CHINA

27

This Ministry has already instructed the Special Inspector for Foreign Affairs with all speed to approach His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton with a view to requesting the Hong Kong Government to abandon their original scheme. In reply the Special Inspector has informed this Ministry that he has not as yet received any reply from the Hong Kong Government.

I have the honour to observe that the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory concluded by China and Great Britain on the 21st day of the 4th month in the 24th year of Kuang Hsü (i.e., the 9th June, 1898) contained a provision that within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials now stationed. there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. Within the remainder of the newly-leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdic- tion." Inasmuch as within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials are still permitted to exercise jurisdiction, it is clear that although the extended territory is leased to Great Britain, yet within the city of Kowloon remains under the jurisdiction of China. The phrase "within the remainder of the newly-leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdiction" contained in the text constitutes still further evidence for the real meaning of the Convention at the time of its conclusion.

Under the Manchus there were stationed within the city of Kowloon as civil official an assistant District Magistrate and as military officials a colonel, captain and second captain. The Hong Kong Government, after taking over the adminis- tration of the leased territory outside the city of Kowloon, compelled the Chinese officials within the city to withdraw. Since the establishment of the Republic the (Chinese) Government has not stationed officials there. But the withdrawal of the Manchu officials and the fact that no officials have been stationed there since the Republic cannot alter the meaning of the Convention at the time it was concluded; still less can rights reserved by the Convention be cancelled. Since in accordance with the Convention the City of Kowloon remains under the jurisdiction of Chinese officials, the Chinese persons living within the City naturally have the right to reside freely there. The present order of the Hong Kong Government constraining residents within the city to remove in a body conflicts both with the explicit text of the Convention and the original intention at the time of its conclusion. Moreover, the relations between China and Great Britain having always been so friendly, it would scarcely appear expedient to stir up a treaty dispute in addition to causing suffering to many citizens- simply for the sake of constructing a public park.

In calling your Excellency's attention to the above, I trust that your Excellency will as soon as possible request the Hong Kong Government to cancel their determination to order persons residing within the City of Kowloon to

remove.

The favour of a reply is requested. I avail myself of this opportunity of renewing to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed)

LO WEN-KAN. (Seal of Ministry for Foreign Affairs.)

F 4191/1099/10/1934

Telegram from His Majesty's Minister, Peking, to Foreign Office containing_text of Telegram to him from Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs of 26th June, 1934. (Received 9·30 a.m. 11th July, 1934)

(No. 474) R.

[By Wireless]

66

Peking, 10th July, 1934. My immediately preceding telegram. Report has been received that Nanyueh magistracy" of Hong Kong has notified inhabitants of Kowloon City to move to Koushihling within the limit of one week.

Although Hong Kong Government has built new houses for people free, this denies them the right of free residence within the City and therefore people are all in a state of panic.

I have already asked you, according to Treaty, in a note of 27th July last immediately to request Hong Kong Government to withdraw proposal ordering people to evacuate and to this I received your reply.

35538

E 2

Page 40Page 41

Share This Page