CO537-3711 — Page 12

X?" aletizonent them"

Convention was signed, but we presume that the equivalent

Chinese expression bears the same meaning as the English.

If Kowloon had been a great city with a large and varied

population subject to different types of local administration,

it might have been possible to construe the words in the

provision as retaining for China some limited form of juris-

diction. They cannot, we think, be so construed in the case

of a very small city with a very small population such as

Kowloon City, which, at the time of the Convention, was wholly

under Chinese administration.

We accordingly are of opinion that the Convention pro-

vided that complete Chinese jurisdiction within Kowloon City

X should remain vested in the Chinese authorities, subject, of

course, to military requirements.

in Lay, 1899, the Chinese officials were driven out and

the City of Kowloon was incorporated in the leased territory

virtually for all purposes, Chinese control thereafter

disappearing. we do not think that it could be validly

contended on behalf of Great Britain that, by virtue of the

doctrine 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 peria

after 1900 until 1933 the Chinese Government did not press any

claim to exercise jurisdiction in Kowloon City, we do not think

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 we feel that here inaction on the

part of China during the period to 1933 cannot be interpreted

as/