neither US Navy nor US Army Air Force bombing operations against Hong Kong on that date. The only dates when such bombing appears to have taken place were 5 and 24 December 1944 and the major raid on 18 January 1945. For the USAAF see Paul Rutgers Combat Chronology of the USAAF at http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/, accessed on 20 January 2015. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, Second Report To The Secretary Of The Navy, Covering Combat Operations 1 March 1944 To 1 March 1945, issued 27 March 1945 at http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/cno/ cnorpt_2.html, accessed on 20 January 2015.

Chapter 14 Recovery and the Dawning of a New World 1. Literally the first phrase means “Jewel Voice Broadcast”. The second means “Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the Greater East Asia War”. 2. On American and Chinese plans to put Hong Kong back under Chinese rule in 1945 see Andrew J. Whitfield (2001), Hong Kong, Empire and the AngloAmerican Alliance at War, 1941–1945, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, ch.10. 3. See Emerson (2008), op.cit., New Introduction, pp.7–16 for his second thoughts on Gimson’s reputation. For Gimson’s broadcast, see Brian Edgar at http://gwulo.com/node/9857/view-pages?page=28, accessed on 21 January 2015. See also Emerson (2008), op.cit., p.16 quoting Selwyn Selwyn-Clarke (1975), Footprints, Hong Kong: Sino-American Publishing Company, p.99. 4. “Laus Deo”, Latin for “Praise (be to) God”. 5. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, Letter from Cyril Brown to G.F. Trench, 4 September 1945. 6. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, four page report by CJB on Hong Kong dated 8 September 1945 giving the history of the Institute 1934–1945. 7. Emerson (2008), ibid. 8. We know that by 1946 Mr Field was again the steward, so this must have been only temporary. 9. During the period of military administration and for a short time afterwards the traditional system of a civil harbour master in Hong Kong was replaced by

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 513

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

514

Strong

to

Save

the system that prevailed in British naval ports in general under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 (from which Hong Kong was exempt), whereby the King’s (or Queen’s) harbour master was in charge of the port’s security and operations. The office of king’s harbour master in Hong Kong ceased in around 1948 and the previous system took over again, though the exact dates are obscure. 10. See previous chapter. 11. OU 5513 (7)45 The Navy List, July 1945, vol.1, p.159. 12. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, carbon copy of a letter from Lo Lau Tai to C.J.B., 6 November 1945. 13. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Archibald Ritchie to Rev K.E. Collins, General Superintendent, 9 January 1946. 14. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from CJWF to Rev. K.E. Collins, 29 March 1946. 15. W.A. Doust CBE (with Peter Black) (1976), The Ocean on a Plank: the Remarkable Life of a Marine Salvage Engineer, London: Seeley, Service. Accurate figures on the wrecks are disputed 16. T.N. Chiu (1973), op.cit., pp.65–78 and ch.5. 17. ibid., pp.79–81. 18. See the notice of the launches auction by Lammert Bros., South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 22 August 1949, p.9. The launch was then lying at Ah King’s in Causeway Bay (A. King Slipway) and said to be “in good condition”. Interestingly she is referred to as “The Motor Launch ‘Dayspring’.” 19. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letters from CJWF to Rev. K.E. Collins, 13 June, 5 August and 3 September 1946. 20. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from C.J.B. to AJM, 8 September 1945, p.2. 21. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Hong Kong 1950–1962, report of a visit to Hong Kong by the general superintendent (C.J.B.), 30 September 1952, p.1. 22. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, letter from CJB to Rev. JEC Lawlor, 23. For a good general view see Martin Shipway, Decolonization and Its Impact: A Comparative Approach to the End of the Colonial Empires, Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2008, esp. chs. 3 and 4. 24. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter to Cmdr H. Selby-Ash RN from FWW, 17 March 1947. 25. Hong Kong Stage Club, Season 1947–1948 present, By Arrangement with the Missions to Seamen, Hay Fever, by Noel Coward, Wednesday 22 October for four nights at 8.30. Programme in the author’s possession, a gift of Jonathan Wattis, to who I am indebted.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 514

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

515

26. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letters from F.W.W. to K.E.C., 7 June, 1948; letter from A Ritchie to Commander H. SelbyAsh, RN (at the London headquarters), 14 June, 1948. 27. South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 3 June 1949, p.6. 28. These included, apart from the 144 drums (30 tons) of film scrap, 472 drums of caustic soda, 106 drums of aniline oil, 66 drums of phenol crystals, 30 cases of cellulose lacquer, 50 tons of calcium cyanamide, and 26 drums of sodium bichromate, plus unspecified amounts of vegetable oil, dyestuff, glycerine, phosphate fertiliser, sulphate of ammonia, rosin and unspecified pigments — see South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 17 November 1948, p.6 and 29 June 1949, p.3. 29. Between 24 September 1948 and 17 January 1949, at the conclusion of the Commission of Enquiry, the South China Morning Post published at least 30 stories, with a follow up on 20 June 1949, on the convictions and sentencing of the managers of the godown. A list of Chinese news reports is given, most in Kung Sheung Yat Po (工商日報) and some in Ta Kung Pao (大公報), at http:// zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/西環永安公司倉庫大火, accessed on 23 April 2015. 30. St Matthew, 25.21, “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant…” 31. Colossians 4:12, though perhaps better known in the 19th century translation by W. Bartholomew (1793–1867), “I wrestle and pray”, of J.S. Bach’s wonderful 8-part motet “Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich den!” 32. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, note from A.C. to CJWF, 25 July 1946. A.C. Willis is a fascinating figure. Bonny Tan, “Collection Highlights: Early Tourist Guidebooks: Willis' Singapore Guide (1936)”, biblioasia, October 2010, p.33–40, and “The Seamen’s Friend Dies”, The Straits Times, 20 January 1951, p.5. 33. For the Singapore case see http://rememberingsingapore.blogspot. hk/2013/12/connell-hous.html and http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/ articles/SIP_1134_2006-04-07.html, accessed on 22 January 2015. 34. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, carbon copy of letter from D.F. Landale, chairman of Local General Committee, to colonial secretary, 13 May 1948. This cited three documents supporting the need for colonial government action in the welfare of seafarers: Savingram SS no.82 of 9 July 1946, a circular letter from the secretary of state for the colonies, Lord Moyne of 9 January 1942 and most important, the British government report: Seamen's Welfare in Ports. Report of the Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Minister of War Transport in 1943, London: HMSO, 1945. 35. Exactly when the first Port Welfare Committee was founded is obscure, but appears to have been around 1928–29. Port of London Health Committee (Charles Francis White MD) (1937), Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health to 31 December 1936, London: Port of London Health Committee, p.2. 36. Annual Report on Hong Kong for the Year 1947, Hong Kong: Ye Olde Printerie, 1948, p.81.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 515

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

516

Strong

to

Save

37. Government Record Service, HKRS41–1–800: Committee To Conduct An Inquiry Into Certain Matters Concerning The Future Administration Of The Port Of Hong Kong — Appointment Of Members, 18 July 1946 to 5 August 1947; HKRS276–1–8–1: Port Welfare Committee Appointment Of The Permanent Committee, 1 July 1947. See also The China Mail, 14 April 1948, p.4 and, in a story that suggests the Permanent Committee did not get going until 1949, the Hong Kong Sunday Herald, 6 March 1949, p.2. 38. South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 7 September 1947, p.11. 39. Hong Kong Government Gazette for the Year 1949, vol.XCI, Hong Kong: Noronha & Co. Ltd., 1949, Notice no. 212, p.405. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letters to Cmdr H. Selby-Ash RN from FWW, 17 March 1947 and 3 May 1948. 40. For the licence application, see the China Mail, 11 June 1949, p.2., “Military Installations Closed Areas (amendment and consolidation) Order”, Cap 245, section 10 (Ordinance no.59 of 1948), 17 November 1950, section 2: Schedule (21), at http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/archive/files/5d0f73f2262d62780dc 4e11f90a736d5.pdf, accessed on 9 February, 2015. 41. The Seafarer’s Chart of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Port Welfare Committee, 1954/55. I am indebted to Jonathan Wattis for the opportunity to make a copy of this leaflet. 42. For the opening ceremony, see the China Mail, 1 September 1949, p.11. 43. He had been promoted in October 1946, having been made Youth Secretary after his post-war leave, see South China Sunday Post & Herald, 4 March 1951, p.6. 44. St Mark’s Gospel, 3.25. 45. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from FWW to KEC, 7 June 1948. 46. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Bishop R.O. Hall to CJB, 14 August, 1948. 47. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from CJB to Bishop Hall 17 August 1948. 48. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from K.E. Collins to FWW 16 November 1948. 49. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letter from Hastings & Co. to FWW 29 November 1948. 50. See South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 31 May 1949, p.12. 51. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/168, Hong Kong 1920–1949, Box 168, letters from Archibald Ritchie to H. Selby-Ash, 11 December 1948 and letters FWW to KEC 1 January 1949 and 10 October 1949. An illustrated story about the refugees in the Institute was carried in The China Mail, 4 May 1949, p.4.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 516

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

517

52. South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 3 December 1949, p.6

Chapter 15 The New World Dawns 1. Letters, South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 31 December 1946. 2. Tony Sweeting (prepared and edited by Peter Cunich) (2015), “Hong Kong’s Eurasians”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch, vol.55, p.83–113. 3. Gillian Chambers (1993), Eastern Waters, Eastern Winds: a History of the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, Hong Kong: Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, notes that in 1957 the governor summoned the club commodore, Prof. F.E. Stock, and instructed him that the club should admit Asian members. 4. Sharon P Smith (1978), “The Port of New York and New Jersey: Lifeline to the Region” FRBNY Quarterly Review, Summer, p.5. 5. Brian J. Cudahy (2006), Box Boats: How Container Ships Changed the World, New York City: Fordham University Press, p.35, Marc Levinson, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007, chs.2 and 4. 6. James J. Corbett and James Winebrake “The Impacts of Globalisation on International Maritime Transport Activity Past Trends and Future Perspectives”, Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalizing World 10–12 November 2008, Guadalajara, Mexico, para.17. 7. In 1950/51 British and Norwegian flagged vessels comprised 52.1% of ocean going shipping, in 1950/51 that had risen to 64.3% — Reports of the Director of Marine, 1950/61 and 1951/52, Table 1. 8. Meredith Leigh Oyen, “Allies, Enemies and Aliens: Migration and U.S.-Chinese Relations, 1940–1965”, unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University, 2007, 2 vols, vol.1, pp.104–110. Oyen notes that the struggle for equal war risk bonuses was finally won, but wages were never equalized. Her Table 3.1 notes that in 1944 British Able Seamen were paid £14 a week, but Chinese ABs were only paid £8.17.0 on a tanker and £7.17.0 on a freighter. 9. The actual history of the home of merchant marine officer certification is slightly more complicated. See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20090609003228/http://www.berr.gov.uk/aboutus/corporate/history/ outlines/BT-1621-1970/page13919.html, accessed on 11 February 2015. 10. T.N. Chiu (1973), p.94. For the selectivity of the government’s noninterventionism see Chan Cheuk Wah (1998), The Myth of Hong Kong's Laissez-faire Economic Governance: 1960s and 1970s, Hong Kong: HKIAPS, Occasional Paper Series, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK and the same author’s PhD thesis, “The Role of Government in the Restructuring of the Hong Kong Economy. 1945–1970”, unpublished, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1997, especially chs 2 & 4.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 517

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

518

Strong

to

Save

11. Stephen Davies (2007), French Ships: Friendships, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Maritime Museum. 12. The force grew and by rotation was always maintained, so that in the course of the war, for example, a total of five fleet carriers served, one of which was on duty, the others being rested and refitted and all of which staged in Hong Kong. Clare M Scammel (2001), “Anglo-American Strategic Cooperation: The Role of Carrier Aviation in Western Strategy, 1945–1955”, unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London, ch.5; and J.J Robb-Webb (2006), “The British Pacific Fleet Experience and Legacy: a Levels of Warfare Analysis”, unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London, p.123. 13. It is estimated that at peak concentrations up to 80 Royal Navy and Commonwealth Navy ships will have been in the British Far East Fleet area during the period 1950–1967. http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/ showthread.php?t=14688, accessed on 14 February 2015. 14. On the closure of the naval dockyard see Peter Melson (1997), White Ensign, Red Dragon: the History of the Royal Navy in Hong Kong, 2nd ed., Liskeard: Maritime Books; and Alexander Grantham (2012), Via Ports: Hong Kong to Hong Kong, 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p.193–194. 15. T.N. Chiu (1973), op.cit., pp.111–112. 16. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Chaplain’s Quarterly Report, WJHB to London, received 1 February 1951, p.6. ibid. Letter from A Ritchie to H. SelbyAsh, 8 February 1951. 17. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter WJHB to CJB, 25 August 1950, p.2. “Old Jolly,” was Lt. Cmdr. James Jolly, CBE, RD, RNR, Director of Marine from 17 June 1941 to 25 December 1941 and from 1947 to 1957. 18. See ch.16 below. 19. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from WJHB to K.E. Collins, 24 February 1950. 20. Report of the Director of Marine for 1951/52, Table 1 gives 13 western (i.e. white) nationalities, 18 including Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Burmese, and Moroccans. 21. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from WJHB to K.E. Collins, 24 February 1950, both quotations. 22. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, memorandum by CJB for item 12 on the agenda of a London General Committee meeting of 15 March 1950, summarizing a report from WJHB about the need to move the Institute. 23. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, resume of a General Committee meeting of the Local General Committee on 3 July 1951. 24. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Chaplain’s quarterly report from WJHB to London for fourth quarter 1950, p.3 and 5.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 518

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

519

25. Sir John Fearns Nicoll KCMG (1899–1981), a career British colonial civil servant, was colonial secretary 1949–52. He followed Sir Fraklin Gimson as governor of Singapore, serving 1952–55. 26. In 1950 the exchange rate was HK$16 to one £1 and HK$4 to US$1. Converted to present day values HK$100,000 — the total grant plus raised funds plus matching grant — would be around HK$600,000 — HK$800,000. The government was not being generous. 27. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, resume of a General Committee meeting of the Local General Committee on 3 July, 1951. Inter alia, this announced the end of David Landale’s tenure of the chairmanship. 28. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from WJHB to CJB 10 August 1951. 29. ibid. 30. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from WJHB to CJB 19 September 1951.

Chapter 16 Cross-Currents 1. Mary Palmer, “Apostleship of the Sea Bureau Looks After Seamen of All Races and Creeds”, South China Sunday Post — Herald, 5 January 1964, p.9. 2. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 18 December 1948, p.8. 3. The Blessed Frédéric Ozanam (1813–1853) founded the Society of St Vincent de Paul in Paris in 1833, based on a Parisian student organization that had been suppressed in 1830. It was a lay organization, each local conference having only one clerical member, with a specific mission to serve the poor and disadvantaged. It spread through France, reached Britain in 1844, the US in 1845, Australia in 1850, India in 1862, and Hong Kong in 1863. The China Mail, 8 September 1880, p.3 noted that at that date the society had been in existence for 17 years, had very little money and had two conferences in Hong Kong, one Chinese caring for Chinese people in distress, the other European caring mainly for the Portuguese poor. 4. In the newspaper reports of the annual, late autumn society fair there was usually a brief summary of accounts itemizing the list of objects to which expenditure had been devoted. These were invariably Catholic Orphans Home, the Home for the Aged and Infirm, the Hospital of the Sacred Heart in Wan Chai, Medicines, Bursaries for the poor, and such varying ancillaries as travel expenses for stranded Catholic destitutes, or shoes for orphan boys. On no occasion was any maritime charitable object mentioned. See, for example, Hong Kong Daily Press, 1 December 1900, p.3; The China Mail, 9 December 1905, p.5 and the Hong Kong Daily Press, 1 November 1911, p.2. 5. Enrico Pascal Valtorta (1883–1951), who became Hong Kong’s 4th vicar apostolic (and Titular Bishop of Lerus) in 1926, was consecrated Hong Kong’s

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 519

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

520

Strong

to

Save

first Roman Catholic diocesan bishop in 1948 following the creation of the Hong Kong diocese in April 1946. 6. The “long-felt wish” may reflect the pre-war, but not organized initiative recollected by Fr Cunningham. Arthur Gannon (1887–1979) had begun work in Glasgow for the nascent Apostleship in 1920, working with Fr Peter Anson and Brother Shields, SJ. He had become the new organization’s secretary general in 1924, he continued in office until 1960, see The Tablet, 16 June 1979, p.589. 7. Apostleship of the Sea Hong Kong Council, 100 years of Apostleship of the Sea, Serving Seafarers from 1895–1995, Hong Kong: Apostleship of the Sea, 1995, passim and p.10. 8. ibid. p.10. 9. The silent presence at the feast here, present on the PWC as of 1952, was the Norwegian Seamen’s Mission. 10. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, copy of a letter from Father MC Pelly SJ, Port Chaplain of the Apostleship of the Sea, 151 Waterloo Road, Kowloon Tong to the chairman of the PWC, 29 September 1951. 11. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to WJHB, marked private and confidential, 5 October, 1951. 12. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter WJHB to CJB, 16 October 1951. 13. Daniel H Bays (2012), A New History of Christianity in China, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, ch.7. Bays notes that deporting foreign missionaries began in earnest in 1951, the regime’s mistrust much enhanced by the outbreak and progress of the Korean War. 14. Sources: Report on Hong Kong for the Year 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Annual Report of the Director of Marine 1966–67, 1967–68, 1968–69, 1969–70, 1970–71, 1971–72, 1972–73, 1973–74, 1974–75, 1976, 1977. 15. See South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 31 December 1946 where he is referred to as the Manager. 16. For Field’s valedictory, see South China Morning Post, 16 June 1951, p.4. 17. South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 5 July 1962, p.7. 18. Strong (1956), op.cit., pp.167–169. 19. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Report of a Visit by the General Superintendent of the Missions to Seamen (CJB), marked confidential, p.4. 20. Gospels according to St Matthew ch.6, v.24 and St Luke, ch. 16, v.13. 21. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Letter (from CJB?) to WJHB 14 November 1953, p.2. 22. (1959), Hong Kong Servicemen’s Guides Association, History and Annual Report 1958, Hong Kong: Servicemen’s Guides Association. I am indebted to Mr Reg Hellings, for gifting me with his copy.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 520

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

521

23. ibid. p.3. The Committee members were, Anglican: Mrs Ian Jenkins, Mr Roy Pearson, Mr Newell, Roman Catholics: Mr Frank Cleary, Mr Jack Lyons, & Mr Jerry O’Donnell. Mr Lyons was chairman and Mrs Jenkins secretary. 24. Hong Kong Servicemen’s Guides Association (195), History and Annual Report 1958, Hong Kong: Servicemen's Guides Association, pp.5–6. 25. The total of $49,930 was raised from the National Catholic Community Service, the US Episcopalians, the Evangelical and Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church of America and the Lutheran Church and a local fund raising drive in Hong Kong. 26. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from WJHB to CJB 18 December 1954 enclosing a letter WJHB to Consul General Harrington dated 16 December 1954. 27. Servicemen’s Guides Association (1958), op.cit., p.14. 28. ibid. pp.6–19. 29. U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Hong Kong 1963, 1967, 1969, Minute extracts 1955– 1962, Notes of 5 January 1955 from R.S. McTier noting the volume of US naval personnel using the Institute and of 2 March 1956 in which the general superintendent briefed council on HK becoming an R&R port for the US Navy with the end of the Korean War. 30. For the first news, committal, trial and execution see the China Mail, 21 May 1955 p.1, 11 July 1955 p.10, 12 July 1955, p.10, 22 August 1955, p.10, 23 August 1955, p.10, and 20 September 1955, p.10. 31. Hong Kong Mariners’ Club archive, large for mat scrap book with miscellaneous contents from newspaper stories to excerpted quotations, only 29pp with contents 1953–1956, South China Sunday Post Herald story for 19 February 1956 copied typescript, pp.26–27. 32. ibid., p.27–29 a typed copy of a story in the South China Morning Post, 21 February 1956. 33. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from WJHB to CJB 29 March 1956, pp.4 34. U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Hong Kong 1963, 1967, 1969, Minute extracts 1955– 1962, minute note of 2 May 1956. 35. U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Hong Kong 1963, 1967, 1969, Minute extracts 1955– 1962, minute note of 15 August 1956. 36. U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Hong Kong 1963, 1967, 1969, Minute extracts 1955– 1962, minute notes of 4 July and 17 July 1956. 37. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to Bishop R.O. Hall, 21 May 1952, p.1. 38. “Down on London's tough dockland a Chinese clergyman stands as a solid Beacon of hope for HK's lonely sailors”, South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 7 March 1976, p.13.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 521

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

522

Strong

to

Save

39. U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Hong Kong 1963, 1967, 1969, Minute extracts 1955– 1962, minute note of 1 August 1956 — a report from William Haig Brown on the situation in Hong Kong. 40. ibid., minute note of 19 September 1956. 41. South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 29 December 1956, p.5.

