AnnualReport-1879 — Page 135

EXTRACT OF REPORT BY INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS.

In my Return of the 20th instant I have distinguished the public, i.e., Government, and private water-closets, and stated the dates of their erection to the best of

any ability.

I now beg to add that but few water-closets have been fitted in private buildings, to my knowledge, within my term of office.

Many of the existing water-closets' may have been fitted up in the belief that they were in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of Ordinance 8 of 1856; such impressions have, however, been erroneous, as by section 14 of Ordinance 8 of 1856, and sub-section 1 of section 2 of Ordinance 14 of 1815, they are prohibited from connection with the sewers, and by section 14 of Ordinance 8 of 1856, cesspits are rendered illegal; therefore, the water-closets of Ordinance 8 of 1856 become simply water-cominodes.

Were it legal to run soil into the sewers, it would, in my opinion, still be unadvisable, even with an ample supply of water all the year round, because the filth would still be washed to and fro in front of the town, or lie on the foreshore for certain periods.

The town's being on the hillside is an additional and important reason why the drains should be kept as free from night-soil and other filth as is possible, as the rapid incline of the drains facilitates the movement of the gas, which, in escaping, contaminates the atmosphere of the neighbour- hood above each drain opening throughout the town.

Water-closets generally, when in order, for the reason that they conduct foul sewer gas into the dwellings, are objectionable, but when out of order, which is commonly their condition, they are much more so."

The system generally adopted in Hongkong of removing from the town daily the contents of commodes is, in my opinion, the best adapted to the place.

I further think that the community would benefit were the flow of excrement into the sewers from the existing water-closets prohibited in future by virtue of section 14 of Ordinance 8 of 1856 and sub-section 1 of section 2 of Ordinance 14 of 1845.

26th August, 1880.

(Signed)

S. R. NEATE, Inspector of Buildings.

COPIES OR EXTRACTS OF DESPATCHES FROM GOVERNOR SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G., TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 8th July, 1880.

MY LORD,--The Ordinance No. 8 of 1856, “An Ordinance for Buildings and Nuisances," gives the local Government complete control over the construction of all buildings in the Colony. This law contains a series of minute and stringent rules, with adequate penalties, framed to prevent the construc- tion of any houses that are not built on what was then supposed to be the best sanitary principles. Mr. O'MALLEY, the Attorney General, tells me that the Ordinance was evidently copied almost entirely from certain Sanitary and Building Acts in force, at that time, in England. I cannot find that the Chinese householders were in any way consulted on the subject when it was being framed and passed; and the result is that some of its provisions are entirely unsuited to this Colony and would do more harm than good if enforced. Amongst other things, Clause VIII provides that it shall not be lawful to construct or re-construct any house without a sufficient water-closet or privy. This is copied from an English Metropolitan Act, but the system of water-closets and house privies is a system quite out of place in a tropical Colony, and not in accordance with the customs of the Chinese people.

The Chinese house-bucket system, especially when combined with the dry earth system (which in various ways more or less perfect they have practised for centuries), is far better than a system of water-closets and house privies. The Chinese inhabitants maintain that the attempts now and then made by successive Surveyor Generals and Colonial Surgeons to force what is called "Western Sanitary Science" upon them, are not based on sound principles. As I stated in the Legislative Council in November, 1878, in a discussion in which I referred to Ordinance 8 of 1856, the leading Chinese residents had said to me:-

"Nothing alarms us more than the Government projects of drainage and water supply for flushing "house sewage. They are not consistent with our mode of living.'

On that occasion I quoted the views of one of the most experienced medical men in China, Dr. DUDGEON of Pekin, in support of the Chinese house-bucket system as opposed to the underground drainage system, whether connected with water-closets or house privies. In his work on "The "Diseases of China contrasted with those of Europe," he says:--

"

+

"Much that is recommended at home in the way of ventilation, water supply, and disinfection of privies is rendered in China unnecessary. All the advantages claimed for the dry earth system are gained here free of expense to the individual or public. The industrious and frugal habits of the

Page 135Page 136

EXTRACT OF REPORT BY INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS.

