2026-10-01

The Kennedy Town Glassworks Hospital A Chinese-managed plague hospital in the 1894 Hong Kong epidemic: opening, crisis, removals and afterlife

 

The Kennedy Town Glassworks Hospital

A Chinese-managed plague hospital in the 1894 Hong Kong epidemic: opening, crisis, removals and afterlife

Histsyn· Independent research
Compiled 1 October 2026 · Endnotes and bibliography after the text

Abstract

Among the improvised facilities of the 1894 Hong Kong plague, the Glassworks Hospital (堅尼地城玻璃廠) at Kennedy Town is unusual in the documentary record: its opening on 21 May 1894 is confirmed by two independent documents — the Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894 and the Colonial Office file on the plague measures — while nearly every operational date of its brief life rests on the Medical Report alone. The hospital was placed under Chinese management; its hygiene deteriorated until the report’s author could describe it as a near “certain death trap”; on 7 June an offer of European medical takeover was refused by the Permanent Committee; by 16 June the patients were gone and the place was shut up. This study reconstructs that life from the full-text corpus, flags every single-witness item, and registers the one unresolved statistical dispute (1898) that the hospital’s name still carries.

Keywords: Kennedy Town; Glassworks Hospital; bubonic plague of 1894; Hong Kong; plague hospitals; Hygeia; Tung Wah; removals to Canton; Sanitary Board

1 Scope, sources, method

This study reconstructs the life of one temporary plague hospital of the 1894 epidemic: the Glassworks Hospital at Kennedy Town — its opening, its Chinese-managed regime, the June crisis that brought an unsuccessful offer of European medical takeover, its closure in mid-June, the removals of its patients to Canton, and its afterlife in the 1898 Sanitary Board debates.1 No primary artefact — plan, photograph or drawing — was available to the study; every structural statement is therefore absent by design, and the account rests on the documentary record.

The method followed the workspace protocol: corpus inventory before phrase queries; exact-phrase queries in English and Chinese; full-document retrieval for anything quoted; two-witness triangulation for load-bearing claims, with single-witness items flagged and unresolved conflicts carried into the register (§9).2 Every corpus-derived claim is citable as index, document_key or doc id, and access date.

The corpus (hkintexts_pages) holds seven series — Government Gazette (1,480 pages), Daily Press (1,245), China Mail (1,221), Hongkong Telegraph (1,204), Executive Council (387), Foreign Office 40 (101) and LegCo Hansard (17). The 1894 stratum is English-majority; Chinese-language material is modern. Discovery queries returned 99 hits for “glassworks” and 19 for “glassworks hospital”; a gazette-series search for the word returns only the Medical Report itself and unrelated items — there is no separate Gazette notification announcing the hospital.3

2 The plague crisis and the search for hospital space

The epidemic that broke out in Taipingshan in May 1894 forced the government to improvise an isolation system far beyond the Government Civil Hospital. Temporary plague hospitals appeared in converted buildings, and a harbour component was added by converting the excursion steamer Hygeia into a plague hospital ship — the Colonial Office file on the Tung Wah deputation shows patients on the Hygeia being negotiated between facilities,4 and the Medical Report describes the ship’s subsequent regime and closure.5

The Glassworks at Kennedy Town became one of the “Chinese Hospitals” of this system: buildings placed under Chinese management for the treatment of plague patients by Chinese methods, with the Government supplying the premises and the Tung Wah apparatus running the interior. A modern community chronology records — in a single line — that the government converted the Kennedy Town Glassworks and the Police Station into temporary plague hospitals;6 the police-station identification with the “Kennedytown Hospital” of the Medical Report is an inference, not a documented equation (§9).

