CO537-3711 — Page 52

the Chinese had been auxverest.

Paragraphs 20 and 21.

Is not the answer to the last sentence

Paragraph 17

of paragraph 21, that we could extend our

declaration to cover this dispute, as in the case

of the British Honduras affair? Would the

Foreign office see any objection to our doing so?

Paragraphs 22 - 26.

this

The person who received fering wrong did not die, hat made a complete rewory (Hay Kamp

Северата по

81 and 127 21948, I which the Foreign Office have copies).

I see that in your minute you contemplate

pom

full

that we should deal with the other contemporaneous

leases granted by China. This seems to me

important, as the difference in wording between

convention

our Treaty and the Russian one included in

is paper F. appears to me

Paragraph 28.

at first reghts

-decidedly significant.

There seems to be some mystery here on

which the Law Officers might like to have

elucidation if its possible. Before the grant

of the lease, civil magistrate had no jurisdiction

in relation to the city, and the military

authorities' jurisdiction was limited.

Is it

possible that there was no

nofone in the whole of

China who could exercise unlimited jurisdiction

in Kowloon? If unlimited jurisdiction was

vested in someone in authority outside the city,

that authority would not be covered by the words

in the Convention "officials now stationed there"aut

I gather these words would also exclude the Chinese

Magistrate.

Two small drafting points: the word "other"

in the second sentence of paragraph 27 occurs twice

and should be omitted in one place or the other; to

bring it into line with the other sub-paragraphs,

I suggest that sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 32

/should

Paragraph 30

We are

awaiting the views of the Service

Depts.