faclay
i.e.
or
that,
each
"
8.
a joint office for both of them.
Turning now to the two provisions proposed to be included in the Exchange of Notes (not to be published).
If in the first provision for the words "maintenance of order" were to be substituted some such words
L
as "administration of", I do not see much objection to this proposal. But Hong Kong legislation would
be required, I think, to confer powers of fine on the trustees.
9. The second provision is the crux. This definitely removes the Garden of Remembrance from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Government. And it has many objections, practical and legal. I think we may expect a very strong reaction from the Governor on this point and before we can even put it to him it will have to be referred to higher authority here in view of the minutes of 1/3 and 2/3 and of the fact generally that acceptance of this provision - even if only on an express assurance from the Chinese that they would never publicise it as an abandonment of jurisdiction by us would be in fact a reversal of the line we have hitherto followed in this case.
10. I note that on 54145/16/6/48 (the sub-file dealing with the reference to the Law Officers) Mr. Paskin has minuted that Sir Charles Jeffries should see these papers. As the main files are likely to be in action for some time perhaps you would like the sub-file to be sent up to Sir Charles on its own.
30.4.48.
though Sir S. Abrahams
ir. Roberts-Wray
Before making any reference to Hong Kong, we should be grateful for your views on the latest proposals submitted by the Chinese Minister (see enclosures to No. 233). The Chinese seem to have gone a little way to meet us (if, in fact, the Chinese Government is prepared to accept proposals on the lines now suggested) in that (a) such a proposal would be receding from the condition referred to in paragraph 2 of
No. 194 on Part II of this file, that the Chinese Government would only consent to settlement on the lines mentioned in No. 184 on that file "if it were publicly announced that the whole area would be under Chinese jurisdiction", since they now suggest that their proposals in the matter of jurisdiction should be published, and (b) they appear to suggest a joint jurisdiction, thus, as I see it, going beyond the Chinese Government's view in paragraph 1 of No. 185 on Part II "that local Chinese could not agree to any form of admission of British jurisdiction over Kowloon City as "Chinese would regard this as a revival of extra-territoriality". If, as I understand to be the case, the leased territory is, in fact, British territory so long as the lease continues, then
/it