claim to sovereignty based upon her title as lessor
of the territory in question; since it is the
view that the terms of the Convention are a
appropriate to reserve for her the jurisdiction
in Kowloon City she claims.
If this view is right, the only ground upon
which Great Britain may validly refuse to allow the
Chinese authorities to resume their pre-Convention
jurisdiction in Kowloon City would be that military
requirements for the defence of Hong Kong preclude
the exercise of such a jurisdiction by Chinese
officials. It can be well understood that the
existence of a focal point for the propagation of
dissatisfaction with British rule can be of the
utmost inconvenience to the British administration
of the leased territory of Hong Kong. It is
observed that it is the opinion of the Chiefs of
Staff that it would now be inconsistent with
military requirements to accede to the Chinese
request to be allowed to resume jurisdiction in
Kowloon City. The reasons given in the Minister
of Defence's letter dated 8th May, 148, are to
the general effect that Kowloon City might
provide a rallying point for Chinese nationalism,
from which active measures to return the whole
colony to China would be directed, and that, in
general, hostility could be fomented from Kowloon
City against the British administration.
would not, of course, be presumed in any way to
question these views; but as a matter of
construction of the Convention it is thought that
there must be more than mere inconvenience to
the administration of a character which, in the
event of anticipated military operations, could
be promptly suppressed, before it could be said
within the meaning of the provision in question
/that
>
It