RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1971
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g
130

H. J. LETHBRIDGE

Permanent Board of Direction was established by ordinance in 189352, the Tung Wah Hospital Advisory Board came into being in 189633, the Chinese Permanent Cemetery Committee in 1913 and the Chinese Temples Committees in 1928. Two other Chinese committees should be mentioned: the Chinese Recreation Ground Committee, established in 1890, contained the Registrar General and the Chinese unofficial members of the two Councils; and the Chinese Public Dispensaries Committee, formed in 1909, consisted of the Registrar General as chairman, the Chinese members of the two Councils and the Sanitary Board, the three chairmen of the annual committee of the Tung Wah Hospital and a number of other leading Chinese. In 1941, the official Chinese committees, inclusive of the District Watch, were eleven in number. Together their members represented a Hong Kong Chinese élite, in which such values as wealth, prestige and power, to use William Skinner's expressive term, ‘agglutinated’.

Nomination to the District Watch Committee was a great achievement, but nomination to the other ten committees and boards was also regarded as an honour and an additional notification of a person's standing within the community. But Chinese appointed to these ten committees and boards exercised either a more specialised or more purely honorific role, primarily because these committees did not hold a constant or uninterrupted dialogue with the Registrar General/Secretary for Chinese Affairs. They met infrequently, sometimes only once or twice a year; and although they gave advice on occasions, the giving of advice was not their primary function. Much of the work of these committees centred on the allocation of charitable funds, the management of property and the supervision of accounts. The District Watch Committee represented the real locus of power: at its meetings the members formulated a Chinese point of view on government policies and general issues. The Committee acted as a permanently installed barometer for the government, giving it a clear indication of the state of mind of the Chinese bourgeoisie. It marked out for government how the élite felt on certain questions39.

The same people were to be found represented on all the eleven committees and boards (although in slightly different combinations in each case) so that it is a little unreal to distinguish
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1986
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063
36

WALTER GREENWOOD

member, being re-elected in 1891 and 1894, until his resignation in 1895. It was a substantial commitment, involving fortnightly meetings and reading papers in-between meetings. Considerations of space allow reference only to certain events in 1894 and 1895 for which Francis is best known. Suffice it to say that he appeared to try to dominate the proceedings of the Board but at the same time had an ambivalent attitude to it because he considered that it did not have sufficient powers and independence to make it an effective body. For example, in March 1894 he seconded a proposal that it be reconstructed on a popular basis but also argued that that was premature until its powers had been enlarged. Prior to the election in June 1891 the Daily Press said that he had rendered good service and that his keen and ever-ready criticism, sometimes perhaps degenerating into captiousness, had exercised a wholesome influence both on the Board and its officers. The China Mail in its obituary said that he was not an unqualified success and his performance as a member of the Board might have deprived him of support for a place on the Legislative Council.

In May 1894 plague struck Hong Kong, and a Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board, comprising three members with Francis as Chairman, was set up to cope with the emergency. It met daily at his chambers at 4 p.m. Its actions were not universally popular. It was in conflict with the Government on occasion, and at one stage was said to be daggers drawn with the Governor. The business community complained that its activities had an adverse effect on commerce, and its relations with the Chinese community were not assisted by wild rumours such as that pregnant women were cut open and children's eyes were gouged out to make medicines for the treatment of the plague. There were recriminations as to whose fault had led to the outbreak and whether the right steps were taken to combat it. Francis bluntly laid the blame on gross mismanagement by the Public Works Department. Whatever the rights and wrongs of particular matters, there were many tributes to his work. The Governor in a dispatch to the Secretary of State, Lord Ripon, in June said that the Permanent Committee acted with extraordinary energy and efficiency and that the Government was indebted to him and others. The acting Attorney General paid tribute to his great assistance, at enormous sacrifice of time, and his wonderful and rapid grasp of any subject and great
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1986
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063
37

legal ability and acumen in drafting regulations for dealing with the plague and its effects. A thoughtful touch by Francis was to offer coffee and cigars to the men of the Shropshire Light Infantry who helped with plague relief. The Hong Kong Telegraph in its obituary said that he directed and controlled everything and allowed his practice to suffer in the public interest. However, in September when the emergency was over, the Daily Press attacked the Sanitary Board, saying that its springtime of promise had drifted into a moribund condition of age, and the Permanent Committee saying that it was as absolute as practically to remove all control from the executive and demonstrated the difference between representative government and amateur despotism. In October, the Colonial Surgeon, giving evidence before a Retrenchment Committee that had been set up, alleged that the Board had done very little worth doing during the last six years. So far as the unofficial members of the Board were concerned, matters continued to deteriorate, and the last straw was the proposal early in 1895 to appoint another official member, the Medical Officer of Health, to it. Francis went so far as to say that he would be a Government spy. He and two other members threatened to resign. A Chinese member, Ho Kai, expressed the hope that they would not do so because that would be playing into the hands of enemies who wished to get rid of them. Francis and another member did resign and wrote to the newspapers to explain their reasons to the ratepayers. Their resignations were followed by others. At the next meeting of the Board, the Chairman said that they had all, especially Francis, who had devoted several months of his time absolutely to the work of coping with the epidemic, rendered valuable services to the colony, and it was resolved that the thanks of the Board be conveyed to them for the assistance they had rendered during their membership, especially to Francis for his untiring zeal and energy in coping with the plague epidemic in 1894. By this time, the Governor favoured the abolition of the Board. Despite that, he held a plebiscite in 1896 to ascertain whether the community wanted an official or unofficial majority on the Board. Francis took part in the plebiscite, and by 331 votes to 31 votes, the community indicated that it wanted an unofficial majority. However, the new Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, was not prepared to countenance that or to agree to the abolition of the Board, and it was reconstituted. Elections continued to be held.
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1986
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/jq08c7063
39