In my Return of the 20th instant I have distinguished the public, i.e., Government, and private water-closets, and stated the dates of their erection to the best of

any ability.

I now beg to add that but few water-closets have been fitted in private buildings, to my knowledge, within my term of office.

Many of the existing water-closets' may have been fitted up in the belief that they were in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of Ordinance 8 of 1856; such impressions have, however, been erroneous, as by section 14 of Ordinance 8 of 1856, and sub-section 1 of section 2 of Ordinance 14 of 1815, they are prohibited from connection with the sewers, and by section 14 of Ordinance 8 of 1856, cesspits are rendered illegal; therefore, the water-closets of Ordinance 8 of 1856 become simply water-cominodes.

Were it legal to run soil into the sewers, it would, in my opinion, still be unadvisable, even with an ample supply of water all the year round, because the filth would still be washed to and fro in front of the town, or lie on the foreshore for certain periods.

The town's being on the hillside is an additional and important reason why the drains should be kept as free from night-soil and other filth as is possible, as the rapid incline of the drains facilitates the movement of the gas, which, in escaping, contaminates the atmosphere of the neighbour- hood above each drain opening throughout the town.

Water-closets generally, when in order, for the reason that they conduct foul sewer gas into the dwellings, are objectionable, but when out of order, which is commonly their condition, they are much more so."

The system generally adopted in Hongkong of removing from the town daily the contents of commodes is, in my opinion, the best adapted to the place.

I further think that the community would benefit were the flow of excrement into the sewers from the existing water-closets prohibited in future by virtue of section 14 of Ordinance 8 of 1856 and sub-section 1 of section 2 of Ordinance 14 of 1845.

26th August, 1880.

(Signed)

S. R. NEATE, Inspector of Buildings.

COPIES OR EXTRACTS OF DESPATCHES FROM GOVERNOR SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G., TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 8th July, 1880.

MY LORD,--The Ordinance No. 8 of 1856, “An Ordinance for Buildings and Nuisances," gives the local Government complete control over the construction of all buildings in the Colony. This law contains a series of minute and stringent rules, with adequate penalties, framed to prevent the construc- tion of any houses that are not built on what was then supposed to be the best sanitary principles. Mr. O'MALLEY, the Attorney General, tells me that the Ordinance was evidently copied almost entirely from certain Sanitary and Building Acts in force, at that time, in England. I cannot find that the Chinese householders were in any way consulted on the subject when it was being framed and passed; and the result is that some of its provisions are entirely unsuited to this Colony and would do more harm than good if enforced. Amongst other things, Clause VIII provides that it shall not be lawful to construct or re-construct any house without a sufficient water-closet or privy. This is copied from an English Metropolitan Act, but the system of water-closets and house privies is a system quite out of place in a tropical Colony, and not in accordance with the customs of the Chinese people.

The Chinese house-bucket system, especially when combined with the dry earth system (which in various ways more or less perfect they have practised for centuries), is far better than a system of water-closets and house privies. The Chinese inhabitants maintain that the attempts now and then made by successive Surveyor Generals and Colonial Surgeons to force what is called "Western Sanitary Science" upon them, are not based on sound principles. As I stated in the Legislative Council in November, 1878, in a discussion in which I referred to Ordinance 8 of 1856, the leading Chinese residents had said to me:-

"Nothing alarms us more than the Government projects of drainage and water supply for flushing "house sewage. They are not consistent with our mode of living.'

On that occasion I quoted the views of one of the most experienced medical men in China, Dr. DUDGEON of Pekin, in support of the Chinese house-bucket system as opposed to the underground drainage system, whether connected with water-closets or house privies. In his work on "The "Diseases of China contrasted with those of Europe," he says:--

"

+

"Much that is recommended at home in the way of ventilation, water supply, and disinfection of privies is rendered in China unnecessary. All the advantages claimed for the dry earth system are gained here free of expense to the individual or public. The industrious and frugal habits of the

Page 135Page 136