See 14,19 & 20.
- the above file
We mak
extomed at
(1) ∞ 33744/34,
were of the opinion that military necessity made
the continuation of British jurisdiction in the City
essential to the defence of Hong Kong.
From the point of view of the Colonial Government
the continuation of British jurisdiction is not so much
a matter of military as of administrative necessity.
The old City of Kowloon is now an integral part of the wewe han
Kowloon sa, which, again, is part and parcel of
Hong Kong. It is a city of large buildings with Y
military and naval establishments and contains, also,
the chief docks and the terminus station of the Canton
Railway. It appears impossible that an administration
enclave under foreign jurisdiction, should be allowed
in the middle of an area which is essentially all part
of the Port of Hong Kong. Quite apart from any
question of military necessity, though I presume the
same arguments as were expressed in 1934 still apply,
[unless they can be avoided by a gentleman's agreement
De
with the Chinese Government, as suggested by the
Ambassador in (12) on this file such an enclave would
present an impossible problem in everyday administra-
tion. The case of Weihaiwes which the Ambassador
quotes does not seem to me to present any parallel,
since it was a small town in a rural area whose total
population amounted to less than 200,000.
I do not know quite what the legal position is.
The Foreign Office and the Ambassador have doubts as
to our
legal rights and consider that if the case
went to the Hague it might well be decided against us.
I presume that we should do everything possible to
prevent the case being referred to the P.C.I.J. since
a decision against us there might have most serious
shouted
wwwmg effects on British prestige in China. I mean that
our right to alter the terms of an international
Convention by unilateral action is, to say the least,
Page 10Page 11