CO537-3711 — Page 73

Therefore, it may be thought that, quite apart

from any jurisdiction that may have been assumed

by the Hong Kong Government to satisfy their

military requirements, the Convention left a

residue of jurisdiction over Kowloon City which,

by virtue of the lease of territory, passed to the

Hong Kong Government.

29.

Even assuming that the Chinese contention

as to the interpretation of paragraph 2 of the

Convention is correct, it may be contended that the Chinese have lost their claim to jurisdiction

as a result of the aasumption of jurisdiction by the Hong Kong authorities in 1899, followed by

over 30 years of acquiescence by the Chinese

Government. In this .connection it may be

pertinent to recall the terms of the notes to

the Chinese Governmen of 30th May and 24th

October, 1899, in which it was stated categorically: "It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government

to allow resumption of jurisdiction by the

Chinese authorities in Kowloon City".

30. Another and stronger argument that may e made in favour of the United Kingdom case is that the continued exercise by Chinese officials of jurisdiction in Kowloon is inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. The facts appear to show that in 1898/ 1900 the presence of the Chinese authorities in Kowloon was contrary to the military requirements of Hong Kong. The Chinese constituted a riotous element which directly threatened the security of the immediate neighbourhood in the colony. In 1934, the Service Departments were of the opinion that the resumption of jurisdiction by the Chinese would be contrary to the defence

requirements/

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN.