2
CHINA
(with the exception of one civil officer, a Deputy Magistrate) military officers, the head of whom was the Colonel-in-Command. This officer was the chief military officer in the district of San On (now known as Po On). He was immediately subordinate to the General-in-Command of all the Chinese land forces in the Province of Kwang Tung. The Colonel's jurisdiction was purely a military one, extending over the whole district of San On and the islands adjacent thereto. The garrison under the command of the Colonel was maintained for the defence of the district of San On and the adjacent islands. The larger portion of the district and most of the islands were leased to the British Government. Mr. Lockhart pointed out that, in these circumstances, most of the soldiers then supposed to exist under the Colonel's command would be disbanded or transferred elsewhere, whilst the services of those retained would be required not within but outside the territory referred to in the Convention.
7. The only civil officer resident within the City was a Deputy Magistrate. This magistrate did not so much control the 200 civilians then actually resident within the City (some or all of whom would appear to have been subject to the military as followers), but exercised a somewhat extensive jurisdiction not con- fined to the City but comprising a large portion of the newly-leased area. Mr. Lockhart said, When that area has been taken over there appears to be no reason why this office of Deputy Magistrate should continue to exist, as the juris- diction now exercised by him will be merged in the administration of the terri- tory under British rule. The civil population within the city of Kowloon, amounting to 200, lives there simply because it is dependent on the military. It does not engage in trade, there being no shops of any kind within the city. If the military remove from the city, the civil population is sure to follow, so there will be no one remaining over whom a Chinese officer could exercise jurisdiction."
8. The Chinese did not give up possession of the leased territories peaceably. In order to put an end to acts of violence against British troops and officials, the Hong Kong authorities with military support occupied Kowloon City on 16th May, 1899, and drove out the Chinese officials. In these circumstances, on 27th December, 1899, a second Order in Council (Paper C, No. 2) was passed, which revoked Article 4 of the earlier Order (see paragraph 5 above) and made the City of Kowloon part and parcel of the Colony of Hong Kong in the same manner as the other leased territory. This second Order in Council recited in the preamble that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Chinese officials in the City of Kowloon had been found to be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong.
The Second Order in Council (27th December, 1899) was submitted by the Colonial Office to the Law Officers of the Crown. The reference (Confidential (7280) No. 120) stated that His Majesty's Government had come to the conclu- sion that it was absolutely necessary that Kowloon City should thenceforth be wholly and in all respects under British jurisdiction, and that an intimation to that effect had been addressed to the Chinese Government. Therefore, it had become necessary that the Order in Council of 20th October, 1898, should be amended accordingly and the Law Officers were asked whether the terms of the draft Order in Council were sufficient and proper for the purpose intended. No question was put to the Law Officers as to His Majesty's Government's right under the Convention of 9th June, 1898, to make the Order in Council bringing Kowloon under British jurisdiction.
10. Notwithstanding Chinese protests based on the Convention His Majesty's Government refused to restore jurisdiction over Kowloon City to the Chinese. (Paper E, No. 1, and Paper A, No. 1, paragraphs 13, et seq.) After 1900 the Chinese Government do not appear to have raised the question of juris- diction again until 1933, when His Majesty's Government decided that about sixty-five Chinese residents who were living in very poor dwellings in the city should be removed for sanitary reasons. The Chinese Government maintained that the City remained under its jurisdiction and that the action of His Majesty's Government was not consistent with Chinese treaty rights. His Majesty's Government replied that the Chinese residents had been offered terms providing for compensation and new houses on another site; that their removal from the City was essential for sanitary reasons; and that His Majesty's Government could not abandon its policy of evacuating them. The dispute continued until 1937, but the policy was carried out and in the end all the Chinese residents (except four or five recalcitrants who were evicted) accepted the terms offered. The correspondence which took place between the two Governments is referred to in the next paragraph. It may be mentioned here, however, that in 1934 the
Page 15Page 16