CO537-(36-37) — Page 378

Sut

'1

il.

bladen.

to esq.

A.

41 0.

2225

1.

Not Osborne er

103 harm to the Colony. I think that it has forced up the price of light labour, that men who formerly could keep their families in Hongkong had to send them away, & with those who are obliged to keep their families here, it is one constant trouble about privacy. They get no privacy in their cubicles, well, they have not got cubicles, they have only got those rags.

18040

And do you think it would be to the advantage of the Colony to encourage them to keep their families here, in Hongkong ?

I think it is the great thing in Hongkong, that we

need, family life in Hongkong.

And it would improve the morality and also cheapen 1804-1

labour ?

18042

Do you think that is has been a fa tor in the decrease

in the value of landed property here ?

A.

Yes.

Mr Shelton Hooper:-

42

A.

Yes. I dont see how it can be otherwise.

Houses

built before the passing of the Ordinance, to pay a certain rental which would yield say eight per cent

on the capital invested, dont command anything like

that rental now, so that the return on the capital

invested in the case of houses, that we the Wharf

Company own, is so small, that those houses would

never have been erected.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

www.GO. 537

37

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE

18043

The Chairman:-

५३

You would never have erected them under the terms of

the new Ordinance

A.

The money would be better employed, lying at the Bank.

They would not pay. I am speaking of the Tharf Company

at Kowloon.

€

44

Q.

A.

Yes,

You are speaking of what you know ?

of what I know.

18044

?r Lau Chu Pak:-

Have you had any alterations to make under this now

Ordinanou? Were you at any time required by the