CO537-3711 — Page 36

evacuation was in the interests of the residents and

th

The

generous terms had been offered to them.

morandum stated that "no question of

breach of treaty stipulations arises

The Chinese Government made charges regarding the

arrangements for evacuation and reiterated its

contention that cowloon City was Chinese territory

and was not included in the lease to Great Britain.

They also attacked the validity of the urder in Council

of 27th December 1899 as being inconsistent with the

treaty. H..G. did not revert again to the legal aspects of the matter until an interview which took

place between the ambassador and the Chinese Foreign

winister on 7th May,1937. un that occasion the

Ambassador stated H.M.G's views on the legal position

mentioning in particular the military requirements of

Hong Kong and the threat from Japan and Communist

quarters, and having done so said he had no authority

to discuss the matter further. The four or five

recalcitrants who refused to accept theäiternative

accomodation offered were evicted by force in the

autumn of 1937, i.e., two or three months after this

last conversation. The matter as then dropped, and

with the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in thất year

it went into abeyance. It seems clear that during the

course of the corresponüence which took place H.M.G. did

not desire to be drawn into a lon Legal argument at

that time. While it a pears that in the oral

discussions on the 7th ay 1937 H.k. mbassador at hanking

did assert the right to take the action on which it had

been decided as being consistent with the Treaty, the

written communications in this period from the British

side tend to justify the action on the basis of the

voluntary acceptance by the Chinese concerned or alternative accommodation (i.c., a site for a dwềlling

plus money to erect it) and no doubt some stress would

/be.....