after the backlash on the Ordinance for Establishing a Registry of the Inhabitants
of the Island of Hongkong and Its Dependencies, in order to compile statistics
on the new population and its distribution in different areas, the government
divided Hong Kong into nine districts: the City of Victoria, Shau Kei Wan,
Sai Wan, Shek O, Tai Tam Tuk, Stanley, Heung Kong, Aberdeen and Pok Fu
Lam. The City of Victoria was further divided into seven districts (yue) for the
purposes of conducting a census.119 These seven districts of the City of Victoria
were, from the west of Hong Kong Island: District 1 – Sai Ying Pun; District
2 – Sheung Wan; District 3 – Taipingshan; District 4 – Central; District 5 – Ha
Wan; District 6 – Wong Nai Chung; and District 7 – So Kon Po.120 Among the
seven districts, Taipingshan and Central were the most densely populated.
The government also transformed the much-criticised poll tax of 1844 into a
household tax with each household as a unit, requiring the owner of every house
or ship to register with the Registrar General and pay the tax within ten days of
the arrival of a resident. The regular requirement of reporting the number of resi-
dents and each resident’s employment status thus became an accepted practice,
and the burden of the tax was usually shifted from the owner who was renting
out the premises to the tenant. Take the example of a manual labour centre: each
tenant had to pay an extra 2 Hong Kong cents of rent per month, or 24 Hong
Kong cents a year, which was less than the 1 Hong Kong dollar registration tax
proposed in 1844. This could be seen as an alternative way for the government to
levy a poll tax. Through the results of the census, the government could also get a
rough idea of the size and composition of the population of the City of Victoria.
In 1858, the government extended the boundaries of the City of
Victoria towards both the east and the west: to Shek Tong Tsui in the west and
So Kon Po in the east. With the addition of Shek Tong Tsui as a district, the
119
‘Ordinance No. 6 of 1857’, Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, paragraphs 8–12, http://oelawhk.lib.
hku.hk/archive/files/7aba90fa0b9491d70d88f47787206a9f.pdf.
120
‘Government Notification No. 69’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 9 May
1857, p.14.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 54 20/08/2018 16:47
Duality in planning (1841–1898) · 55
Table 1.7 District distribution of the City of Victoria (1857–1930s)
District 1857 1858 1866 1874 1886 1888 1902 1930s
Kennedy Town – – – – – D1 D1 √
Shek Tong Tsui – √ D1 D1 D1 D2 D2 √
Sai Ying Pun D1 √ D2 D2 D2 D3 D3 √
Sheung Wan D2 √ D4 D4 D4 D5 D5 √
Taipingshan D3 √ D3 D3 D3 D4 D4 –
Chung Wan (Central) D4 √ D5 D5 D5 D6 D6 √
Ha Wan D5 √ D6 D6 D6 D7 D7 √
Wong Nei Chung D6 √ – – – – – –
Wang Hai – – – – D7 – – –
Wan Chai – – D7 D7 – D8 D8 √
Bowrington – – D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 √
So Kon Po D7 √ D9 D9 D9 D10 D10 √
Total no. of districts 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 9
Notes: D: District no.; √: District no. unknown.
Sources: Data of 1857 come from ‘Government Notification No. 69’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong
Government, 1857, p.14; Ordinance No. 6 of 1857. Data of 1858 come from Hong Kong Blue Book, Hong Kong, Noronha &
Co., 1858, p.146; ‘Return of the Population’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 5 March 1859. Data
of 1866 come from Victoria Registration Ordinance, 1866. Data of 1874 come from Victoria Registration Ordinance, 1874.
Data of 1886 come from Map MM-0147, Plan of the City of Victoria, Hong Kong, 1886; Ho Pui-yin, Challenges for an Evolving
City: 160 Years of Port and Land Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Commercial Press (HK), 2004, pp.58–59. Data of
1888 come from The Regulation of Chinese Ordinance No. 13, 1888; ‘Return Showing the Amount of Assessment in Each
District from 1881 to 1891’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 22 August 1891, p.760. Data of 1902
come from CO129/313, p.241. Data of 1930s come from Modern Map of Hong Kong (1933) [private cartography].
number of districts rose to eight. In 1866, the city was divided into nine districts,
which were, from the west of Hong Kong Island: District 1 – Shek Tong Tsui;
District 2 – Sai Ying Pun; District 3 – Taipingshan; District 4 – Sheung Wan;
District 5 – Central (south and north); District 6 – Ha Wan; District 7 – Wan
Chai; District 8 – Bowrington; and District 9 – So Kon Po. There were four rings,
or wan, within the nine districts – Sheung Wan, Central, Ha Wan (Admiralty)
and the Wan Hai (Wan Chai). From the establishment of the City of Victoria in
1842 to 1903, its boundaries were extended seven times. In 1900, the city’s area
increased to 1,434 acres (5.8 square kilometres).121 The change in geographical
scope of the City of Victoria from 1850 to 1930s is illustrated in Table 1.7.
The boundaries of the City of Victoria had expanded with the rising popula-
tion, and the city was divided into seven to ten governing districts for an easier
understanding of its population’s distribution and employment status. With
the notion of district division, the government would delegate its governing
power down to each district, so that each district could be managed with refer-
ence to its own characteristics and thus the government’s new policies could be
implemented more effectively as a whole. In fact, the division of districts in the
nineteenth-century City of Victoria was not coordinated by the Governor or any
121
Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1900, p.337.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 55 20/08/2018 16:47
56 · MAKING HONG KONG
particular government department. Different government departments came up
with different concepts of division based on the social issues that emerged in the
society in different periods. Therefore, the geographical and functional scope
of each department’s division of districts was different from that of the others.
While each government department used numbers to differentiate the districts,
there was no coordination on this between the departments. In the 1860s, the
police used security districts in order to supervise the neighbourhood house-
hold system and keep public order. They also assigned numbers to the districts
and called the managed areas ‘districts’, yet the demarcation of these districts
was different from that of the districts for population registration. This showed
the confusing situation in the nineteenth century where the government was
simultaneously headed in different directions.
