45
―
The Bill was read a second time on the 21st of July, and on the 20th September the Honour- able A. P. McEwen (a member of the Sanitary Board who bad therefore assisted in drafting the original Bill) and the representative on the Council of the Chamber of Commerce, moved that instead of 300 cubic feet of air-space being provided for each adult in a domestic building only 200 feet be provided.
After much discussion the Honourable J. Bell-Irving moved by way of a compromise and the Honourable C. P. Chater seconded that 250 feet only be provided.
The amendment was supported by all the Un-official Members but lost.
On the 23rd of September the Bill was read a third time against a unanimous Un-official vote and passed against a similar vote.
The Bill which from first to last was strenuously opposed both in and out of Council underwent uumerous modifications during its passage through the Council with the following effect on the provisions (2.) and (6.) mentioned above. (a.) was applied only to buildings (intended for human Vide section 59 of Ordin habitation) erected on land obtained from the Crown after the passing of the Ordinance. In cases ance 24 of 1887.
of land obtained from the Crown before the passing of the Ordinance it was applied with a number of exemptions which rendered the provision practically nugatory as far as the object it was originally intented to effect was concerned. (6.) was relegated to the proposed new Building Ordinance in which it never found a place and this all important provision was therefore lost. (c.) was forced through the Council by the official vote in the teeth of the strongest opposition on the part of all the Un-official Members including the representative of the Chamber of Commerce which body now complains that Government has not exacted an allowance of 600 cubic feet, or three times what its representative and the other Un-official Members considered sufficient.
L
In the Daily Press" (which had strongly opposed the Bill all through its passage) of the 26th September, 1887, we find the following remarks in a leading article :—
"One of the chief grievances of residents in this Colony, Chinese and Europeans alike, is the great scarcity of house accommodation and the consequent high rents
*
*
This grievous state of things the Government proposes to make worse and worse by enforcing laws against overcrowding. Every person is to have 300 cubic feet of space to sleep in although even supposing the house accommodation were amply sufficient to afford this space many of the Chinese would probably prefer more company and less room.
Less than 300 feet is not dangerous in a climate like Hongkong when people keep the doors and windows open all the year round.
*
***
☆
On this point the Government has shewn itseif absolutely impervious to reason.'
The Building Ordinance, 1889.
*
*
To this Bill had been relegated various provisions which had excited opposition in the original Public Health Bill.
Among them were the provisions relating to 10 feet back-yards which had perhaps been more strongly opposed than any other clause of the Public Health Bill. This provision as already men- tioned found no place in the new Bill, doubtless owing to the strong opposition to it already expressed by the memorialists and Chinese deputation referred to in the foregoing notes on the Public Health Ordinance, and to the plea for compensation for the area that would be taken from house property if the provision were made law. Other provisions were those relating to the restric- tion of mezzanine floors, the provision of sufficient windows, and of privies in domestic buildings.
The latter subject had called forth strong opposition when it appeared in the Public Health
Bill.
The Building Bill was read a first time on the 17th January, 1889, and a second time on the succeeding 1st of March.
In committee a number of clauses and among them those relating to the matters above mentioned were postponed for further consideration.
The Honourable C. P. Chater expressed himself as opposed to the general introduction of privies and advocated the provision of more latrines instead,