one else. The general expectation was that May and Francis would be treated in the same way. However, whereas May was awarded the C.M.G., Francis was merely offered an inkstand. The discrepancy was made all the more apparent by the fact that inkstands were also awarded to a number of junior officials.

On 22 May 1895 the Governor wrote to Francis "By the direction of the Marquess of Ripon I have great pleasure in forwarding to you the accompanying handsome inkstand. You will find engraved on it the following inscription: 'Presented by the Hong Kong Government with the approval of Her Majesty's Government to J.J. Francis Esq., Q.C., Chairman of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board, in recognition of services rendered during the epidemic of bubonic plague at Hong Kong in 1894'. For those services you have already been thanked by me, and also by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In again expressing my appreciation of the work which you then performed so willingly and so ably it only remains for me now to ask you to accept this inkstand from the Government of Hong Kong as a slight recognition of your disinterested and valuable labours during the epidemic of 1894". Francis replied in a letter dated 27th May which he made public. After reviewing the work of the Permanent Committee and his part in it he said that the Public Committee felt that a medal or piece of plate, however valuable, was no sufficient acknowledgement for his services and in the circumstances it was impossible for him to accept the inkstand. He was perfectly satisfied with the thanks of the community and the Governor and Secretary of State and would have sufficient memorial of the plague year in the gold medal to be presented by his fellow citizens and in the state of his fee book. He would have been highly gratified if he had been honoured in the same way as May but the gift of an inkstand was so ludicrously inadequate to the services he had rendered that he could only conclude that the Secretary of State was under a false impression as to their nature. It was usual in England, or at least always had been, to award the honours of the campaign to the leader. He had done his work freely and voluntarily and without a thought, at the time, of anything beyond serving the colony but he now had a duty to speak out in justice to the Public Committee.
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1993
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302
130

To eradicate this focus of infection, it was resumed by the Government the following year. In the subsequent re-development, the old houses were demolished and replaced by new ones provided with windows, privies and space in front and behind as required by newly enacted legislation. Many other actions were taken to deal with the situation. The whole of Hong Kong was subjected to a thorough cleaning up. The laws related to public health were amended to impose strict measures against the Epidemic, including compulsory reporting and removal of patients. To enforce this, house-to-house search was conducted by British soldiers, against the violent objection of the Chinese community who regarded it as unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of their homes. Additional hospital facilities for the isolation of patients were hastily made and as the epidemic progressed, more had to be opened up from time to time.

Within the administration, responsibility for the health of Hong Kong was divided between the Sanitary Board and the Colonial Surgeon at that time. The membership of the Sanitary Board was as follows: the Registrar General, the equivalent of a Secretary for Chinese Affairs, as Chairman, the Surveyor General, the equivalent of a Director of Public Works, the Captain Superintendent of Police, the Colonial Surgeon, and five other members. After the Epidemic broke out, a Permanent Committee was appointed to recommend necessary legislation and bye-laws for taking vigorous action. In the post of Colonial Surgeon, the equivalent of the present-day Director of Health, was Dr. P.B.C. Ayres who had held it since 1872. Under him was Dr. J.A. Lowson, whose diary we are going to look into.

James Alfred Lowson was born in 1866. He graduated from Edinburgh University in medicine in 1888 at the age of 22. He came to Hong Kong, probably in or before 1892, because in October that year he represented Hong Kong at interport cricket in Shanghai. On the return trip, his ship, the S.S. Bokhara, was sunk off the Pescadores in a typhoon. He and one other member of the cricket team were among only twenty-five survivors out of about 150 passengers and crew on board. In 1894, at the age of 28, his posting was medical superintendent of the Government Civil Hospital, at the onset of the Epidemic. At that time, in the medical and health service, there were only three full-time medical officers, Dr. Ayres, Dr. J.M. Atkinson and Dr. Lowson, in that order of seniority, assisted by some private practitioners on a part-time basis. In the March 1st entry of his
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1993
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302
138

in the diary there were comments and criticisms of people Lowson had to deal with during the Epidemic, all being his superiors in the Government service. I will now read out the relevant entries in chronological order, with added comments, and you will hear another story which has not been told before.

May 25th

Lockhart angry because he could not get himself in the limelight He was of no assistance with the Chinese who distrusted him as the British distrusted him He was simply pushed aside by Francis and the rest His spite therefore landed on Ayres and me

Lockhart was J.H. (later Sir James) Stewart Lockhart who was Registrar General and acting Colonial Secretary at the time, also chairman of the Sanitary Board. Francis was J.J. Francis a Queen's Counsel, who was one of the five non-official members and chairman of the Permanent Committee.

May 26th

Saw Governor anent Lockhart's idiotic interference

May 29th

Francis would listen to nobody Never went to infected areas therefore did not know the difficulties and what was happening Later on he went to some hospitals where there was no danger

June 30th

Both above (Aoyama and Ishiyumi) bad Brought up Kitasato and crowd here to stay They had been fired out of the hotel so I took them all up to house and got them in a matshed Lockhart afterwards tried to curry favour by saying that he had this done but he knew nothing about it for a week and actually prepared to censure me for doing it

This needs explaining. Kitasato and his two assistants were staying at the Hong Kong Hotel. Aoyama and Ishiyumi took ill on the 28th and were removed to the Hygeia. Lowson put Kitasato up in a matshed near his house. Apparently he did not ask for Lockhart's permission and Lockhart was not pleased, but one wonders why he should for such an obvious decision and move under the circumstances.
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1993
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302
141

with some happier notes.

July 23rd

By this time we had broken down the opposition and matters began to run smoothly

And after a long gap, the final entry,

September 3rd

I left for Japan about this time spending all September in Colony In Japan the guest of the Japanese Government and made a national hero Valuable presents numerous and suite of rooms in the Imperial Hotel

This red-carpet treatment must have been recommended by Kitasato in appreciation of the help given him by Lowson in making the discovery that earned him international fame

Having read the diary, I learnt more about the situation as it developed from day to day but it came as a surprise to me that so much had gone on behind the scenes arising from clashes of personalities The three important people whose responsibility in the fight against the Epidemic was no less onerous than that of Ayres or Lowson were called: fools, cowards and nonentities. They were the Governor, who was in overall charge as head of the administration, the Colonial Secretary, who was the Governor's principal assistant, and the Chairman of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board which was set up to recommend on legislation Were the accusations justified? We do not know, but it would be interesting to find out something about these three.

Sir William Robinson was Governor of Hong Kong from December 1891 to January 1898. His governorship covered a most difficult period in the history of Hong Kong, during which 'misfortunes after misfortunes assailed the colony in swift succession', to quote from Sayers. The year 1894 was a particularly bad one for Robinson and Hong Kong. His wife died but not from plague. Two very severe typhoons struck Hong Kong in September and October, causing much devastation and many casualties. Above all, there was the Epidemic with its effect on the economy and other aspects of life in the Territory. Robinson reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that 'Without exaggeration, I may assert that so far as trade and commerce are concerned the plague has assumed the
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1993
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302
143

newspapers were to recall that 'he was an exceedingly courteous and popular official and earned the respect of all with whom he was brought into contact' all except Lowson perhaps.

John Jonathan Francis was first admitted as an attorney and solicitor in 1870 and called to the Bar in 1877. In 1887, he became the third barrister in Hong Kong to become a Queen's Counsel. He had served as a police magistrate and a puisne judge. For public service, he was once a captain in the Hong Kong Volunteers Corps, standing counsel for the Hong Kong College of Medicine when it was being established, and Chairman of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board. There is an amusing and unflattering story about him told by Norton-Kyshe which gives us an insight into his character. He was presented with a silver ink-stand in 1895 in recognition of his services during the Epidemic but he returned it because he considered himself slighted by the treatment he received as compared with Mr. May who had been his colleague on the Committee.' May was awarded the CMG which Francis thought should also be given to him instead of a mere ink-stand.

However, two other government officials, the Colonial Surgeon and the Captain Superintendent of Police, whose parts were of great importance, apparently escaped Lowson's wrath. Dr. Phineas Ayres held the office for twenty-four years, from 1872 to 1897, the longest ever in the history of the medical service. After he took up his post, he had been very critical of the sanitary conditions in the native quarters in his annual reports. Despite his warnings, it was almost ten years later than Osbert Chadwick was asked to conduct a survey. In his Report published in 1882, Chadwick made many recommendations to improve the conditions. Although a Sanitary Board was constituted to take action, still not much was done for another ten years until the Plague Epidemic burst upon the scene. Endacott wrote that Ayres criticised the Sanitary Board for its 'long, wordy, windy, desultory rambling discussions, ending in nothing being done' in 1895, the second year of the Epidemic. One can see why Lowson had some respect for him. Again quoting from Endacott, Robinson described Ayres as 'having a rather foolish manner, but he is in perfect possession of his senses', and acknowledged that 'he had warned the Colony continuously of the evil sanitary conditions.'

Mr. May won universal acclaim and admiration for the drive and energy he showed in carrying out his duties as head of the police force. Sayers
================================================================================