3 Opening the Glassworks Hospital, 21 May 1894

The hospital’s opening is the one date in this study confirmed by two independent documents. The Medical Report records: “On 21st May, the Glassworks Hospital was opened and this relieved our staff to a certain extent.”7 The Colonial Office file records the same event from the administrative side: “On the 21st of May the Glassworks Hospital having been opened, Sergeant PHELPS and P. C. COLLETT were sent there from the Tung Wa Hospital to register the admissions of patients, regulate the admissions of visitors, and supervise the coffining of the dead and arrange for their punctual removal for burial.”8 A 1898 press account of the Sanitary Board also quotes the report’s opening line, but as a quotation of the same document it does not count as a third witness.9

The building was soon in trouble. Lowson continues: “The hygiene of this hospital however caused us a great deal of trouble, and it was only by the occasional employment of extreme measures that this place was prevented from becoming a certain death trap to every one who entered it.”1011 On 28 May “the ventilation of the Glassworks had to be improved by removing all the glass from the windows”;12 two Alice Memorial Hospital students had been engaged on 27 May to look after its sanitation; on 31 May it was discovered that those students “had fled from the Glassworks, some of their relatives having unfortunately died” — army orderlies were seconded on 8 June and naval staff arrived on 9 June, after which “improvement in the condition of that place at once took place.”13 All operational detail in this paragraph rests on the Medical Report alone (§9).

4 Chinese management and the June crisis

The interior regime was Chinese. “The Commissariat of the Chinese Hospitals at the Glassworks and at the Slaughter House Hospital was in charge of the Chinese themselves. In the Glassworks the food was principally used by the attendants, the patients not requiring very much or when receiving it receiving what was unsuitable.”14

The crisis came to a head on 7 June: “On the 7th June I offered to take charge of the whole of the nursing and medical department, an offer made because the Chinese had mismanaged (medically and sanitarily) the Glassworks Hospital; and also because we had been promised assistance, in the way of attendants by Major-General BARKER” — and “the Permanent Committee said ‘no.’”15 The offer and its refusal rest on Lowson’s account alone; no Chinese-side reply survives in the corpus. The press climate around these weeks was ferocious: the China Mail’s editorial of 6 July 1894, after “a careful perusal of the whole of the published correspondence between the Government and the Permanent Committee”, attacked the Government over the Lai-chi-kok Hospital proposal and the removal of plague patients to Canton as a step which would establish “an ineradicable plague spot in the immediate neighbourhood of the Colony.”16

5 The wider hospital system

The Glassworks sat inside a lattice of improvised facilities which the Medical Report inventories: the Government Civil Hospital; the Hygeia (hospital ship, closed 8 August with its two European patients transferred to the Civil Hospital); the Glassworks Hospital; the Slaughter House Hospital (opened 8 June, “a building well suited for the occasion, with brick walls, concrete floors”); the Kennedytown Hospital; Kennedytown Barracks; and the matsheds — one erected opposite the Glassworks, opened 17 June under Alice Memorial supervision and closed 21 July, “the experiment having proved rather expensive”, and a convalescent matshed at Kennedytown removed piecemeal by the September and October typhoons.17

Into this system, a Tung Wah deputation accompanied by the Registrar-General waited on the Governor. The petition’s surviving points were: that house-to-house visitation should cease; that sick persons be allowed to return to their own country; that “the patients on the Hygeia should be sent to the Glassworks Hospital”; and that all sick persons should be sent there.18 The enclosure carrying the account is a Daily Press clipping dated 23 May 1894 which places the meeting “yesterday afternoon” — the deputation date of 22 May is therefore inferred, not independently confirmed (§9).

6 Removals to Canton and the legislative row

At the outset, plague patients were not allowed to leave the Colony; after “much pressure was brought to bear upon the Government”, a junk system was established. The legislative evidence puts it plainly: “It is established as a regular system to allow Chinese who have got the plague to go away from the Colony if they wish to.”19 Removals from the Glassworks to Canton were part of this system: “When removals to Canton from the Glassworks Hospital were first sanctioned, it was understood that a great number of patients wanted to be removed thence.”20

The numbers are Lowson’s and are flagged as such: “When asked by us, out of over 220 patients only 7 wished to go. Of the former number I considered about 130 to be in a fit condition to be asked the question… Of the 7 who wished to go only 3 were actually suffering from plague, the remainder being their attendants. On the following morning at 11 o’clock of the 220 whose wishes had been consulted 70 were dead, 112 wanted to go to Canton, whilst the others were too ill to be able to formulate an opinion.”21

