J
6.9
215 Foreign Office F 3962/35/10
216 tereign Office F 4377/154/10
25·3-48
303.45.
212. I. Scott Esq
F. 4302/154/10
31.3.48
218 A.X. Scott -F4881/154/10
219/A. L. Scott F 4323/154/10
} 24-488
I have placed opposite
M Wallace
draft letter taking up (218)
*Service Depli
the
point raised
in
Bladfany
614
In (218) the Foreign Office ask us, at the instance of their Legal Advisers, to ascertain the views of Service Departments as to whether or not the exercise of Chinese jurisdiction in Kowloon Walled City would still be inconsistent with the defence requirements of Hong Kong.
We made a similar reference to the Service Departments in 1934 (10 to 12 on 33744/34). The War Office and Admiralty replied officially and gave the suitable answer (14) and (19) ibid. The Air Ministry sent an s. o. letter which was not very helpful.
Our draft refers to the previous
correspondence, but it seems desirable to include a note bringing out clearly how the point of "military requirements for the defence of Hong
Kong