evacuation was in the interests of the residents and
th
The
generous terms had been offered to them.
morandum stated that "no question of
breach of treaty stipulations arises
The Chinese Government made charges regarding the
arrangements for evacuation and reiterated its
contention that cowloon City was Chinese territory
and was not included in the lease to Great Britain.
They also attacked the validity of the urder in Council
of 27th December 1899 as being inconsistent with the
treaty. H..G. did not revert again to the legal aspects of the matter until an interview which took
place between the ambassador and the Chinese Foreign
winister on 7th May,1937. un that occasion the
Ambassador stated H.M.G's views on the legal position
mentioning in particular the military requirements of
Hong Kong and the threat from Japan and Communist
quarters, and having done so said he had no authority
to discuss the matter further. The four or five
recalcitrants who refused to accept theäiternative
accomodation offered were evicted by force in the
autumn of 1937, i.e., two or three months after this
last conversation. The matter as then dropped, and
with the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in thất year
it went into abeyance. It seems clear that during the
course of the corresponüence which took place H.M.G. did
not desire to be drawn into a lon Legal argument at
that time. While it a pears that in the oral
discussions on the 7th ay 1937 H.k. mbassador at hanking
did assert the right to take the action on which it had
been decided as being consistent with the Treaty, the
written communications in this period from the British
side tend to justify the action on the basis of the
voluntary acceptance by the Chinese concerned or alternative accommodation (i.c., a site for a dwềlling
plus money to erect it) and no doubt some stress would
/be.....