F 2482/221/10 of 1937.
32
CHINA
Excellency dated 26th October, 1936, and the Ministry's memorandum dated 28th November, 1936, all bearing on the unpleasant arising out of the compulsory measures adopted by the Hong Kong Government for the removal of Chinese resi- dents from the Kowloon City.
It was stated by your predecessor, Sir Alexander Cadogan, that the Governor of Hong Kong had not issued any notice setting a time limit for the evacuation of the inhabitants in question, that he had merely communicated to them the terms of a generous offer which was accepted by them, and that there was no question of breach of treaty stipulations.
I am constrained to point out to you that these statements do not tally fully with the actual facts. Setting aside the question of the time limits fixed earlier by the authorities of Hong Kong, I beg to refer to their decision of most recent date, as mentioned in the Ministry's memorandum of 28th November, that the evacuation should be completed by the end of the year. As to the alleged acceptance by the inhabitants of the terms offered by the Governor, it is at least open to doubt in view of the petitions they addressed repeatedly both to this Ministry and to our Commissioner at Canton, imploring protection of their legiti- mate interests.
With regard to treaty stipulations, it will be readily seen, even after a cursory examination of the Convention of 9th June, 1898, that the measures con- templated by the Hong Kong Government are irreconcilable with the provisions. of the said Convention, as it is clearly not within the competence of British authorities to exercise jurisdiction in the City of Kowloon which is expressly reserved for the Chinese officials.
On the part of the colonial authorities, it might be contended that their
was based on the Order in assumption of jurisdiction
Council of 27th December, 1899, declaring the City of Kowloon to be part and parcel of the colony of Hong Kong. Without delving into the argument that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Chinese officials in the City of Kowloon was inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong and the circum- stances under which the Chinese officials were ousted from the said city and control over it was taken by the British Government notwithstanding the repeated protests of the Chinese Government, I cannot resist the conclusion that the Order in Council referred to does not seem to rest on sufficient legal grounds in the light of the Sino-British Convention of 1898.
At a time when Sino-British friendship is daily increasing and the relations of the local authorities at Canton with the authorities of Hong Kong are becoming more and more cordial, it is highly desirable that any possible ground for misunderstanding on either side should be removed. I am sure that you will join your efforts with mine in bringing this desire into fruition and thus venture to suggest that the Governor of Hong Kong be persuaded to drop his plan of evacuation and that, further, such steps be taken as will permit Chinese officials to resume jurisdiction in Kowloon City in accordance with the Convention of 1898. As regards the park plan which seems to be responsible for the order of evacuation, I have reason to believe that Chinese officials and individuals will be willing to do all they can to lay out a public park in the City which will enhance the value of its surroundings. It is sincerely hoped that you will give these suggestions your favourable consideration and strong support.
Yours sincerely, (Signed)
HSU MO.
His Excellency Sir Hughe Montgomery Knatchbull-Hugessen.
British Embassy, Nanking.
Note on the Correspondence following the Chinese Notes of 26th November and 2nd December, 1936.
On 28th April, 1937, His Majesty's Ambassador, Nanking, reported by telegram that he had written on 26th April, 1937, to the Chinese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs informing him that eviction of occupants of the remaining four houses in Kowloon City had been authorised. He added that he was satisfied that compensation offered was adequate and that refusal to move was due to encouragement "by persons behind the scenes who had other reasons for their actions." He also said that this situation could not be allowed to continue and that he agreed with the Hong Kong Government that it should be terminated without delay.
"
Page 45Page 46