CO537-3707 — Page 108

thedoctrine of abandonment or any similar doctrine, the Chinese Government had lost any rights of jurisdiction which they possessed through not being able to reassert jurisdiction in Kowloon City since 1899. Although for a prolonged period after 1900 until 1933 the Chinese Government did not press any claim to exercise jurisdiction in Kowloon City, it is not thought that it could be said that China acquiesced for a sufficient period to lose any rights she possessed, The expulsion of Chinese officials was never in any sense formally accepted by the Chinese as justifiable or as marking any permanent change in the status of the City, and it is felt that mere inaction on the part of China during the period to 1953 cannot be interpreted as such an abandonment of her claim to jurisdiction as would prevent her reasserting

If follows that it is not thought necessary for China to assert any overriding claim to sovereignty based upon her title as lessor of the territory. in question; since it is the view that the terma of the Convention are appropriate to reserve for her the jurisdiction in Kowloon City she claims.

it now.

.

I G

If this view is right, the only ground upon which Great Britain may validly refuse to allow the Chinese authorities to resume their pre-Convention jurisdiction in Kowloon City would be that military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong preclude the exercise of such a jurisdiction by Chinese officiels, It can be well understood that the existence of a focal point for the propagation of dissatisfaction with British rule can be of the utmost inconvenience to the British administration of the leased territory of Hong Kong. It is observed that it is the opinion of the Chiefs of staff that it would now be inconsistent with military requirements to accede to the Chinese request to be allowed to resume jurisdiction in Kowloon City. The reasone given in the Minister of Defence's letter dated 6th May, 1940, are to the general effect that Kowloon City might provide a rallying point for Chinese nationalism, from which sctive measures to return the whole colony to Chiha would be directed, and that, in general, hostility could be fomented from Kowloon City against the British administration. would not, of course, be presumed in-eny way to question these views; but as a matter of construction of the Convention it is thought that there must be more than mere inconvenience to the administration of a character which, in the event of anticipated military operations, could be promptly suppressed, bafore it could be said within the meaning of the provision in question that Chinese juridiction was inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. It is thought that these words require that there should be some definable military danger or disadvantage to be on ticipated from the presence of Chinese officials in Kowloon. It is doubted whether it would be sufficient to say that in the event of a Communist attack, not anticipated as likely to occur in the foreseeable future, Chinese jurisdiction in Kowloon Gi by would be a source of danger or embarrassment, particularly if the circumstances are that at any moment in such an eventuality the British authorities cculá terminate the exercise of such jurisdiction by expolling the Chinese officials, The provision does not, it is thought, enable the Chinese authorities to introduce Chinese troups into Kowloon City as a garrison or for any military purpose (other than perhaps, for exemple, leave or convalescent purposes in limited numbers), and one would have thought that it would be a simple malter in the event of anclotpated military operations to expel Chinese officials from Kowloon City and terminate the exercise of their jurisdiction. This, however, is a matter involving technical military considerations.

In the event of the dispute between Great Britain and China coming

/before