Chapter 17 Sea Changes 1. Harold C. Fey (ed.) (2004), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, vol.2 1948–1968, 3rd ed., Geneva: World Council of Churches, esp. ch.1, W.A. Visser ‘t Hooft, “The General Ecumenical Development Since 1948”. For contemporary views see Bernard Leeming (1960), The Churches and the Church: A Study of Ecumenism Developed from the Lauriston Lectures for 1957, London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Norman Goodall, The Ecumenical Movement: What it is and What it Does, London: Oxford University Press, 1961. 2. Ronald Hope (1990), A New History of British Shipping, London: John Murray, p.413. 3. Stopford (1997), op.cit., ch.9; Jack Devanney (2007), The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers, Tavernier FL: The CTX Press, 2 nd ed., pp.22–23 & 29; Andrew G. Spyrou (2011), From T-2 to Supertanker: Development of the Oil Tanker, 1940–2000. Bloomington IN: iUniverse, Inc., revised ed., pp.17–26. 4. Ewan Corlett (1981), The Revolution in Merchant Shipping, 1950–1980, London: HMSO/National Maritime Museum. 5. Rod Vulovic (1999), “Changing Ship Technology and Port Infrastructure Implications”, in Biliana Cicin-Sain, Robert W Knecht & Nancy Foster, Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy, Washington: National Ocean Service/University of Delaware, pp.59–64 and B.S. Hoyle and David Pinder (1981), Cityport Industrialization and Regional Development: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies, Oxford: Pergamon Press. 6. Louise Butcher (2010), “Shipping: UK Policy”, Standard Note SN/BT/595, London: House of Commons Library, 23 February 2010, p.4. In 1914 the percentage had been 40% and in 1930 it had been 30% — Peter Dewey, War and progress; Britain 1914–1945, Abingdon: Routledge, 2014, p.92. 7. Bruce A. Elleman, High Seas Buffer: the Taiwan Patrol Force 1950–1979, Newport Papers 38, Newport RI: Naval War College Press, 2012, ch.4, “US and British Disputes Over Trade with China”. 8. See White Paper, Defence, Outline of Future Policy, London: HMSO, March 1957 — also known as the Sandys Review. Jeffrey Pickering (1998), Britain’s Withdrawal from East of Suez: the Politics of Retrenchment, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chs 4 and 5.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 522

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

523

9. Annual Report of the Marine Department, 1951–1952 to 1974–1975, Hong Kong: Government Printer. 10. South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 29 December 1956, p.5 11. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to ALN, 17 January 1958, p.1. Anthony Nind’s letter that evoked this response is missing from the file. 12. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to Col. Hugh Dowbiggin, Messrs Stewart Bros., 21 February 1958, p.1. 13. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from HBLD to CJB 9 March 1958, p.1 14. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Lowe, Bingham & Matthews (the Local General Committee’s secretary) to CJB 3 March 1958 and from CJB to LBM 23 May 1958. 15. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to Lowe, Bingham & Matthews, 23 May, 1958, p.1. 16. ibid. 17. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Lowe, Bingham & Matthews to CJB 4 June, 1958. 18. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letters from Lowe, Bingham & Matthews to CJB, 22 October 1958, Missions to Seamen to Lowe, Bingham & Matthews, 10 November 1958, and Lowe, Bingham & Matthews to Missions to Seamen, 15 October 1959. 19. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Lowe, Bingham & Matthews to CJB 4 June 1958. 20. U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Hong Kong 1963, 1967, 1969, Minute extracts 1955– 1962, Note of 2 December 1959 reporting view of Hong Kong chaplain. 21. He retired in 1966 — see South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 19 January 1966, p.8. 22. The Second Taiwan Straits Crisis is graphically, if one-sidedly portrayed in M.H. Halperin (1975), The 1958 Taiwan Straits Crisis: a Documented History, Memorandum RM–4900–ISA December 1966, Santa Monica CA: Rand Corporation. 23. 10th Annual Report of the Port Welfare Committee, 1958–59, Hong Kong: Port Welfare Committee, 1959, pp.3–7. 24. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from ALN to CJB 10 April, 1959. 25. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to ALN, 20 April 1959. 26. Cyril Brown had insisted on “Dayspring” and the “V” because that was the traditional name and the new vessel would be the 5th.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 523

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

524

Strong

to

Save

27. The China Mail, 30 November 1959, p.10. The China Mail happily refers to the vessel as Dayspring 5, exactly as the shipping business members of the Local General Committee had feared. 28. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from ALN to CJB 11 January 1960. 29. Detailed biographical information is missing, though Francis (Frank) Joseph Rolleston (1873–1946), one of the sons of William Rolleston (1831–1903) was a noted inhabitant of Timaru, where Alan Rolleston went to school and was buried. 30. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, note from CJB about lunch with C.G. Smith on 26 August 1960 dated 29 August 1960. 31. South China Morning Post, 26 January, 1961, p.8. 32. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from AER to CJB, 3 March 1961 (received 7 March 1961). 33. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to AER 7 March 1961. 34. For the small flurry of articles see South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph 24–2, 27–2, 28–2, 1–3, 5–3, and 12–3–1961. 35. Mary Palmer, “Missions’ Valuable Work: Spiritual And Material Welfare Of Seamen, Recreational Building in Kowloon Suggested”, South China Sunday Post — Herald, 26 February 1961, p.3. 36. South China Sunday Post — Herald, 26 February 1961, p.3. 37. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to AER, 7 March 1961. 38. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from AER to CJB, 11 March 1961. 39. The approach here is that common enough in much social analysis and elegantly explored in Mary Douglas (1986), How Institutions Think, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. 40. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from GWT to CJB 15 March 1961. 41. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to an unknown addressee. By elimination, since the letter was copied to one Mission nominated member, Hugh Dowbiggin, the letter must have been addressed to the other. This would have been the Rev. J.C.L. Wong (James Wong Chang Ling). 42. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Bishop R.O. Hall to CJB 12 April 1961. 43. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from M.A.R. Young-Herries to CJB 17 April 1961. 44. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, copy of background paper to item 10 of Agenda of the Meeting of the Standing Committee held on 3 May 1961 marked confidential.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 524

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

525

45. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to C.G. Smith, 5 May 1961 46. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from C.G. Smith to CJB, 13 May, 1961 attaching an extract from the draft minutes of the Local General Committee meeting of 11 April, 1961. 47. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Hugh Barton to Coard M. Squarey, General Manager, Ocean Travel Development, Nuffield House, Piccadilly, 25 May 1961. Coard Miles Squarey (c.1902–1973) was a noted shipping enthusiast and inter alia author of books on passenger liners. 48. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from AER to CJB, 26 May 1961. 49. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letters from AER to CJB, 29 May 1961, and CJB to AER, 9 June 1961. 50. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letters from Dean Barry Till to Hugh Barton (copied to CJB), 29 May 1961, C.G. Smith to CJB, 29 May 1961, Dean Till to CJB, 31 May 1961, CJB to Dean Till, 9 June 1961, CJB to AER (copied to HK Local General Committee), 9 June 1961, CJB to C.G. Smith, 9 June 1961; cables AER to CJB 13 June 1961, C.G. Smith to CJB, 14 June 1961, CJB to C.G. Smith, 14 June 1961; letter C.G. Smith to CJB, 14 June 1961. 51. Hugh Barton to Coard M. Squarey, 25 May 1961. 52. See the cathedral chaplaincy of Rev. Jimmy Froud in Wolfendale (2014), op.cit., pp.203–205 and more generally his ch.7 for contemporary parallels. 53. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Cable CJB to C.G. Smith 14 June 1961. 54. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letters from T.P. Kerfoot (Deputy General Secretary) to C.G. Smith and to Dean Barry Till, both 10 July 1961. 55. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter Dean Till to TPK, 15 July 1961. 56. This is merely to point out the extraordinary salience of Freemasonry in colonial Hong Kong and its almost inevitable role in helping to oil the wheels on which the colonial Hong Kong system ran. Successful Missions to Seamen chaplains, like George Waldegrave, had usually been masons. 57. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from TPK to C.G. Smith, 10 July 1961. 58. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter Dean Till to TPK, 15 July 1961. 59. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter CJB to Dean Till, 20 July 1961.

Chapter 18 Passage Planning 1. For a Hong Kong echo of the viciously unpleasant western seafarer reaction to Chinese seafarers see the letter, South China Morning Post of 3 June 1908, p.7.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 525

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

526

Strong

to

Save

2. Sascha Auerbach (2009), Race, Law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain, London: Palgrave Macmillan, ch.2; Lars Amenda, “Between Southern China and the North Sea: Maritime labour and Chinese migration in Continental Europe: 1890–1950”, in Sylvia Hahn & Stan Nadel (eds) (2014), Asian Migrants in Europe: Transcultural Connections, Gottingen: V&R Unipress p.59–80, especially Part 1; Neil Evans, “Across the Universe: Racial Violence and the Post-war Crisis in Imperial Britain, 1919–1925”; Tony Lane, “The Political Imperatives of Bureaucracy and Empire: the Case of the Outlawed Alien Seamen Act 1925” in Diane Frost (ed.) (1995), Ethnic Labour and British Imperial Trade (Immigrants & Minorities), London: Routledge, pp.59–88 and pp.104–129; Meredith Oyen (1997), “Allies, Enemies and Aliens: Migration and U.S.-Chinese Relations, 1940–1965”, unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University, 2007, 2 vols and her “Fighting for Equality: Chinese Seamen in the Battle of the Atlantic, 1939–1945”, Diplomatic History, vol.38.3, 2014, pp.526–548. 3. Appendix 1 of the Interim Report (1963), op.cit., p.9. 4. For a fuller discussion of the Chinese Seamen’s Mission see Stephen Davies, “The Parallel Worlds of Seafarers: Connections and Disconnections on the Hong Kong Waterfront, 1840–1970”, in Elizabeth Sinn & Christopher Munn (eds) (2017), Meeting Place: Encounters Across Cultures in Hong Kong, 1841–1984, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 5. The To Tsai Church was the forerunner of today’s Church of Christ in China Hop Yat Church (中華基督教會合一堂) and, encouraged in that direction by the London Missionary Society, was the first self-governing Chinese Christian church in Hong Kong. See Lo Wai-kin (盧偉健) (2011), From Seed to Harvest: a Heritage Trail of Early Christianity in Hong Kong, unpublished MSc in Conservation dissertation, University of Hong Kong, ch.5 and http://www. hkcccc.org/Eng/1main.php, accessed on 29 May 2015. 6. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 4 January 1935, p.11. 7. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 4 January 1935 and 20 June 1936. 8. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 12 September 1942, where “LR” reports help given by the Mission to Chinese seafarers, who were crew of five ships interned in Manila in 1942. 9. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 12 February 1959, p.14, letter from Mr Li as President of the Christian Mission to Chinese Seamen. 10. For donors see for example South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 30 July 1938, 15 July 1939, 7 July 1940, 17 December 1949, 10 January 1950. 11. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Report of a visit to Hong Kong by the general superintendent, 30 September 1952, marked confidential, p.5. 12. Orwell & Peter Phillips (2012), Former Mariners’ Church, 100 George Street, The Rocks Conservation Management Plan, Sydney: Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, p.138.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 526

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

527

13. Final Report of the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee 1963/64, Hong Kong: S. Young, Government Printer, 1964. 14. International Labour Organization (1953), Asian Maritime Conference: Welfare Facilities For Asian Seafarers in Asian Ports, Geneva, ILO, pp.17–18, http:// labordoc.ilo.org/record/98562?ln=en, accessed on 29 May 2015. 15. The Institute’s nightly costs to a seafarer were 1500% those of a kun. 16. See a letter in South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 8 October 1964, p.12. 17. This was explicitly stated by the financial secretary, Sir John Cowperthwaite, in 1971. Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 9 June 1971. 18. Hong Kong Government Gazette for the year 1964, vol.CVI, HK: Government Printer, p.4076, G.N. 2560. 19. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, unidentified news clipping, late 1961. See also South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 23 January 1962, p.12. 20. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, memo from Hugh Barton to C.G. Smith (cc J.R. Precious, I.M. Macrae (Butterfield & Swire), H.A. Penn and J.R. van Osselen (Royal Interocean Lines)), 7 February 1962. 21. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to Bishop Hall, 19 June, 1962. 22. Mr Hui Sai Fun (許世勳) was the son of Hui Oi Chow (許愛周), who in 1962 still owned Shun Cheong Shipping — Victor Zheng (2010), Chinese Family Business and the Equal Inheritance System: Unravelling the Myth, Abingdon: Routledge, p.44. 23. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Michael Herries to CJB 23 February 1962. 24. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to Hugh Barton, 29 March 1962. 25. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from CJB to Bishop Hall, 19 June 1962. 26. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 16 June 1962, p.5. 27. Hull Archive, U/DMS/2/169, Box 168, unknown date 1963. 28. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, copy of a letter from Hugh Dowbiggin (Vice-Chairman, Local General Committee) to A. Inglis, Director of Public Works, 30 June 1962. 29. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 4 September 1962, p.8. 30. The issues of the South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 1–9 September 1962, generally. 31. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 5 September, 1962, p.8.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 527

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

528

Strong

to

Save

32. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Mrs Mary Precious to CJB, 3 September 1962. 33. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from JRP to CJB, 3 September 1962. 34. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from JRP to CJB, 29 November 1962. 35. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter from Deacons to R.C. Clarke, acting superintendent of Crown lands, 28 January 1963. 36. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Letters from Hugh Barton to CJB 18 March 1963 and 9 April 1963. 37. Missions to Seamen, Mariners’ Club Hong Kong Archive, Record of Services, 2 vols, vol.2, September 1960–December 1964 and South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 18 April 1963, p.7. 38. Ibid., 9 April 1963.

Chapter 19 The Mariners’ Club: Laying the Foundations 1. Missions to Seamen, Mariners’ Club Hong Kong Archive, Record of Services, vol.2, entries for 31 March 1963 and 7 April 1963. 2. Ibid. 3. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, Brief history of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen by H.B.L. Dowbiggin, with the early years very poorly understood, and anonymous handover notes (almost certainly by Bob Precious), unknown date, 1963. 4. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter J.E.C. Lawlor to CJB, 17 May 1963. 5. $4,374,800 from the land swap, $1 million as a grant and the balance from government’s contributions to fees, etc. 6. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter J.E.C. Lawlor to CJB, 23 August 1963. 7. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, letter Michael Herries to CJB, 4 September 1963. 8. For details of Henry Roy Chalkley (1923–2008), his entry in Crockford’s Clerical Directory and Navy News, March 2008, p.32. Roy Chalkley’s naval service had been in the battlecruiser Renown, the destroyer Battleaxe and Britain’s last battleship, HMS Vanguard. 9. Hull Archive, no file number, Box 199, “Summary of State of Affairs in Hong Kong by London Head Office”, unsigned, following a telephone call from Michael Herries, 15 October 1963. Elliot Lawlor was on some kind of secondment from headquarters and basically wanted the same pay as he had been getting.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 528

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

529

10. Of Chinese seafarers recruited in Hong Kong, only a minority were Hong Kong residents. In a questionnaire administered by the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee, of the 25,779 Chinese seamen employed out of Hong Kong in April 1963, 47% were not Cantonese. 11. Steve Y.S. Tsang (2007), A Modern History of Hong Kong, London: I.B. Tauris, ch.12, esp. pp.165–166; Ngo Tak-wing (ed.) (1999), Hong Kong’s History: State and Society Under Colonial Rule, London: Routledge, Intro p.8; and Catherine Schenk, “Economic History of Hong Kong”. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. March 16 2008. At http://eh.net/encyclopedia/ economic-history-of-hong-kong/, accessed on 17 August 2015. 12. See Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter TPK to Johannes Aadaal 23 September 1970 and Johannes Aadaal to TPK, 7 October 1970. 13. Apostleship of the Sea (1995), op.cit., p.16, South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 5 January 1964, p.9 and 3 May 1964, p.1. 14. Ibid., p.18. 15. The only such outreach detectable was a level of shared ministry with the Methodists — see Missions to Seamen, Mariners’ Club Hong Kong Archive, Record of Services, 2 vols, vol.2: September 1960–December 1964. I am indebted to Rev. Stephen Miller for pointing out to me that this was very much in accord with contemporary movements in the mother Anglican Church in Britain. 16. Missions to Seamen, Mariners’ Club Hong Kong Archive, Accounts for 1965. 17. The payment of £5,000 from the Merchant Navy Welfare Board was eventually made via London in early 1967, but London was in such dire financial straits that they retained the money as a repayment of 50% of the £10,000 loan they had made to Hong Kong to help finance the Mariners’ Club — see Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, letters CJB to Lowe, Bingham & Matthews 6 January 1967, K.A. Miller to CJB 10 January 1967 and K.A. Miller to R.E. Haerle, Secretary, Merchant Navy Welfare Board 10 January 1967. By 1971 it seems to have been general scuttlebutt that the Missions to Seamen had been “near bankruptcy” — Hull Archive, Unnamed Envelope, Box 199, Hong Kong 1971–1974, letter Geoffrey Shrives to D.J. Rowlands 11 January 1971. 18. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 22 March 1966, p.10. 19. (S) means what was then called the Supply & Secretariat Branch of the Royal Navy (today Logistics Branch), which provided the navy’s accountants, clerks and secretaries, caterers, cooks, stewards, storekeepers, and everyone else needed to keep a ship properly documented, paid, fed, watered and adequately stored. 20. Personal information from Professor Roy Thornton, Jim Thornton’s son, 11 August 2015. 21. Ibid. the late Col. H.B.L. Dowbiggin had been a prominent Freemason and Elliot Lawlor’s predecessor, Bob Precious, had been active during his time in Hong Kong.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 529

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

530

Strong

to

Save

22. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 8 April 1967, p.7. 23. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 22 March, 1968, p.6. The successive plans of the government’s serial uses and final demolition of 40 Gloucester Road are in the HK Government Records Service, HKRS819–2– 2313 to 2315 for the government accommodation, HKRS815–11–973 to 996 for the Nurses Hostel and HKRS815–11–967 to 975 for the final demolition. This suggests that the plan to create police offices never materialized. 24. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 30 October 1972, p.5. 25. For the final days of the old building and the advent of the new see South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 28 March 1985, p.23 and 1 March 1987, p.33. 26. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 9 February 1961, p.9; 5 May 1963, p.8; 25 May 1963, p.5. 27. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 4 January 1966, p.5. 28. John Russell Berg, entry in Crockford’s Clerical Directory. 29. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 10 April 1967, p.18. 30. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 6 May 1967, p.15. 31. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Report for 1967 to London by senior chaplain (Rev. Frank Roe) where the actual move is dated 10 May. 32. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 26 May 1967, p.9 and 27 May 1967, p.7. 33. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, Hong Kong, Order of Service of the Dedication of St Peter’s Church in the Mariner’s Club, Kowloon, Sunday 28 May 1967 at 7.00 p.m. See also South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 29 May 1967, p.9. 34. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 31 May 1967, p.6. 35. Hong Kong, Commission of Inquiry, Kowloon Disturbances 1966, Kowloon Disturbances 1966: Report of Commission of Inquiry, Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1967, I.C. Jarvie & Joseph Agassi (eds) (1969), Hong Kong: A Society in Transition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, ch.XIV; and Wai-man Lam (2004), Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: the Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, pp.115–124. 36. Robert Bickers & Ray Yep (eds) (2009), May Days in Hong Kong: Riot and Emergency in 1967, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, Introduction, esp. p.7 for figures; Gary Ka Wai Cheung (2009), Hong Kong’s Watershed: The 1967 Riots, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, ch.3; John Cooper (1970), Colony in Conflict: The Hong Kong Disturbances, May 1967– January 1968, Hong Kong: Swindon Books.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 530

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

531

Chapter 20 Who is Captain? 1. Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (1966), Annual Report 105th Year, Hong Kong: Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, p.23; Hong Kong Container Committee (1966), Report of the Container Committee, Hong Kong, December 1966, Hong Kong: Government Printer. 2. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168 letter Michael Herries to CJB, 26 April 1967. 3. For Jim Thornton this was doubling up on what he had been asked to do in the summer of 1967 though the document, attached to Michael Herries’ letter, is missing — see Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168 letter Michael Herries to Jim Thornton, 29 March 1968. 4. The meeting was on 28 March and the memorandum was produced on 29 March, see Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Collection of various documents and letters 1968–1970, papers dealing with manager/chaplain problems. 5. Personal communication from Mr Francis Roe, son of Frank and Helen Roe, 12 August 2015. I am much indebted to Rev. Frank Roe for privileging me with his personal insight into what happened. 6. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, undated circular from the Seamen’s Recruiting Office. 7. Personal communication from Rev Frank Roe, 1 September 2015. 8. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter Michael Herries to CJB, 21 November 1968. 9. In his words, “It was not helpful to the Anglican church to have a resigned expatriate priest hanging about after falling out with the Bishop, so out of sensitivity to this I went back to the UK.” Personal communication from Rev. Frank Roe, 1 September 2015. 10. Personal communication from Rev. Frank Roe, 1 September 2015. 11. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 21 February 1968, p.7, which announced John Berg’s departure for leave in the United Kingdom before taking up his new post. 12. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter AGS to TPK (marked confidential), 21 February, 1969 noting that Cyril Brown had never mentioned the Apostolate issue, which Geoffrey Shrives had learned of via Father Joe McAsey and Canon Smith’s letter. 13. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter CJB to Mgr F.S. Frayne, AOS Rome, 25 November 1968. 14. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter Tom Kerfoot (TPK) to Geoffrey Shrives (AGS), 17 February 1969.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 531

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

532

Strong

to

Save

15. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter AGS to TPK, marked confidential, 21 February 1969. 16. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letters TPK to AGS, 3 March 1969; and AGS to TPK, 8 March 1969; and Francis Frayne to TPK 17, April 1969 and 10 May 1969. 17. Francis Xavier Hsu Chen-ping ( 徐誠斌 ), 1920–1973, the Roman Catholic Church in Hong Kong’s first Chinese Bishop, made Auxiliary Bishop of Hong Kong and Titular Bishop of Orrea in 1967, and Bishop of Hong Kong following the retirement of Bishop Bianchi in November 1968. 18. Apostleship of the Sea (1995), op.cit., pp.18–19. 19. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter Francis Frayne to TPK, 10 May 1969. 20. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter Michael Herries to TPK, 10 July 1969. 21. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter, Bishop Hsu to Francis Frayne (copied to TPK), 14 July 1969. 22. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letters Francis Frayne to TPK, 25 July; TPK to Michael Herries, 4 August; Francis Frayne to TPK, 8 August; and AGS to TPK, 14 August 1969. The first draft of the terms of the Letter of Agreement prepared by D.J. Rowlands was a nightmare of bureaucratic nit-picking that tried to address the problems and arguably ensured that problems they would be — see Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168 letter D.J. Rowlands to TPK. 23. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, copy of Press Release, see also South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 17 August 1969, p.1. 24. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter from Bishop Hsu to Francis Frayne, copied to TPK. 25. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter from AGS to D.J. Rowlands (assistant general secretary to the Missions to Seamen, London), 5 September 1969. 26. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, Minutes of a meeting of the Local General Committee of the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen, Hong Kong, 11 August 1969. 27. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter AGS to D.J. Rowlands, 2 September 1969.

