CHINA
Co
War Office and the Admiralty expressed the view that the exercise of Chinese jurisdiction in the City was not consistent with military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. This view is contained in letters of 16th May and 13th June, 1934 (Paper D, No. 1). On 3rd May, 1937, His Majesty's Ambassador at Nanking orally informed the Chinese Minister of these views of the Service Departments.
{
11.
Between 1933 and 1937, there were exchanges of correspondence (Paper E, No. 2 attached) between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government, but in the result neither retreated from their position. The Chinese interpretation of the Convention of 1898, as set out in Notes of 28th June and 27th July, 1933, and repeated later (Paper E, No. 2), was that only areas outside Kowloon City had been leased, the city itself being retained under Chinese control, and that accordingly His Majesty's Government had no authority to order the evacuation of the residents. The Chinese Government relied, in support of this interpretation, upon the words in Article 2 of the Convention of 1898 within the remainder of the newly leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdiction." They requested the cancellation of the decision to evacuate. In a memorandum dated 14th August, 1934, His Majesty's Government pointed out that the scheme for evacuation was in the interests of the residents and that generous terms had been offered to them. The memorandum 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 Kowloon City was Chinese territory and was not included in the lease to Great Britain. They also attacked the validity of the Order in Council of 27th December, 1899, as being inconsistent with the treaty. His Majesty's Government did not revert again to the legal aspects of the matter until an interview which took place between the Ambassador and the Chinese Foreign Minister on 7th May, 1937. On that occasion the Ambassador stated His Majesty's Government's views on the legal position, mentioning in particular the military requirements of Hong Kong and the threat from Japan and Com- munist quarters, and having done so said he had no authority to discuss the matter further. The four or five recalcitrants who refused to accept the alternative accommodation offered were evicted by force in the autumn of 1937, i.e., two or three months after this last conversation. The matter was then dropped, and with the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in that year it went into abeyance. It seems clear that during the course of the correspondence which took place His Majesty's Government did not desire to be drawn into a long legal argument at that time. While it appears that in the oral discussions on 7th May, 1937, His Majesty's Ambassador at Nanking 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 of alternative accommodation (i.e., a site for a dwelling plus money to erect it) and no doubt some stress would be laid on them by the Chinese before an international tribunal.
12. Having remained dormant for nine years the subject was again raised in September 1946 in the following circumstances:----
The question was revived as a result of the activities of the Chinese magis- trate of Po On. This official had studied the Convention and other documents and got into touch with the Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs to whom he suggested that Chinese civil administration should be restored in Kowloon City by him in accordance with what he conceived to be Chinese Treaty rights. It appears uncertain whether the Chinese Government actually agreed to this sugges- tion, but according to Mr. Kwok's statement (see below) it did agree in principle and instructed the magistrate of Po On to draw up plans. However, no communi- cation was received on the subject by His Majesty's Government from the Chinese Government but, as a result of an indiscretion on the part of the magistrate, the Chinese press got to know about the project and articles appeared in the Chinese newspapers early in September 1946. These articles stated that the Chinese Government was planning the establishment of a District Office in Kowloon City for the purpose of protecting Chinese sovereignty, and repeated the allegations made in the past to the effect that Kowloon City was never included in the lease to Great Britain. The Hong Kong Govern- ment at once issued a statement on 15th September, 1946 (Paper E, No. 3) repudiating the suggestion that Kowloon City was not included in the leased territory, and giving the salient facts of the history of the matter.
35538
B 2