Security districts
The lower classes that settled in Sheung Wan, Taipingshan and Ha Wan came
from all kinds of background and all walks of life. Crime was therefore not
uncommon. Information on nineteenth-century Hong Kong suggests that the
City of Victoria was far from a secure place. According to 1868–1900 statis-
tics from the government’s Prisons Department, Hong Kong had on average
some 5,000 crimes per year, the most common of which were break-in robbery,
theft, kidnapping and drunkenness. The records on such crimes were based on
successful arrests. As Hong Kong was a port drawing in the grassroot class in
droves, the actual crime situation could be much worse than these records show.
Keeping public order and allowing commercial activities to be normally con-
ducted was therefore a challenging problem for the government.
In October 1844, two months after the promulgation of the Registration
Ordinance, the government promulgated an Ordinance for the Preservation of
Good Order and Cleanliness within the Colony of Hong Kong, to be enforced by the
Surveyor General.122 The ordinance provided that residents must use non-flam-
mable construction materials to build houses, in order to lower the chance of fire
caused by flammable materials such as wood, herbaceous leaves or thatches.123
The ordinance also required that any Chinese outdoors between 8 p.m. and
10 p.m. had to carry a lantern and apply for a night pass from a police station, and
prohibited any Chinese from being outdoors after 10 p.m. on pain of being fined
or imprisoned. In addition, firecrackers, the playing of drums, and any other
noises were strictly prohibited in the morning and at night.124 These curfew laws
were enforced until the end of the nineteenth century, and were designed to
122
‘Ordinance No. 5 of 1844’, A.J. Leach, The Ordinances of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Hongkong,
Commencing with the Year 1844, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1890–1891, p.14.
123
A serious fire that broke out in the Lower Bazaar burnt down 40–50 thatch houses. The government
began to think about requiring the Chinese to build houses with bricks. Friend of China, 1 December 1842,
23 October 1844.
124
Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online website, http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/exhibits/show/oelawhk/
home, 1844–1888.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 56 20/08/2018 16:47
Duality in planning (1841–1898) · 57
ensure the safety of Europeans by severely impeding any outdoor activities on
the part of the Chinese. Prohibiting the Chinese from being outdoors at night
allowed the authorities to make immediate arrests when suspicious individuals
were spotted, as a means of more effective crime-fighting.
In the same year, the government promulgated the Ordinance for the
Appointment and Regulation of Native Chinese Peace Officers (Paouchong and
Paoukea) within the Colony of Hongkong, utilising the traditional Chinese com-
munity self-monitoring system to try to govern and control the Chinese in
Stanley, Wong Nei Chung, Pok Fu Lam and other districts with Chinese set-
tlements by allowing local Chinese leaders to manage law and order in districts
where the Chinese were active. The Governor appointed local Chinese repre-
sentatives as paouchong (native Chinese peace officers), who would have power
equivalent to that of local police and were under the authority of the Chief
Magistrate of Police. They were subject to the same criminal liability as the
police, would be disciplined by the government if they made mistakes or were
negligent, and had to wear a police badge when they were on duty.125 These
paouchong carried out the work of maintaining law and order in the districts.
Furthermore, Ordinance No. 3 of 1853, An Ordinance to Extend the Duties of
Chinese Tepos Appointed under Ordinance No. 13 of 1844, provided that taxpay-
ers within Hong Kong Island could elect 5–12 tepos, who were then appointed
by the Governor in the district they lived in. When fewer than 12 were elected,
the Governor could appoint additional (up to 12) tepos according to the dis-
trict’s needs. Such tepos were like local police officers. They would handle dis-
putes between Chinese under the supervision of the Chief Magistrate and report
to the Chief Magistrate the arbitration results. Each Chinese household was
required to pay a tepo fee.126 An Ordinance for Registration and Regulation of the
Chinese People, and for the Population and for Other Purposes of Police127 described
more specifically the community self-monitoring system: every ten households
were considered a ‘kap’, with a kapcheong (leader) appointed. The kapcheongs
would be responsible for crime prevention, as well as assisting the police with
arrests and fighting crime within the area under their purview.128
In August 1866, the government employed ‘watchmen’ to patrol the streets,
strengthen local security and prevent crimes. This was a more systematic imple-
mentation of the Chinese local paouchong structure. Patrol routes in Hong Kong
were divided among seven districts. However, the boundaries of these seven
districts were different from those of the districts drawn up for the purposes of
the census, as the primary focus of patrol routes was the distribution of streets.
District 1 began from Shek Tong Tsui in the west on Hong Kong Island and
125
‘Ordinance No. 13 of 1844’, Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/archive/
files/b71f055644e0ad4ac24dd499cc3985c3.pdf.
126
‘Ordinance No. 3 of 1853’, Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/archive/
files/fd0bce8e1e766663462e1ace14e8d8dd.pdf.
127
‘Ordinance No. 6 of 1857’, Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/archive/file
s/7aba90fa0b9491d70d88f47787206a9f.pdf.
128
‘Ordinance No. 6 of 1857’, Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, http://oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/archive/file
s/7aba90fa0b9491d70d88f47787206a9f.pdf .
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 57 20/08/2018 16:47
58 · MAKING HONG KONG
covered an area that included Shek Tong Tsui and Sai Ying Pun; District 2
covered Sai Ying Pun to Sheung Wan; Districts 3 and 4 were also in Sheung
Wan; District 5 was in Central; and Districts 6 and 7 were in Wan Chai. These
districts were mainly areas where the Chinese were active, but also included
the business district in Central. (See Figure 1.6.) Each district had its own head
watchman and three to nine watchmen.129 District 5 was the largest, with 73
streets to patrol.130 The head watchman of a district was recommended locally by
the district and appointed by the Governor. Supervised by the Registrar General,
the head watchman would have similar official power to the police. The number
of watchmen to be hired for a district was proposed by the residents of that dis-
trict, and they were then appointed by the Governor.131 A total of 40 per cent of
these security teams’ funds would come from the government, while Chinese
organisations shouldered the remaining 60 per cent.