Chapter 21 The Mariners’ Club: Ironing Out the Wrinkles 1. For the text see International Labour Conference (2006), Maritime Labour Convention at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@normes/ documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_090250.pdf, accessed on 19 August 2015. For a thoughtful analysis and prognostication see Francisco Piniella, José María Silos & Francisca Bernal (2013), “Who Will Give Effect to the ILO’s

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 532

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

533

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006?”, International Labour Review, vol.152.1, pp.59–84. 2. For the shipping cycles see Martin Stopford (2014), “Dry Bulk Market Trends and Prospects”, Asian Logistics and Maritime Conference, Hong Kong, November, Figure 3.6, at http://www.almc.hk/download/session_summaries/ maritime_forum/Martin_Stopford.pdf, accessed on 9 September 2015. 3. For the announcement, South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 7 October 1969, p.7. 4. Hong Kong Standard, Standard Shipping News, Friday 1 August 1969, p.1. 5. As early as December 1960 the Norwegian Knutsen Line was advertising that a few containers were available, South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 3 December 1960. 6. Other contemporary offerings were LASH, Seabee, BACAT, RoRo, LUF and pallet carrier systems see I. L. Buxton, R. P. Daggitt, J. King (1978), Cargo Access Equipment for Merchant Ships, London: E & F.N. Spon, ch.2; and Stephen E. Donlon, Comparative Costs of Competitive Shipping, Theses and Major Papers, Paper 67, pp.3–12, Part of the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, University of Rhode Island at http:// digitalcommons.uri.edu/ma_etds, accessed on 21 August 2015. 7. Simon Rodwell (1989), Boxes and Barnacles: the Story of Hong Kong International Terminals, Hong Kong: Hongkong International Terminals, with the yard expansion in 1969. See also https://www.hit.com.hk/en/About-Hit/ Milestones.html and the founding of Hongkong International Terminals Ltd. in the same year. For Holt’s Wharf and the middle ground, see South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 29 December 1969, p.25. 8. For a telling evocation of this signal turning point see Tony Judt (2005), Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, London: Heineman pt.II, ch.XIII, “The End of the Affair” and pt.III, “Recessional”. 9. T. Alderton (2004), The Global Seafarer: Living and Working in a Globalized Industry, Geneva: International Labour Office, p.59, Table 3.2. 10. This seems to have been an early feature of the move to Tsim Sha Tsui. By the time Geoffrey Shrives arrived he was surprised to see the fifth floor dormitory “full of Chinese seamen sleeping on every bed at 1100 in the morning.” Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, undated mid–1969 memorandum from AGS to London on the expected issues of the proposed joint ministry. 11. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter AGS to Tom Kerfoot, 29 October 1969. 12. Hull Archive: U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter AGS to Tom Kerfoot, 22 October 1970. 13. For the letting of the tenders to construct the terminal to Modern Terminals Ltd, Kowloon Container Warehouse Co. Ltd., and Sea-Land Orient Ltd., see South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 18 August 1970, p.23.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 533

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

534

Strong

to

Save

14. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/169 Box 168, letter Geoffrey Shrives to D.J. Rowlands, 17 July 1970. 15. Hull archive, unnamed envelope 2, Box 199, Hong Kong 1971–1974, letter D.J. Rowlands to Geoffrey Shrives, 12 January 1971. 16. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, Chaplain’s Annual Report 1971. 17. Ibid. and Hong Kong, Mariners’ Club Archive, Wedding Registers May 1953– December 2014 and Baptism and Burials Registers 13 December 1946–12 August 1998. 18. Hong Kong, Mariners’ Club Archive, Managers Reports 1968–1971, reports of December 1969, May 1970, October 1970, November 1970 and March 1971 for example. 19. Hong Kong, Mariners’ Club Archive, Manager’s Reports 1968–1971. The ten nationality groups were American, Australian, Chinese, Dutch, English (no doubt British was meant), Greek, Indian or Pakistani, Indonesian, New Zealanders, Scandinavians, Singaporeans and Malaysians and Others. 72% were western and 19% Chinese. 20. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, letter Geoffrey Shrives to D.J. Rowland 25 September 1970. 21. Ibid. A major unstated basis for this was that at this point in time the Missions to Seamen was in considerable financial trouble to the point, indeed, that scuttlebutt in the shipping world was that it was “near bankruptcy” – Hull archive, unnamed envelope 2, Box 199, Hong Kong 1971–1974, Letter Geoffrey Shrives to D.J. Rowlands 11 January 1971. 22. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, letter Geoffrey Shrives to D.J. Rowlands, 4 September 1970. 23. Hull archive, unnamed envelope 2, Box 199, Hong Kong 1971–1974, Note on Hong Kong dated and signed by D.J. Rowlands, 21 April 1971. 24. Hull archive, unnamed envelope 2, Box 199, Hong Kong 1971–1974, letter from Geoffrey Shrives to D.J. Rowlands, 11 May 1971. 25. Hull Archive, Port Reports Hong Kong, 1972–1974, no box number, November 1972. 26. The gap was filled in by Roy Chalkley, who got on famously with George Dopchie — Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973–1975 Box 431, 19 September 1973. 27. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/153 Box 165, Annual Report 1971, no date. 28. In fact the Norwegian Mission did not close in Hong Kong until ten years later. 29. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973–1975 Box 431, letter from Geoffrey Shrives to London enclosing his annual report 24 November 1973 and U DMS/ D2/153, Box 165 Senior Chaplain’s half-yearly report to Missions to Seamen General Committee, 5 December 1973.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 534

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

535

30. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973–1975 Box 431 undated letter, Fr George Dopchie to Tom Kerfoot. 31. U DMS/D2/153, Box 165 Senior Chaplain’s half-yearly report to Missions to Seamen General Committee, 5 December 1973; and Hull archive, Port Reports, Hong Kong 1972–1974, no box number, May 1973. 32. Hull Archives, “I Was a Stranger” folder, unnumbered. 33. Ibid., minute 29 November 1973. 34. Ibid., Feedback from Missions to Seamen Teesside, November 1974. 35. South China Morning Post & Hong Kong Telegraph, 3 March 1973, p.1; 8 March 1973, p.5; 5 April 1973, p.6; 19 June, p.9; 28 June, p.7.

Chapter 22 Many Shepherds, One Flock 1. I am most grateful to Ms Barbara Matchett for her affectionate and generous biographical sketch of her father. 2. Hull archive, Envelope, Hong Kong 1973–1975, Box 431, Letter from D.J. Rowlands to Ted Matchett, undated (October 1974). 3. Hull archive, Port Reports, Hong Kong 1972–1974, no box number, October 1973 — the report had noted that in 7 years 7450 — almost 10% of Hong Kong seamen — had jumped ship. 4. Ibid., ITF is the International Transport Federation — the international seafarers’ trade union. 5. Hull archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979 Monthly Station Returns, Box 168, January 1985. 6. Hull archive, Envelope, Hong Kong 1973–1975, Box 431, Letter from Ted Matchett to D.J. Rowlands 31 October 1974. 7. Hong Kong Mariners’ Club Archive, Managers’ Reports 1968–1971, Report for November 1971. 8. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly station returns, January 1975. 9. Ted Matchett’s successor Wally Andrews produced a 20 year census of trends in shipping in Hong Kong in 1992 that illustrated the dramatic change. From 1972 to 1992 western ships calling at Hong Kong halved in number from 2,322 to 1,133. Asian ships calling increased more than six-fold from 1,634 to 10,335. And flag of convenience ships, which employed overwhelmingly Asian crews apart from the ships’ officers, increased seven-fold from 1,777 to 12,760. In short, western crewed ships that had been 40.5% of ships calling in Hong Kong in 1972 were just 4.7% of callers in 1992. At the mid-point, in 1982, western ships had already tumbled to just 16.2% of ships calling annually. Hull Archive, Unlabeled green folder, Hong Kong MSC, Hong Kong, Box 230.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 535

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

536

Strong

to

Save

10. For a brief biography see South China Morning Post, 23 August 1975, p.7. 11. OCL (1965–1986) was formed as a consortium by four leading British shipping lines British and Commonwealth Shipping, Furness Withy, P&O and the Ocean Steamship Company. 12. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly station returns, April 1975. 13. For the routine, Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973–1975, Box 431, Letter from Ted Matchett to Tom Kerfoot, April 1975. For the comment by Preb. Thomson, Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly Station Returns, July 1975. 14. For Mr Lui Sai see Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly station returns, March 1975. For the attrition of staff, ibid., July 1978 15. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly Station Returns, September 1976. 16. For Noel Stone and Thomas Chow, Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973– 1975, Box 431, letter Ted Matchett to WJD Down, 24 April 1977 describing how Thomas Chow was refusing to be in any church service with Noel Stone. 17. Ibid., and Linda Wong, Lynn T. White, Shixun Gui (2004), Social Policy Reform in Hong Kong and Shanghai: A Tale of Two Cities, New York: ME Sharpe; Leo F. Goodstadt (2005), Uneasy Partners: the Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 18. For Christina Law’s problems see Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly Station Returns, April, July, August 1975, January, June, August 1976. 19. South China Morning Post, 24 October 1975, p.5; 29 October, p.1; 1 November, p.7; 20 November p.1; and 7 December, p.1. 20. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly Station Returns, October 1975. 21. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly Station Returns, July 1975, February 1976, December 1976. 22. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly Station Returns, June and December 1977. The seaman was sentenced to death, which was commuted to 15 years imprisonment following a practice stealthily introduced by the colonial government after the abolition of capital punishment in Britain in 1966 (South China Morning Post, 9 May 1979, p.9). The young seaman was released in late 1983. Capital punishment was only formally abolished in Hong Kong in 1993. 23. For Prebendary Thomson’s summary, Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973–1975, Box 431, Confidential Memo, SSC Thomson to WJD Down from mv Cardigan Bay, with a note attached from David Newbigging, to whom a copy had been forwarded, saying he “gets the message.”

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 536

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

537

24. Roy Chalkley’s comment, Hull archive, unclassified, Port Reports Hong Kong 1972–1974, August 1973. 25. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1973–1975, Box 431, London headquarters paper on “Chaplain v. Manager issues” excerpting from an undated Manager’s Report to the House Sub-Committee, July or August 1975. 26. Hull archive, Un-named envelope 2, Box 199, Hong Kong 1971–1974, note by D.J. Rowlands on visit to London headquarters by Jim Thornton, 24 June, 1971. 27. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letters David Newbigging to W.J.D. Down 10 January 1978 and Ted Matchett to W.J.D. Down 26 January 1978. For Noel Stone and Joe Humble letters Ted Matchett to E.J. Wilson-Hughes (assistant general secretary, Missions to Seamen, London) 3 January 1978 and to W.J.D Down 26 January 1978. 28. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter David Newbigging to W.J.D. Down 10 January 1978. 29. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter Ted Matchett to W.J.D. Down undated, late January 1978. 30. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter David Newbigging to W.J.D. Down 31 January, 1978. 31. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter Ted Matchett to W.J.D. Down enclosing the undated advertisement clipped from the South China Morning Post. The advertisement appeared on 15 January on p.20. 32. South China Morning Post, 26 Match 1978, p.6 33. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter Ted Matchett to E.J. Wilson-Hughes, 20 April 1978. 34. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letters exchanged between Bishop Baker, W.J.D. Down, Ted Matchett and David Newbigging during March, April, May and October 1976 and March 1977. 35. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter Ted Matchett to W.J.D. Down, 28 March 1977. 36. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter Palle Nielsen to W.J.D. Down, February 1978. 37. Hull archive, Envelope Hong Kong 1976–1979, Box 431, letter Ted Matchett to W.J.D. Down, 13 February 1978. 38. See Appendix 1: A Timeline, South China Morning Post, 5 June 1979, p.1 and http://www.dsuk.dk/in-english/the-history/seamens-church/, accessed on 2 October 2015. 39. Private communication, Ms Barbara Matchett. 40. Not entirely fairly because many of the policies undoubtedly had roots in initiatives that had begun life under Sir Murray MacLehose’s predecessors,

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 537

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

538

Strong

to

Save

particularly his immediate predecessor, Sir David Trench. However, there is little dispute that for various reasons it was during his government that such changes were pushed forward more aggressively than hitherto. For a skeptical view of the “MacLehose Years” see Goodstadt (2005), op.cit., chs.III and V and especially pp.145–146. 41. Wong, White & Gui (2004), op.cit. 42. Juliana Soo’s work was profiled in the South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 14 January 1982, p.18. 43. Hull archive, Hong Kong MSC, Hong Kong, Box 230 (Green Folder), Juliana Soo Report on Chinese Seafarers for a 20 Year Census by Wally Andrews. 44. The Sibonga was a British flagged, Bank Line ship whose Captain Healey Martin made the decision to rescue 984 refugees from two boats in distress south of Vietnam on 21 May, 1979 on its way to Hong Kong, where it arrived on the 22nd. At the time Hong Kong was suffering an inflow of some 1,000 Vietnamese boat people a day and an influx of 3,000 migrants a day from China. In response to strenuous representations from Hong Kong, the Red Cross and the Bank Line, the British government controversially accepted responsibility for resettling all 984 Sibonga refugees in Britain — see Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 24 May 1979, vol.967 cc1228–31, “Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)”, “The Sibonga Affair”, The Spectator, 1 June 1979, Page 3. For the cabinet level thinking in Britain see National Archives, PREM 19/129 and PREM 19/130, Records of the Prime Ministers Office: Correspondence and Papers, 1979–1997. VIETNAM. Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong; resettlement in UK; parts 1 and 2. 45. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly station returns, June 1979. 46. Hull Archive, U DMS/D2/171 Hong Kong 1975–1979, Box 168, Monthly station returns, July 1979. The “prison camp” was the unused Chi Ma Wan Prison. 47. The fleet set out between 4 April 1982 and 12 May, 1982. Those serving with the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary who were killed were: Lai Chi Keung (laundryman, HMS Sheffield, 4 May 1982), Kye Ben Kwo (laundryman, HMS Coventry, 25 May 1982), Leung Chau (Electrical Fitter, RFA Sir Galahad, 8 June 1982), Sung Yuk Pai, (butcher, RFA Sir Galahad, 8 June 1983), Yeung Shui Kam (Seaman, RFA Sir Tristram, 8 June 1982), Yu Sik Chee (Bosun, RFA Sir Tristram, 8 June 1982). Those serving in merchant vessels were: Chan Chi Shing (seaman, mv Atlantic Conveyor, 25 May 1982), Ng Por (seaman, mv Atlantic Conveyor, 25 May 1982). Geoff Puddefoot, Fourth Force: the Untold Story of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Since 1945, Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing, ch.8 and Daily Telegraph, 7 June 2007. 48. King George’s Fund for Sailors is now Seafarers UK. 49. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1983 [File closed] Box 331, exchange of letters between Ted Matchett and King George’s Fund for Sailors, October– November 1982.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 538

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

539

50. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1983 [File closed] Box 331, letter rear adm Miller to David Newbigging March 1982 and David Newbigging to rear adm Miller, 19 April 1982. For the successful visit, Ted Matchett to rear adm Miller, 29 October 1982. 51. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1985 [File closed] Box 331, E.L.B. Matchett to W.J.D. Down, 9 February 1982 refers to the request from London in intimating Hong Kong’s impending positive official response. 52. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1985 [File closed] Box 331, David Newbigging to W.J.D. Down, 2 March 1982. 53. See infra ch.23 54. Full details are to be found scattered in various files in the Hull Archive. 55. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1983 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Ted Matchett to Bill Down, 7 February 1983.

Chapter 23 On Course for the Future 1. A 20-foot container is the notional standard “box” of modern cargo logistics, even though the majority of container people actually see are the larger, fortyfoot variant. The “standard” has given rise to the basic measure for container ships and port traffic, the Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU). 2. For the statistics see Bernard Wong Yee-yung (1994), “An Exploration of Hong Kong’s Container Port Position in Southern China in the Next Ten Years”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong, Fig. 2, p.5 and Fig. 1: Historical Growth of Hong Kong Container Port Throughput (1988–1997) at www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/english/panels/es/papers/es2311ab.pdf, accessed on 5 November 2011. 3. A good guide to the period is Ezra F. Vogel (2011), Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Ch.14. 4. C.P. Lo (1997), “Dispersed Spatial Development: Hong Kong's New City Form and Its Economic Implications After 1997”, Cities, vol.14, no. 5, pp.273–277. 5. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1983 [File closed], Box 331, letter from Wally Andrews to Bill Down, 23 August 1983 and 20 September 1983. 6. Ibid., letter from Wally Andrews to Bill Down, 20 September 1983. 7. The story is of unknown predators, though they are generally assumed to be Li Ka-shing and possibly Sir Y.K Pao, who had worsted Jardine’s over a battle for the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf & Godown Co. in 1979, both backed by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. Anna Pao-Sohmen (2013), Y.K. Pao: My Father, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2nd ed., pp.130–133 has a gripping account of the boardroom battle from the other side of the wire. 8. See Carol Matheson Connell (2004), A Business in Risk: Jardine Matheson and the Hong Kong Trading Industry, Westport CT: Praeger, pp.168–169.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 539

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

540

Strong

to

Save

9. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1982–1983 [File closed], Box 331, letter from David Newbigging to Bill Down, 1 November 1983. 10. For a mainland-approved statement that the “one country, two systems” idea was formulated with an eventual eye to its application Taiwan see Leng Tiexun (2009), “On the Fundamental Characteristics of the “One Country, Two Systems” Policy”, Academic Journal of “One Country, Two Systems vol. I, pp.49–59. For a more nuanced take see A.Y. So (2011), ““One Country, Two Systems” and Hong Kong-China National Integration: A Crisis-Transformation Perspective”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol.41.1, pp.99–116. 11. Stephen Seawright, “Battle Over Hong Kong Laid Bare”, South China Morning Post, 18 August 2013. 12. The discussion in contemporary newspapers is telling — see for example, South China Morning Post, 17 February, p.1 and most pertinently the Hong Kong Observers’ thoughtful piece on 10 August 1981. 13. South China Morning Post, 16 August 1983, p.1 and 17 August 1983, p.10; and for China turning up the publicity heat, 21 August 1983, p.1 and 24 August, p.13. 14. South China Morning Post, 18 August 2013, op.cit. 15. Michael Jones, “Sovereignty claims dropped”, South China Morning Post, 7 November 1983, p.1. 16. South China Morning Post, 18 August 2013, op.cit. 17. Garmen Chan, “Turmoil Means Intervention but… We Can Agree by Talking”, South China Morning Post, 8 December 1983, p.1. 18. Jill Hartley, “The End of Two Years of ‘Secret’ Negotiations”, South China Morning Post, 20 September 1984, p.1. 19. “The Sino-British Agreement”, South China Morning Post, 27 September 1984, p.39. 20. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Wally Andrews to Bill Down, 25 September 1984. 21. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 330, materials relating to the state of play in Hong Kong in the mid–1980s and their implications for 1997. 22. The Assessment Office had been established because a referendum on the agreement had been unilaterally ruled out by the People’s Republic of China. Ian Scott (1989), Political Change and the Crisis of Legitimacy in Hong Kong, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, ch.5 and particularly pp.188. 2,494 submissions had been made. 23. Hull archive, Hong Kong MSC Box 330 (Green Folder), A General Survey on the Chinese Seafarers Residing at the Mariners’ Club. The use of the preposition ‘on’ in this and similar contexts is a peculiarity of Hong Kong English and, albeit unacceptable in standard English, is what is taught in all government schools and effectively ineradicable.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 540

