CO129-292 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [6-8] — Page 464

462

R

We would further invite attention to the evidence of Mr. Lenu at page 34 of the report where he says that "cubicles shut out a vast amount of light" and to the remark of Mr. PALMER at page 40 to the effect in the case of those cubicles they are absolutely dark; there is no light possible." "As far as health goes it would be a good thing [to get light into them]."

We do not agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. LEIGH at page 34 that under existing conditions the light in cubicles is sufficient for the health of the Chinese," and we are supported in our opinion by the fact that the majority of Plague cases have, in all the epidemics that have occurred in the Colony, occurred in Chinese tenement houses where cubicles abound and where in consequence the absence of light ventilation is most marked.

We therefore strongly urge that the whole of our recommendations with regard to cubicles be adopted. It is unfortunately impossible to prohibit cubicles altogether, but everything should be done to render them as little obnoxious to health as possible.

OVERCROWDING.

20. We are not satisfied that the provisions of section 9 of Ordinance 15 of 1894 are sufficient for the purpose of abating overcrowding. We would point out that owing to the numerous means of exit from Chinese dwelling-houses it is extremely difficult except with the assistance of several persons to prevent escapes, and to obtain the necessary evidence on which to prosecute for breaches of this section.

We therefore recommend that the following additional regulation be made:- In a room fitted with bunks or beds, sleeping accommodation shall not be provided for a greater number of persons than may occupy the room in accordance with section 9 of Ordinance 15 of 1894.

It is a common thing to see bunks and other sleeping accommodation provided in a room for a greater number of persons than may legally occupy it. We see no reason why such encouragement to overcrowding should be permitted.

We are further of opinion that section 7, sub-section (I), of Ordinance 15 of 1894, should be amended by the deletion of the words "where such room is partitioned or divided off into separate compartments." As the section reads at present there is nothing to prevent the erection of mezzanine floors or cocklofts of any dimensions, in any room in which there are no cubicles. Mr. CHADWICK, para. 168 of his Report on the Sanitary condition of Hongkong (1882) expressed the following emphatic opinion: "Cocklofts should be absolutely prohibited."

21. PRIVATE STREETS AND LANES.

The recommendation of the Commissioners under this heading is as follows:- Clause 14. We recommend that owners of Private Streets and Lanes be required at their own expense to surface, channel, and light such Streets and Lanes, and to maintain them in a sanitary condition. We concur in this recommendation as far as it goes, but we desire to suggest the following amendments: All private streets and lanes must be surfaced, channelled, and lit to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and no obstructions whatever should be permitted to be erected in private streets and lanes upon which domestic buildings abut.

We consider that bye-law No. 27, made under section 13 of Ordinance 15 of 1894, is inadequate. One of the Commissioners (Mr. WHITEHEAD) was so much impressed by Dr. CLARK's remarks that he stated that the obstruction to the entrances of private lanes "ought to be put a stop to at once" and remarked that the Commissioners ought at once to "suggest to the Government the necessity of amending the Ordinance" so as to give effect to the recommendation.

Only one of the other three witnesses was questioned by the Commissioners on this important point. The witness was Mr. DANBY who, at page 28 of the Report, is reported to have expressed the opinion that because a street in Birmingham 36 feet in width might be obstructed to the extent of one-third of the width of the street, that therefore in Hongkong a private lane without reference to its width (and the vast majority of them are under 15 feet wide) might be allowed to be obstructed to the same proportionate extent.

We confess that we are unable to see any analogy between the two cases, but we observe with pleasure that Mr. DANBY was of opinion that some limit at any rate should be placed to the obstruction of entrances to private lanes.

22. LATRINE ACCOMMODATION AND REMOVAL OF NIGHT-SOIL from Private Premises. Although the absence of adequate latrine accommodation throughout the Colony and the irregular collection of night-soil from the dwellings of the poorer classes of the Chinese are matters which closely affect the sanitary condition of the dwellings, and to which attention was specially directed by the late Director of Public Works in his evidence before the Commission (pp. 20 and 21), by Mr. W. DANBY (p. 32), by Mr. R. K. LETON (p. 37), and by Mr. CLEMENT PALMER (p. 40), we observe that the Commissioners have made no recommendations to the Government on this subject, and we desire to urge therefore upon the Government the necessity for the provision of additional public latrines throughout the Colony at an early date, and we are also of the opinion that the Government should undertake the daily collection of night-soil from private premises, on the lines laid down in the specification submitted to the Government by the Sanitary Board in 1896, (C.S.O.2719 of 1896; a copy of which is attached).