Obviously, the security districts served different functions from those of the
nine districts for population registration (Shek Tong Tsui, Sai Ying Pun, Sheung
Wan, Taipingshan, south and north Central, Ha Wan, Wan Chai, Bowrington
and So Kon Po). The districts designed to facilitate a census began from Shek
Tong Tsui in the west on Hong Kong Island and stretched to So Kon Po in the
east, with no overlapping of the area covered by each district. The security dis-
tricts however were focused on streets with frequent commercial activities, and
mainly covered the more densely populated areas of Central, Sheung Wan and
Wan Chai. While varying in terms of functionality, both types of districts were
identified by numbers. The security districts were supervised by police superin-
tendents, while census and registration were the responsibilities of the Registrar
General. As the powers and responsibilities of the two authorities did not overlap,
there was no cross-referencing of each other’s area of jurisdiction. By the 1880s,
health districts were set out to deal with health and hygiene issues, and were
overseen by the Colonial Surgeon. The area covered by these health districts, as
well as their numbering, was again completely different from that of the census
districts and the security districts. Thus it was increasingly apparent that each
government department was dividing the city up into areas according to its own
needs and was enforcing relevant laws without regard to other departments.
Health districts
In nineteenth-century Hong Kong, Chinese districts were but a stone’s throw
from the foreigners’ residential areas. However, there were no grand commer-
cial buildings, courts, city hall, Hong Kong Club or European garden villas in the
Chinese community. Most of the lower class lived in crude tenement buildings
129
‘Number and Cost of District Watchmen’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government,
11 June 1881, pp.448–452.
130
‘Government Notification No. 87’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 11 March
1983, pp.176–188.
131
‘Hongkong Anno Tricesimo Victorie Regine No. 7 of 1866’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong
Kong Government, 25 August 1866, p.336; Victoria Registration Ordinance, 1866.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 58 20/08/2018 16:47
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 59
Notation:
1 District No.1 5 District No.5
2 District No.2 6 District No.6
3 District No.3 7 District No.7
4 District No.4
Source: CO129.
Figure 1.6 Distribution of security districts
20/08/2018 16:47
60 · MAKING HONG KONG
with mud-brick walls, thatch roofs and silt flooring. A tenement building would
house dozens of people, with no mains water supply, electrical lighting, kitchen
or even toilet.
The houses in Taipingshan in the 1850s were described in the Colonial
Surgeon’s report as cramped, dark, airtight and foul-smelling, with garbage and
faecal matter littering the streets and an overall terrible hygiene situation.132
Chinese workers who had recently left farming for work in Hong Kong would
raise livestock at home in hopes of supplementing their family’s income. Adults
and children, pigs, chickens and dogs all mingled in a dingy space with polluted
and putrid air,133 and diseases spread as a result. Some inspection reports of the
Colonial Surgeon even revealed up to 70 pigs being raised in a tenement build-
ing of around 300 square feet on various floors (not just in the basement), with
some even found hiding under beds.134
The densely populated Chinese communities had poor sanitary conditions. At
first, in 1866, Fan Ah Wai and three Chinese individuals, Tam Yik Sam, Lam Tak
Kee and Wong Fung Wan, applied to the government for the appropriation of
9,100 square feet of land for building a Chinese hospital.135 However, the govern-
ment felt that the sanitary conditions were not that bad, and twice rejected the
application on issues with the land lots. Then in April 1869 it was reported in the
China Mail that the Registrar General inspected the Kwong Fook I Tsz in Sheung
Wan where the terminally ill shared a room with dead bodies. The situation at
Kwong Fook I Tsz attracted the attention of both the media and the govern-
ment. At the time, the Chinese did not trust doctors and feared that the doctors
would perform a post-mortem on their bodies. Those who were sick therefore
mostly did not want to be admitted into a Western hospital for treatment, and
the Government Civil Hospital was not able to serve its purpose of healing the
Chinese. Taking this into account and with a view to preventing the spread of
diseases from the I Tsz (temples that provided shelter to critically ill Chinese,
temporary storage of corpses and coffins, and placement of wooden memorial
plaques), Governor MacDonnell swiftly drafted the Hospital Ordinance in 1869
(which was signed into enactment the next year) and called upon local elites to
make an application to the Colonial Office for the establishment of a Chinese-run
hospital that would utilise Chinese medicine in providing treatment. This eventu-
ally became the Tung Wah Hospital. Since 1869, the government had intended
for those Chinese elites with financial power to act as representatives in dealing
with the health issues of their community. From the 1870s to the 1890s, the Tung
132
‘Report of Colonial Surgeon 1854’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 9 July
1855, p.358.
133
‘Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Existence of Yellow Fever’, Hong Kong
Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 12 May 1866, p.190.
134
‘Report of Colonial Surgeon 1877’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 23
November 1878, p.563.
135
Memorandum by Governor Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, CB, Concerning the ‘I-Ts’z’ or Chinese
Hospital for Moribund Patients, Enclosure 4, Registrar to Colonial Secretary, Victoria, Hong Kong, 19
February 1867, in The Honourable T.H. Whitehead, ‘Report on the Tung Wa Hospital’, 17 October 1896,
Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1896, Appendix II, p.102.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 60 20/08/2018 16:47
Duality in planning (1841–1898) · 61
Wah Hospital differed from modern hospitals in that the majority admitted into
the hospital were terminally ill patients. The hospital replaced the I Tsz in accept-
ing dying patients. The poor sanitary conditions in the Chinese residential areas
were probably similar to those of industrial cities in Britain before the 1820s.
Since the industrial revolution in 1750, cities in Britain had a demand for
a large labour force in production. However, those who lived in the rural areas
were unable to adapt to the cramped living space and the factories with terrible
sanitary conditions. As a result, a lot of farmers contracted diseases, and bacte-
ria spread rapidly. The cities had great difficulty recruiting workers. In 1833, the
radical Edwin Chadwick believed that workers were getting sick as a result of a
terrible working environment, and proposed the Factory Act in answer to the sani-
tary conditions of the factories at the time. Edwin Chadwick also believed that the
diseases were the reason behind poverty and that the diseases were transmittable.
