RAS-1998 — Page 244

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

210

increase in offences of a less serious nature was reported in 1884. Yet another possible reason for the brief presence of the District Watchmen as sanitary workers may be found in Chadwick's own words since he stated that the need for proper checking was most important 'whilst the new conditions are being introduced.'

In light of the foregoing it is interesting to note that in October 1885 a short Rule appeared in the Government Gazette relating to the transfer of District Watchmen. This was a Rule, made by the Registrar General under Section 14 of Ordinance 7 of 1866, whereby 'The Registrar General shall be empowered to transfer the Watchmen of the various Districts including the Chief Watchmen, from time to time as may seem to him expedient.' It is unclear from the wording of the rule whether this transfer referred merely to the movement of District Watchmen from one location to another or whether it legitimized the transfer of the Watchmen from one kind of duty to another. If the latter, this may have been intended to refer to the transfer of the District Watchmen from security work to sanitary duties. If this was the intention it is peculiar that the timing of the publication of this Rule coincided with the end rather than the beginning of the District Watchmen's involvement in sanitary duties.

Perhaps the reason for their removal from sanitary duties was not recorded and what is most important in the context of this study is that it was a successful, if short lived, attempt to transfer a group of people from the private sector to the public domain and change their working conditions in a major way. We have seen that the District Watch Force was created for a very specific reason, namely to provide proper protection for a particular ethnic group within Hong Kong society which was not being served by the public police. Since official enquiries into the efficiency of the Hong Kong Police Force had confirmed the latter's shortcomings in 1872, there can be little doubt that in the early 1880s a need still existed for the District Watch Force as a security force. Additionally, the Chinese business folks almost certainly still preferred having their own people patrolling their streets rather than members of the Police Force. Perhaps in 1883 the merchants employing the District Watchmen were neither strong enough nor motivated enough to refuse to co-operate in Chadwick's scheme. After all the District Watch Committee was not formed until nearly a decade after Chadwick's report was published and thus the power exerted by this Committee in

Edit History

2026-05-13 09:28:36 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
210 increase in offences of a less serious nature was reported in 1884. Yet another possible reason for the brief presence of the District Watchmen as sanitary workers may be found in Chadwick's own words since he stated that the need for proper checking was most important 'whilst the new conditions are being introduced.' In light of the foregoing it is interesting to note that in October 1885 a short Rule appeared in the Government Gazette relating to the transfer of District Watchmen. This was a Rule, made by the Registrar General under Section 14 of Ordinance 7 of 1866, whereby 'The Registrar General shall be empowered to transfer the Watchmen of the various Districts including the Chief Watchmen, from time to time as may seem to him expedient.' It is unclear from the wording of the rule whether this transfer referred merely to the movement of District Watchmen from one location to another or whether it legitimized the transfer of the Watchmen from one kind of duty to another. If the latter, this may have been intended to refer to the transfer of the District Watchmen from security work to sanitary duties. If this was the intention it is peculiar that the timing of the publication of this Rule coincided with the end rather than the beginning of the District Watchmen's involvement in sanitary duties. Perhaps the reason for their removal from sanitary duties was not recorded and what is most important in the context of this study is that it was a successful, if short lived, attempt to transfer a group of people from the private sector to the public domain and change their working conditions in a major way. We have seen that the District Watch Force was created for a very specific reason, namely to provide proper protection for a particular ethnic group within Hong Kong society which was not being served by the public police. Since official enquiries into the efficiency of the Hong Kong Police Force had confirmed the latter's shortcomings in 1872, there can be little doubt that in the early 1880s a need still existed for the District Watch Force as a security force. Additionally, the Chinese business folks almost certainly still preferred having their own people patrolling their streets rather than members of the Police Force. Perhaps in 1883 the merchants employing the District Watchmen were neither strong enough nor motivated enough to refuse to co-operate in Chadwick's scheme. After all the District Watch Committee was not formed until nearly a decade after Chadwick's report was published and thus the power exerted by this Committee in
Baseline (Original)
210 increase in offences of a less serious nature was reported in 1884. Yet another possible reason for the brief presence of the District Watchmen as sanitary workers may be found in Chadwick's own words since he stated that the need for proper checking was most important 'whilst the new conditions are being introduced.' In light of the foregoing it is interesting to note that in October 1885 a short Rule appeared in the Government Gazette relating to the transfer of District Watchmen. This was a Rule, made by the Registrar General under Section 14 of Ordinance 7 of 1866, whereby 'The Reg- istrar General shall be empowered to transfer the Watchmen of the vari- ous Districts including the Chief Watchmen, from time to time as may seem to him expedient.' It is unclear from the wording of the rule whether this transfer referred merely to the movement of District Watch- men from one location to another or whether it legitimized the transfer of the Watchmen from one kind of duty to another. If the latter, this may have been intended to refer to the transfer of the District Watch- men from security work to sanitary duties. If this was the intention it is peculiar that the timing of the publication of this Rule coincided with the end rather than the beginning of the District Watchmen's involve- ment in sanitary duties. Perhaps the reason for their removal from sanitary duties was not recorded and what is most important in the context of this study is that it was a successful, if short lived, attempt to transfer a group of people from the private sector to the public domain and change their working conditions in a major way. We have seen that the District Watch Force was created for a very specific reason, namely to provide proper pro- tection for a particular ethnic group within Hong Kong society which was not being served by the public police. Since official enquiries into the efficiency of the Hong Kong Police Force had confirmed the latter's shortcomings in 1872, there can be little doubt that in the early 1880s a need still existed for the District Watch Force as a security force. Additionally, the Chinese business folks almost certainly still preferred having their own people patrolling their streets rather than members of the Police Force. Perhaps in 1883 the merchants employing the Dis- trict Watchmen were neither strong enough nor motivated enough to refuse to co-operate in Chadwick's scheme. After all the District Watch Committee was not formed until nearly a decade after Chadwick's re- port was published and thus the power exerted by this Committee in
2026-05-13 09:28:36 · Baseline
View content

