(2)
(19) on 54145/46.
(73) on 54145/46
which would be beyond our frontier, but it is the actual
physical proximity along the border of the densely populated
city of Kowloon etc., etc.
蟹
Sir Mark Young went on to consider whether any other
boundary line could be drawn. "It has been suggested that we
might offer to give up, before the termination of the lease,
that portion of the New Territories which lies beyond the
boundary of 'New Kowloon', retaining by agreement with the
Chinese Goverment the whole of Kowloon City and the area
described in Section 39(b) of the Interpretation Ordinance
as 'hew Kowloon', together with certain of the New
Territories Islands. " Sir Mark Young'e conclusion was that
there was a strong probability that such a proposal would
not satisfy the Chinese Goverment.
In Sir Horace Seymour's reply, dated 20 May, 1946, the
following oo urs:- "If the present situstion proves
impossible to maintain, there are some attractions about the
suggestion for the rendition of the New Territories, subject
to safeguards, suggested in para raph 40 of the Foreign Office
paper. But it is doubtful whether the Chinese would be
willing to deal with the New Territories apart from the
Colony.
In any event the usual Chinese technique would
be to take what they could get as a first instalment
towards the attainment of their full object." of the suggested
safeguarda Sir Morace wrote "the safeguards suggested in
the Foreign Office paper might work, though there would be
reduction of efficiency if Anglo-Chinese boards of management
had to be introduced. The Chinese members would also be
subject to party pressure, but that is inevitable.
尊
3. In November 1946 a joint Colonial office - Foreign
Office Memorandum on "The future of Hong Kong" was prepared
for the F.E.(0) Committee.
Annexure II to this contains
conditions