He therefore advocated a focus on the ventilation and sewerage systems of houses,
improving living conditions of the poor, and the enactment of laws on preven-
tion of diseases. In 1836, the Registration of Births and Deaths Act was passed
in the UK, and the Bureau of Medical Statistics under the Poor Law Office was
set up. The Bureau’s studies found that diseases in the community were directly
linked to the surrounding environment, including the air, water supply system and
sewage disposal. From 1844 to 1845, Parliament gave the government power to
monitor the cities’ hygiene. In 1848, the Board of Public Health was established in
the UK.136 As a pioneer in proposing legislation on city hygiene in Britain, Edwin
Chadwick had a profound impact on his son, engineer Osbert Chadwick.
In 1881, the UK Colonial Office appointed Osbert Chadwick as a consult-
ant to conduct extensive studies on the living environment, sanitary conditions
and public health facilities of the City of Victoria in Hong Kong at the time. His
reports in 1882, 1890 and 1902,137 which were publicised, remain to this day
among the more comprehensive records of the livelihood of the Chinese at the
end of the nineteenth century. It could be said that Chadwick had inherited his
father’s views and introduced those British ideas into Hong Kong at the time.
Chadwick’s report on his study of Hong Kong’s hygiene situation in 1882
contained criticisms similar to those his father made on English cities in the
1840s. He pointed out that the City of Victoria had poor hygiene, lacked
systems for excrement and sewage treatment, and had insufficient clean water
supply, polluted air, a much too high population density and too tightly concen-
trated housing. In addition, the city’s water supply was very contaminated, and
the supply was distributed in wells in low-lying areas, which were close to the
surface and lacked depth. Most houses also did not have comprehensive sewage
disposal facilities, leading to the accumulation of waste water in populous areas.
The residents’ excrement being in close proximity to the water supply meant that
the water supply contained a large amount of bacteria and was not suitable for
136
George Rosen, A History of Public Health, New York, MD Publications, 1958, pp.206–223.
137
CO882, Osbert Chadwick, ‘Mr. Chadwick’s Reports on the Sanitary Condition of Hong Kong’,
November 1882; Osbert Chadwick, ‘Preliminary Report on the Sanitary Condition of Hong Kong’, Hong
Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., April 1902.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 61 20/08/2018 16:47
62 · MAKING HONG KONG
drinking.138 Chadwick examined the water quality of 18 wells in populous areas
in the City of Victoria, and found that the water was turbid with a high concen-
tration of E. coli, meaning that the well water was highly contaminated by both
human and livestock wastes.139 The water pressure of the city’s water supply
system was also insufficient, causing those living in mountainous regions to have
insufficient fresh water as the result of insufficient water pressure. The bursting
and leakage of water pipes were commonplace, and the damaged pipes allowed
bacteria, effluent and waste gases to flow to all parts of the city. Houses in low-
lying areas faced a high risk of malaria. To improve the living conditions of the
City of Victoria, very challenging difficulties would have to be overcome.140
The most significant differences between the houses Europeans lived in and
the tenement buildings the Chinese lived in were that the European houses
were built with stronger materials, had more windows, usually had corridors
that facilitated ventilation, and were more adequately spaced, providing a
tranquil environment. To prevent the unsatisfactory living conditions in the
Chinese community from influencing the health of Europeans, the government
had established dedicated residential areas for Europeans. In 1888, five years
after Chadwick severely criticised the city’s hygiene, the government promul-
gated the European District Reservation Ordinance, demarcating the Mid-Levels
in Central as a European residential district, for fear of the bubonic plague
Chadwick warned of actually happening.141 Before 1887, there was no explicit
labelling of the residential areas of the Chinese and the foreigners, just a pro-
hibition of Europeans from living in areas where the Chinese were active. The
European District Reservation Ordinance in 1888 prohibited the Chinese from
living in European districts, thus more specifically underlining the separation of
the two types of residential areas.
In May 1888 the government passed The European District Reservation
Ordinance. On the basis of Europeans living in Hong Kong requiring sufficient
space and well-ventilated air, the ordinance drew a line of demarcation east of
Pok Fu Lam Road along High Street, Bonham Road, Ladder Street, Caine Road,
Chancery Lane, Arbuthnot Road, Wyndham Street, Ice House Street, Battery
Path, Queen’s Road, and the nullah in Wan Chai (today’s Stone Nullah Lane),
up to Wong Nai Chung Road. To the north of the line, the Mid-Levels area
400 to 450 feet142 above sea level from Conduit Road to south of Bowen Road
was reserved for Europeans’ residential use. The western border of the City of
Victoria was extended to Kennedy and was better defined (see Figure 1.7).
138
CO882, Osbert Chadwick, ‘Mr. Chadwick’s Reports on the Sanitary Condition of Hong Kong’,
November 1882; Staff Surgeon Wilm, Epidemic of Bubonic Plague at Hong Kong in the Year 1896, Hong Kong,
Noronha & Co., 1897, p.27.
139
Hugh McCallum's report, see CO882, Osbert Chadwick, Report on the Sanitary Condition of Hong
Kong, Noronha & Co., November 1882, p.17.
140
CO882/4, ‘Sanitation of Hong Kong – O. Chadwick’s Report’, 18 July 1882, p.8 para.5, p.26 para.146,
p.30 para.130.
141
CO882/4, ‘Sanitation of Hong Kong – O. Chadwick’s Report’, 18 July 1882.
142
CO129/237, ‘Ordinance No. 16 of European Reservation’, 8 May 1888, pp.398–408; Hal Empson,
Mapping Hong Kong: A Historical Atlas, Hong Kong, Government Information Services, 1992, p.150.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 62 20/08/2018 16:47
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 63
Source: HKRS209-6-2, Hong Kong Public Records Office, Reference No. Map MM-0111*, Plan of the City of Victoria, Hong Kong 1889.
Figure 1.7 The dividing line of European and Chinese residential districts (1888)
20/08/2018 16:47
64 · MAKING HONG KONG
In 1890, the government again invited Osbert Chadwick to Hong Kong
for further studies on the health and hygiene conditions in Hong Kong.
