CONT
(F 1925, 154, 10,
F.0. 48/15.
CHINESE EMBASSY,
London, W. 1.
5th February, 1948.
Your Excellency,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's note dated January 24th, 1948, concerning the recent evictions of Chinese residents from the City of Kowloon and, under instructions from my Government, to send to you the following reply:
The Chinese Government wishes to state that in regard to jurisdiction over the City of Kowloon, it has consistently adhered to the interpretation it has adopted of the Peking Convention of 1898, namely, that the City of Kowloon is expressly reserved to Chinese jurisdiction. TMs interpretation is borne out not only by the wording of the said Convention but also by referencë to the other treaties concluded in the same year which form the bases of other leased territories.
Su reference is justified inasmuch as the arrangement of reserving a special zone connected with each of the leased territories to Chinese jurisdiction formed a part of general Chinese policy and was not confined to Kowloon. It will be found
.g. that expression is given to this policy in Article 1 of the Sino-German Convention of March 6th 1898 regarding Kiacohow, and Article 4 of the Additional Agreement between China and Russia of May 7th 1898 regarding the Liaotung Peninsula, which latter provides specifically that "The administration and polies of the City of King how shall be Chinese".
It is true that the relevant provision in the Peking Convention regarding Kowloon speaks of "Chinese officials now stationed there" and requires them to exercise their jurisdiotich in a manner consistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hongkong. But the few words just quoted cannot logically be taken to mean only the persons then holding office in the City and not to include all their successors.
Moreover, nowhere in the Convention regarding Kowloon is there to be found any provision for the withdrawal of the Chinese officials in any circumstances in spite of the condition relative to military requirements. On the contrary the stipulation that "within the remainder of the newly-leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdiction' necessarily implies that within the city of Kowloon Great Britain is not empowered to exercise such jurisdiction.
#
In regard to your statement that the Hongkong Government have exercised uninterruptedly since 1899 sole jurisdiction over the City of Kowloon, except for the period of Japanese Occupation, I must recall to you certain important facta which cannot have escaped from your attention. In the first place, the Chinese officials withdrew from the City of Kowloon and ceased to exercise jurisdiction there in 1899 only when they were compelled by force of arms to do so, and it was done und er protest. Secondly, ever since then the Chinese Government hee
/ not
The Rt. Hon. Ernest Bevin,
eto.,
etc., etc.,
Foreign Office,
8.7.1.