CODE 18-77
Reference
6.
CONFIDENTIAL
Commanding.... The civil population within the City of Kowloon, amounting to 200, lives there simply because it is dependent on the military. It does not engage in trade, there being no shops of any kind within the city. If the military remove from the city, the civil population is sure to follow, so there will be no one remaining over whom a Chinese officer could exercise jurisdiction."
Disturbances broke out in various parts of the leased territory, and there was suspicion of Chinese complicity (page 129, item No 120). The Chinese acknowledged that they
had sent 600 troops into the leased territory "to preserve order". (See page 130, item No 123.) The Chinese denied complicity, but agreed that 300 Chinese troops had been sent to Kowloon,
maintaining that this was at the request of the Hong Kong Government that order should be maintained in the district (page 139, enclosure to item No 136).
7.
We proceeded to occupy Kowloon City in May 1899 (page 159, item No 160). The Chinese protested (page 160, item No 164). On 30 May 1899 we sent the Chinese a Note (page 211, enclosure to item No 177). This referred to the disturbances which had taken place in various parts of the leased territory and explained why we had been forced to take action ourselves within the territory, including the City of Kowloon. The Note included the following
8.
"In view of the fact that the Chinese Government do not hold themselves responsible for attacks by local mobs on British troops, the obligation falls upon Her Majesty's Government of performing the duty which is usually performed by the Sovereign of the country, but which the Chinese Government decline. After the recent experience which they have had, not only of the worthlessness of the protection extended by the Chinese Garrison at Kowloon but of the additional danger involved in its presence, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to allow the resumption of Chinese authority within the walls of that city".
After enquiring whether, if they paid an indemnity, our troops would be withdrawn from Kowloon City (page 287, enclosure 1 to No 207) the Chinese again protested about our occupation of the city (page 310, enclosure to No 231). In our Note to the Chinese of 24 October 1899 we said that it was impossible to allow the resumption of jurisdiction by the Chinese authorities in Kowloon City. There were further Chinese protests, but we decided not to reply to them (page 373, item No 282).
9.
Study of the diplomatic correspondence after 1899 about the walled city would be needed to reach firm conclusions about our position in international law. I have, for example, seen it stated that there was an active correspondence with the Chinese
/from
CONFIDENTIAL