The legislative row is preserved in the same evidence: Dr. Atkinson refused the principle of Government medical certificates for removal — “suffering from a disease like the plague practically precludes removal from a medical point of view” — against Mr. Thurburn’s insistence that a wealthy Chinaman who “wants to be buried with his own people” should be allowed to go; the evidence also records the Chinese beliefs that “their eyes would be gouged out in the Hongkong hospitals” and the objection to burial with quicklime.22 The China Mail editorial of 6 July gives the press side of the same controversy.23

7 Aftermath, disinfection and afterlives

The Glassworks Hospital’s active life was short. “By Saturday, June 16th, all the patients in the Glassworks had been removed to Canton or to the Slaughter House Hospital and the place was shut up” — a single-witness date (§9).24 Disinfection followed the epidemic’s standard: “carbolic acid and quicklime applied to the walls; all wooden floors being removed and burnt, and the refuse added to the flames.”25

The hospital returned to public argument in 1898, when the Sanitary Board debated a Chinese branch hospital. The Board’s President produced figures: mortality among the Chinese “in 1894… when the native doctors were allowed full scope was 93.4 per cent., in 1898 when the treatment was entirely in the hands of the Medical Department it was 74 per cent” — stated figures, second-hand statistics, flagged (§9).26 In the same debate Mr May’s claim that “the day after the opening of the Glassworks Hospital the number of cases which came to the notice of the authority was 50 a day whilst it was 25 before” was publicly challenged: the President could not find that the report substantiates it, having “could not find any statistics in the Sanitary Board offices which bore that out”, and asked Mr May for “dates and figures”.27 The Daily Press report of the same meeting carries the same exchange28 — the dispute itself is confirmed by two independent newspapers; the statistic remains unresolved (§9).

The site’s afterlife is municipal: the Kennedy Town community chronology sets the conversion of 1894 alongside the opening of the Tung Wah Infectious Diseases Hospital in Sai Wan in 1901 and the removal of the gasholder to Kennedy Town in 1936;29 Welsh’s history preserves the memory of the “temporary hospital inside the Kennedy Town glassworks” amid the trench burials and the Governor’s bafflement at Chinese fears.30

8 The evidence base and what it cannot tell

The record is one official report deep. Every operational date in this study — the ventilation work, the flight of the students, the takeover offer, the 16 June closure, the disinfection — rests on the Medical Report alone. Two independent documents confirm the opening date, the Hygeia’s role, the Canton-removal system, and the 1898 dispute; everything else is single-witness and flagged (§9).31

What the corpus cannot tell: there is no separate Gazette notification establishing the hospital (documented negative); no architectural plans, site surveys or capacity figures were found in any query; no Chinese-side account of the June crisis survives in the corpus; and the modern sources carry no external_url, so they are cited by corpus provenance only. The identification of the “Kennedytown Hospital” with the Police Station of the community chronology is an inference (§9).32

9 Evidence register: conflicts and gaps

ClaimWitness AWitness BStatus
Glassworks Hospital opened 21 May 1894Medical Report, 13 Apr 1895, p.28CO129-270, ¶12, p.408confirmed
Hygeia served as plague hospital; patients negotiated between facilitiesCO129-263, Enclosure 2, 23 May 1894, p.185Medical Report (29 May; closed 8 Aug)confirmed
Junk-removal system established after initial refusalLegCo evidence, 1895, p.632Medical Report reprint, 1896, p.721confirmed
1898: Mr May’s 25→50/day claim publicly challengedWeekly Press, 23 Apr 1898, p.11Daily Press, 20 Apr 1898, p.2confirmed (dispute)
16 June 1894 closure; 28 May ventilation; 31 May flight of students; 7 June offer refused; commissariat; disinfection; matshed datesMedical Report alone—single-witness
Canton-removal survey (7 of 220; next morning 70 dead, 112 wished to go)Lowson’s account, 1896, p.721—single-witness
1898 President’s mortality figures (93.4% vs 74%)President’s statement, second-hand statistics—single-witness
Police Station also converted (modern chronology)堅人見誌, p.3—single-witness; identification = inference
Mr May’s statistic itself (25→50/day)Mr May at the 1898 BoardPresident: “could not find any statistics… which bore that out”disputed, unresolved

