6
Ses
magnificent harbours which were capable of development, and which, if developed, would prove either a valuable adjunct or an unpleasant rival to Hong Kong.
It is, of course, quite clear and I think
fully appreciated by the Foreign Office that Hong
King and the New Territories stand or fall together,
and that there can be no question of giving up the
latter if we are to retain the former. Opinion in
the Fighting Services is now inclined to recognise the immense strategic importance of Hong Kong, and it
is unthinkable that we should ever consent to return
it or the New Territories to China. In these
need
circumstances, we now have no hesitation in authorising
Sir C. Clementi to go ahead with the development of
the leased area provided, of course, that he refrains
from any public pronouncement on the subject. Indeed,
the more fully the leased area is developed and the
more closely its life becomes interlocked with that
of Hong Kong, the stronger will be our case for its
retention if and when the issue arises.
The question of the form of lease to be given
is, however, more difficult. It must be expected that
legal opinion will take the view that a lease cannot be
beiod
granted fora longer than the title of the lessor, and
that if the New "erritories are only ceded for 69
more years Hong Kong can only grant leases running
for those 69 years. The question really resolves
itself into whether political outweigh legal
considerations.
As regards the former:
(a) Sir ^. Clementi made it clear that private
owners would not sink money in development if they
had no security of continuin g beyond the 69 years
now