Apart from the desirability on general sanitary grounds that night-soil should, especially in a tropical climate, be removed from dwelling-houses as early as possible, we would point out that such removal is rendered still more important where Plague prevails. It is now recognised that the excreta of Plague infected persons are highly infectious, and we cannot but view with the gravest concern the continuance of the present system under which, for purposes of economy, night-soil is not removed daily from the dwellings of the poorer classes of Chinese.

23. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 66 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDINANCE OF 1887.

There remains for notice the recommendation made by Dr. CLARK at page 13 of the Report that section 66 of the Public Health Ordinance, No. 24 of 1887, should be amended so as to apply with some modifications to all new buildings erected in future.

Dr. CLARK pointed out that under the existing law "there is no power to prevent the erection of back-to-back houses except upon land purchased from the Crown after the passing of Ordinance 24 of 1887, which practically means that the whole of the City outside of Taipingshan can be re-erected with back-to-back houses."

This recommendation was endorsed by Mr. COOPER who concurred generally in Dr. CLARK's proposals.

Mr. DANBY was questioned on the point, but did not think such an amendment of the law necessary, although he admitted (see page 31) that from a sanitary point of view it was desirable.

Mr. LEIGH was also examined on the subject and his objection to the alteration in the law was that it would tend to make landlords keep up their old houses as long as they could," and that any question of compensation for loss of property "would be a very large sum" (vide page 35).

Mr. PALMER was not asked any questions on the point.

Thus we have two witnesses entirely in favour of Dr. CLARK's suggestion, a third in favour of it (with certain modifications as to the depth of the open spaces required) on sanitary grounds but opposed to it on the ground of the reduction in value of property that it would entail, and a fourth likewise opposed to it on the latter ground although he had in an earlier portion of his evidence stated that existing Houses the principal rooms of which were over 40 feet deep could afford to give up 10 feet each for backyards (vide page 33 of Mr. LETON's evidence).

The only way in which we can reconcile Mr. LEIGH's two statements is to imagine that his objections to Dr. CLARK's suggestion for the amendment of section 66 of the Public Health Ordinance were intended to apply to shallow houses only or at any rate to houses with rooms of a less depth than 40 feet. The balance of the evidence is therefore in favour of Dr. CLARK's recommendation, but in spite of that fact the recommendation is not even alluded to in the body of the report.

Fortunately, two of the Commissioners-Messrs. WHITEHEAD and EDE--the latter of whom was a member of the Sanitary Board for 13 years, recognised the importance of Dr. CLARK's suggestion and supported it in an addendum to the report which we have already quoted in paragraph No. 8 but which we may for facility of reference again quote here:

Clause 17. Upon mature consideration we strongly recommend that the further erection of dwelling-houses of a greater depth than 30 feet, which cannot be ventilated and lighted on each floor from the back as well as from the front, should be absolutely prohibited, and such ventilation should be provided by means of an open space, or yard, of an area not less than one-eighth of the area occupied by the building.

We regret that Messrs. WHITEHEAD and EDE should have eliminated houses of a depth of 30 feet and under from their recommendation.

We have shown in paragraph No. 6 that dwelling-houses for the lower classes of Chinese of whatever depth should have light and ventilation at the back, and we cannot therefore agree to the elimination proposed.

We have already referred to Appendix No. 7 which shows the provisions of bye-laws for open spaces around new dwelling-houses in some of the principal cities in England. It will be seen how large the requirements are at home with regard to the provision of open spaces both in front and in rear of dwelling-houses, and we suggest that new buildings should be provided with the same amount of open space in the rear, as is required in the case of existing buildings (for which vide para. 5), in which case the amendment of section 66 of the Public Health Ordinance would not be necessary.