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

541

24. Ibid. 14 worked ashore and 44 were out of work, so only 5 were employed as seafarers at the time of the survey. 42 respondents intended to stay registered as seamen and take no other job even if there were no shipboard openings. 25. Commissioned in 1986 it was in the end called Mariners’ Club and was the first of two of the name. 26. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Wally Andrews to Bill Down, 25 September 1984, 20 November 1985; and Hull archive, Hong Kong MSC Box 330 (Green Folder), undated report of a visit by an unidentifiable Missions to Seamen visitor from London. 27. Economic Services Branch, Government Secretariat, The Hong Kong Register of Shipping: a Consultative Document (Consultative Paper on the Establishment of the Hong Kong Register of Shipping), Hong Kong, 24 May 1985. 28. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Wally Andrews to the secretary for economic services (Hon. G.A. Higginson), 30 July, 1985. 29. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331. 30. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Wally Andrews to Rhos Charles, Missions to Seamen, London, 18 February 1986; and letter Wally Andrews to Mr Guo Xingmin, Director International Seamen’s Club, Shanghai, 20 February 1985. 31. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331 note of a meeting. ibid., letter from David Newbigging to Bill Down, 19 February 1987. 32. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, Press Release for London Head Office, 21 November 1989. 33. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter Glyn Jones to Wally Andrews, 30 May 1990 and 23 October 1990 following a visit to Shekou by Wally Andrews on 26 July 1990. 34. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331 Letters between Wally Andrews, Glyn Jones, and Nanjing, 12 May to 25 June 1990. 35. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, 36th Annual Report to the Port Welfare Committee. 36. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, paper on the future of the Mariners’ Club for London by Wally Andrews, 21 January 1988. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. He specifically had in mind either part of HMS Tamar or the China Fleet Club. 39. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Alan Scott to Bill Down, 26 April 1986.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 541

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

542

Strong

to

Save

40. “One Hundred Years of Comfort”, South China Morning Post & the Hong Kong Telegraph, 26 June 1986, p.22 and South China Sunday Morning Post, 13 July 1986, p.42. 41. South China Morning Post, 30 July 1986, p.18. 42. Stephen Davies, “Maritime Cultures: What Were They, When Were They and Where Did They Go”, paper presented to the Singapore Maritime Week conference Exploring Maritime Heritage Dynamics: Interdependencies Among Maritime Cities, Nanyang Technological University, 18–20 November 2015. 43. The term “shipping list” typed into a search engine for the digitized back issues of the South China Morning Post sees the peak years in 1950–1959, a slight decline in 1960–1969 and then a swift slide through 1970–1989 to zero as of 1990. 44. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Wally Andrews to Bill Down, 19 October 1987. 45. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from Bill Down to David Newbigging, 23 January 1987. 46. The plans re-emerged in 1989, see Lawrence Lai Wai Chung and Elvis Au Wai Kwong (1990), “The HK New Port and Airport Development Strategy”, Ekistics, vol.57, no. 340, pp.79–87. 47. Sunday Examiner, 15 May 1987, online at http://archives.catholic.org.hk/ In%20Memoriam/Clergy-Brother/G-Dopchie.htm, accessed on 10 November 2015. 48. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from David Begg to Bill Down, 16 June 1988. 49. The ordinance was eventually amended in Legal Notice 39 of 1989 and the regulations a year later in legal Notice 51 of 1990). 50. For the success of the royal visit see Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from David Begg to Bill Down, 27 September 1988. For clear photographic evidence that it happened, see the photograph of the event at http://www.marinersclub.org.hk/our-history.html. For the absence of any mention of the Mariners’ Club see “Tight Security for Princess”, South China Morning Post, 16 September 1988, p.1; and Jamie Allen and Muriel Lau, “Princess Anne Makes It an Anniversary to Remember”, South China Morning Post, 17 September 1988, p.3. 51. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1984–1985 [File closed] Box 331, letter from David Newbigging to Glyn Jones, 15 January 1991. For the photograph see http:// www.marinersclub.org.hk/our-history.html. Glyn Jones was to serve as secretary general from 1990 to 2001. 52. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, reports for April, May & June 1991; see also “The Seafarers’ Friends”, South China Morning Post, 13 May 1991, p.15; Ian Lewis, “Crew Left Stranded on Seized Vessel”, 13 May 1991, p.2; Bonny Tam, “Marooned Crew Get Stranded Again” 29 June 1991, p.2; Catherine Beck, “Peru Crew's Love of the Sea Unshaken by Ordeal”, 1 July 1991, p.5.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 542

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

543

53. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, reports for May 1991, December 1991, March 1992, July 1992 & August 1992. 54. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, reports for October 1991 and February 1992. See also Lai See, “Red tape bars plane sailing into Kai Tak”, South China Morning Post, 13 August 1991, p.36; and “Iron Curtain Still Surrounds Hong Kong”, same date, p.18. 55. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, report for September 1991. 56. “The Seafarers' Friends”, South China Morning Post, 13 May 1991, p.15. 57. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, report for August 1991. Jennifer Cooke, “Exhausted— but Happy to be Alive”, South China Morning Post, 16 August 1991, p.2; “UN Action Over Barge Disaster”, 17 August 1991, p.1; Jennifer Cooke, “Barge Search to End Today”, 19 August 1991, p.1; Virgina Maher and Catherine Beck, “Club Thanked for Care after Disaster”, 2 September 1991, p.3. 58. Paul Godfery, “Charity Club 'at Sea' on Rescue”, South China Morning Post, 21 April 1992, p.1; Paul Godfery and Owen Hughes, “Delay for Blast Survivors: Explosion on Oil Tanker Kills HK, Filipino Crewmen”, 21 April 1992, p.1; Belinda Wallis, “Seastar’s Survivors Back on Dry Land”, 23 April 1992, p.3; and for the Pskov, South China Morning Post, Bonny Tam, “Crew Fight Blaze on Russian Cargo Ship”, 17 April 1992, p.3; Bonny Tam, “Ship Fire Controlled — After 80 hours”, 20 April 1992, p.3; Mariita Eager, “Russians Stuck in Territory”, 30 April 1992, p.2; Mariita Eager, “Freighter Seized Over Unpaid Bills”, 18 May 1992, p.3. 59. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1989 — Box 22, letter from Wally Andrews to Glyn Jones, 11 June 1991. 60. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1989 — Box 22, summary of the Far East Chaplains’ Conference (ICMA), 8–12 April 1991. 61. Nothing remains in the archive on this recruitment exercise and no obvious advertisement has been found in back newspaper archives, so this is speculation. 62. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1989 — Box 22, letter from Wally Andrews to Peter Ellis, 20 May 1992 enclosing a five page set of handover notes. Section headed “Manager”. 63. Ibid., Section headed “Political Situation”. 64. Ibid., Section headed “Membership of Club”. 65. Ibid., Sections headed “Ecumenical Team” and “Shipping”.

Epilogue 1. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1989, box 22, for continuing links letter from Glyn Jones to Peter Ellis, 11 November 1993.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 543

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

544

Strong

to

Save

2. Hull archive, Hong Kong 1989, box 22, letter from Glyn Jones to Peter Ellis about expression of interest by Rev. Ulrich Wahl, head of the German Seamen’s Mission about joining the ecumenical team 25 April 1994; from Peter Ellis to Glyn Jones about accommodating the newcomers 23 May 1994; from London to Peter Ellis (sender not stated) saying Martina would be arriving on 1 April 1995, 30 November 1994. Only William Austen’s 50 years and John Berg’s 31 year periods of office in Yokohama have been greater. 3. Xu Ce, “Myth and Reality: the Rise and Fall of Contemporary Maritime Piracy in the South China Seas”, ch. 5 in Shicun Wu and Keyuan Zou (2009), Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Regional Implications and International Cooperation, Farnham: Ashgate, for an excellent overview and analysis and Charles Glass (2003), “The New Piracy”, London Review of Books, vol.25.24, December, pp.3–7 for a graphic description of an incident (the 1998 hi-jacking of the Petro-Ranger). 4. The excellent Federation of American Scientists data page on pirate activity represents a good starting point for probing for further detail, see http://fas. org/irp/world/para/pirates.htm. For some of the incidents see South China Morning Post, 17 February 1993. 5. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, report for March 1993. 6. South China Morning Post, 28 February 1993; Charles Glass (2003), op.cit. 7. Hull archive, Port Reports 1991–1993, no file number, report for April 1993. 8. Andy Gilbert, “Demolition Plan Leaves Seamen’s Group Adrift”, South China Morning Post, 10 March 1995. 9. Rev. Peter Ellis, personal communication. 10. South China Morning Post, 24 February 2001. 11. Merchant Navy Officer’s Guild — Hong Kong, Guild News and Quarterly Report, November 2005, p.7. 12. The Mariners’ Club stood on a plot of c.28,900 square feet (c.2,688 sq.m.). A “plot ratio” is the multiple of that plot area that is allowed to calculate the gross floor area of a resulting building, in the case of the Mariners’ Club plot, of the order of nine times 37.5% of the gross site area, or a building of around 9,100 sq.m. with each floor about 313 sq.m. (see http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/ tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch2/ch2_tbl_4.htm). 13. South China Morning Post, 18 August 2002. 14. One of the lineages traces its connections back to continuous family employment with the Mission to Seafarers since the temporary, leased tenement premises at 72 and 73 Praya East in 1905. — personal communication from the Rev. Canon Stephen Miller. 15. Merchant Navy Officer’s Guild (2005), loc.cit. 16. South China Morning Post, 9 November 2002.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 544

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Endnotes

545

17. South China Morning Post, 12 February 2003. 18. South China Morning Post, 18 August 2002. It was a peculiarly historically obtuse statement more or less guaranteed to act as a red rag to a bull. 19. Town Planning Board, Minutes of 337 th Meeting of the Metro Planning Committee held at 9.00 a.m. on 3 November 2006. 20. This is now a hotel and luxury shopping development called 1881 Heritage. The original 1886 timeball tower, today an officially protected monument, still stands, re-equipped with a replica timeball mechanism. 21. Stephen Davies, “Lighthouses: Once Vital Maritime Sentinels, Still Potent Symbols. Are They Obsolete Irrelevancies Often Occupying Prime Coastal Real Estate?”, lecture given to the Department of Real Estate and Construction, University of Hong Kong, November 2014 — see https://www. coursehero.com/file/10412429/Lighthouse-Part-1/. 22. The surrounds of the tower had been made into an urban park in 1973 by the then Urban Council (Monthly Publicity Report, Hong Kong: Urban Council. 17 September 1974). At the time there had been no other mechanism to protect heritage structures. 23. Kowloon Planning Area no.1, Approved Tsim Sha Tsui Outline Zoning Plan no. S/K1/28 and Yau-Tsim-Mong District Council, Paper no.73, 12 June 2008, para.7. 24. http://www.marinersclub.org.hk/history/ICSW/ICSWaw.htm. 25. It is an index of the vast changes in the maritime world even in the first decades of the 21 st century that at the time of this book’s publication, Rotterdam had slipped to the 4th largest and 10th in the list of the busiest ports (http://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/worlds-first-fully-electricautonomous-container-ship-operational-2020/ and http://www.marineinsight. com/ports/top-10-busiest-ports-in-the-world/). 26. http://www.missiontoseafarers.org/media-centre/news/8/the-prince-of-walescommissions-the-flying-angel-support-boat. 27. The Mission to Seafarers Trustees’ Annual Report and Accounts For the Year Ended 31 December 2014, London: Mission to Seafarers, 2015, p.8. 28. Olivia Rosenman, “Offering the Hand of Friendship to Seafarers”, South China Morning Post, 21 September 2013. 29. Reaffirming the Past, Resourcing the Future, The Mission to Seafarers’ Strategy 2015–2020, London: Mission to Seafarers, 2015. 30. International Seafarers’ Welfare and Assistance Network (Company Registration Number 3171109), Report of the Trustees for the Year Ended 31 March 2013, p.4 para 3.2. 31. See http://seafarerswelfare.org/about-iswan/benefits-of-membership-of-iswan/ members, accessed on 11 May 2017.

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 545

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

546

Strong

to

Save

32. See http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/maritime-labour-convention/lang-en/index.htm. Canon Ken Peters reported in The Sea, issue 219, September/ October 2012, p.2. 33. The first fully automatic vessel was trialed as early as 1997 (the Hochschule Furtwangen’s Relationship, see http://relationship.m-fink.de/press/reports/ quart_99_02/index.html). For a summary of present thinking, see http:// www.uni-salzburg.at/fileadmin/multimedia/SRC/docs/teaching/SS11/SaI/ AutonomousSailingBoats_Wittinghofer_Alt.pdf and for the World Robotic Sailing Conference and Championship http://www.roboticsailing.org. For autonomous ships see Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks: http://www.unmanned-ship.org/munin/about/the-autonomus-ship/ and Ø.J. Rødseth & Hans-Christoph Burmeister “Developments toward the unmanned ship”, MUNIN project at http://www.unmanned-ship.org/munin/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/Rødseth-Burmeister-2012-Developments-towardthe-unmanned-ship.pdf and for the practical engagement of Rolls-Royce Holdings plc’s Blue Ocean development team in such a project http://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-25/rolls-royce-drone-ships-challenge375-billion-industry-freight — all websites accessed on 5 August 2015. For the announcement of the first autonomous ship to be in service by 2020 see http://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/worlds-first-fully-electricautonomous-container-ship-operational-2020/ accessed on 11 May 2017. 34. In spring 2017 the Our Hong Kong Foundation, a think tank founded by exshipping tycoon and the Hong Kong’s special administrative region’s first Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, recommended moving Hong Kong’s container port to a new, artificial island on the southern sea boundary of the territory (http://www.ejinsight.com/20170428-think-tank-urges-reclamationto-relocate-container-port/, accessed on 11 May 2017) — the problem of location may never go away!

27_Strong to Save_Endnotes.indd 546

6/7/2017 6:50 PM

Bibliography

A Note on Primary Sources Other than Hong Kong newspapers and government documents and other scattered sources, the primary source for much of the narrative is the main Missions to Seamen Archive housed with the Hull History Centre in the United Kingdom. However, this very large archive only arrived in Hull a few years ago, so it is not yet fully catalogued and as a result, any reference I have given to a find by an accession number may not be the final number allotted to that specific document or collection of documents when the archive has been fully processed. In the footnotes I have given the reference on the folder as I found it, which in some cases is no more than a brief descriptive label. This should suffice for future researchers to be able to identify the documents in Hull that are cited.

Archival Sources Hong Kong Government Records Service: Hong Kong Record Series, Hong Kong Manuscript Series, Carl Smith Collection Hong Kong Public Library

Hull History Centre: Missions to Seamen Archive

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 547

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

548

Stong

to

Save

Lambeth Palace Archives

Mariners Club, Hong Kong

Maryland State Archives, Archives of Maryland online http://aomol. net/000001/000530/html/am530--490.html

The National Archives of the UK: Great Britain, Colonial Office, Original Correspondence: Hong Kong, 1841–1951, Series 129/250 Stericker, John “Captive Colony — the Story of Stanley Internment Camp, Hong Kong”, bound typescript in the Hong Kong Special Collection, University of Hong Kong Library

Newspapers and Periodicals The Argus (Melbourne)

The Arizona Republican Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China and Australasia Baird Maritime The Brisbane Courier The Canton Press The Canton Register The Catholic Herald The China Mail The Chinese Recorder: a Christian Journal The Chinese Recorder: an Educational Journal The Chinese Repository The Church Times

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 548

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

549

The Colonial Gazette The Colonies & India La Croix Dundee Advertiser The Friend (Honolulu) The Friend of China

The Geraldton Guardian and Express The Guardian The Hong Kong Daily Press The Hong Kong Sunday Herald The Hong Kong Telegraph The Hong Kong Weekly Press The Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Queensland) The New York Commercial Advertiser The New York Times Nottingham Evening Post The Ringing World The San Francisco Call The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser The South China Morning Post The South China Morning Post and Hongkong Telegraph The Straits Times and Overland Journal The Sunday Post and Herald Sydney Morning Herald

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 549

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

550

Stong

to

Save

The Tablet The Times (London) Time

Winnipeg Tribune

Hong Kong Government Publications Annual Report of the Director of Marine 1966–67, 1967–68, 1968–69, 1969–70 Annual Report on Hong Kong for the Years 1947–1970 Civil Establishments of Hong Kong Correspondence Related to the Salaries Commission, 1928 “Ecclesiastical Returns”

Final Report of the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee 1963/64, Hong Kong: S. Young, Government Printer, 1964 Hong Kong Blue Books

Hong Kong Civil Service List 1947 (38th edition) – 1964 (54th edition) Hong Kong Government Gazette Hong Kong Jury/ Juror’s Lists, 1854 onwards Index of Streets, House Numbers and Lots in Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Kowloon, 45th edition, Hong Kong: Land Registry

Interim Report of the Seamen’s Recruitment Committee, Hong Kong: Jack Ranyard Lee, Acting Government Printer, 1963 The Law Reform Commission Of Hong Kong Report: Criteria For Service As Jurors, June 2010 Proceedings of the Legislative Council

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 550

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

551

Report of the Proceedings of the Public Works Committee, 1912 Reports of the Acting Harbour Master Reports of the Colonial Surgeon

Report of the Commission on Alcoholic Liquors, 1898 Reports of the Director of Marine, 1947/48–present Reports of the Director of Public Works

Reports of the Harbour Master, 1842–1939

Reports of the Medical and Sanitary Department

Report on the Census of the Colony of Hong Kong, 1931 Hong Kong Surveyor General’s Department, Report for the year 1891 Statements of Revenue and Expenditure of Hong Kong Supplements to the Hong Kong Government Gazette The Treatment of Paupers in Hong Kong (Eitel, H.J.), 1880

Hong Kong Ordinances Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, Cap 447, 1994 Chinese Passenger Ships Ordinance, No. 6, 1859

Distressed British Seamen Ordinance, No. 5 of 1869   

Desertion of Seamen Ordinance, No. 4, 17 December 1850 Ghaut Serang and Lascar Ordinance, No. 13, 1845

Ghaut Serang and Lascar Ordinance, No. 4, 7 July 1846

Ghaut Serang and Lascars Ordinance, No. 2, 7 September 1848

An Ordinance for the Better Repression of Certain Diseases, No. 76, 1856

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 551

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

552

Stong

to

Save

An Ordinance for the Prevention of Desertion, and Better Regulation of Merchant Seamen in This Colony, No. 6, 1852 An Ordinance to Provide for the Licensing and Control of Places Where Persons Are Lodged for Hire, No. 23 of 1917 Mercantile Marine Assistance Fund Ordinance, No. 24 of 1933 Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. 4 of 1844 Venereal Diseases Ordinance, No. 12, 1857

British Government Acts and Publications An Act for the Better Observation of the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, 1625 (1 Car 1 c 1), An

Act for the Further Reformation of Sundry Abuses Committed on the Lord’s Day Commonly Called Sunday, 1627 (3 Car 1 c 2) An Act for Punishing Divers Abuses of the Lord’s Day, called Sunday, 1677 (29 Car 2 c 7)

Colonial Office, Return to an Address of the House of Lords, dated 22nd March 1880, for Copy of Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong to inquire into the Working of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance of 1867; and Copy of the Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reply thereto, London: Colonial Office, 1880 Irish Mariners, etc. Act, 42 Geo III c 61, 1802 East India Trade Act, 54 Geo III c 134, 1814 The Edinburgh Gazette

The Lascars Act (An Act to consolidate and amend the several Laws now in force with respect to Trade from and to Places within the Limits of the Charter of the East India Company, and to make

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 552

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

553

further Provisions with respect to such Trade; and to amend an Act of the present Session of Parliament, for the registering of Vessels, so far as it relates to Vessels registered in India), 4 Geo IV c 80, 1823

The London Gazette

The Mercantile Marine (Uniform) Order, 1918

The Navy List (various formats), London: HMSO, 1914, 1940, 1942, 1944 Papers respecting the first firing in the Shameen Affair on June 23rd, 1925, London: HMSO, 1926 The Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen, British Parliamentary Papers, 1814-15 (471) The Sunday Observance Act 1780 (21 Geo 3 c 49) Supplement to the London Gazette 1918

International Organizations International Labour Office, The International Seamen's Code: Note addressed to the Governments of the States Members of the International Labour Organization by the International Labour Office, Geneva: International Labour Office, 1921

International Labour Office, The International Labour Organization and the Seaman, Geneva: International Labour Office, 1927

International Labour Organizaton, Asian Maritime Conference: Second Item On The Agenda, Methods of Recruitment and Engagement of Asian Seafarers, Geneva: ILO, 1953 International Labour Organization, “Organization for Seamen’s Welfare in Great Britain”, International Labour Review. vol. 43, no. 4, 1941

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 553

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

554

Stong

to

Save

International Labour Organization, Asian Maritime Conference: Welfare Facilities for Asian Seafarers in Asian Ports, Geneva, ILO, 1953 International Maritime Organization, Go to Sea! A Campaign to Attract Entrants to the Shipping Industry, London: IMO, 2008 International Transport Workers’ Federation, Out of sight, Out of Mind: Seafarers, Fishers & Human Rights, New York: ITWF, 2006

League of Nations Committee of Enquiry into Traffic in Women and Children of the East, League of Nations: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Traffic in Women and Children of the East, Geneva: League of Nations, 1932, 1933 and 1934. World Health Organization, The Agreement of Brussels, 1924, Respecting Facilities to be given to Merchant Seamen for the Treatment of Venereal Diseases: Report of a Study Group, Geneva: World Health Organization, Technical Report Series No. 150, 1958

Books and Articles A Guide to Catholic Shanghai, Shanghai: T’ou-Sè-Wè Press, 1937

Abeel, Reverend David, (intro. Reverend Baptist Wriothesley Noel), Journal of a Residence in China and the Neighbouring Countries From 1830 to 1833, London: James Nisbet & Co., 1835 Ahmed, Rehana and Mukherjee, Sumita (eds), South Asian Resistances in Britain 1858–1947, London: Continuum, 2014

Ahuja, Ravi, “Subaltern Networks Under British Imperialism.
Exploring the Case of South Asian Maritime Labour (c.
1890–1947)”, in Deutsch, Jan-Georg and Reinwald, Brigitte (eds), Space on the Move. Transformations of the Indian Ocean Seascape in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century, Zentrum Moderner Orient: Arbeitshefte 20, Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 2002

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 554

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

555

Amenda, Lars, “Between Southern China and the North Sea: Maritime Labour and Chinese Migration in Continental Europe: 1890–1950”, in Hahn, Sylvia and Nadel, Stan (eds), Asian Migrants in Europe. Transcultural Connections, Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2014 American Seamen’s Friend Society, The Acts of the Apostles of the Sea: an Eighty Years’ Record of the American Seamen’s Friend Society, New York: American Seamen’s Friend Society, 1908

An Anglo-Chinese Calendar for the Year 1847, Corresponding to the Year for the Chinese Cycle Era 4484, or the 44th Year of the 75th Cycle of Sixty; Being the 27th Year of the Reign of Ta’ukwa’ng, Canton: Chinese Repository, 1847 Anon., A Brief History of the District Grand Lodge of the Far East, Hong Kong: 1961

Apostleship of the Sea Hong Kong Council, 100 Years of Apostleship of the Sea, Serving Seafarers from 1895–1995, Hong Kong: Apostleship of the Sea, 1995 Archer, Bernice, The Internment of Western Civilians Under the Japanese, 1941–1945, a Patchwork of Internment, London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004

Auerbach, Sascha, Race, Law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009

Babij, Orest, “The Royal Navy and Inter-war Plans for War Against Japan: the Problem of Oil Supply”, ch.4 in Kennedy, Greg (ed), The Merchant Marine in International Affairs, 1850–1950, London: Frank Cass, 2000

Baillie, Reverend J., “A Memoir of Captn. W.T. Bate, R.N.” accessed at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&si d=95e3f6e828e116b80d4cccd93c806bc1&view=text&rgn=main&i dno=ABE1480.0001.001

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 555

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

556

Stong

to

Save

Banham, Tony, Not the Slightest Chance: The Defence of Hong Kong, 1941, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005

Bard, Solomon, Voices from the Past: Hong Kong 1842–1916, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2002

Barman, Charles, (Barman, Ray (ed)), Resist to the End, Hong Kong 1941–1945, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009

Baxter, George E., Personal Experiences During the Siege of Hong Kong, December 8–25, 1941, etc., privately printed, n.d.