Unfortunately, this second study did not improve his impressions of Hong
Kong. The city’s population had grown exponentially over the previous eight
years. According to the census in 1891, Hong Kong’s population was 220,000,
a 38 per cent increase from the 160,000 in 1881. The population growth within
the city centre reached 37 per cent.143 The water supply, which was hardly clean
to begin with, had only deteriorated in quality in the increasingly crowded living
environment. However, the government had no comprehensive waste disposal
facilities in place. The daily wastes of the residents were simply dumped around
their living space, with the residents themselves living amongst their own wastes.
In the hot summers, the accumulated waste was prone to give rise to bacteria.
Fresh water was both in short supply and came from contaminated sources,
posing serious risks to the residents’ health.
In the 1890s, people in Hong Kong often used silt to bury wastes and dis-
charge sewage on to the ground close to where they lived. These waste treatment
methods not only failed to dispose of waste completely, but were also a form of
air pollution. In light of the hygiene situation at the time, Chadwick suggested
building new sewerage discharge pipelines: to discharge wastes into the sea by
using rainwater and water from streams, and to improve environmental hygiene
by handling waste disposal by district.144 This suggestion became the foundation
upon which the future sewerage system of Hong Kong would be built. Owing to
the complicated nature of the sewerage works, British experts and works would
have to be engaged for the construction. With the economic constraints at the
time, the commencement of the works was delayed again and again. Before
the sewerage system could be built, Hong Kong was hit by the catastrophe of the
century – the bubonic plague.
According to official records, from the 1840s to the 1860s, most of those
admitted into hospitals were patients with fever, exhibiting symptoms such as
yellow fever, continued fever and intermittent fever. In the 1870s to 1890s, most
of the patients admitted were suffering from diseases caused by poor environ-
mental hygiene, with epidemics such as dysentery, typhoid and malaria being
prevalent. However, the rate of death by these diseases could in no way compare
to that of the plague that broke out in 1894. In that year, the number of Chinese
deaths due to the plague was higher than the number of deaths of Europeans and
other ethnicities by 93 per cent.145 The government was almost convinced that
the policy of dividing the residential areas of the Chinese and Westerners was
working. However, the plague eventually spread to the Europeans’ residential
143
Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Census Reports, 1841–1897.
144
‘Report on the Sewerage of the High-Level District of the City of Victoria’, Hong Kong Government
Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 1890; ‘Report on the Drainage of the Lower Western and Central District
of Victoria’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 1890; ‘Report of the Drainage of the
Eastern District of Victoria’, Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 1890; Huazi ribao
(Huazi Daily), 21 June 1895.
145
‘Medical Report on the Prevalence of Bubonic Plague in the Colony of Hong Kong during the Years
1895 and 1896’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1897, p.289.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 64 20/08/2018 16:47
Duality in planning (1841–1898) · 65
areas as well in 1895. It was as Edwin Chadwick described – diseases would not
only occur in the slums, but spread to the entire city.146 In 1896, to effect hygiene
governance planning in the city, the Department of Health divided the city into
eight health districts, which was increased to ten districts in 1897 (Figure 1.8).
The Department of Health became responsible for the registration of the popu-
lation in the districts, including records of birth, contraction of infectious dis-
eases, hospital admission and death, in order to gain control of the spread of the
plague. The borders of the City of Victoria further extended towards the Mid-
Levels, while the borders of the European residential districts moved north, cov-
ering Districts 2 and 3. The concept of dividing the Chinese from the foreigners
and ruling each separately was by then more specifically defined.
1. In 1895, Hong Kong had ten health districts. Districts 2 and 3 were resi-
dential areas of foreigners.
2. In 1902, the southern border of the City of Victoria at the Mid-Levels in
Central was extended to today’s Tregunter Path, 600 feet above sea level.
3. In 1903, the southern border at the Mid-Levels in Central was further
extended to 700 feet above sea level.
Planning from the 1840s to the 1880s had all along avoided the health issues
faced by the Chinese. The plague that broke out in 1894 was a turning point
for the city’s planning. Before this point, Europeans took the position that they
could not understand and did not wish to involve themselves in the livelihood
problems of the city. Apart from discriminating against the Chinese for being
uncivilised and uneducated, the Europeans proposed no solutions to such prob-
lems. The difficulties encountered by migrating Chinese workers who came
to Hong Kong looking for work were deemed temporary problems, and these
temporary problems gradually became a major obstacle in the city’s continued
development. In its early planning when the city was built, the government had
failed to make long-term plans for the growth of population, and was biased in
its focus on the commercial needs of European businessmen while neglecting
the daily life issues faced by the Chinese communities. These factors led to the
governing crisis of the city in the 1880s to the 1890s.
Summary
Old postcards of Hong Kong showed the City of Victoria in the second half
of the nineteenth century as an elegant European city. The seawalls, piers and
roads built from thick granite, the Roman clock towers and Gothic churches and
convents erected in Medieval European architectural style, the Baroque pillars
and neo-classical semi-circular arch window lintels, the geometric doorframes
adorning the government buildings and foreign businesses – all this infrastruc-
ture of Western construction techniques allowed the government to showcase
146
George Rosen, A History of Public Health, New York, MD Publications, 1958, pp.208–211.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 65 20/08/2018 16:47
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 66
Notation:
1 District No.1 6 District No.6
2 District No.2 7 District No.7
3 District No.3 8 District No.8
4 District No.4 9 District No.9
5 District No.5 10 District No.10
Source: CO129/313, p.241.
Figure 1.8 Distribution of the ten health districts of the City of Victoria (1897)
20/08/2018 16:47
Duality in planning (1841–1898) · 67
its Western governing power taking root in the city, and told a story of the devel-
opment of a modern Western city structure in a Chinese community. Important
administrative departments such as police stations and magistracies were built
around the Governor’s House to form the Government Hill, which served as the
political hub; the Harbour Master’s Office and the Post Office were located on
the harbourfront to provide assistance to commerce; and education institutions
were set up on Morrison Hill in Wan Chai. In addition, the city had gardens that
provided recreational space, the City Hall for cultural activities, and the Upper
and Lower Bazaars for daily purchases. The city’s overall arrangement revealed
the government’s strategy on land use and the distribution of major political and
commercial departments. A city with the scale of an entrepôt was thus born in a
tumultuous political environment.
