not only never renounced its jurisdiction over the area concerned, but also has on more than one occasion taken serious exception to the attempted assumption by the Hongkong Government of such jurisdiction. Reference is made in particular to the plan which was formulated by the Chinese Government in 1946 for resuming its administration in Kowloon City, which was temporarily shelved only out of consideration to the friendly relations between our two countries. It may point out that, while the Hongkong Goverment in a statement issued at the time by the Governor of Hongkong, questioned the right of the Chinese Government to reestablish administration of authority in Kowloon City, the spokesman of the Waichiaopu lost no time in refuting that statement.
As soon as word was received last December that the Hongkong Government contemplated the eviction of Chinese residents from Kowloon City and the demolition of their dwellings, the Chinese Government repeatedly requested the British Embassy in Nanking to warn the Hongkong Government against the employment of coercive measures, the consequence of which, it was thought, might be serious. It is most regrettable that this warning was not heeded and that the Hongkong Government showed no scruples in resorting to forcible action both on January fifth and on January twelfth. On the latter occasion, a large contingent of armed police, equipped with shields, steel helmets and firearms, and accompanied by a group of workmen, went into the Kowloon City, and, by firing on the residents before the use was made of tear gas bombs, caused injuries to a number of these residents, of whom two were seriously wounded.
Therefore, the Chinese Government feels very strongly that the responsibility for the unfortunate incident in Kowloon City should clearly be borne by the Hongkong Government. The provocative action on the part of that Government taken at a Fime when conversations were still in progress between the two sides with a view to reaching an amicable settlement, contributed to the deterioration of the situation which led to the series of events that followed, including the incident of Shameen on January 16th. In the opinion of the Chinese Government, it would not be just to attribute to newspaper accounts and comments the responsibility for the unfortunate occurrences in Kowloon.
The Chinese Government also finds itself unable to accept the view you have taken that the Po An magistrate's visit to Kowloon was to a degree responsible for the Kowloon incident. The action taken by the Po An magistrate in visiting Kowloon City and comfating the victims of the eviction of January 5th was the least that a magistrate lagally responsible for the administration of the City area should do in discharging the dúties devolving upon him.
Apart from all the facts stated above, may I add another observation to which I hope you will give equal consideration. In order to obtain a proper perspective of the Convention of 1898 regarding the leased territory of Kowloon, it is important to recall the circumstances in which the several leases of that period were granted. Unable to resist the successive rival
/ of