the New Territories of which the walled city was in the
pre-cession era the Chinese administrative centre. Only
this year there had been suggested in Nanking the
possibility of the appointment of a Chinese Magistrate in
the Leased Territories and in Macao, though this had not
been pursued. It showed clearly, however, the direction
in which Chinese thought tended, and there was no question
that the eventual rendition of Hong Kong itself was
eagerly desired.
Sir J. Pratt said that there were two questions
to be considered:
first, the rights of the individuals
concerned in the eviction, and secondly, the Chinese claim
to jurisdiction in the city of Kowloon. He thought it
was clear that the individuals had no legal case and no
grievance, but with regard to the claim to jurisdiction
he was doubtful whether we were not legally in the wrong.
The Foreign Office legal advisers had considered it
possible that if the case were taken to the Permanent
Court of International Justice, the Chinese Government
might win.
Mr. Cowell pointed out that the Chinese had
acquiesced for thirty-eight years in the essential fact
that Kowloon city had been subject to the jurisdiction
of the Hong Kong Government and he considered it
impossible after this lapse of time to admit the Chinese
claim to Chinese jurisdiction.
Sir A. Caldecott