The City of Victoria, built on the military stronghold on the northern shore
of Hong Kong Island, had to overcome nature’s challenges in order to become
an entrepôt. From 1843 to the 1890s, the City of Victoria was ribbon-shaped.
The government reclaimed land at the northern shore to open up new space for
development and to solve the problem of having too little flat land and too much
mountainous land. The foreign firms, piers and godowns set up along the north-
ern shore became the focus of commercial activities, and the commercial district
expanded towards the east and west along Hong Kong Island’s northern coast.
To accommodate the ever growing commercial activities, historical construc-
tions all around Hong Kong Island, including roads, piers, reservoirs, typhoon
shelters and reclamation projects, were gradually completed after careful plan-
ning and with large amounts of human and material resources employed in a
prudent manner. At a time when resources were limited, projects had to be pri-
oritised, and policy decisions are naturally likely to cause controversies when the
supply was simply not able to satisfy the demand. Could we get a sense of such
arduous processes and the difficulties involved when we revisit the historical
sites and see the various creative works made by hand?
The scope of development of the City of Victoria in the second half of the
nineteenth century was reflective of a few characteristics of a city’s early plan-
ning. First, the government had to rely on advanced construction techniques
to overcome the deficiency in natural resources – by reclaiming land from the
sea, and building roads, reservoirs, typhoon shelters and other public facili-
ties. Large-scale infrastructure facilities were the foundation on which Hong
Kong established itself as a major entrepôt in the Asia-Pacific region. As the
construction techniques at the time were not able to completely overcome the
unfavourable geographical circumstances, and there was a limited area avail-
able for development on both Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula,
not to mention the fact that the city centre of Hong Kong Island was located
on a slope, most of the city’s buildings had to be constructed on the hillside.
The construction projects required a large supply of techniques and materials,
leading to high costs in developing Hong Kong’s architecture. Second, the City
of Victoria was managed with two completely differently strategies. The Central
District was mainly modelled on what was practised in the West. Commercial
activities and trade were conducted in a systematic manner, and the enactment
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 67 20/08/2018 16:47
68 · MAKING HONG KONG
and strict enforcement of laws were key to the implementation of policies.
Since 1844, the government had promulgated laws that would complement
the city’s development, securing the legitimacy of its governance through the
legal system. However, Sheung Wan in the western part of the city, the densely
populated area where the Chinese community lived, suffered from poor housing
and hygiene conditions as well as high crime rates. There was no proper town
planning before the outbreak of the bubonic plague in 1894. Third, the exter-
nal political and economic environment also influenced the priority and speed
of development of the city’s different districts. Examples of such influence can
be seen from the 1840s to the 1860s, when foreign funds were invested in the
development of Central, while after the 1870s Chinese capital focused on the
development of Sheung Wan and Yau Ma Tei on the Kowloon Peninsula.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 68 20/08/2018 16:47
2
Expansion of the territory
(1898–1941)
Sir Cecil Clementi explained that although the Hong Kong territories were divided
into three parts viz, the Colony of Hong Kong, old Kowloon and new Kowloon
(i.e. the leased territory) yet for practical purposes they constituted a single entity
that of Hong Kong Harbour. The Southern side of the harbour (i.e. the colony)
was almost if not quite fully developed; the northern side was beginning to develop
and would develop rapidly if security of tenure were assured. Persons and firms
interested would take up land for large undertakings only if granted leases beyond
the period for which the territory has been leased by the Chinese Government to
His Majesty’s Government, i.e. 99 years from 1898. It was pointed out that the
lease from Government to Government was not merely a land lease, but a lease
of all sovereign rights: this would include the right to dispose of land and allot
leases even beyond the term of the head lease. Sir C. Clementi therefore urged
that, in the best interests of the colony and of the new territories themselves, he
should proceed to grant leases for periods beyond the balance of the 99 years.
Sir V. Wellesley pointed out the danger of seeming to dispose of that which it
might not be in our power to give; the danger of encouraging Hong Kong to
think that we were going to keep the New Territories forever . . . (CO129/507/6,
‘Memorandum: Land Leases in the New Territories of Hong Kong’, 7 November
1928)
From the 1840s to the 1860s, the total population of Hong Kong was still below
100,000, so the weaknesses of segregation strategy with urban planning modelled
on European experiences in Central District but allowing the Chinese commu-
nity to develop in a loose way had not yet been exposed. However, as the Chinese
population increased continuously, certain areas such as Sheung Wan, Sai Wan
and Wan Chai suffered from overcrowding, unsatisfactory public health and poor
law and order. The situation was out of control, and the government’s administra-
tion was feeble. The demand for public services was far greater than the original
ancillary facilities in the core districts could bear.1 No one could have antici-
pated such a rapid population growth when European-style facilities were built
in the Central District in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The trading
facilities of the port were incapable of solving the problems of housing, water
1
CO129/494, ‘The Land Resumption in the New Territories’, 4 October 1926, p.28.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 69 20/08/2018 16:47
70 · MAKING HONG KONG
supply, sewerage, law and order and sanitation in the Chinese communities. The
government not only did not deliberately plan for the Chinese communities,
but also lacked experience in governing different groups of Chinese. The explo-
sion in the grassroots population triggered one livelihood issue after another,
while contingency measures were implemented one after another that attempted
to provide solutions, but the problems were overwhelming. The lack of coor-
dination between departments, coupled with limited land resources and weak
economic power, made it difficult for the government to govern rebellious busi-
ness elites who possessed economic power and lower classes filled with national
hatred. In the late nineteenth century, Hong Kong could be described as a chaoti-
cally governed city with poor sanitary conditions.