210

increase in offences of a less serious nature was reported in 1884. Yet another possible reason for the brief presence of the District Watchmen as sanitary workers may be found in Chadwick's own words since he stated that the need for proper checking was most important 'whilst the new conditions are being introduced.'

In light of the foregoing it is interesting to note that in October 1885 a short Rule appeared in the Government Gazette relating to the transfer of District Watchmen. This was a Rule, made by the Registrar General under Section 14 of Ordinance 7 of 1866, whereby 'The Reg- istrar General shall be empowered to transfer the Watchmen of the vari- ous Districts including the Chief Watchmen, from time to time as may seem to him expedient.' It is unclear from the wording of the rule whether this transfer referred merely to the movement of District Watch- men from one location to another or whether it legitimized the transfer of the Watchmen from one kind of duty to another. If the latter, this may have been intended to refer to the transfer of the District Watch- men from security work to sanitary duties. If this was the intention it is peculiar that the timing of the publication of this Rule coincided with the end rather than the beginning of the District Watchmen's involve- ment in sanitary duties.

Perhaps the reason for their removal from sanitary duties was not recorded and what is most important in the context of this study is that it was a successful, if short lived, attempt to transfer a group of people from the private sector to the public domain and change their working conditions in a major way. We have seen that the District Watch Force was created for a very specific reason, namely to provide proper pro- tection for a particular ethnic group within Hong Kong society which was not being served by the public police. Since official enquiries into the efficiency of the Hong Kong Police Force had confirmed the latter's shortcomings in 1872, there can be little doubt that in the early 1880s a need still existed for the District Watch Force as a security force. Additionally, the Chinese business folks almost certainly still preferred having their own people patrolling their streets rather than members of the Police Force. Perhaps in 1883 the merchants employing the Dis- trict Watchmen were neither strong enough nor motivated enough to refuse to co-operate in Chadwick's scheme. After all the District Watch Committee was not formed until nearly a decade after Chadwick's re- port was published and thus the power exerted by this Committee in

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.