have not come to a final decision on the matter considering it is worth examining the outcome of these papers.
This letter is numbered 13692. The Foreign Office view is that any appreciable acquisition of new territory will lead to corresponding action by foreign governments.
The Governor's telegram of yesterday's date, 13777, sends a further protest from the Viceroy of Canton and awaits instructions from home.
I have seen the Governor's telegram of 26 May - already numbered 13478. In it, he states the Governor's preference for the river boundary is the boundary already delimited, but adds that he does not see how we can now retire from Sham Chun.
In his telegram 13623, he refers to para. 3 of his confidential despatch of 28 April, in which he has reported again in favour of the river boundary, and he said the same in his telegram of 9 May, 12913. The despatch of 28 April should be read, numbered 9128, and also a public despatch of 28 April - 13622, which gives a clear and interesting account of what has taken place, and also a despatch of 27 April, 13620, enclosing the views of the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce.
It seems to me eminently desirable that a final decision should be given as soon as possible.
Here are some of the suggestions made on our side:
(a) that the whole Sham Chun valley should be taken.
(b) that the lease of 99 years be prolonged or upgraded into a freehold.
(c) that Chinese jurisdiction shall disappear from the City of Kowloon.
(d) that money compensation shall be demanded from the Viceroy of Canton.
(e) that this shall be demanded and that the new Viceroy shall have a British adviser.
It is not quite easy to follow exactly what has taken place in order to assess the case against the Chinese, though there is a case, but I must confess that it does not seem to me a very strong one. They look to have rights or strong claims.
Page 363