On the Kowloon Peninsula, only 3 square miles (7.8 square kilometres)2 of
land south of Boundary Street could be developed by the government. Land was
already very scarce, but most of the area was allocated for military use. In the
1880s, development of the Kowloon Peninsula was still limited and confined to
the western coast. Development of the southern coast of the peninsula did not
commence until the early twentieth century. The government gradually real-
ised that the expansion of the city’s core areas was the solution to the problems
caused by rapid population growth. In 1898, the United Kingdom succeeded in
leasing the New Territories. From then, land development and planning took
centre stage in the city’s growth, which resulted in significant changes for Hong
Kong’s development. Signed in June 1898, the Convention for the Extension of
Hong Kong Territory expanded the city’s territory and provided it with new land
resources to divert the new population. The limited space on Hong Kong Island
could no longer cope with the needs of its residents. By the early twentieth
century, the government had to resolve disputes involving the land ownership of
indigenous residents. The challenges were completely new and different, shift-
ing from a technical nature to a personnel one. From the late nineteenth to the
early twentieth century, political instability in China and other countries left
Chinese immigrants in Hong Kong no choice but to endure hardship, which in
turn gave a respite to the Hong Kong government.
Opportunities
The United Kingdom and the Qing government signed the Convention for the
Extension of Hong Kong Territory in Beijing on 9 June 1898, in which the Qing
government leased more land to the United Kingdom. The area concerned was
bounded by Mirs Bay in the east, Boundary Street in Kowloon in the south,
the Shenzhen Bay in the west and the Shenzhen River in the north.3 It also
included over 200 islands nearby. In the report by James Haldane Stewart
2
Kowloon Peninsula referred to the region to the south of Boundary Street. It differs from today’s concept,
which includes the New Kowloon districts. ‘Report on the Census of the Colony for 1931’, Hong Kong
Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1931, p.99.
3
‘Papers Relating to Extension of Colony of Hong Kong’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong,
Noronha & Co., 1899, p.213.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 70 20/08/2018 16:47
Expansion of the territory (1898–1941) · 71
Lockhart, Colonial Secretary of Hong Kong, the New Territories was estimated
to have an area of approximately 376 square miles4 (973.8 square kilometres).
After the government had completed the land survey of the New Territories in
1905, it announced that the leased area was only 356 square miles5 (around 922
square kilometres).6 The 99-year lease period was from 1 July 1898 to 30 June
1997.7 The area of the New Territories was estimated to be around 10.2 times
that of Hong Kong Island (32 square miles or 82.9 square kilometres) and the
Kowloon Peninsula (3 square miles or 7.8 square kilometres) combined (35
square miles or 90.7 square kilometres).
In 1899, Lockhart estimated the total area of arable land in the whole of
Xin’an County at 120,000 acres (485.6 square kilometres) based on the amount
of land tax that the county collected. As the area of land leased to the United
Kingdom was around 60 per cent of Xin’an County’s, the area of arable land in
the New Territories was estimated at 72,000 acres (291.4 square kilometres).
According to the estimations made when the New Territories was leased, its
total area (including uncultivated land) was around 240,640 acres (973.8 square
kilometres). If 72,000 acres (291.4 square kilometres) of the area was privately
cultivated, the area of Crown land owned by the colonial government could be
as much as 168,640 acres8 (682.5 square kilometres). This would offer plenty
of land for development.
Land registration
To optimise the newly leased land and facilitate the design of long-term land
development strategies, the government first had to sort out land ownership in
the New Territories. After the government officially took over the area in 1899,
land registration and legislation work immediately commenced.9 The fourth
ordinance on the New Territories, New Territories (Land Court) Ordinance, was
promulgated on 1 June 1900, by which a Land Court was established10 to regis-
ter the land of indigenous New Territories residents11 and resolve land owner-
ship disputes in the New Territories.12 On 12 July 1900, the government issued
4
Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 8 April 1899, p.537.
5
Hong Kong Blue Book, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1905, p.U2; Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong
Kong, Noronha & Co., 1931, p.99.
6
The total area of the New Territories published by the Lands Department in 2015 was only 949.42
square kilometres after subtracting 28.58 square kilometres of reclaimed land. Hong Kong Geographic Data,
Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department, February 2015.
7
‘Papers Relating to Extension of Colony of Hong Kong’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong,
Noronha & Co., 1899, Appendix No. 1, pp.198–199.
8
Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 8 April 1899, p.540.
9
‘Report on the New Territory during the First Year of British Administration’, Hong Kong Sessional
Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1900, p.253.
10
John W. Carrington, The Ordinances of Hongkong, Prepared under the Authority of the Statute Laws
(Revised Edition) Ordinance, 1900, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1900, p.607.
11
‘Report on the New Territory for the Year 1900’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha &
Co., 1900, p.4.
12
‘Ordinance No. 4 of 1900, New Territories (Land Court) Ordinance, 1900’, in John W. Carrington, The
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 71 20/08/2018 16:47
72 · MAKING HONG KONG
Source: ‘Report on the New Territory during the First Year of British Administration’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co.,
1900, pp.271, 277.
Figure 2.1 Land registration form of the New Territories
an announcement in Chinese requiring indigenous New Territories residents
to register private land and pay Crown rent to the government.13 Landowners
had to fill in forms prepared by the Hong Kong government to declare the land’s
location, use, soil fertility, crop type and quantity, and so on.14 (See Figure 2.1.)
The Hong Kong government would then determine the amount of Crown rent
that the owner had to pay.15
The government announced that the land in the New Territories would
be classified into three grades according to fertility. Each grade attracted a
Ordinances of Hongkong, Prepared under the Authority of the Statute Laws (Revised Edition) Ordinance, 1900,
Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1900, pp.607–608.
13
‘Report on the New Territory during the First Year of British Administration’, Hong Kong Sessional
Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1900, Appendix IV, p.253.
14
‘Report on the New Territory for the Year 1900’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha &
Co., 1901, p.267.
