CHINA
33
66
of 1937.
On 3rd May, 1937, His Majesty's Ambassador in Nanking reported by F 2593/221/10 telegram that he had received a reply from the Chinese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs. After expressing regret that the Hong Kong authorities should have lost sight of the juridical aspect of the question the reply continued as follows :-
I am inclined to think in dealing with matters of this kind it is always advantageous to use a certain amount of tact and discretion and especially to take into consideration feeling of local inhabitants so as to avoid any unpleasant situation that may otherwise arise. Quite aside from and without prejudice to the question of jurisdiction over Kowloon citizens I therefore request you to be so good as to advise Hong Kong authorities to defer full prosecution of their plan indefinitely and give more careful and thorough consideration to the matter in the light of views expressed by all parties concerned."
On 7th May, 1937, His Majesty's Ambassador, Nanking, reported by telegram F2682/221/10 that on 3rd May, 1937, in conversation with the Chinese Minister for Foreign of 1937. Affairs he mentioned Kowloon and said that while he had communicated the substance of the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs' letter to the Foreign Office and Hong Kong, the scheme for Kowloon City must be carried out. He said that he thought it was most unlikely that the Hong Kong Government would agree to any further delay. His telegram continues as follows:--
I went over the ground on which Hong Kong based their right to act. For thirty years no question had been raised as to our position; moreover the War Office and Air Ministry had stated quite definitely that existence in Kowloon City of Chinese administration would be entirely incompatible with military needs and Governor held view that possibility of external Japanese or Communist demonstration there could not be contemplated. I could only state our standpoint and say I had no authority to discuss the question further. The matter did not seem worth a major dispute.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs listened very quietly and expressed agreement with my last remark."
PAPER E
No. 3
Official Statement issued by Hong Kong Government on 15th September, 1946.
Certain articles which have recently appeared in the Chinese Press indicate that in some quarters there is a misapprehension as to the status of Kowloon City, in that it is considered that the status of Kowloon City is in some way different from that of the remainder of the New Territories. Since Kowloon City is persistently referred to in the articles as being Chinese territory and it is even stated that it was laid down by treaty that the territory within the city wall of Kowloon City was to remain Chinese, it is desirable that these inaccurate statements should be contradicted and that the public should be informed of the true position.
2 By the Peking Convention of 1898 it was agreed between Great Britain and China that the limits of British territory should be enlarged under a lease for ninety-nine years so that they should extend northwards to what may be briefly described at the Deep Bay-Mirs Bay frontier. Kowloon City was not excluded from the leased territory and in fact the wording of the Convention is entirely inconsistent with any intention to exclude it.
3. It was, however, stipulated in the Convention that within the City of Kowloon the Chinese officials then stationed there should continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as might be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. If Kowloon City had been excluded from the leased territory there would, of course, have been no need for any stipulation as to the jurisdiction of Chinese officials because the jurisdiction would have automatically remained in the sovereign State. Thus from 1st July, 1898, on which date the Convention came into force, Kowloon City became, for the period of the lease part of the extended British territory and came under British sovereignty.
4. In 1899 the exercise of jurisdiction by Chinese officials in Kowloon City was found to be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong and was accordingly terminated. Since that date, that is for nearly fifty years, the British authorities have exercised sole jurisdiction in Kowloon City, as in the remainder of the new territories.
35538
F