6
precedents to show that displacement of the
inhabitents with proper compensation for the
purpose of constructing public works has not
been hitherto regarded as an infringement of the
letter or the spirit of the Convention.
I would reply to the Foreign Office
that it is observed that the Acting Consul
General has asked the Governor for his observa-
tions on a protest by the Provincial authority
at Canton which appears to be based on the
special provision for Kowloon City contained
in the third paragraph of the Convention of
1898: refer to the Foreign Office Note to the
Chinese Minister of 30th May, 1899, and say that
as far as the Secretary of State is aware there
has been no question since that date of with- drawing from the policy then adopted, and that the Governor no doubt assumed in the reply which
1 he gave to Sir M. Lampson as reported in No.
that the protest of the Nanking Government was
based on the same provision in the Convention.
Add that it appears possible to the
Secretary of State that the Chinese may base a claim to protest on the ground of infringement of
the understanding contained in the sixth
paragraph of the Convention, which relates to the leased territory in general, but that since other
works of a public character involving a
disturbance of villagers with proper compensa-
tion e.g. the large scheme of water conservation in the Shing Mun Valley in the New Territories
are being and have in the past been undertaken without any similar protest from the Chinese
authorities the Secretary of State is not of
the