Documented negative: no separate Gazette notification establishing the hospital exists in the corpus — a gazette-series search for “glassworks” returns only the Medical Report itself and unrelated items. Bracketed gaps: the deputation date (inferred at 22 May); no plans, surveys or capacity figures; no Chinese-side account of the June crisis; hygiene-wording variance between printings (“extreme” vs “severe”).3334

Notes

  1. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894” (attributed to Dr. James Lowson, Medical Department), The Hongkong Government Gazette, Notification No. 146, 13 April 1895, pp. 28–30 and passim, https://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkgro/view/g1895/641647.pdf (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, index hkintexts_pages, document_key = 641647-1895-Medical-Report-on-the-Epidemic-of-Bubonic-Hague-in-1894 (the corpus key spells “Hague”), doc ids 1643968, 1643941, 1643969.
  2. ↑The complete Elasticsearch query log (labels, indices, queries, hit counts) is given in Appendix A of the companion report. All queries were run read-only on October 1, 2026; the corpus key of the Medical Report spells “Hague” for “Plague” — a catalogue-era OCR artefact preserved verbatim in the provenance strings.
  3. ↑The complete Elasticsearch query log (labels, indices, queries, hit counts) is given in Appendix A of the companion report. All queries were run read-only on October 1, 2026; the corpus key of the Medical Report spells “Hague” for “Plague” — a catalogue-era OCR artefact preserved verbatim in the provenance strings.
  4. ↑CO129-263 — Acting Governor Barker / Governor Sir Robinson, 1894 [5–8]: Enclosure 2 in The Daily Press, 23 May 1894 (the Tung Wah deputation and petition), CO129 Colonial Office Original Correspondence, p. 185. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, index hkintexts_pages, doc id 354451, accessed October 1, 2026.
  5. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  6. ↑長春社文化古蹟資源中心 (Conservancy Association Centre for Heritage), “堅人見誌——堅尼地城社區歷史回憶” [Kennedy Town community chronology], Research Publications, p. 3. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 3186124, accessed October 1, 2026.
  7. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  8. ↑CO129-270 — Public Offices & Others, 1895 (report on plague measures, ¶12), CO129 Colonial Office Original Correspondence, p. 408. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, index hkintexts_pages, doc id 359637, accessed October 1, 2026.
  9. ↑“The Plague in Hongkong” (Sanitary Board proceedings, 1898), Hongkong Weekly Press and China Overland Trade Report, 23 April 1898, p. 11, https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk/c/portal/cover?c=QF757YsWv58nnhVW9GJlUERCe44G7zno (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 2158294.
  10. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  11. ↑The Gazette printing reads “extreme measures”; the Weekly Press quotation of the same passage reads “severe measures” — a variance between printings. The Gazette form is quoted here; the weekly-paper reading is recorded in its issue of 23 April 1898, p. 11.
  12. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  13. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  14. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  15. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  16. ↑China Mail, editorial, 6 July 1894, p. 2, https://sls.hkpl.gov.hk/digital-collection/tc/contentcoverpage.html?catalogueId=1b7c426f9cb711ef9c2 (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 1909532.
  17. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  18. ↑CO129-263, Enclosure 2 in The Daily Press, 23 May 1894, p. 185 (doc id 354451).
  19. ↑Hongkong Legislative Council, Sessional Papers 1895: evidence of Dr. Atkinson, Mr. Thurburn and Mr. McConachie, p. 632, https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/08618741c (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 1818063.
  20. ↑Sessional Papers 1896: Medical Report reprint — Canton-removal survey, p. 721, https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bn99gt45j (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 1818785.
  21. ↑Sessional Papers 1896, p. 721 (doc id 1818785).
  22. ↑Sessional Papers 1895, p. 632 (doc id 1818063).
  23. ↑China Mail, 6 July 1894, p. 2 (doc id 1909532).
  24. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  25. ↑“Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894,” 13 April 1895 (doc ids 1643968, 1643969).
  26. ↑Hongkong Weekly Press, 23 April 1898, p. 11 (doc id 2158294).
  27. ↑Hongkong Weekly Press, 23 April 1898, p. 11 (doc id 2158294).
  28. ↑Daily Press, 20 April 1898, p. 2, https://sls.hkpl.gov.hk/digital-collection/tc/contentcoverpage.html?catalogueId=1c1a33b19c (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 2215634.
  29. ↑堅人見誌 community chronology, p. 3 (doc id 3186124).
  30. ↑Frank Welsh, 香港史——從鴉片戰爭到殖民終結 [A History of Hong Kong], 2016 ed., p. 9. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 3186204, accessed October 1, 2026.
  31. ↑The full evidence register — confirmed pairs, single-witness items, the 1898 mortality figures and the unresolved Mr May statistic — is tabulated in §9 and in the companion report, kennedy-town-glassworks-hospital-1894-plague_report.md, §9.
  32. ↑The complete Elasticsearch query log (labels, indices, queries, hit counts) is given in Appendix A of the companion report. All queries were run read-only on October 1, 2026; the corpus key of the Medical Report spells “Hague” for “Plague” — a catalogue-era OCR artefact preserved verbatim in the provenance strings.
  33. ↑The Gazette printing reads “extreme measures”; the Weekly Press quotation of the same passage reads “severe measures” — a variance between printings. The Gazette form is quoted here; the weekly-paper reading is recorded in its issue of 23 April 1898, p. 11.
  34. ↑The complete Elasticsearch query log (labels, indices, queries, hit counts) is given in Appendix A of the companion report. All queries were run read-only on October 1, 2026; the corpus key of the Medical Report spells “Hague” for “Plague” — a catalogue-era OCR artefact preserved verbatim in the provenance strings.

