CO537-3702 — Page 117

(2)

(19) on 54145/46.

(73) on 54145/46

which would be beyond our frontier, but it is the actual

physical proximity along the border of the densely populated

city of Kowloon etc., etc.

蟹

Sir Mark Young went on to consider whether any other

boundary line could be drawn. "It has been suggested that we

might offer to give up, before the termination of the lease,

that portion of the New Territories which lies beyond the

boundary of 'New Kowloon', retaining by agreement with the

Chinese Goverment the whole of Kowloon City and the area

described in Section 39(b) of the Interpretation Ordinance

as 'hew Kowloon', together with certain of the New

Territories Islands. " Sir Mark Young'e conclusion was that

there was a strong probability that such a proposal would

not satisfy the Chinese Goverment.

In Sir Horace Seymour's reply, dated 20 May, 1946, the

following oo urs:- "If the present situstion proves

impossible to maintain, there are some attractions about the

suggestion for the rendition of the New Territories, subject

to safeguards, suggested in para raph 40 of the Foreign Office

paper. But it is doubtful whether the Chinese would be

willing to deal with the New Territories apart from the

Colony.

In any event the usual Chinese technique would

be to take what they could get as a first instalment

towards the attainment of their full object." of the suggested

safeguarda Sir Morace wrote "the safeguards suggested in

the Foreign Office paper might work, though there would be

reduction of efficiency if Anglo-Chinese boards of management

had to be introduced. The Chinese members would also be

subject to party pressure, but that is inevitable.

尊

3. In November 1946 a joint Colonial office - Foreign

Office Memorandum on "The future of Hong Kong" was prepared

for the F.E.(0) Committee.

Annexure II to this contains

conditions