15
‘Report on the New Territory for the Year 1900’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha &
Co., 1901, p.254.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 72 20/08/2018 16:47
Expansion of the territory (1898–1941) · 73
different amount of Crown rent: the first grade referred to fertile agricultural
land near water resources, which could support two harvests of rice or one
harvest of sugar cane a year; the second grade referred to higher-latitude
agricultural land further away from water resources, which could support
only one harvest of rice or sugar cane a year; the third grade referred to infer-
tile land far from water resources, where only crops like sweet potatoes and
peanuts could be grown. Furthermore, owners of fish ponds were required to
pay more Crown rent than owners of agricultural land, while owners of burial
grounds were only required to pay stamp duty.16 After the New Territories
landowners had registered the location of the land, declared the land use and
paid the Crown rent or stamp duty, a District Magistrate would issue them
with official deeds to recognise their ownership. However, the Crown lease
would end on 30 June 1997, as stipulated in the Convention for the Extension
of Hong Kong Territory.
Crown rents for the New Territories grade one, grade two and grade three
agricultural land were 3, 2 and 1 dollar(s) per acre (4,046.9 square metres)
respectively. The location of the land also affected the amount of Crown rent, as
land near Kowloon had a higher rate of 5, 3 and 1.5 dollars per acre respectively.
Crown rent for land with houses built on it was 50 dollars per acre as a one-off
payment or 50 cents per acre per year, while the Crown rent of villages with con-
venient transport and better living conditions might reach 100 dollars per acre.17
As Chinese farmers were used to building and living in houses on agricultural
land, they did not fully consider the kind of land when registering their land.
Some of them had both building land and agricultural land, all of which they
declared as agricultural land to avoid paying high Crown rent. They would be
required to pay a land premium if they wanted to build on agricultural land later
on. The huge difference in price between agricultural land and building land also
meant a similar difference in compensation when the government resumed land
for development subsequently. The Chinese farmers did not expect any of this.
In 1911, the government collected land registration fees for the first time in the
New Territories, starting from the New Territories North Yeuk and extending
to the New Territories South Yeuk in 1913.18
There were two types of traditional Chinese title deeds for land: ‘red title
deeds’, which were officially registered title deeds with Xin’an County’s red
seal; and ‘white title deeds’, where the land concerned was exchanged pri-
vately. A white title deed was usually a written record with signatures of both
the seller and the buyer, signed in the presence of witnesses, and might even
state the reason for selling the land. However, since such title deeds did not
have the official red seal, their owners had to register with the Qing gov-
ernment in exchange for red title deeds. There were also quite a number of
16
‘Report on the New Territory for the Year 1900’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha &
Co., 1901, p.266.
17
‘Report on the New Territories for the Year 1912’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha &
Co., 1912, p.45.
18
‘Report of Public Works’, Hong Kong Administrative Reports, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1911, p.11.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 73 20/08/2018 16:47
74 · MAKING HONG KONG
Table 2.1 Names of districts and villages in the New Territories (1899)
Name of No. of Names of villages
district villages
Kau-lung 3 Kau Yeuk, Luk Yeuk, Tsun Wan
Sha-tau-kok 7 Wo Hang, Lin Ma Hang, Ha Po, Luk Keng, Nam Yeuk, Kuk Po,
Hing Chun
Un Long 8 Pat Heung, Kam Tin, Shap Pat Heung, Ping Shan, Ha Tsun, Tun
Mun, Tai Lam Chung, Lung Ku Tan
Sheung U 9 Lam Tsun, San Tin, Lung Yeuk Tau, Shun Wan, Hap Wo, Tsoi
Hang, Sheung Shui, Fan Ling, Hau Yeuk
Luk Yeuk 1 Luk Yeuk
Tung Hoi 4 Sai Kung, Cheung Muk Tau, Ko Tong, Chik Kang
Tung To 6 Kao O, Ping Chau, Tap Mun, Pak Lap Chau, Kau Sai, Im Tin Tsz
Sai Tao 8 Tai O, Mui Wo, Tung Chung, Cheung Chau, Ni Ku Chau, Chik
Lap Kok, Ma Wan, Tsing I
Source: Hong Kong Government Gazette, Hong Kong Government, 8 July 1899, p.1069.
deeds signed by owners who used their land as security for loans. After the
implementation of land registration, the colonial government discovered that
many self-proclaimed tenant farmers were using the land, yet the government
did not recognise their legal status owing to their lack of documents to prove
their land use rights.19 Owners of white title deeds were treated similarly. Only
owners of red title deeds were registered, and they were the ones that the gov-
ernment collected Crown rent20 from. After registration, the landowner would
receive an officially registered deed issued by a District Magistrate to confirm
the land ownership.21 If landowners failed to declare their land ownership to
the Land Court, the government could resume the land for a public purpose.
On 14 April 1902, the China Mail reported the resumption of Land Lot Nos
1–3 and 12 of Area 73 and Nos 2453 and 2463–2466 of Area 30 in Sha
Tau Kok, New Territories. This was to put pressure on indigenous residents,
forcing them to declare land ownership.22
The rural organisations of indigenous New Territories residents consisted
of various yeuk (alliances), heung (rural townships) and tsuen (villages). There
were several heung and tsuen in a yeuk. According to a government survey in
1899, the whole New Territories could be divided into eight yeuk and 46 heung
(see Table 2.1). In 1900, Governor Henry A. Blake released a report on the New
Territories after he had been Governor for a year, which stated that the whole of
19
‘Report on the New Territory’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1900, p.267;
‘New Territories: Land Court, Report on Work from 1900 to 1905’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong,
Noronha & Co., 1905, p.146.
20
‘Report on the New Territory’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1900, p.267.
21
‘Report on the New Territory’, Hong Kong Sessional Papers, Hong Kong, Noronha & Co., 1900, p.254.
22
China Mail, 14 April 1902.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 74 20/08/2018 16:47
Expansion of the territory (1898–1941) · 75
the New Territories could be divided into eight yeuk, 48 heung and 597 tsuen,23
which was two more heung compared with 1899.
The government had started a cadastral survey of the New Territories as
early as November 1899, before the New Territories (Land Court) Ordinance
1900 came into force. The survey started from an area near Boundary Street in
Kowloon, bounded by Lai Chi Kok in the west and Lei Yue Mun in the east. In
January 1900, the survey extended to the Yuen Long area;24 in late 1900, the