Bibliography

  • “Medical Report on the Epidemic of Bubonic Plague in 1894” (attributed to Dr. James Lowson, Medical Department). The Hongkong Government Gazette, Notification No. 146, 13 April 1895. https://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkgro/view/g1895/641647.pdf (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, index hkintexts_pages, document_key = 641647-1895-Medical-Report-on-the-Epidemic-of-Bubonic-Hague-in-1894, doc ids 1643968, 1643941, 1643969.
  • CO129-263 — Acting Governor Barker / Governor Sir Robinson, 1894 [5–8]: Enclosure 2 in The Daily Press, 23 May 1894. CO129 Colonial Office Original Correspondence, p. 185. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 354451.
  • CO129-270 — Public Offices & Others, 1895: report on plague measures. CO129 Colonial Office Original Correspondence, p. 408. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 359637.
  • Hongkong Legislative Council. Sessional Papers 1895: evidence of Dr. Atkinson, Mr. Thurburn and Mr. McConachie, p. 632. https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/08618741c (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 1818063.
  • Sessional Papers 1896: Medical Report reprint — Canton-removal survey, p. 721. https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bn99gt45j (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 1818785.
  • “The Plague in Hongkong” (Sanitary Board proceedings, 1898). Hongkong Weekly Press and China Overland Trade Report, 23 April 1898, p. 11. https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk/c/portal/cover?c=QF757YsWv58nnhVW9GJlUERCe44G7zno (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 2158294.
  • Daily Press, 20 April 1898, p. 2. https://sls.hkpl.gov.hk/digital-collection/tc/contentcoverpage.html?catalogueId=1c1a33b19c (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 2215634.
  • China Mail, editorial, 6 July 1894, p. 2. https://sls.hkpl.gov.hk/digital-collection/tc/contentcoverpage.html?catalogueId=1b7c426f9cb711ef9c2 (accessed October 1, 2026). Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 1909532.
  • 長春社文化古蹟資源中心 (Conservancy Association Centre for Heritage). “堅人見誌——堅尼地城社區歷史回憶” [Kennedy Town community chronology]. Research Publications, p. 3. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 3186124.
  • Welsh, Frank. 香港史——從鴉片戰爭到殖民終結 [A History of Hong Kong]. 2016 ed., p. 9. Retrieved via hkintexts Elasticsearch, doc id 3186204.

All URLs accessed October 1, 2026. Full corpus provenance (index, document_key, doc ids) is embedded in the entries above; the query log is at Appendix A of the companion report.

at