CO537-3712 — Page 11

J

(19) on 54145/46.

(73) on 54145/46

(2)

which would be beyond our frontier, but it is the actual

physical proximity along the border of the densely populated

city of Kowloon etc., otc.

Sir Mark Young went on to consider whether any other boundary line could be drawn. "It has been sug asted that we

might offer to give up, before the termination of the lease,

that portion of the New Territories which lies byyond the

boundary of 'New Kowlo n', retaining by agreement with the

Chinese Government the whole of Kowloon City and the area

described in Section 39(b) of the Interpretation Ordinance

as lew Kowloon', together with certain or the New

Territories Islands. Sir Mark Young's conclusion was that

there was a strong probability that such a proposal would

not satisfy the Chinese Government.

In Sir Horace Seymour's reply, dated 20 May, 1946, the

following oo urs:- "If the present situction proves impossible to maintain, there are some attractions about the suggestion for the rendition of the New Territories, subject to safeguards, suggested in parsṛraph 40 of the Foreign Office

paper. But it is doubtful whether the Chinese would be

willing to deal with the New Territories apart from the

Colony.

In any event the usual Chinese technique would

be to take what they could get as a first instalment

towards the attainment of their full object." of the suggested

safeguards Sir Torace wrote "the safeguarde suggested in the Foreign office paper might work, though there would be reduction of efficiency if Anglo-Chinese boards of m nagement

had to be introduced. The Chinese members would also be

subject to party pressure, but that is inevitable.'

Foreign

3. In November 1946 a joint Colonial Office

Office Memorandum on "The future of Hong Kong" was prepared

for the F.E. (0) Committee.

Annexure II to this contains

conditione