Bayly, Christopher and Harper, Tim, Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire and the War with Japan, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2005

Bays, Daniel H., A New History of Christianity in China, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2012 Becu, Omer, “The Asian Maritime Conference in Restrospect”, International Transport Workers’ Journal, vol. XIII, 12 December 1953, pp.177–178 & 192

Behrens, C.B.A., Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War, London: HMSO, 1955. Bell, Christopher M., The Royal Navy, Seapower and Strategy Between the Wars, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000

Terry Bennet Collection of Early Chinese Photography, 1844–1920 at http://www.oldchinaphotography.com/TB_CHINA_COLLECTION. pdf

Bergen, Doris L. (ed), The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the First to the Twenty-First Century, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004 Biographical Dictionary of Medical Practitioners in Hong Kong at http://hkmd1841-1941.blogspot.hk

Birch, Alan & Cole, Martin, Captive Years, Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia, 1982

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 556

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

557

Blackmore, Edward, The British Mercantile Marine, London: C. Griffin & Co., 1897 Blocker, Jack S., Fahey, David M. and Tyrrell, Ian R., Alcohol and Temperance in Modern Society: a Global Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003 Blue, A.D., “Early Steamships in China”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 13, 1973 Boxer, B., Ocean Shipping in the Evolution of Hong Kong, Chicago: Dept. of Geography, University of Chicago, Research Paper no. 72, 1961

Bridgman, Eliza Jane (Gillett), The Life And Labors
Of
Elijah Coleman Bridgman, New York: Anson D.F. Randolph, 1864

Bristow, Roger, Land-use and Planning in Hong Kong: History, Policies and Procedures, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1987

British & Foreign Seamen’s Friend Society, A Retrospect or The Third Annual Report of the Proceedings of the British & Foreign Seamen's Friend Society, and Bethel Union, London: British & Foreign Seamen’s Friend Society, 1822 Broomhall, Marshall (ed), The Chinese Empire: a General and Missionary Survey, London: Morgan & Scott (for the China Inland Mission), c.1907 Brown, B.W., “A Note on the History of the Disease in Hongkong”, Public Health Reports (1896–1970), vol. 28, no. 12, 1913

Butcher, Louise, “Shipping: UK Policy”, Standard Note SN/BT/595, London: House of Commons Library, 23 February 2010

Cable, Kenneth, Cable Clerical Index of Clergy Who Served in the Anglican Church of Australia from 26 January 1788 Through to Those Ordained or Serving by 31 December 1961, accessed at http:// anglicanhistory.org/aus/cci/index.pdf

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 557

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

558

Stong

to

Save

Cameron, W.H. and Feldwick, W., Present Day Impressions of the Far East and Prominent and Progressive Chinese at Home and Abroad: the History, People, Commerce, Industries and Resources of China, Hongkong, Indo-China, Malaya and Netherlands India. London: The Globe Encyclopaedia Co., 1917

Campbell, T.W., Religious Communities of the Anglican Communion, Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific, Braddon ACT: privately published, 2007 Carr, Thomas W., The Victoria Lodge of Hong Kong: a Century of Fellowship, Hong Kong: Victoria Lodge of Hong Kong, 1981

Carroll, John, A Concise History of Hong Kong, Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007

Carroll, John M., Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005

Carter, Tim, Merchant Seamen’s Health, 1860–1960: Medicine, Technology, Shipowners and the State in Britain, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014 Chambers, Gillian, Eastern Waters, Eastern Winds: a History of the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, Hong Kong: Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, 1993

Chan, Cheuk Wah, The Myth of Hong Kong's Laissez-faire Economic Governance: 1960s and 1970s, Hong Kong: HKIAPS, Occasional Paper Series, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK Chan, Cheuk Wah, The Role of Government in the Restructuring of the Hong Kong Economy, 1945–1970, unpublished, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1997

Chan, Ka Leung, “Witness of History:
A Case Study of Street Signs at Pei Ho Street as an Important Urban Heritage in Hong Kong”, Master of Science in Conservation dissertation, University of Hong Kong, 2011

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 558

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

559

Chan, Lau Kit-ching, China, Britain and Hong Kong, 1845–1945, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1990 Chan, Ming K., “Hong Kong in Sino-British Conflict: Mass Mobilization and the Crisis of Legitimacy, 1912–1926”, in Chan, Ming K. (ed), with Young, John D., Precarious Balance: Hong Kong Between China

and Britain, 1842–1992, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1994

Chan, Ming K., “Labour and Empire: the Chinese Labor Movement in the Canton Delta, 1895–1927”, unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1973 Chan, Ming K. (ed), with Young, John D., Precarious Balance: Hong Kong between China and Britain, 1842–1992, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1994 Chan, Sui-jeung, East River Column: Hong Kong Guerillas in the Second World War and After, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009 Chandler, Robert, Pacific Mail Steamships, San Francisco: Annual Keepsake, Book Club of California, 2011

Chang, Sandy, “A Colonial Haunting: Prostitution and the Politics of Sex Trafficking in British India, 1917–1939”, unpublished MA thesis, University of British Columbia, 2012

Chapin, Howard M., “The Chinese Junk Ke Ying”, Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, vol. XXVII, no. 1, January 1934

Chapman, Arthur, Index to the Streets, House Numbers, and Lots of the City of Victoria, the Hill District, Wongneichong, Shaukeiwan Road, Tai Hang, Tung Lo Wan, Quarry Bay, Saiwanho, Shaukeiwan, Pokfulam, Anerdeen, Kowloon Point, Yaumati, Mongkoktsui, Taikoktsui, Fuktsunheung, Hunghom, and Kowloon City Road in the Colony of Hongkong, 5th ed., Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., 1910

Chardavoine, Eutrope, Fédération Des Oeuvres Catholiques Françaises Pour Marins. Premier Congrès D'apostolat Maritime: Port-en-Bessin

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 559

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

560

Stong

to

Save

(8 août 1927), Deuxième: Boulogne-sur-Mer, 22 Et 23 septembre 1929, Paris: la Fédération, 1928–1930

Charles, Robert, “Olyphant and Opium: A Canton Merchant Who `Just Said No’”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 16, no. 2, April 1992 Chatterton, E. Keble, The Mercantile Marine, London: William Heinemann, 1923 The China Directory for 1862, Hong Kong: A. Shortrede, 1862

Chiu, T.N., The Port of Hong Kong: A Survey of its Development, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1973

Church of England (1662), The Book of Common Prayer, London: Everyman's Library, 1999

Ciceri, Fr. Bruno, “AOS Past, Present and Future in the Light of the New Evangelization” at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/ cultural-diversity/pastoral-care-of-migrants-refugees-andtravelers/apostleship-of-the-sea/upload/aos-world-congress-frbruno-ciceri.pdf Cohen, Paul, “Christian Missions and Their Impact to 1900” in Fairbank, John K., The Cambridge History of China, vol. 10, pt. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978 Crockford’s Clerical Directory, London: Crockfords, 1858–

Crowther, M.A., The Workhouse System, 1834–1929: The History of an English Social Institution, London: Methuen, 1983 Cudahy, Brian J., Box Boats: How Container Ships Changed the World, New York City: Fordham University Press, 2006 Curtis, George Ticknor, A Treatise on the Rights and Duties of Merchant Seamen According to the General Maritime Law and the Statutes of the United States, Boston: Little and Brown, 1841

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 560

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

561

Daily, Christopher A., Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013

Davies, Stephen, French Ships: Friendships, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Maritime Museum, 2007

Davies, Stephen, “Japan”, in Chandler, Robert, Pacific Mail Steamships, San Francisco: Annual Keepsake, Book Club of California, 2011 Davies, Stephen, East Sails West: the Voyage of the Keying 1846–1855, Hong Kong: Hong University Press, 2014 Deutsch, Jan-Georg and Reinwald, Brigitte (eds), Space on the Move. Transformations of the Indian Ocean Seascape in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century, Zentrum Moderner Orient: Arbeitshefte 20, Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 2002 Devanney, Jack, The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers, Tavernier FL: The CTX Press, 2nd ed., 2007

Dewey, Peter, War and Progress: Britain 1914–1945, Abingdon: Routledge, 2014

Dikötter, Frank, Laamann, Lars and Xun, Zhou, Narcotic Culture: A History of Drugs in China, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004

Dikötter, Frank, “‘Patient Zero’: China and the Myth of the “Opium Plague’”, inaugural lecture given at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 24 October 2003

The Directory and Chronicle for China, Japan, Corea, Indo-China, Straits Settlements, Malay States, Siam, Netherlands India, Borneo, the Philippines for the Year…, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Daily Press Ltd., 1868– Dixon, Conrad Hepworth, “Seamen and the Law: An Examination of the Impact of Legislation on the British Merchant Seaman's Lot, 1588–1918”, London: University of London, unpublished PhD thesis, 1981

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 561

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

562

Stong

to

Save

Doughty, Martin, Merchant Shipping and War: A Study in Defence Planning in Twentieth-century Britain, London: Royal Historical Society, 1982

Douglas, Mary, How Institutions Think, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986 Doust, W.A. CBE (with Peter Black), The Ocean on a Plank: the Remarkable Life of a Marine Salvage Engineer, London: Seeley, Service, 1976

Dunn, William J., Pacific Microphone, College Station: Texas A&M University Military History Series No. 8, 1988

Earl, George Windsor, The Eastern Seas: or Voyages and Adventures in the Indian Archipelago in 1832–33–34 Comprising a Tour of the Island of Java — Visits to Borneo, the Malay Peninsula, Siam & c.; Also an Account of the Present State of Singapore with Observations on the Commercial Resources of the Archipelago, London: W.H. Allen, 1837

Eichengreen, Barry and Temin, Peter, “The Gold Standard and the Great Depression”, Contemporary European History, vol. 9, no. 2, 2000 Elleman, Bruce A., High Seas Buffer: the Taiwan Patrol Force 1950– 1979, Newport Papers 38, Newport RI: Naval War College Press, 2012 Elliott, Geoffrey, The Mystery of Overend & Gurney: A Financial Scandal in Victorian London, London: Methuen, 2006

Emerson, Geoffrey, Hong Kong Internment 1942–1945: Life in the Japanese Civilian Camp at Stanley, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2008

Empson, Hal, Mapping Hong Kong: a Historical Atlas, Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1992

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 562

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

563

Endacott, G.B., (reprint, intro Carroll, John M.) A Biographical Sketchbook of Early Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005 Endacott, G.B., and She, Dorothy E., The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong: a Hundred Years of Church History 1849–1949, Hong Kong: Kelly & Walsh, 1949

Endacott, G.B., (Birch, Alan (ed.)), Hong Kong Eclipse, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1978

Estival, Rear Admiral Bernard, La Marine Française dans la Guerre d'Indochine, Nantes: Marines édition, 1998 Fairbank, John K., The Cambridge History of China, vol. 10, pt. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978

Faure, David (ed), A Documentary History of Hong Kong Society, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1990 Fey, Harold C. (ed), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1948–1968, vol. 2, 3rd ed., Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004

Fidler, Ceri-Anne, “Lascars, c.1850–1950: The Lives and Identities of Indian Seafarers in Imperial Britain and India”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cardiff, 2011 Field, Andrew, Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919–1939: Planning for War Against Japan, London: Frank Cass, 2004 Fifteenth Annual Report of the American Tract Society, New York: American Tract Society House, 1840, p.19

“Fighting for Equality: Chinese Seamen in the Battle of the Atlantic, 1939–1945”, Diplomatic History, vol. 38.3, 2014, pp.526–548

Fink, Leon, Sweatshops at Sea: Merchant Seamen in the World's First Globalized Industry, from 1812 to the Present, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2011

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 563

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

564

Stong

to

Save

Fiorini, S. and Vella, H.C.R., “New XIIth Century Evidence for the Pauline Tradition and Christianity in the Maltese Islands”, in Azzopardi, John (ed) The Cult of St Paul in the Christian Churches and in the Maltese Tradition, Malta: Acts of the International Symposium of Malta, 26–27 June 2006, pp. 161–172 Fisher, Michael H., Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian travellers and settlers in Britain 1600–1857, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004

Fisher, Michael H., “Working Across the Seas: Indian Maritime Labourers in India, Britain, and in Between,” International Review of Social History, vol. 51, 2006 Frost, Diane (ed), Ethnic Labour and British Imperial Trade (Immigrants & Minorities), London: Routledge, 1995

Fu, Carole J. Petersen and Young, Simon N.M. (eds), National Security and Fundamental Freedoms: Hong Kong’s Article 23 Under Scrutiny, Hong Kong: Hong University Press, 2005

Fung, Yee Wang and Chan-Yeung, Mo Wah Moira, To Serve and to Lead: A History of the Diocesan Boys' School in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009

Gallaudet, Edward Miner, Life of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet Founder of Deaf-mute Instruction in America, New York: Henry Holt, 1888

Gittins, Jean, Stanley: Behind Barbed Wire, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1982

Glick, G.W., “The Chinese Seamen’s Union and the Hong Kong Seamen’s Strike 1922”, MA Thesis, Columbia University, 1969 Gollock, G.A., At the Sign of the Flying Angel, London: Longmans, Green, 1930 Goodall, Norman, The Ecumenical Movement: What It Ss and What It Does, London: Oxford University Press, 1961

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 564

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

565

Goodstadt, Leo F., “Government Without Statistics: Policy-Making in Hong Kong 1925–85, with Special Reference to Economic and Financial Management”, HKIMR Working Paper No. 6/2006, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute for Monetary Research, 2006 Grantham, Alexander, Via Ports: Hong Kong to Hong Kong, 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012

Greaney, Edward, “Hawaii’s Big Six, A Cyclical Saga”, in Scott, Robert Lee, Hawaii Bicentennial Commission, The Encyclopedia of Hawaii, a 1976 Bicentennial Project, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976

Greenfield, Nathan M., The Damned: the Canadians at the Battle of Hong Kong and the POW Experience, 1941–45, Toronto: HarperCollins Canada, c.2010

Gull, E.M., British Economic Interests in the Far East, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1943, Part V, especially pp.181–190

Ha, Louis, “The Sunday Rest Issue in 19th Century Hong Kong”, in Lee, Pui-tak (ed), Colonial Hong Kong and Modern China: Interaction and Reintegration, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005 Haffner, Christopher, The Craft in the East, Hong Kong: District Grand Lodge or Hong Kong and the Far East, 1977

Hahn, Sylvia and Nadel, Stan (eds), Asian Migrants in Europe: Transcultural Connections, Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2014 Hall, Lesley A., “What Shall We Do with the Poxy Sailor?”, Journal for Maritime Research, vol. 6, no. 1, 2004, pp.113–144 Hamilton, Sheilah E., Watching Over Hong Kong: Private Policing 1841– 1941, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2008

Hao, Yen-pʻing, The Comprador in Nineteenth Century China: Bridge Between East and West, Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press, 1970

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 565

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

566

Stong

to

Save

Hardy, David (ed), Healing Bodies, Saving Souls: Medical Missions in Asia and Africa, Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi BV, 2006

Harfield, A.G., British and Indian Armies on the China Coast 1785–1985, London: A. and J. Partnership, 1990 Harland, Jessica L., Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism 1717–1927, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007

Harris, John R., The Battle for Hong Kong 1941–1945, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005 Harrison, Brian, Drink & the Victorians, The Temperance Question in England 1815–1872, London: Faber and Faber, 1971 Hastings, Max, Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War, London: William Collins, 2013

Hayter, John and Bennitt, Jack, Priests of the Diocese, The War and After: Singapore, London: Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, no date [c.1947]

Heller, Gillis and Yanne, Andrew, Signs of a Colonial Era, Hong Kong: Hong University Press, 2009

Henderson, George and McGavin, David, Bibles for China: An Account of Over 80 Years' Service by Two Bible Society Missionaries, Edinburgh: National Bible Society for Scotland, 1969 Historical and Statistical Abstract of the Colony of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., Government Printers, 1911 Holdsworth, May and Munn, Christopher, A Dictionary of Hong Kong Biography, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012

The Holy Bible: Authorised King James Version, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, n.d.

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 566

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

567

Hong Kong Council of the Apostleship of the Sea, Apostleship of the Sea: Serving Seafarers from 1895–1995, Hong Kong: Apostleship of the Sea, 1995 Hong Kong Daily Press, The Chronicle and Directory for China, Japan and the Philippines for 1879, Hong Kong: Daily Press Office, 1879

The Hong Kong Directory with List of Foreign Residents in China, Hong Kong: Armenian Press, 1859 Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Report for the Year 1925, 1931, Hong Kong: HKGCC, 1925, 1931

Hong Kong Museum of Medical Sciences Society, Plague, SARS, and the Story of Medicine in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006

Hong Kong Museum of Medical Sciences Society, Taipingshan Medical Heritage Trail, Hong Kong: HKMMSS, 2011 Hong Kong Servicemen’s Guides Association, History and Annual Report 1958, Hong Kong: Servicemen’s Guides Association, 1959

Hooft, W.A. Visser ’t, “The General Ecumenical Development Since 1948” in Fey, Harold C. (ed), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1948–1968, vol. 2, 3rd ed., Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004 Hope, Ronald, A New History of British Shipping, London: John Murray, 1990

Horne, Gerald, Race War: White Supremacy and the Japanese Attack on the British Empire, New York: New York University Press, 2004

Hoyle, B.S. and Pinder, David, Cityport Industrialization and Regional Development: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981 Hunter, William C., Bits of Old China, London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co, 1885

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 567

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

568

Stong

to

Save

An Old Resident (Hunter, William C.), The ‘Fan Kwae’ at Canton Before Treaty Days 1825–1844, reprint, Shanghai: The Oriental Affairs, 1938 Index to the Captains Registers of Lloyd’s of London (Guildhall Library Ms 18567) at http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/capsA.pdf Jackson, Ashley, The British Empire and the Second World War, London: Hambledon Continuum, 2006

Jackson, Eleanor, “From Krishna Pal to Lal Behari Dey: Indian Builders of the Church in India or Native Agency in Bengal 1800–1880” at http://www2.derby.ac.uk/multifaith-new/images/content/ seminarpapers/FromKrishnaPaltoLalBehari.htm Jacob, Michael, The Flying Angel Story, London: Mowbray, 1973

Jebb, John, The Choral Service of the United Church of England and Ireland, Being an Enquiry into the Liturgical System of the Cathedral and Collegiate Foundations of the Anglican Communion, London: John W. Parker, 1843

Johnson, James, The Influence of Tropical Climates on European Constitutions, 2nd ed., London: private print, 1818 Kennedy, Greg (ed), The Merchant Marine in International Affairs, 1850–1950, London: Frank Cass, 2000

Kennerly, Alston, “British Seamen’s Missions and Sailors’ Homes, 1815–1970, Voluntary Provision for Serving Seafarers”, unpublished PhD thesis, Polytechnic of the South West, 1989, p.14 Kennerly, Alston, “The Seamen's Union, the National Maritime Board and Firemen: Labour Management in the British Mercantile Marine”, The Northern Mariner/Le Marin du nord, vol. VII, no. 4, October 1997 Kennerley, Alston, A Century of Welcome to Seafarers in Fremantle: The Flying Angel Club and Its History, Perth WA: A Kennerley, 2001

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 568

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

569

Keswick, Maggie (ed), The Thistle and the Jade: A Celebration of 175 Years of Jardine Matheson, London: Francis Lincoln Ltd., 2008

Khool, Salma Nasution and Lubis, Abdur-Razzaq, Kinta Valley: Pioneering Malaysia’s Modern Development, Ipoh: Perak Academy, 2005 King, Fleet Admiral Ernest J., “Second Report To The Secretary Of The Navy, Covering Combat Operations 1 March 1944 To 1 March 1945”, Issued 27 March 1945 at http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/cno/ cnorpt_2.html

Kingsford, M.R., The Life, Work, and Influence of W.H.G. Kingston, Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1947

Kingsford, M.R., The Mersey Mission to Seamen 1856–1956, Abingdon: Abbey Press, 1957 Kirkaldy, Adam, British Shipping: Its History, Organization and Importance, London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd, 1914

Koburger, Charles W. Jr., The French Navy in Indochina: Riverine and Coastal Forces, 1945–54, New York: Praeger, 1991

Kozarsky, Bruce, Episcopal Relief and Development: Seventy-five Years of Healing a Hurting World, New York: Episcopal Relief & Development, 2014 Kua, Paul, Scouting in Hong Kong 1910–2010, Hong Kong: Scout Association of Hong Kong, 2011 Kurpaska, Maria, Chinese Language(s): A Look Through the Prism of the Great Dictionary of Modern Chinese Dialects, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2010 Kverndal, Roald, Seamen’s Missions: Their Origin and Early Growth, a Contribution to the History of the Church Maritime, Pasadena CA: William Carey Library, 1986

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 569

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

570

Stong

to

Save

Kwong, Chi-man, ‘“Any Steps to Mitigate This Dreadful Complaint?’, Venereal Disease and Hong Kong Garrison, 1850–1941”, ASAHK Conference,
Hong Kong Institute of Education, March 2013 accessed at http://www.ied.edu.hk/asahkconf/view.php?secid=3782 Kwong, Chi-man and Tsoi, Yiu-lun, Eastern Fortress: a Military History

of Hong Kong, 1840–1970, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2014, pp.107–115

Lai, Lawrence W.C., Davies, Stephen N.G., Ching, Ken S.T. and Wong, Castor T.C., “Location of Pillboxes and Other Structures of the Gin Drinker’s Line Based on Aerial Photo Evidence”, Surveying & Built Environment, vol. 21, no. 2, 2011 Lambert, N.A., Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999

Lambot, Ian and Chambers, Gillian, One Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong: HongkongBank, 1986

Larsen, Timothy, Contested Christianity: The Political and Social Contexts of Victorian Theology, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004

Law, Wing Sang, Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009

Lazich, Michael C., E.C. Bridgman (1801–1861), America’s First Missionary to China, Lewiston N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2000 Leach, Frank Willing, “Old Philadelphia Families”, The North American, Philadelphia, Sunday, July 7, 1912, reproduced by Vince Summers for USGenWeb Archives at http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/ philadelphia/history/family/ralston.txt

Leck, Greg, Captives of Empire: The Japanese Internment of Allied Civilians in China, 1941–1945, Philadelphia (PA): Shandy Press, 2006

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 570

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

571

Lee, Hong-nee, Connie (李康妮), “Society and Policing in Hong Kong: a Study of the 1956 Riot”, unpublished MSc in Criminology thesis, University of Hong Kong, 1995 Lee, Pui-tak (ed), Colonial Hong Kong and Modern China: Interaction and Reintegration, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005

Leeming, Bernard, The Churches and the Church: A Study of Ecumenism Developed from the Lauriston Lectures for 1957, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1960

Pichon, Alain le, China Trade and Empire: Jardine, Matheson & Co. and the Origins of British Rule in Hong Kong, 1827–1843, Oxford: Oxford University Press/The British Academy, 2006 Lethbridge, H.J., “HK's Poet Laureate? (Poems by the HK Colonial Secretary 1854–1867)” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 13, 1973, pp.151–153. Lethbridge, H.J., Hong Kong: Stability and Change, a Collection of Essays, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1978

Levine, Philippa, Prostitution, Race and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire, New York: Routledge, 2003

Levinson, Marc, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007 Lim, Patricia, Forgotten Souls: a Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2011

Lindsay, Oliver, The Battle for Hong Kong, 1941–1945: Hostage to Fortune, UK: Tempus Publishing Ltd., 2005

Lindsay, Oliver, The Lasting Honour: The Fall of Hong Kong, 1941, London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1978

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 571

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

572

Stong

to

Save

Lloyd, Richard Beavis, “Exposition of the Abuses of the Present System of Lascar Impressment. Together with the Outlines of a Plan for their Correction, Calcutta, 1814” in The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and its Dependencies, London: Black, Parbury and Allen, 1816 Lloyd’s Register of Ships, London: Lloyd’s, 1764–

Lo, Wai-kin (盧偉健), “From Seed to Harvest: a Heritage Trail of Early Christianity in Hong Kong”, unpublished MSc in Conservation dissertation, University of Hong Kong, 2011

Lodwick, Kathleen, The Chinese Recorder Index: A Guide to Christian Missions in Asia, 1867–1941, 2 vols., Wilmington, Del: Scholarly Resources, 1986

Ma, Ir Koon-Yiu (馬冠堯), “History of Dockyards in Hong Kong and the City Development”, unpublished presentation, 27 April 2013, Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre

MacGillivray, D., A Century of Protestant Missions in China (1807–1907), Shanghai: American Tract Society, 1907

McGuire, John, “The Rise and Fall of the Oriental Bank in the Nineteenth Century: A Product of the Transformations that Occurred in the World Economy or the Result of its Own Mismanagement”, paper delivered at the Asian Studies Association of Australia Biennial Conference 2004, http://coombs.anu.edu. au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/McGuire-JASAA2004.pdf McKay, Stephen P., “The Sailors’ Home: a Short History” at http:// www.chesterwalls.info/gallery/sailorshome7.html

Mackenzie, Alexander, History of the Mathesons with Genealogies of the Various Families, 2nd ed. Macbain, Alexander (ed.), Inverness: William Mackay, 1900

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 572

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

573

Mackie, Colin (compiler), A Directory of British Diplomats, part 4 at http://issuu.com/fcohistorians/docs/bdd_part_4__for_upload_

Mak, George Kam Wah, “‘Laissez-faire’ or Active Intervention? The Nature of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Patronage of the Translation of the Chinese Union Versions”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, series 3, vol. 20, no. 2, 2010

Marsman, Jan Henrik, I Escaped from Hong Kong, New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1942

Martin, B. Jean and Jackson, Frances, “The Honolulu Sailor’s Home’, The Hawaiian Journal of History, vol. 20, 1986

Mason, Geoffrey B., Royal Navy Minelaying Operations, part 1 of 2, 2006 at http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm

McLane, Allan, Pacific Mail Steamship Company, Report of the President to the Stockholders, New York: Pacific Mail Steamship Co., February 1868 McPherson, John L. & Rutledge, C.C., Joint Annual Report of the Foreign Secretaries 1905–06, New York: Foreign Department International Committee of YMCAs, 1906 McPherson, Sue L., “J.L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905–1935”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch. vol. 46, 2006 Melamed, Daniel R., “The Authorship of the Motet ‘Ich lasse dich nicht’ (BWV Anh. 159)”, Journal of the American Musicological Society, vol. 41, no. 3, 1988, pp. 491–526

Mellor, Bernard, Lugard in Hong Kong: Empires, Education and a Governor at Work 1907–1912, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1992 Melson, Peter, White Ensign, Red Dragon: the History of the Royal Navy in Hong Kong, 2nd ed., Liskeard: Maritime Books, 1997

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 573

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

574

Stong

to

Save

Mercantile Navy List and Maritime Directory, London: W. Mitchell, 1865Merchant Navy Welfare Board, Full History of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, London: Merchant Navy Welfare Board, 2014

Miller, R.W.H., “Ship of Peter: the Catholic Sea Apostolate and the Apostleship of the Sea”, unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Plymouth, 1995 Miller, R.W.H., One Firm Anchor: the Church and the Merchant Seafarer, an Introductory History, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2012

Miners, (R.J.) N.J., “State Regulation of Prostitution in Hong Kong, 1857–1941”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 24, 1984

Miners, N.J., “Plans for Constitutional Reform in Hong Kong 1946– 1952”, China Quarterly, no. 107, 1986, pp.209–217 Missions to Seamen, Convoy X.K. 234 Arrives. The War-time Story of the "Flying Angel", London: Missions to Seamen, 1946

Missions to Seamen, (Charles Babb, et. Al.), The Mission to Seamen, Antwerp, Belgium, 1892–1992, Antwerp: no imprint, 1992 Mitter, Rana, China's War with Japan, 1937–1945: The Struggle for Survival, London: Allen Lane, 2013 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 97, 1937, p.282

Morrison, Eliza A., Memoirs of the Life and Labours of the Reverend Robert Morrison D.D., compiled by his widow, 2 vols, London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1839

Morrison, Robert, A Parting Memorial Consisting of Miscellaneous Discourses Written and Preached in China; at Singapore; on Board Ship at Sea, in the Indian Ocean; at the Cape of Good Hope; and in England, London: W Simpkin & R Marshall, 1826

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 574

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

575

The Mungret Annual, Mungret College, Limerick, vol. XIII, no. 1, June 1947

Munn, Christopher, Anglo-China: Chinese People and British Rule in Hong Kong, 1841–1880, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009 Myers, Norma, Reconstructing the Black Past: Blacks in Britain 1780– 1830, London: Frank Cass, 1996

The Navy List for August 1914 Corrected to 8 July 1914, London: HMSO, 1915 Nellist, George F. (ed), Men of Shanghai & North China: a Standard Biographical Reference Work, Shanghai: The Oriental Press, 1933 The New Annual Army List, Militia List, and Yeomanry Cavalry List, London: John Murray, 1872

Newcombe, Harvey, A Cyclopedia of Missions, Containing a Comprehensive View of Missionary Operations Throughout the World; with Geographical Descriptions and Accounts of the Social, Moral and Religious Condition of the People, New York: Charles Scribner, 1860 Norris, Frank L., China Handbooks of English Church Expansion, London and Oxford: A.R. Mowbray, 1908 Norton-Kyshe, J.W., The History of the Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, Tracing Consular Jurisdiction in China and Japan and Including Parliamentary Debates, and the Rise, Progress, and Successive Changes in the Various Public Institutions of the Colony from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., 1897 O'Brien, Patrick, Ten Years of Debate on the Origins of the Great Divergence, (review no. 1008), URL: http://www.history.ac.uk/ reviews/review/1008

O’Brien, Phillips, The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902–1922, London: Routledge, 2003

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 575

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

576

Stong

to

Save

Otter, Sandra den, “Law, Authority and Colonial Eule”, ch. 7 in Peers, Douglas M. and Gooptu, Nandini, India and the British Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012

Oyen, Meredith Leigh, “Allies, Enemies and Aliens: Migration and U.S.Chinese Relations, 1940–1965”, 2 vols, unpublished PhD thesis, Washington DC: Georgetown University, 2007

Pallant, Roy J.V., “Canon Stanley Smith — Missions to Seamen”, British Columbia Historical News: Journal of the B.C. Historical Federation, Vol. 26, No. 4, Fall 1993, p.13 (British) Parliamentary Papers (H of C) 1841, xvi, no. 45

Peers, Douglas M. and Gooptu, Nandini, India and the British Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012

Pepper, Suzanne, Keeping Democracy at Bay: Hong Kong and the Challenge of Chinese Political Reform, Lanham (MD): Bowman & Littlefield, 2008 Pickering, Jeffrey, Britain’s Withdrawal From East of Suez: the Politics of Retrenchment, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998 Pomeranz, Kenneth, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000

Port of London Health Committee (Charles Francis White MD), “Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health to 31 December 1936”, London: Port of London Health Committee, July 1937

Preble, George Henry, (Szczesniak, Boleslaw (ed)), The Opening of Japan, A Diary of Discovery in the Far East, 1853–1856, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962

Protestant Missionaries in China, Japan and Corea for the Year 1904, Hong Kong: The “Daily Press” Office/London: London Office 131 Fleet St. EC, 1904

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 576

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

577

Proulx, Benjamin E., Underground from Hong Kong, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1943

Pryor, E.G., “The Great Plague of Hong Kong”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1975 Prysor, Glyn, Citizen Sailors: the Royal Navy in the Second World War, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2011

The Quarterly Army List, April 1943, London: War Office, 1943

Qiu, Peipei, Su, Zhiliang, Chen, Lifei, Chinese Comfort Women: Testimonies from Imperial Japan's Sex Slaves, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2013 Redwood, Mabel Winifred, It Was Like This…, Oxford: Isis Publishing, 2002

Reed, George, “Exploitation of Asiatic Seamen at Singapore Must Stop”, International Transport Workers’ Journal, Vol. X, ½, January– February 1950, pp.3–5

Reeves, John Pownall (Day, Colin and Garrett, Richard (eds)), The Lone Flag: Memoir of the British Consul in Macao During World War II, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2014 Ride, Lindsay and Ride, May (Mellor, Bernard (ed)), An East India Company Cemetery: Protestant Burials in Macao, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1995

Robb-Webb, J.J., “The British Pacific Fleet Experience and Legacy: A Levels of Warfare Analysis”, unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London, 2006

Rutgers, Paul, Combat Chronology of the USAAF at http://paul.rutgers. edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

Rouse, Ruth, Neill, Stephen & Fey, Harold Edward (eds), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1968, 4th ed., Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 577

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

578

Stong

to

Save

The Sailor’s Magazine and Naval Journal, New York: American Seamen’s Friend Society, vol. 1, ending August 1829 The Sailor’s Magazine and Naval Journal, New York: American Seamen’s Friend Society, vol. X, no. 3, November 1837 The Sailor’s Magazine, New York: The American Seamen’s Friend Society, 1839 Scammel, Clare M., “Anglo-American Strategic Cooperation: The role of Carrier Aviation in Western Strategy, 1945–1955”, unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London, 2001

Seed, John, “Maritime Labour and Asian Sailors in Nineteenth-century London”, in Hahn, Sylvia and Nadel, Stan (eds), Asian Migrants in Europe: Transcultural Connections, Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2014 Selwyn-Clarke, Selwyn, Footprints, Hong Kong: Sino-American Publishing Company, 1975

Shattock, Joanne (ed), The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, 1800–1900, Vol. 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 Shepherd, Bruce, Index to the Streets, Houses and Leased Lots of Victoria, Victoria Peak, and Kowloon, in the Colony of Hongkong, Hong Kong: Kelly & Walsh Ltd., 1894

Sherwood, Marika, “Race, Nationality and Employment Among Lascar Seamen, 1660 to 1945”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol.17, no.2, January 1991 Shiman, Lilian L., Crusade Against Drink in Victorian England, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1986

Shimazu, Naoko, Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919, New York: Routledge, 1998

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 578

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

579

Shipway, Martin, Decolonization and Its Impact: A Comparative Approach to the End of the Colonial Empires, Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2008

Sinn, Elizabeth (ed), Between East and West: Aspects of Social and Political Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, 1990

Sinn, Elizabeth, Pacific Crossing: California Gold, Chinese Migration, and the Making of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013 Sinn, Elizabeth, Power and Charity: a Chinese Merchant Elite in Colonial Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2003

Sinn, Elizabeth, “Women at Work: Chinese Brothel Keepers in Nineteenth-Century Hong Kong”, Journal of Women's History, vol. 19, no. 3, 2007 Siu, Helen F. (ed), Merchants Daughters: Women, Commerce and Regional Culture in South China, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2010

Smith, Carl T., “Abandoned into Prosperity: Women on the Fringe of Expatriate Society”, in Siu, Helen F. (ed), Merchants Daughters: Women, Commerce and Regional Culture in South China, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2010 Smith, Carl T., (intro C. Munn), Chinese Christians: Elites, Middlemen and the Church in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005

Smith, Carl T., “The German Speaking Community in Hong Kong, 1846–1918”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 34, 1994 Snape, Michael, The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, 1796–1953: Clergy Under Fire, London: Boydell & Brewer, 2007

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 579

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

580

Stong

to

Save

Snow, Philip, The Fall of Hong Kong: Britain, China, and the Japanese Occupation, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003

Spyrou, Andrew G., From T-2 to Supertanker: Development of the Oil Tanker, 1940–2000. revised ed., Bloomington I.N.: iUniverse, Inc., 2011 Standaert, Nicolas (ed.), Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, 2001 Stephens, D.M., Old Allegheny, a Handbook of information, Meadville PA: Tribune Publishing Co., 1921

Stockdale, Jacqueline, A History 1927–2010: a History of the Missions to Seamen Now Mission to Seafarers at the Port of Townsville, Townsville: James Cook University e-book, n.d.

Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1959

Stopford, Martin, “Challenges for Global Shipping in the Wake of the Great Shipping Boom 2003–8”, 125 years’ anniversary of the Danish Shipowners’ Association, 20 January 2009 Stopford, Martin, Maritime Economics, 2nd ed., London: Routledge, 1997

Stopford, Martin, “The Great Shipping Cycle — End of the Beginning or Beginning of the End?” presentation to the 2nd Cyprus Economic Forum, 31 January 2011 Strong, L.A.G., Flying Angel: the Story of the Missions to Seamen, London: Methuen, 1956

Sunday School Teachers’ Magazine and Journal of Education, 4th series, vol. XIV, London: Sunday School Union, 1863 Sweeting, A.E., Education in Hong Kong Pre–1841 to 1941: Fact and Opinion, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1990

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 580

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

581

Sweeting, Tony (A.E.) (prepared and edited by Cunich, Peter), “Hong Kong’s Eurasians”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch, vol. 55, 2015, pp.?? Sweetser, Delight, One Way Round the World, New York: Bowen Merrill & Co., 1898

Tan, Bonny, “Early Tourist Guidebooks: Willis' Singapore Guide (1936)”, Biblioasia, October 2010 Tarrant, William, Hong Kong Almanack and Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1848, Hong Kong: D. Noronha, 1848

Tarling, Nicholas, Britain, Southeast Asia and the Onset of the Pacific War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996

Taylor, Gordon, The Sea Chaplains: a History of the Chaplains of the Royal Navy, Oxford: Illustrated Press, 1978

Tiedeman, R.G., Reference Guide to Christian Missionary Societies in China from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2009

Tsang, Steve Yui-Sang, Democracy Shelved: Great Britain, China, and Attempts at Constitutional Reform in Hong Kong, 1945-1952, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988

Tuchman, Barbara, The Guns of August: the Outbreak of World War One, London: Macmillan, 1962 Tytler, Robert, Facts Establishing the Deleterious Properties of Rice, Used as an Article of Food, London: Renshaw and Rush, 1833

United States Department of the Interior National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet, James C. Beecher House, Tioga County, New York, Section 8, p.3 at http:// www.villageofowego.com/PageZoneSiteResources/bstvillage/ Resources/file/OHPC/James%20C.%20Beecher%20House%20 560%20Fifth%20Ave..pdf

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 581

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

582

Stong

to

Save

Veen, Ernst van & Blussé, Leonard, Rivalry and Conflict: European Traders and Asian Trading Networks in the 16th and 17th Centuries, Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University, 2005

Visram, Rosina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History, London: Pluto Press, 2002

Vulovic, Rod, “Changing Ship Technology and Port Infrastructure Implications”, in Biliana Cicin-Sain, Knecht, Robert W. & Foster, Nancy, Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy, Washington: National Ocean Service/University of Delaware, 1999 Wallace, Robert Grenville, Fifteen Years in India;
or,
Sketches of a Soldier’s Life Being an Sttempt to Describe Persons and Things in Various Parts of Hindostan, from the Journal of
an Officer in His Majesty's Service, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1822

Walsh, Frank, A History of Hong Kong, rev. ed., London: HarperCollins, 1997 Ward, Iain, Sui Geng: the Hong Kong Marine Police 1841–1950, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1991 Warnecke, Heinz: Paulus im Sturm. Über den Schiffbruch der Exegese und die Rettung des Apostels auf Kephallenia, Nürnberg: VTR, 2000

Wemyss, Georgie, “Littoral Struggles, Liminal Lives: Indian Merchant Seafarers’ Resistances”, in Ahmed, Rehana and Mukherjee, Sumita (eds), South Asian Resistances in Britain 1858–1947, London: Continuum, 2014

Wemyss, Georgie, The Invisible Empire: White Discourse, Tolerance and Belonging, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009

Wettersten, John, How Do Institutions Steer Events: an Enquiry into the Limits and Possibilities of Rational Thought and Action, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 582

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Bibliography

583

White Paper, Defence, Outline of Future Policy, London: HMSO, March

White, David, Bitter Ocean: The Battle of the Atlantic, 1939–1945, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008

White, N.J., British Colonial Business in Post-Colonial Malaysia, 1957–1970: “Neo-colonialism” or “Disengagement”, London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004, p.50

Whitfield, Andrew J., Hong Kong, Empire and the Anglo-American Alliance at War, 1941–1945, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2001 Who’s Who in the Far East, 1906–07, Hong Kong: China Mail, 1907

Willey, S.R., Bid the Stranger Welcome: a History of the Ministry to Seafarers in the Port of Newcastle, 1873–1990, Including the History of the Missions to Seamen, Newcastle, Charlestown, N.S.W.: S. Willey, 1998 Williams, Samuel Wells, The Chinese Commercial Guide, 3rd ed., Hong Kong: A Shortrede & Co., 1863

Willis, Alfred Charles, The Singapore Guide for Merchant Seamen (or Willis’ Guide), Singapore, Alfred Charles Willis, 1936 Wolfendale, Stuart, Imperial to International: a History of St John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013

Wong, J.Y., Deadly Dreams, Opium, Imperialism and the Arrow War (1856–1860) in China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 Wong, Timothy Man-Kwong, “Local Voluntarism: the Medical Mission of the London Missionary Society in Hong Kong 1842–1923”, in David Hardy (2006), op.cit.

