and the occupation of Sham Chun, but in a note
of the 30th May, 1899, the Secretary of State stated
as follows: "In view of the fact that the Chinese
Government do not hold themselves responsible for attacks
by local mobs on British troops, the obligation falls
on Her Majesty's Government of performing the duty
which is usually performed by the sovereign of the
country, but which the Chinese Government declined. After
the recent experience which they have had not only of the
worthlessness of the protection extended by the Chinese
garrison at Kowloon, but of the additional danger
involved in its presence, it is impossible for Her
Majesty' Government to allow the resumption of Chinese
authority within that city". The town of Sham Chun
was subsequently evacuated.
The Chinese Government made strong representations
but His Majesty's Government refused to yield and a
second Order in Council was issued on the 27th December,
1899, revoking Article 4 of the order in Council of 20th
October, 1898, and applying the provisions of that Order in
Council to the city of Kowloon "as if the said city had
by the said Order in Council been declared to be part and
parcel of Her Majesty's colony of Hong Kong".
For about 30 years after the Boxer outbreak of 1900
no question appears to have been raised as to our position.
E
The matter was however again brought into prominence in
1933 by the Hong Kong Government's proposal to expropriate
certain Chinese owners of property in the city of Kowloon.
The Chinese Government made representations protesting against this proposal and claiming that "the city of Kowloon
remains under the jurisdiction of China".