CO537-3711 — Page 39

in this respect only weten Kowloon and the leases

containing two other walled cities

Wei-hai-wei

(British, and Kinchow (Russian) and in regard to them

the Chinese statement is true. The case of the Seran

lease is different because there a zone was specially

excepted from the lease altogether. in the case of

the two British and of the bussian leases the waliod

cities (Kinchow, Kowloon and "ei-hai-vei; wero

included within the territory lessed but in the case of

Kowloon and wei-hai-wei provision was made, subject to

military requi uments, for the cont nued excrcise of a

easure of chinese jurisdiction. in the case of

Kinchow (Russian) there was no provision for continued

Chinese jurisdiction in the valled city in the original

lease at first; it was inserted in an additional

U.5.

Agreement later but so many dificulties arose in

practice that after a Russian de and in 1901 for the

abolition of Chinese administr tion, the Chinose

abandoned in 1903 their attempts to exurcise it. In

any case there is not in this provision the overriding

limitation which is found in both the Le aes to the

"except so far as may be inconsistent with

neval and military requirements for the defence of

the territory Leased." Purther, if the negotiations

regaruing kowloon are looked at (aper para.5, it

will be seen that the Chinese at first refused to

include the City of Kowloon in the leaac, and were

only induced to do so by the provision und r discussion.

In the case of the lease to mncs, there 38 no

walieu city and no area within which chinese jurisuiction

was to continue.

‚ani exolusive

aduition at end of Fura, ch.

jurisdiction over the city. While not denying the

qualification of " .ritish military requirements for

tue vefence of long Long, the Chinese do not make

it clear precisely whit saanɛing they give to this

Qualification....