Wordie, Jason, Streets: Exploring Kowloon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2002

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 583

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

584

Stong

to

Save

Wort, Stanley, Prisoner of the Rising Sun, Preston: Pen & Sword, 2009

Wright, Arnold & Cartwright, H.A. (eds), Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and Other Treaty Ports of China, Their History, Peoples, Commerce, Industries and Resources, London: Lloyd’s Greater Britain London Publishing Co. Ltd., 1908 Yeh, Wen-hsin (ed), Wartime Shanghai, Abingdon: Routledge, 1998

Yule, H. & Burnell, A.C., Hobson-Jobson: An Anglo-Indian Dictionary, Ware, Herts: Wordsworth, 1996

Zhang, Wei-bing, Hong Kong: the Pearl Made of British Mastery and Chinese Docile-diligence, New York: Nova Science, 2006 Zheng, Yangwen, The Social Life of Opium in China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005

28_Strong to Save_Bibliography.indd 584

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Webliography

http://150.chamber.org.hk/eng/index.html#abt_born http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index. php?showtopic=139454 http://anglicanhistory.org/aus/cci/index.pdf

http://anglicanhistory.org/nz/blain_directory/

http://www.angloboerwar.com/other-information/86-shippingrecords/1823-shipping-records-april-1902 http://aomol.net/000001/000530/html/am530--490.html

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Devices_and_Badges. pdf https://brianedgar.wordpress.com/

http://www.bris.ac.uk/history/customs/ancestors/directories.html http://www.chesterwalls.info/gallery/sailorshome7.html

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2012/13-april/features/ night-of-unimaginable-terror http://www.clydesite.co.uk/clydebuilt/viewship.asp?id=4095 http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennialconference/2004/McGuire-J-ASAA2004.pdf

29_Strong to Save_Webliography.indd 585

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

586

Stong

to

Save

http://www2.derby.ac.uk/multifaith-new/images/content/ seminarpapers/FromKrishnaPaltoLalBehari.htm http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1317735/1/282305.pdf

http://dissacad.english.qmul.ac.uk/new_dissacad/phpfiles/sample1. php?parameter=personretrieve&alpha=8257 http://www.empressofasia.com/npd_sept17_1925.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_parishes_of_Cheshire

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1134_2006-0407.html http://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Birkenhead,_Cheshire

http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/philadelphia/history/family/ ralston.txt

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=2359223 1&PIpi=8808330 http://www.flyingangel.ca/page/history

http://www.frankdikotter.com/publications/the-myth-of-opium.pdf http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pbtyc/Nbd/ bosuns/Index.html http://www.greatwar.co.uk/medals/ww1-campaign-medals. htm#mercantilemedal http://www.grs.gov.hk/PRO/srch/english/sys_carlsmith.jsp http://gwulo.com/node/6706

http://www.halfandhalf.org.uk/dr.htm

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1900/jul/19/armychaplain-at-hong-kong http://www.hastings-hk.com/en/history.html

29_Strong to Save_Webliography.indd 586

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Webliography

587

http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/capsA.pdf

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1008 http://www.hkcccc.org/Eng/1main.php http://hkgro.lib.hku.hk/

http://hkmd1841-1941.blogspot.hk

http://home.hkstar.com/~caryl/ywc/yw_hist_e.html,

http://hongkongsfirst.blogspot.hk/2013/01/dr-alexander-andersonhong-kongs-first.html http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/146121/FullText.pdf http://www.ied.edu.hk/asahkconf/view.php?secid=3782

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/HumanElement/GoToSea/ Documents/Gotosea!campaigndocument.pdf http://indicatorloops.com/hongkong.htm,

http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1134_2006-04-07.html

http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/mind_repository_details. aspx?rep_id=719 http://issuu.com/fcohistorians/docs/bdd_part_4__for_upload_ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4569336

http://labordoc.ilo.org/record/99232?ln=en http://labordoc.ilo.org/record/98562?ln=en http://www.landreg.gov.hk/pdf/All_SI.pdf

http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/ce/Museum/Coastal/en/section1-3.php

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/sec/library/1213in22-e. pdf

29_Strong to Save_Webliography.indd 587

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

588

Stong

to

Save

http://www.marinerswelfare.com.au/newsletters/newsletterv4n1. htm http://www.masshist.org/findingaids/doc.cfm?fa=fa0269

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php http://www.missiontoseafarers.com.au/history

http://www.mix-d.org/museum/timeline/compulsory-repatriationof-chinese-seamen-in-liverpool http://www.mnoghk.org/index00.htm http://www.mnwb.org/History

http://www.morrison.hku.hk/drupal/?q=node/132

http://www.mun.ca/mha/mlc/seafarers/lascars/remainder-of-crew. php

http://www.nickdelves.co.uk/wansey/wansey/1941_Marriage_ROSE_ WANSEY_Hong_Kong.jpg http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishShips-Dittmar1.htm http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp88179/ thomas-boaz http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/items/show/139

http://www.oldchinaphotography.com/TB_CHINA_COLLECTION.pdf

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/017_britain/39_navy/chinastation.html http://www.pandosnco.co.uk/crews.html

http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/18-1900/B/00519.html

29_Strong to Save_Webliography.indd 588

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Webliography

589

http://www.plimsoll.org/images/14400_tcm4-161603.pdf

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&sid= 95e3f6e828e116b80d4cccd93c806bc1&view=text&rgn=main&idn o=ABE1480.0001.001 http://rememberingsingapore.blogspot.hk/2013/12/connell-hous. html http://www.ringingworld.co.uk/news-articles/this-week/993rw-5293.html

http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/item/researching-familyand-royal-marine-history/rm-engineers-1939-45, http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_navy_league.htm http://scoutguidehistoricalsociety.com/marr.htm

http://www.sirc.cf.ac.uk/SIRC_Free_Online_Reports.aspx http://www.sjomannskirken.no/historien/#kart

http://skirret.com/papers/dgl/lodge_923_2.html http://www.thehongkonglegacy.com/Home.html

http://www.ttc.edu.sg/csca/rart_doc/ang/sing/wilson1946.htm http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/claim/view/22521

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/cultural-diversity/pastoralcare-of-migrants-refugees-and-travelers/apostleship-of-the-sea/ upload/aos-world-congress-fr-bruno-ciceri.pdf http://www.villageofowego.com/PageZoneSiteResources/bstvillage/ Resources/file/OHPC/James%20C.%20Beecher%20House%20 560%20Fifth%20Ave..pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090609003228/http:// www.berr.gov.uk/aboutus/corporate/history/outlines/BT-16211970/page13919.html

29_Strong to Save_Webliography.indd 589

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

590

Stong

to

Save

http://webpages.charter.net/bleecker/Family/Jan.Jansen.Bleecker. doc

http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/englishcamp/index.html#boven http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_150.pdf

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-130418.pl?sur=Lee&suro= w&fir=Henry+Wilson&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&tex=&sye=&eye= &col=all&maxcount=50 http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index. php?showtopic=139454 accessed 14-1-2014

29_Strong to Save_Webliography.indd 590

6/7/2017 6:52 PM

Copyright Attributions

Churches Interior of St Peter’s Church, West Point, late 19th century

Mission to Seafarers

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, Christmas Day 1949

Mission to Seafarers

St Paul’s Chapel, Kwai Chung, early 2000s

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, desecrated interior Sept 1945 St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, post-war with altar at west end St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, pre-war with altar at east end

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, the west end with organ

St Peter’s Church, Mariners’ Club, 2005 St Peter’s Church, West Point, (water colour by Mrs Goldsmith)

Mariners’ Club

Mission to Seafarers Mission to Seafarers

Mission to Seafarers

Mission to Seafarers Mariners’ Club

Mission to Seafarers

Events and People

All Mission to Seafarers except: Father Joe Nijssen ship visiting Peter Ellis visiting a ship at the Container Port

30_Copyright attributions.indd 591

Apostleship of the Sea Reverend Peter Ellis

6/7/2017 6:53 PM

592

Stong

to

Save

Ted Matchett ship visiting

Visit by HRH The Princess Royal Interiors

Ms Barbara Matchett Reverend Peter Ellis

All Mission to Seafarers Launches

All Mission to Seafarers except:

The floating Bethel at Hong Kong Premises All Mission to Seafarers except:

Hong Kong Maritime Museum

Location of premises map

Stephen Davies

The Sailors’ Home, West Point, southern façade

public domain

Apostleship of the Sea premises

Newspaper drawing of the 1910 Seamen’s Institute Merchant Navy Sports Club

Sailors’ Home Hong Kong, June 1887

Seamen’s Institute, Canton Road, c.1910 The Seamen’s Institute, Praya East, c.1915

Apostleship of the Sea

South China Morning Post Government of the HKSAR Watercoluur by Charlie Hammonds, State Library of Victoria, Australia Public domain

Public domain

Staff

All Mission to Seafarers except: Early days at the Sailors’ Home

The ecumenical team at the Mariners’ Club 2015

30_Copyright attributions.indd 592

Art Bickerton

Mariners Club

6/7/2017 6:53 PM

Index

A Ah King Shipyard 128 alcohol 21–22, 69–71, 74, 110, 114, 143, 150, 154, 165, 237, 239–240, 255, 280–281 amalgamation 134, 136–138, 141–142, 144–145, 147, 150– 155, 158, 166, 229, 233, 237, 239–240, 251, 280, 291, 299, 416 Anglican Church (see also Church of England) xxvii, 71 Anglo-Japanese Alliance 128 Anne, HRH Princess (see also HRH the Princess Royal) 400 anti-colonial struggles 53, 247, 375 Apostleship of the Sea/Apostolatus Maris/Stella Maris xx, 257, 350, 365, 404, 431, 441–444, 460 Cunningham, Father P. 256, 287, 309–312, 326, 346, 349, 453, 518 Dopchie, Father G. 358, 366, 372, 375, 377, 403–404 Fitzpatrick, Father D. 370, 372 Gilligan, Father G.N. 264 McAsey, Father J. 348–349 Nijssen, Father J. 407–411 Pelly, Father C.M. 256–260, 264, 440

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 593

army chaplain Baynes, Reverend W.H. 64 Booth, Reverend C.G. 65–66, 479 Henderson, Reverend J. 65 Lee, Reverend H. Wilson 65–66 Piper, Reverend J. 61, 479 Talbot, Reverend Thomas Asiatic Articles xxx, 16, 246, 300 Assessment Office 386, 397, 540 assistant chaplain 89, 95, 129, 266, 270, 309, 319, 322, 334– 335, 344, 352, 358, 365, 372, 375, 380, 411

B Beach, Reverend William Roberts 32–35, 58–59 beachcomber (see also destitute) 49–80 Bethel flag 3–6, 10–11, 353, 421, 433–434, 464 Bethel, floating 5–9, 29, 434, 463 bishop of Victoria/Hong Kong Alford, Right Reverend C.R. 58–60 Baker, Right Reverend J.G.H. 335–342, 348–349 Burdon, Right Reverend J.S. 64, 67, 83, 126

7/7/2017 11:22 AM

594

Strong

to

Save

Duppuy, Right Reverend C.R. 142–143, 146, 158, 177 Hall, Right Reverend R.O. Hoare, Right Reverend, J.C. 84, 94 Lander, Right Reverend G.H. 84, 88, 100, 121, 124, 126, 487 Smith, Right Reverend George Blackhead (Tsim Sha Tsui) Point 139, 442, 494–495 Board of Trade 13, 148, 161 boarding house keepers 23, 472 Boy Scouts Association Sea Scouts 172, 269 British and Foreign Sailors’ Society 10 British Merchant Seamen’s Clubs 234 brothels 91, 134, 170–171, 502 Bryer, Alfred 100 British and Foreign Seamen’s Friend Society 10 Butterfield & Swire 139, 234–235, 237, 302, 357, 495, 500

C Canton (see also Guangzhou) 4, 6, 29, 131–132 casual ward 81–82, 91 census 152, 399, 534 Central/Central District 37, 66, 72, 76, 84, 128, 133, 166, 190, 210–211, 213, 223, 260, 264 Chater, Sir C. Paul 103, 127 Cheero Club 159, 499 China Fleet Club 210–211, 213– 214, 231, 260, 411 China Station 102, 123, 184–185, 196

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 594

Christian Mission to Chinese Seamen/Chinese Seamen’s Mission Li Tse Fong 324 Tan, Reverend B.J. 301–302 church attendance 183, 196, 359, 377 Church Missionary Society xxvi, 58, 63, 65–66 Church of England 64, 143, 145, 156–157, 165, 251, 292, 313, 320, 350, 393 Church of England Temperance Society 74, 480 Church of Sweden Abroad xxi, 413 Colonial Office 51, 138, 157, 216, 315, 324 colonial secretary Lister, A. 47, 81–82, 91 May, Sir H. 100 Southorn. T. 152 colonial surgeon 25–26 colonial treasurer 47, 81, 469 comprador 44, 118, 232, 254, 321, 489 Coryton, Reverend H. 168, 175 Council for the Welfare of the Mercantile Marine 157, 161, 248 crimp 13, 18–19, 23, 27, 32, 110, 117–119, 465

D Danish Seamen’s Church (Danske Sømands- og Udlandskirker) xx, 382 Pedersen, Pastor R. 382 Deng Xiao Ping 389, 393 Dent & Co. 34, 45

7/7/2017 11:23 AM

Index

deserters 29, 46 destitute (see also beachcomber) 32, 47, 49, 70, 79, 81–82 destitute seaman 79, 80–81, 83, 91, 398 Diocesan Boy’s School 99, 103, 126, 480 distressed British seaman 31, 49, 79 Dockyard, Naval/Royal Naval 94, 128, 185, 210–211, 213–215, 223, 247, 251, 291 dockyards (civilian) 76, 247 Dowbiggin, Colonel H.B.L. 240, 280, 291, 293, 302, 310, 315, 331 Dyer Ball, Dr. J. 74 Dykes, John Bacchus xxxi

E ecumenical mission xxvii, 257, 275, 285, 291–292, 311, 345– 352, 354, 358–360, 364–365, 368, 371, 381, 383, 389, 393, 399, 402, 405–406, 412–413, 416, 420–423 ecumenism 275, 289, 327, 367, 369 Eitel, E.J. 37–38, 59, 65, 79, 91

F Falklands War 385, 403 Far East Chaplain’s Conference 387, 409 Fenwick Pier 209, 241, 264–266, 268, 283 flags of convenience 377, 387 Freemasons 99, 103, 120, 128, 132, 428

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 595

595

Lodge Eastern Scotia 103, 128 funds/fundraising 87, 95, 97, 253–254, 257–258, 285–289, 302 Fung Wai-lin, Evelyn 249, 268– 270

G German Seamen’s Mission (Deutsche Seemannsmission) 109, 428 Platte, Reverend M. 413, 454 ghaut serang Mahomet Arab 20, 24 Shaikh Moosden 20, 467 governor of Hong Kong Clementi, Sir Cecil 157, 170 Des Voeux, Sir G.W. 72 Grantham, Sir A. 236, 254 Lugard, Sir F. 99 Maclehose, Sir M.C. 393, 536 Nathan, Sir M. 90, 92–93 Peel, Sir W. 171 Robinson, Sir H. 38 Robinson, Sir W. 112 Trench, Sir D. 335 Stubbs, Sir R. 170, 493 Guangzhou (see also Canton) 15, 24, 130–131, 189

H hang shun kun 116–117 Anlanxuan 112 Baogong zhi (Contractor’s House) 118 Sai Ma Sha Kun 118 Taoyige 112 Yihetang 112

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

596

Strong

to

Save

harbour master Beckwith, C.W.M. 137–138 Hole, G.F. 139 Inglis, A.L. 35, 470 Jolly, J. 509 Rumsey, R.M. 62, 69, 74–75, 157, 481, 488, 494 Taylour, B. 137–138 Thomsett, H.G. 35–36, 42, 44–46, 58, 71–72, 75, 92 Harbour Master’s Office Shipping Office/Shipping Branch 23, 27, 40, 50–51, 53, 74, 78, 92, 114, 138, 142, 193, 246 Harcourt, Rear Admiral C.H.J. Hermitage, The 442, 443 Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation 35, 171, 175 Hongkong & Whampoa Dock Co. 35, 37 Hong Kong Wharf & Godown Co. 76, 102, 236, 357 Hong Kong Benevolent Society 81–82 Hong Kong Christian Association 81 Hong Kong Club 34 Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce 73, 131, 139, 153, 158 Hong Kong general strike and boycott 52, 130–131, 140 Hong Kong Land Investment Co. 98 Hong Kong Police xx, 48, 238, 242, 252, 333 Hong Kong Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve/Hong Kong Naval Volunteer Force 186, 191, 197, 199, 206–207, 215, 218, 439, 508

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 596

Hong Kong Sailors’ Home xx, 171, 301 Hong Kong seamen’s strike 51–52 Hong Kong shipping register 400 Hong Kong Stage Club 230, 239

I inflation 130, 197, 336, 386 International Christian Maritime Association 354, 409, 422 International Committee on Seafarers’ Welfare 419, 422 International Labour Organization 234 International Transport Workers’ Federation 303, 387, 422 Irwin, Reverend James John 32– 34, 58–59 I Was a Stranger 367

J Jardine, David 30 Jardine, Joseph 29 Jardine, Robert 36, 38, 40, 125 Jardine, Matheson & Co. 29, 34, 39, 43, 45, 92, 139–140, 142, 158, 212, 234, 316, 350, 357, 392, 395, 428 junk trade 46, 66, 77

K Kao, Rev. P. 272–273, 282, 303 Kent, HRH the Duchess of 385 Kerfoot, Reverend T. 347–350, 352, 366 Keswick, J.J. 99, 260

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

Index

Keswick, Mrs. J.J. 45, 75, 91 King George’s Fund for Sailors 248, 385 Knox, Stuart 104, 144–145, 151, 153 Kobe 153, 192, 195 Kowloon Peninsula 67, 76 Kverndahl, Roald 11

L Lapraik, Douglas 35–36, 61 Lascar Row 26 launches Dayspring 75–76, 84, 93, 101, 124, 128, 133, 144, 208– 209, 301 Dayspring II 264, 269, 283 Dayspring V 283, 320, 339, 385 Leung Fook 208–209, 224 Lui Sai 375 Maaken 441 Mariners Club 403–404, 406 Stella Maris 257, 350 Law, Christina 367–368, 372–373, 375–376, 384 League of Nations 170 Leigh & Orange 100, 308 Legislation and Regulation Boarding House Ordinance 116 Chinese Passengers’ Act 31 Chinese Passenger Ships Ordinance 31 Club (Safety of Premises) Ordinance 415 Desertion of Seamen Ordinance 21, 22 Ghaut Serang and Lascars Ordinance 19, 32

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 597

597

Lascar Act Merchant Shipping Act 1823 (see also Lascar Act) xxv, 306 Merchant Shipping Act 33, 49 Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance 112–113, 116 Missions to Seamen Incorporation Ordinance 125, 143, 150, 162 Ordinance for Checking the Spread of Venereal Diseases 25, 468 Ordinance for Seamen 23 Piers Ordinance 76 Rules for the government of Licensed Boarding Houses for Chinese Seamen 113–114 Sailors’ Home Incorporation Ordinance 141, 143 Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen Incorporation Ordinance 150, 166, 174, 351 Sunday Cargo Working Ordinance 73, 223, 436 Legislative Council 23, 43, 73, 112, 125, 139–140, 151, 153, 164, 167, 260, 305, 315, 324, 336 Lin Zexu 7 Lintin 7 Liverpool Mariners’ Church Society 10 Local (General) Committee Chairman 121, 158, 212, 222, 234, 253, 260, 266, 280, 287, 290, 292–293, 309–310, 312, 315, 336, 348–349, 357, 363, 391–393, 415–416, 418 Hon. secretary 342 Treasurer 146, 248

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

598

Strong

to

Save

Lock Hospital 26, 468 London Missionary Society 3, 57 Lowe, Bingham & Matthews 174, 224

M Macao 7, 17, 31 Maclehose Years 383 Malaya 198–199, 200, 205, 216, 247 Managers/Stewards (Sailors Home and Seamen’s Institute) Field, W.V. 197, 223, 261, 280, 428 Hawkins, J.W. 261–262, 270, 288, 309, 312 Lai Leung 319 Lo, L.T. Watt, D. 166, 174 Wong Kam Moon 314, 319, 381 Managers (Mariners Club) Chow, S. 412 Findlay, I. 319, 322, 328, 331 Hall, A. Henderson, R. 409–410, 412, 415 Thornton, J. 331–333, 340– 342, 344–345, 347–348, 378–381, 370, 373, 361–364, 351, 429 Margarethe II, Queen of Denmark 405, 382–383 Marine Department 227, 246, 296, 338, 413 Director of Marine 427 Mariners’ Church 13, 57 Mariners’ Club business model 132, 136 dual control 162

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 598

flying angels 359 foundation stone 331 International Seamen’s Club 307–308, 315, 327, 346, 374 location 315 Middle Road 388 operations and use 339, 343, 350–351, 358, 360–362, 374–375, 378–379, 393, 399, 402, 406–407, 410–411 redevelopment 415–419 refurbishment 400, 403 social work 367, 372–373, 376, 383–384, 398, 406, 408 Mariners’ Club Kwai Chung 364–365, 367, 381–382, 373– 375, 402–403, 410–411, 414, 399–400 Maritime Labour Convention 354, 423 Merchant Marine/Mercantile Marine/Merchant Navy xxix, 96, 155, 160–161, 165, 194, 173, 252, 265, 269, 299, 392, 486 Merchant Navy Club and Sports Ground/Merchant Navy Sports Club 240, 251–252, 254–255, 323, 327, 339 Merchant Navy Officer’s Guild 255, 282, 324, 412, 417 Merchant Navy Welfare Officer 236, 233 Military personnel (British) 25, 89, 93, 102 Ministry of Transport 246, 292, 293, 307 Missionaries Abeel, Reverend David xxiii, 6, 462 Beecher, Reverend James Chaplin 8

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

Index

Kriele, Reverend T. 108–109 Legge, Reverend Dr J. 8, 35–36 Loomis, Reverend George 7–8, 463 Morrison, Reverend Robert xxix, 3–7, 353, 421 Parker, Reverend Peter 8 Winnes, Reverend P. 108–109 Schilling, Reverend J. Griffith 9 Stevens, Reverend Edwin 6–7 Missions to Seamen Ashley, Reverend John 10, 121, 369 centenary 269–270, 391–392, 400, 403–404, 411 Flying Angel 11, 144, 151, 162, 259 general secretary 98, 144, 291, 386 Kingston, William 11 London Headquarters xxvii, 86, 122, 126, 128, 133, 137, 158, 216, 291, 133, 191– 192, 202, 238, 386 superintendent 234, 271, 287, 309 temperance policy 69–71, 75, 77, 80, 85, 240–241, 250, 255, 263, 279–281 Walrond, Reverend Theodore Augustus 11 Mission to Seafarers Down, Reverend W. 376, 380, 386–387, 397, 404–405 Jones, Reverend Glyn 405, 409 East Asia Region 420–421 Federal structure 420–421 Modi, Sir H.N. 95, 97, 98, 151 Murray Barracks 36, 67, 210 Murray, C.M. 34

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 599

599

N Naval and Military Bible Society 9 naval canteen 89, 134, 137 Naval Control Service 191–192 Naval Correspondence Mission 9 Navy League 94, 485 No. 7 Police Station 54 Norwegian Seamen’s Mission (Den Norske Sjomannsmisjon) 156, 267, 286–267, 305, 326, 370, 382

O Oliphant/Olyphant, David 3 opium 7, 31, 130, 462, 489 Opium War First Opium War 7, 468, 476 Second Opium War 8, 24–25, 31, 67 Oriental Bank Corporation 35, 470 Ost, Reverend J.B. 65, 66 Overend, Gurney & Co.

