Commerce, and one by the Justices of the Peace." In the original Bill sent up by the Sanitary Board it read as follows:- "And four additional members, two to be appointed by the Governor and two to be elected by the tax-payers whose names appear on the special and common jury lists as well as those who are mentioned as being exempt by reason of their avocations." I think it is absolutely necessary that the franchise should be extended, at any rate as regards the Sanitary Board. On that point I am of opinion that it should be extended as regards this Council, but that is another matter. I would strongly urge the Government to have two Chinese and let the other three be elected by the taxpayers. To confine it to a clique like the Chamber of Commerce and the Justices of the Peace looks as if the Government was under the impression that no other ratepayers had any brains or common sense about them. I trust this matter will receive the attention of the Government before the Bill comes on again. Another point. I strongly advocate the proceedings of the Board should be held with open doors. I am bound to say I have undergone some change of view on that point. I thought it would be sufficient if the minutes were published, but I am sorry to see that at the last meeting, two of the subjects before the Board—I will not say they were important ones—but minutes of a certain amount of interest were framed—and I am at a loss to understand how it is they were not published in the Gazette. However that is a matter I intend to bring before the Chairman at the next meeting, and if necessary I shall allude to it again in this Council. One other point I shall allude to, which may be a minor one. In Section 3 Clause 2 it is called the Sanitary Board. When the Bill was sent up to the Government it was termed the Municipal Board of Health of Hongkong. There was a great amount of discussion on that point and no one was more strongly in favor of it than my hon. friend the Surveyor-General. (The Surveyor-General—Hear, hear). We hoped that this Board might in time extend itself to become really a Municipal Council. I may say I would myself have introduced a scheme to that effect last year, but seeing it is supposed to be the etiquette of the service that an Acting Governor during his administration does not inaugurate any new policy but is supposed to carry on the government on very much the same lines as those of the absent Governor—I think that has been very detrimental to this Colony, seeing its affairs have been administered by an Acting Governor for nearly four years. As regards the Bill itself, former Governors and present members of the Executive Council and Legislative Council have confessed the absolute necessity for sanitary reform in the colony, and I think a certain amount of blame attaches to them for not having pushed it forward. I congratulate your Excellency on having prevented this Bill being pigeon-holed, because it was sent up months ago, I think in March. At any rate, I know there has been plenty of time to bring it forward. It was only in November last year I brought several matters of detail concerning the Central Market to the notice of this Council and the Government. Hundreds of men sleeping amongst the food supply of the Colony, and the only privy accommodation a bucket, and would you believe it, Sir, that market is in the same condition in July of this year as in November last year, and nothing has been done. Your Excellency in your remarks about the Opium Bill said it was as if a Bill was ever passed, and I say the sanitary portion of this Bill is as desirable as any Bill that has ever been passed.
The SURVEYOR-GENERAL—Your Excellency has informed us through the Attorney-General that it was your intention to relegate the opposed clauses of this measure to the Building Act from which they were taken by the advice of one of Your Excellency's predecessors to be incorporated in the Bill before us. So long as there is adequate provision for light and for ventilation, for fore and aft ventilation if I may so call it, it is immaterial in what Bill that provision is made, but as to backyards and with regard to the desire of the advocates of this Bill to perpetuate in our midst the present type of Hongkong native tenement, which I may briefly describe as a barrack to back back without light or ventilation, I say that such tenements are an outrage to every maxim of sanitary law that has ever been laid down. If you say to me "A backyard is unnecessary because the Chinese do not require light or ventilation, and because they are constituted differently from other people," then I utterly deny and controvert such a proposition. But if you acknowledge the necessity for such light and ventilation but say you cannot afford it on account of the undue sacrifice of property, then I say it would be the duty of this Government to address itself to the task of seeing how far the paramount interests of public health can be reconciled with those of property owners. My hon. friend opposite (Hon. A. P. MacEwen) has told us he visited with the hon. member who represents the Chinese community (Hon. Wong Shing) many houses where this backyard would be invaluable owing to the smallness of the area of the lots. Well, Sir, that may be so, but I would ask is there no modus vivendi, no possible way of overcoming the difficulty which has been raised in this connexion by the opponents of this Bill? Would it not be possible, apart from the question of compensation which has been mooted, for the Government perhaps to deal with the slums and fever dens of Taipingshan by purchasing them out and out at fair and equitable values and demolishing them, rebuilding them on sanitary principles, and reselling them again, perhaps giving the original owner the option of re-entering? Would it not be possible by some such scheme as that to obviate the deletion of these clauses from this Bill? I believe when we have passed from the present stage of effervescence to a stage of more calm consideration we shall find some means of reconciling these two interests. The question, Sir, of compensation has been mooted. I do not want to prejudge that question. I anticipate that at no distant date we may be called here to discuss these clauses, but I believe some objection has been taken to compensation for loss of area as being unjust to the general ratepayer. That is a question which will receive attention when the time comes, but I desire to call attention to one fact, and I am sure my hon. friend opposite (Hon. A. P. MacEwen) will bear me out in this. For many years past it has been the practice of landlords of new buildings to leave backyards of five, six, and some even seven feet in width, and therefore really the difference in the widths we see in the backyards of more modern buildings and the width prescribed in this Bill is much less than appears. It will not be a question of compensating for the loss of ten feet of area, but of compensating for the difference between that ten feet and the width which the property owners themselves of their own initiative have adopted. If hon. members will bear this in mind they will see at once that the enormously exaggerated sums which have been mentioned as required for compensation would be reduced very greatly, and might be entirely within the means of the Government, if combined with the purchase of those fever dens which are a direct menace to the health of the community generally. I therefore think this question of backyards, which after all appears to form the principal obstacle to the passing of this Bill, may be met. I think all interests may be reconciled and I am very sanguine that we shall find some means, when we come to deliberate on the Building Act, of meeting the views of all. With regard to the other objections that have been raised, it may be more proper that I should at present say nothing until we go into committee on this Bill or on the Building Act which I understand your Excellency intends to bring forward at an early period next session. I can only add, Sir, I wish hon. members of this Council would better appreciate the importance and necessity of adequate light and ventilation as set forth in those clauses of this Bill which provide for backyards. I am sure if some of the members of Council could be induced to imitate the example of your Excellency and of my hon. friend opposite (Hon. A. P. MacEwen) and spend some of the present close evenings in house to house rambles through Taipingshan it would be an admirable preparation for the time when we come to meet for the discussion of these clauses. Sir, I adhere to my advocacy of an adequate provision of light and ventilation as represented by the ten-foot backyards. There has been a good deal of abuse showered on me for this advocacy. I have been gibbeted as a schemer, a jobber, a wire-puller and smuggler, and by any number of other playful epithets, but, Sir, no cause was ever advanced, not even the cause against backyards, by descending to personal invective, and I am sure the intelligence of the Colony will ultimately recognise the immense importance of this provision of light and ventilation if we can find the modus vivendi, as I have said before. I am sure we would be able to pass the opposed clauses of this Bill if we adopted some such plan as I have briefly sketched to the Council.