THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
CONFIDENTIAL
F 1925/154/10
CHINA February 5, 1948 Section 1
Copy No.
159
CHINESE CLAIM TO JURISDICTION IN KOWLOON CITY
Responsibility for the Recent Incidents
Dr. Cheng to Mr. Bevin.
Chinese Embassy,
Your Excellency, 5th February, 1948
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency's note dated 24th January, 1948, concerning the recent evictions of Chinese residents from the City of Kowloon and, under instructions from my Government, to send to you the following reply:-
The Chinese Government wishes to state that, in regard to jurisdiction over the City of Kowloon, it has consistently adhered to the interpretation it has adopted of the Peking Convention of 1898, namely, that the City of Kowloon is expressly reserved to Chinese jurisdiction. This interpreta- tion is borne out not only by the wording of the said convention but also by reference to the other treaties concluded in the same year which form the bases of other leased territories. Such reference is justified inasmuch as the arrangement of reserving a special zone connected with each of the leased territories to Chinese jurisdiction. formed a part of general Chinese policy and was not confined to Kowloon. It will be found, e.g., that expression is given to this policy in Article 1 of the Sino-German Convention of 6th March, 1898, regarding Kiaochow, and Article 4 of the additional agreement between China and Russia of 7th May, 1898, regarding the Liaotung Peninsula, which latter provides specifi- cally that "The administration and police of the City of Kinchow shall be Chinese."
It is true that the relevant provision in the Peking Convention regarding Kowloon speaks of
Chinese officials now stationed there" and requires them to exercise their jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hongkong. But the few words just quoted cannot logically be taken to mean only the persons then holding office in the city and not to include all their successors.
Moreover, nowhere in the convention regarding Kowloon is there to be found any
111-119
(Received 5th February)
66
provision for the withdrawal of the Chinese officials in any circumstances in spite of the condition relative to military requirements. On the contrary, the stipu- lation that within the remainder of the newly leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdiction " necessarily implies that within the City of Kowloon Great Britain is not empowered to exercise such jurisdiction.
In regard to your statement that the Hongkong Government have exercised uninterruptedly since 1899 sole jurisdic- tion over the City of Kowloon, except for the period of Japanese occupation, I must recall to you certain important facts which cannot have escaped from your attention. In the first place, the Chinese officials with- drew from the City of Kowloon and ceased to exercise jurisdiction there in 1899 only when they were compelled by force of arms to do so, and it was done under protest. Secondly, ever since then the Chinese Government has not only never renounced its jurisdiction over the area concerned, but also has on more than one occasion taken serious exception to the attempted assumption by the Hongkong Government of such jurisdiction. Reference is made in particular to the plan which was formu- lated by the Chinese Government in 1946 for resuming its administration in Kowloon City, which was temporarily shelved only out of consideration to the friendly rela- tions between our two countries. point out that, while the Hongkong Government, in a statement issued at the time by the Governor of Hongkong, questioned the right of the Chinese Government to re-establish administration of authority in Kowloon City, the spokes- man of the Waichiaopu lost no time in refuting that statement.
It may
As soon as word was received last December that the Hongkong Government contemplated the eviction of Chinese residents from Kowloon City and the demolition of their dwellings, the Chinese
57 31