725
NAVAL YARD)
(Contd.)
140
winter, the smoke came directly into the military barracks and into the officers' mess and officers' quarters, to the very considerable inconvenience of the inmates, also resulting in no little damage being done to the mess. The complaint concludes with the following paragraph:
"I am told that an Ordinance exists here in which owners of chimneys are compelled to abate the smoke, and I would urge that steps be taken to have this Ordinance put into force."
The letter was addressed to the Chief Staff Officer, South China, and was forwarded to the Naval authorities for their attention. A reply was sent stating that the Commodore had the question under consideration and it was proposed, by using special qualities of coal, to reduce the amount of smoke. The Secretary to the Commodore in his reply concludes:
"It may be noticed, however, that the Dockyard chimneys are not the only ones in this Colony which contribute smoke. The Electric Light work's chimney and the various private launches and steamers all appear to use this Japanese coal which, though cheap and of good burning quality, produces dense black smoke. Under the circumstances, the Commodore trusts you will give him credit for doing his best to stop the smoke."
A letter was also received from the Governor, dated December 3, 1903, referring to the serious annoyance to the public caused by the smoke from the chimney in the Naval Yard during the north-east monsoon. A reply was sent to the Governor as well, undertaking to reduce the amount of smoke by the use of special coal.
In January, 1904, the Governor again wrote to the Naval authorities pointing out that the Naval Yard chimneys were still giving out black smoke, adding that the Electric Light Co. were installing some smoke preventatives "which it might be advantageous for the officers of the Naval Yard to inspect with a view to their adoption by the Navy if found satisfactory."
The correspondence does not tell us whether further complaints were made, so we may assume that the nuisance was duly abated.
In the articles on the Royal Naval Yard (see 27-10-33 et seq.) it was shown how this establishment gradually acquired one of the finest sites on the City's waterfront.
It can easily be imagined that the subsequent development of the town area brought the Naval Yard property within the orbit of the larger schemes, and several efforts to resume the site (as with the military land up to recent years) moved the Yard to Causeway Bay, and another, put forward by Sir Paul Chater (see 7-12-33) was to concentrate the Naval establishments at Kowloon. All these plans were, however, successfully resisted.
The correspondence in the local records relating to a proposed widening, and suggested removal, of the Naval Yard, commences in December 1875, in a memo from the Admiralty to the Colonial Office consenting to a proposed scheme for continuation of the Praya in front of the Naval Yard provided that no expense should pay two-thirds of the cost could not be entertained.
The matter was not revived until September 1881, in a letter from Colonel Crossman, R.E. to the Governor, in which he drew up plans showing a proposed transfer of Naval and Military establishments to Causeway Bay. In March 1882, the Admiralty notified the Commander-in-Chief Admiral Willes,
725
NAVAL YARD)
(Contd.)
140
winter, the smbke came directily into the military barracks and into the officers' mess and officers' quarters, to the very considerable inconvenience of the inmates, also resulting in no little damage being done to the mess. The complaint concludes with the following paragraph:
"I am told that an Ordinance exists here in which owners of chimneys are compelled to abate the smoke, and I would urge that steps be taken to have this Ordinance put into force."
The letter was addressed to the Chief Staff Officer, ~outh China, and was forwarded to the Naval authorities for their attention. A reply was sent stating that the Commodore had the question under consideration and it was proposed, by using special qualities of coal, to reduce the amount of smoke The Secretary to the Commodore in his reply concludes:
"It may be noticed, however, that the Dockyard chimneys are not the only ones in this Colony which contribute smoke.
The Electric Light work's chimney and the various private launches and steamers all appear to use this Japanese coal which, though cheap and of good burning quality, produces dense black smoke. Uner the circumstances, the Commodore trusts you will give him credit for doing his best to stop the smoke."
A letter was also received from the Governor, dated December 3, 1903, referring to the serious annoyance to the public caused by the smoke from the chimney in theNaval Yard during the north- east mansoon. A reply was sent to the Governor as well, under- taking to reduce the amount of smoke by the use of special coal.
*
*
*
*
*
In January, 1904, the Governor again wrote to the Naval authorities pointing out that the Naval Yard chimneys were still giving out black smoke, adding that the Electric Light Co. were installing some smoke preventatives "which it might be advantageous for the officers of the Naval Yard to inspect with a view to their adoption by the Navy if found satisfactory,'
The correspondence does not tell us whether further complaints were made, so we may assume that the muisance was duly abated.
In the articles on the Royal Naval Yard (see 27-10-33 et seq.) it was shown how this establishment gradually acquired one of the finest sites on the City's waterfront.
It can easily be imagined that the subsequent development of the town area brought the Naval Yard property within the orbit of the larger schemes, and several efforts to resume the site (as with the military land up to refent years) move the Yard to Causeway Bay, and another, put forward by Sir Paul Chater (see 7-12-33) was to concentrate the Naval establishments at Kowloon. All these plans were, however, successfully resisted.
,
The correspondence in the local records relating to a proposed widening, and suggested removal, of the Naval Yard, commences in December 1875, in a memo from the Admiralty to the Colonial Office consenting to a proposed scheme for continuation of the Praya in front of the Naval Yard provided that no expense should pay two-thirds of the cost could not be entertained.
The matter was not revived until September 1831, in a letter from Colonel Crossman, R.c. to the Governor, in which he drew up plans showing a proposed transfer of Naval and Military establishments to Causeway Bay. In March 1882, the Admiralty notified the Commander-in-Chief Admiral Willes,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.