CO537-3711 — Page 22

8.

The Chinese did not give up possession of the leased territories peaceably. In order to put an end to acts of violence against British troops and officials, the Hong Kong authorities with military support occupied Zowloon City on 16th Way 1899 und drove out the Chinese officials. In these aireusstances, on the 27th December, 1899, a second Grder in Council (aper ✪. No. 8) was passed, which revoked

3

2) Article 4 of the earlier Order see para. 5 above) and made the City of "owloon part and parcel of the Colony of Hong Song in the same manner as the other leased territory. This second Order in Council recited in the preamble that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Chinese officials in the City of Kowloon had been found to be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong "ong.

*. The second Order in Council (27th December, 1899) was submitted by the Colonial office to the Law officers of the Grown. The reference (confidential (7889) No. 120 stated that M. .3. had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary that "owloon City should thenceforth be wholly and in all respects under ritish jurisdiction, and that an intimation to that effect had been addressed to the chineze Government. Therefore, it had beeoque necessary that the Order in ouncil of the 20th Jetober, 1898, should be amended accordingly and the Saw Officere were asked whether the terus of the draft crder in Council were sufficient and proper for the purpose intended. No question was put to the Law Officers as to 3.4.0.'s right under the Convention of 9th June, 1898, to make the Order in Counoil bringing Kowloon under British jurisdiction.

10.

Notwithstanding Chinese protests based on the Convention H... refused to restore jurisdiction over Kowloon City to the Chinese. (per . Xio. 1 and 'aver, lio. 1 paras. 18 et meg.) After 1900 the Chinese Government do not appeur to have raised the question of jurisdiction again until 1938 when H. ...0. decided that acout 68 Chinese residenta who were living in very poor dwellings in the City should be removed for sanitary reasons. The Chinese Government makintained that the City remained under ita jurisdiction and that the action of H、4.0. was not consistent with Chinese treaty rights. K...0. replied that the Chinese residenta had been offered teras providing for compensation and new houses on another site; that their removal from the City was essential for sanitary reasons; and that H.M.0, could not abandon its policy of evacuating then. The diapute continued until 1937 but the policy was carried out and in the end all the Chinese residents (except four or five recalcitrants who were evicted; accepted the terum offered. The correspondence which took place between the two Governmenta is referred to in the next paragrapha. it may be mentioned here, however, that in 1934 the ar Office un: the Adairulty expressed the view that the exercise or hinese jurisdiction in the City was not consistent with ilitary require ente for the defence of Hong Song.

This view is contained in letters of the 16th Hay and 13th June, 1934 (per. No. 1. On 3rd May, 1937, H.. Ambassador at Banking orally informed the Chinese #inister of these views of the service Departments.

/11....