CO537-36 — Page 475

ela

ما

1636

*==-Platze

650

as the existing houses are concerned, I should be better

pleased to see the dovernmeal slow the næber of

Lau Chu Pak!-

13860

aubicles, which they allowed under 13 of 1901, because we have as bad a state of affaire now, du wo bad than.

How many cubicles were there then allowed ↑

13860

A.

It was unlimited then.

The Chairman:-

13861

67

A.

Ir Lau Chu Pak:-

6.

Ce chairman ronds

63

A.

1

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

C.O. 537

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE

A.

A.

Must each cubicle have a window Y

No, it was a windowless arrangement. The time had nos yet come to do away with these aubibles. It is now No

10 of 1901.

13562

13863

I should say things now are better than then?

The cloth and screen cubicles which go up now are infinitly more dirty. I quite agree with increasing the amount of sudio space, but I dont agres with the

wholesale demolition of cubicles, because there is no

place for people to livs. Ordinance No 10 of 1901, section 70, subsection D.

(continued) Some slight modification of that might have been adopted, so as not to crowd too many cubicles in a room, but I think the wholesale doing away with the

rooms has not been successful. Under Ordinance 1 of 1903, scarcely a room in Hongkong could hold a cubicle. It was thought by the Government that every house could retain two cubiales, but I pointed out to the Government

this was not and Ordinance 23 of 1903 was oarried

out.

So the framers of the law at that time did not have 13864

the intention of doing away with the cubiclea

altogether ↑

I dont think the Legislative Council had the Puintgat

idea of what they were doing. They apparently thought f

they were allowing these houses to have imo qui

and as a matter of fact, they were allowing

have none. The ordinace was not set going dirously

Ir Lau Chu Pak:-

64

Page 475Page 476

028

1

ما