P pacific war see Second World War Palmer & Turner 60, 171, 321 Paterson, J.J. 212, 222 Pearl River Delta 3–4, 15, 106, 390 piracy 414 plague 85–86 Pollock, Sir Henry 94, 121, 179 Port Executive Committee 227, 336

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

600

Strong

to

Save

Port Welfare Committee 235–236, 239–241, 251–253, 255, 257– 258, 282, 285, 287, 303, 305, 311, 323–326, 350, 361, 398 Port Working Committee 227 Port of Victoria 71, 702, 169 Praya East 90, 97, 99, 101, 103, 120, 149, 152, 156, 172, 427 Praya East Reclamation Scheme 98, 125, 129, 133, 136, 166 Praya Reclamation Scheme 135, 137 Princess Royal, HRH the 405 “Proposal for bettering the morals and condition of sailors in China” (Proposal) 4, 5, 353 prostitution 12, 25, 170, 172, 188, 502

Q Qing Dynasty 115 Queen’s Road 20, 22, 26, 40–41, 57, 71, 78, 84, 88–89, 108, 171

R racial discrimination xxv, 93, 170, 194–195, 245, 268, 343–344 Radio Hong Kong (see also ZBW) 211, 223, 269 reader/lay reader 120, 249, 262– 263, 270–273, 282, 303, 393, 411 reclamation Sai Ying Pun/Kennedy Town 48–76 Wan Chai 97–99, 125, 129, 133, 135–137, 142, 149, 160 “reform and opening up” 389

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 600

return to Chinese sovereignty Joint Declaration 386, 397– 398, 400–401, 405 riots (1967) 336, 339 Roman Catholic Bishop of Hong Kong Bianchi, L. 265 Hsu, F. 348–351, 358 Valtorta, E. 257, 518 Wu, J.B. Royal Fleet Auxiliary 269, 285 Royal Marine Engineers 224 Royal Navy 9, 30–31, 59, 89, 93, 102, 121, 123, 130–131, 133, 143, 156, 158, 161, 169, 185–187, 191–192, 206–207, 211, 217, 223, 225–229, 242, 251, 262, 265, 269, 278, 388, 331–333, 340, 385, 403, 426 Russell & Co. 35 Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) 102

S Sai Ying Pun 37, 85–86, 122, 145, 210, 301 Sailors’ Home Trustees of the Sailors’ Home 34–36, 38, 40, 43, 44, 51–52, 61–62, 64, 68, 92, 139–142, 150–152, 159 Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen chairman Barrow, M.G. 392, 403, 415– 416, 428 Barton, H.D.M. 280, 293–295, 307, 310–312, 316 Herries, M.A.R. 290–391, 310, 316, 321, 336, 340–341, 344–345, 349–350, 357

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

Index

Landale, D.F. 234, 238, 253 Newbigging, D.K. 357, 363– 364, 376, 380, 385–386, 391–392, 395, 405 Paterson J.J. 212, 222 Weatherall, E.P.K. 416–418 Sailors Home and Seamen’s Institute accommodation 171–173, 238 dual control 143, 150–151, 162, 261–262 foundation stone 175–176 Harcourt House 333 HMS Aorangi 225–226 Hong Kong Garrison Imperial Japanese Navy Junior Ranks Canteen 215–216 management/managers 143, 146, 158–162 nurses’ home 333 occupancy 169, 184, 282, 197, 209 ship visits 143, 147, 180, 192, 196, 208, 282 Wan Chai 143, 168, 170–171, 179, 184 war damage 210–211, 222 Sailors (or Naval) Hymn xxxi, 461 Sailors’ Shelter Bunker, Charles G. 80–81, 190, 246 Saint Andrew’s Church 124, 311 Saint John’s Cathedral xxvii, 60–61, 63, 124, 179, 186, 219, 226, 269, 295 Saint Joseph’s (RC) Church 256 Saint Paul’s Chapel 374 Saint Paul’s College 122 Saint Peter’s Church (see also the Seamen’s Church)

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 601

601

Mariners’ Club 335, 350, 354, 359, 377, 413 Wan Chai 177, 214, 226, 229, 272, 309, 320, 335 West Point 5, 45, 60–67, 69–70, 74–77, 85–86, 93–94, 99, 101, 103–104, 122–134, 137, 139, 183 samshoo 4, 462 seafarers African 17, 194–195 Asian/Asiatic xxiv, xxv, xxiv, 16, 17, 20, 39, 46–47, 93, 130, 169, 339, 300, 303– 304, 308, 315, 369, 366, 374, 399, British xxv, 31, 49, 79–80, 120, 132, 161, 169, 184, 194– 195, 201, 235, 366, 374 Chinese seafarers xxi, xxiv, xxx, 17, 23, 27, 105, 111– 118, 246, 272, 289, 296, 299–301, 303–306, 320, 324, 339, 343, 358, 365, 367, 372, 376, 385, 399–400, 402, 413 European 17, 20, 39, 118–119, 183, 272, 378 Filipinos (see also Manila men/ Manila seamen) 106, 366, 377, 406–407 Japanese 119 lascars 17–20, 22, 26, 105–107, 112, 235 Manila men/Manila seamen 17, 111, 115, 118 western xxv, xxvii, 7, 15, 30, 39, 46, 52–53, 70, 106, 120, 130–131, 136, 154, 180, 300, 315, 343, 382, 399 naval personnel 190, 206, 215, 220, 247, 251, 268, 270, 278

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

602

Strong

to

Save

Seafarers’ Missions American Seamen’s Friend Society 3–4, 6–8, 58 seamen’s and military chaplain 64, 66–67 seamen’s boarding houses Chinese seamen’s boarding house 112–117 Seamen’s Church/Seamen’s Mission Church xxix, 5, 54, 61–62, 66–67, 70, 78, 88, 98, 101, 156 Seamen’s Hospital xxix, 5, 30–31, 36 Seamen’s Institute Davis, W. 124 Kowloon/Kowloon Institute 84, 86, 88–89, 93–34, 99–103, 121, 124–125, 128–130, 132–133, 162 Seamen’s Recruitment Office 303, 343 seamen’s unions Hong Kong Seamen’s Union 417–419 Second World War (see also Pacific War) Battle of Hong Kong 207, 210, 227 Christmas Day surrender 214– 215 Japanese invasion 205, 208 Japanese occupation 214–219, 233, 300, 302 Japanese surrender 222, 227 Sham Shui Po Prisoner of War Camp 217–218, 222–223 Stanley Civilian Internment Camp 207, 217, 219, 221– 222 senior chaplains Andrews, Reverend W.B. 386– 387, 389–391, 393, 395, 397–407, 409–414, 416, 429

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 602

Austen, Reverend William Thomas 120–121, 490 Brougham, Reverend R.H.V. 153, 159 Brown, Reverend C. 159, 162, 172, 181–183, 185–193, 195–202, 205, 207–210, 214–220, 222–224, 229 career trajectories 201 Ellis, Reverend P. 372, 374–375, 410–416, 419–420, 422, 427 Faulkner, Reverend C.J.W. 224–226, 228, 234, 239 Featherstone, Reverend W.T. 122–124, 126 France, Reverend J.H. 88–90, 92–96, 101, 144, 202, 305 Goldsmith, Reverend A.G. 66, 68, 70–71, 74–75, 77, 79, 81–86, 88, 95–97, 101–102, 126, 162, 201–202, 275, 305, 329, 391, 400 Haig Brown, Reverend W. 216, 242, 249–250, 252–255, 259, 260–263, 265, 266–271, 274–275, 278, 305, 316, 371 Iliff, Reverend A. 88, 95–96 Lawlor, Reverend E. 271–273, 298, 316, 319–322, 328–329, 331, 333–335, 341, 370 Matchett, Reverend E.J.B. 370, 372–373, 377–378, 380, 382–385, 387, 391 Miller, Reverend Canon S 420–421 Nind, Reverend A.L. 273, 278–279, 281, 286, 292 Precious, Reverend J.R. 297– 299, 306, 309, 312–316, 319–321, 328–329, 335, 370 Reynolds, Reverend, D. 121– 122 Roe, Reverend F. 274, 323, 333–335, 339, 340–345

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

Index

Rolleston, Reverend A.E. 284– 298, 306, 309, 312, 326, 333 Shrives, Reverend A.G. 345, 347–352, 358–359, 363–373, 391 Thompson, Reverend C. 95–96, 103–104, 120–121, 127 Waldegrave, Reverend G.T. 90, 96, 102, 124, 126–130, 133–134, 137–138, 141–142, 144, 146–151, 153, 156, 162, 164, 166–172, 174–178, 180–184, 202, 232, 236–237, 290, 305 Weaver, Reverend F.H.H. 200, 205, 226, 228–229, 231–232, 235–236, 238–240, 242, 247 Servicemen’s Guides Association 266–267, 291–293, 314 Means, Rev D.C. Shaki (Shameen) Massacre 131 Shanghai 58, 72, 120, 131, 196, 199–201, 205, 234, 401 Shenton, William 150 shipmaster 118 shipping automation 423 breakbulk xxx, 245 containerization 276, 354–357, 359 industry downturn 49, 51, 89, 102, 132, 386, 399 shipping agents 23 shipping companies British India Steam Navigation Co/Apcar Line 106 Canadian Pacific Co. 50, 183 China Merchants Steam Navigation Co. 51 China Navigation Co. 106, 302 Douglas Steam Ship Co. 35, 48, 106, 121

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 603

603

Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. 106, 302 Java-China-Japan Line (Koninklijke Java China Paketvaart Lijnen) 147 Ocean Steamship Co. (Blue Funnel Line) 106, 183 P&O Steam Navigation Co.35, 43, 106, 144, 183, 316, 378 shipping cycles xxix, 354, 358 shipping master 50, 51, 148, 194 Singapore 4, 128, 144, 154, 156–157, 162, 170, 182–185, 191–192, 198–200, 205, 207, 216–217, 225, 233–234, 273, 295, 331, 374, 383 Sinn, Elizabeth Y.Y. 112 Sino-British Agreement 401 Sino-Japanese War (1937–45) xxix see also Pacific War, Second World War Smith, George Charles “Boatswain” 9–10 Society of Saint Vincent de Paul 256, 518 Soo, Juliana 383–384, 393, 398– 399, 402 Stanley 57, 207, 215, 217, 219, 221–223, 269, 428 “Star” Seamen’s Coffee House 78, 86, 90, 100 Steamships 72, 131, 107, 132 Stella Maris see Apostolatus Maris/Apostleship of the Sea steward (of the Sailors’ Home) Brown, D. 42 Cruce, R. 42 Moir, A. 48, 74 Schuster, J.F. 42, 44, 46, 48 White, J.R.

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

604

Strong

to

Save

Strong, Reverend C. 189–195, 197, 200, 206, 214, 216–218, 222–223, 343 superintendent (of the Sailors’ Home) Baylis, F. 50–51, 138, 150, 164, 166, 174 Milroy, A.A.H. 48–51, 138 Moir A. 48, 74 Overbury, A. 42–44, 46, 53, 70, 92 Punchard, W. 42

T Taikoo Dockyard 228, 283 taverns and inns 22, 80, 108–109 temperance teetotal 143–145 Temperance Hall 80, 82–83 The Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute 144, 151, 158, 172, 179–180, 182, 185, 202, 215, 229, 236, 238, 245–246, 250, 253–254, 264, 270, 323, 328 The Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen 157–160, 180, 194, 250, 266, 270, 274–274, 296, 299, 308, 316, 319, 321, 323, 327–328, 330–333, 339, 351, 386, 412 The Sailor’s Magazine and Naval Journal 3 The Seamen’s Friend Association in China 6 Thomson, Prebendary S.S.C. 374, 378 tonnage (shipping) 46, 50, 71, 77, 228, 277, 423 Town Planning Board 415, 417– 419

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 604

traditional Chinese sail (see also junk trade) xxx, 72 treaty ports 7 Tsim Sha Tsui 72, 76, 78, 83, 85, 102, 139–141, 169–170, 209– 210, 230, 237–238, 249–251, 256, 259, 274, 282, 299, 324, 330, 355, 357–359, 364, 388, 394, 399, 410, 423 typhoon 1937 186 Bingwu 94 Flossie 376–377 Fred 408 Wanda 313, 314

U US Army Air Force 220, 511 US consul-general 61, 264, 266 US Navy 264, 266–267, 282, 314

V venereal disease 25–27, 31, 171– 172, 188 Victoria Harbour development of (and changes to) 36, 46, 76–77, 196, 258–259 reconstruction 227 wartime damage 209, 227 Victoria Seamen’s Hospital 31, 469 Vietnamese boat people 384

W War Office 59, 63 Water Police Headquarters 238

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

Index

Wesleyan Sailors and Soldiers Home 134, 137 West Point 37, 46, 58, 61, 65, 67, 69, 85, 91, 94, 100, 137, 140, 152, 174, 183, 231, 481 Whampoa 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 29, 58, 353 Whiting, William xxxi Whittall, J. 61 Wing On Godown Fire 231, 232 Wolfendale, Stuart 66, 85

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 605

605

Y YMCA 132, 133, 156, 168, 170 Yokohama 121, 279, 344

Z ZBW (see also Radio Hong Kong) 211, 223

7/7/2017 11:24 AM

31_Strong to Save_Index.indd 606

6/7/2017 7:02 PM

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 1

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Sailors’ Home, West Point, early 20th century

The Sailors’ Home, West Point, southern façade, early 20th century

The Sailors’ Home, West Point — “Sailors’ Home, Hong Kong, June 1887 (Queen Victoria’s Jubilee)”, watercolour by Charlie Hammond

The Seamen’s Institute, Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, c.1910

Newspaper drawing of the façade of the Seamen’s Institute, 21 Praya East, 1910

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 2

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Seamen’s Institute, 21 Praya East, c.1915

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 3

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen from the south, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, 1933

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 4

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Wan Chai, east façade on Fenwick Street, September 1945

Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Wan Chai, entrance with sign reading “Hong Kong Garrison Imperial Japanese Navy Junior Ranks Canteen”, September 1945

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 5

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen from the air, early 1950s

The Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai in the centenary year of the Missions to Seamen, 1956 — the Servicemen’s Guides Association Fenwick Pier on the left

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 6

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Merchant Navy Sports Club, Chatham Road, 1960s

Apostleship of the Sea premises, Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, c.1963

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 7

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The site of the future Mariners’ Club from the government car park, Middle Road, 1965

The Mariners’ Club, 11 Middle Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, as built, May 1967

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 8

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Mariners’ Club extension to the married quarters, view from Minden Row, 1973

Opening day of the new Mariners’ Club, Kwai Chung, May 1975

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 9

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

St Peter’s Church, West Point (watercolour painting birthday card by Mrs Goldsmith)

Interior of St Peter’s Church West Point, late 19th century

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 10

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 11

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, desecrated interior looking towards the west end, September 1945

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, pre-war, the altar in the east end apse

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai post-war, the altar at the west end

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, pre-war, the west end with the organ

St Peter’s Chapel, Wan Chai, Christmas Day 1949

St Peter’s Church, Mariners’ Club, 2005

St Paul’s Chapel, Kwai Chung, early 2000s

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 12

Men’s dining room with locally enlisted personnel of the Royal Navy, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Wan Chai, c.1950

Christmas Day dinner at the Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen, Wan Chai, 1955

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 13

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Scandinavian seafarers at the admissions and enquiries desk in the foyer of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Wan Chai, 1956

HE The Governor, Sir Robert Black, visiting a judo class in the basement of the Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Wan Chai, 1956

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 14

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Service of dedication, St Peter’s Church, Mariners’ Club, 28 May 1967 — from left Bishop Baker, Reverend Cyril Brown, Reverend Elliott Lawlor

HE The Governor, Sir David Trench, unveils the commemorative plaque marking the opening of The Mariners’ Club, 30 May 1967

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 15

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

A typical launch picnic, 1970s

Reverend Ted Matchett ship visiting, c.1980

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 16

Celebrating 100 years of the Missions to Seamen in Hong Kong, Mariners’ Club, 1985 — from left Fr George Dopchie, Mr Martin Barrow, Reverend Wally Andrews

Father Joseph Nijssen ship visiting, late 1980s

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 17

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Exchanging books aboard a ship, 1990s

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 18

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Visit to the Mariners’ Club by HRH The Princess Royal, 29 January 1997

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 19

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Reverend Peter Ellis visiting a ship from the launch Mariners Club at the container port early 2000s

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 20

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Sailors’ Home, West Point — Captain Frank and Mrs Hilda Baylis and staff, c.1920

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 21

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Reverend G.T. Waldegrave and staff, Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute, Wan Chai, 1934

The Reverend Anthony Nind and staff, Sailors’ Home and Seamen’s Institute, Wan Chai, 1960

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 22

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Cardinal John Tong, Archbishop Peter Kwong and the Mariners’ Club ecumenical team, St Peter’s Church, Tsim Sha Tsui, 2015

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 23

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The officers’ dining room, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, 1933

The entrance foyer, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, 1933

The kitchens, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, 1933

The billiards room, Sailors’ Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, 1933

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 24

Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, bomb damage to the third floor officers’ cabins, September 1945

Sailors Home and Missions to Seamen, Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, bomb damage in interior light and ventilation well, September 1945

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 25

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Mariners’ Club, main dining room, 1967

The Mariners’ Club, bowling alley, 1967

The Mariners’ Club, Chan’s Bar, 1967

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 26

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Mariners’ Club, billiards room, 1967

The Mariners’ Club, cinema and ballroom, 1967

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 27

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The Floating Bethel at Hong Kong, late 1850s

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 28

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Dayspring — the second launch of the name, 1919–1941, early 1920s

Dayspring II — the fourth launch of the name, 1949–1959, bedecked for Christmas, early 1950s

Dayspring V — the fifth launch of the name, 1959–1985, arriving for her service of dedication, 30 November 1959

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 29

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

The third and last Stella Maris (1971–1986), April 1971

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 30

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Mariners Club (1986–1993) — the first launch of the name

Mariners Club (1994–2015) — the second launch of the name in all white livery at her service of dedication, 1994

Mariners Club (1994–2015) — in her later blue and white livery

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 31

6/7/2017 5:23 PM

Dayspring (2015–) — the sixth launch of the name, at speed in the Western Anchorage

32_Strong to Save_color photos.indd 32

6/7/2017 5:23 PM