CO537-3711 — Page 49

#

Tara21

نمبر

paragraph 21, that we could extend our declaration to cover this dispute, as in the case of the British Hondúsas affair? Would the Foreign office see any objection to our doing so?

Paragraphs 22 - 26.

I see from your minute that you contemplate that we should deal more fully with the other contemporaneous

fors 23 leases granted by China. This seems to me important, sa

the difference in wording between our convention and the for Russian one included in paper P., is at first sight Low significant.

Paragraph 28,

Before

There seems to be some mystery here on which the Law officers might like to have elucidation if possible. the grant of the lease, the civil magistrate had no jurisdiction in relation to the city, and the military authorities' jurisdiction was limited. Is it possible that there was no one in the whole of China who could exercise unlimited jurisdiction in Kowloon? If unlimited jurisdiction was vested in some authority outside the city, that authority would not be covered by the words in the Convention "officials now stationed there" and I gather these words would also exclude the Chinese Magistrate.

Paragraph 30.

We are awaiting the views of the Service Departments.

Two small drafting points: the word "other" occurs twice in the second sentence of paragraph 27 and should be omitted in one place or the other; and to bring it inte line with the other sub-paragraphs, I suggest that sub- paragraph (1) of paragraph 32 should begin "whether the dispute is a suitable one, ete."

/With