Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 269

185 (9)

the slightest suspicion among the unofficial Members of Council that the changes proposed were other than as described by that learned gentleman and that they were satisfied with his statement that "the substance of the law remained entirely unchanged ".

49. It may be argued that if the three words added to the 1901 Ordinance were so oppressive, how is it that no serious complaints were made until after the section containing them was re-embodied in the 1903 Ordinance.

50. The reason is not far to seek. The 1899 and 1901 Ordinances contain- ed succeeding clauses which provided that houses built after the enactment of these Ordinances could dispense with back yards if they had a lane of a certain width in the rear. Old houses having a certain open space at the rear could and Mr. Turner's did obtain exemption from providing back yards.

51. In fact at these periods the Government encouraged landlords to provide lanes in lieu of back yards but in the Health Ordinance of 1903 the succeeding and modifying clauses contained in the 1899 and 1901 Ordinances were entirely deleted with disastrous results to property owners.

52. Houses completed at the end of 1902 or the beginning of 1903 passed by the Sanitary Board and the Building Authority as being built in accordance with the law and which in fact were the very creatures of the law (being built more or less under the direct encouragement and advice of the Government who sold land in lots to suit blocks of houses of a certain height, width and depth and of a design with which they were perfectly familiar) were condemned as illegal,

53. Lanes were no longer to be encouraged as against back yards and lanes privately owned are not allowed to count as open space. Even public roads fifty feet or more in width are not allowed to count as open spaces and under sub- section 2, it would seem that a building with a wide public road back and front is considered far more insanitary than one with only one frontage. If the effect of all this were not so serious, it would be ludicrous.

54. For instance, we would remind Your Excellency of the case of the present building of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, which at any moment might under the terms of the Ordinance be called upon to provide an open space as a back yard in the rear (ie., on the North side) although open from Des Vœux Road to the Kowloon Peninsula.

55. Over and above all, the Government have lately been advised by its legal adviser that under section 175 the Sanitary Board has only power to recommend modifications and not exemption from the section. The sole remain- ing safeguard of property owners was thus swept away with results which have temporarily if not permanently jeopardised the progress and prosperity of the Colony.

evidence. Page 2598.

56. The Sanitary Department is carrying on a more vigorous campaign: than ever as regards the enforcement of this section (175) notwithstanding that such enforcement would, in many cases, appear to be illegal by the ignoring of the proviso contained in section 268 of the Ordinance.

57. Land is the foundation of all prosperity and any legislation which lessens its security of tenure (as section 175 does) must be disastrous to the community affected by it and in the end to the Government itself which cannot separate its interests from the community it governs.

58.

We are of opinion that section 175 of this Ordinance requires to completely revised and that compensation should be given under sub-section

In recommending the introduction of a drastic law for the abolition of cubicles or sub-divisions of the floors of the Chinese tenement the advisers of the Government apparently did not study the question thoro or fully realise the effect of the legislation they proposed. This is evidenced the passing of Ordinance 23 of 1903 and the numerous minutes, which have been written, suggesting modifications.