CO537-6049 — Page 53

40

CHINA

for the defence of Hong Kong. But the few words just quoted cannot logically be taken to mean only the persons then holding office in the city and not to include all their successors.

Moreover, nowhere in the convention regarding Kowloon is there to be found any provision for the withdrawal of the Chinese officials in any circumstances in spite of the condition relative to military requirements. On the contrary, the stipulation that "within the remainder of the newly leased territory Great Britain shall have sole jurisdiction " necessarily implies that within the City of Kowloon Great Britain is not empowered to exercise such jurisdiction.

In regard to your statement that the Hong Kong Government have exercised uninterruptedly since 1899 sole jurisdiction over the City of Kowloon, except for the period of Japanese occupation, I must recall to you certain important facts which cannot have escaped from your attention. In the first place, the Chinese officials withdrew from the City of Kowloon and ceased to exercise jurisdiction there in 1899 only when they were compelled by force of arms to do so, and it was done under protest. Secondly, ever since then the Chinese Government has not only never renounced its jurisdiction over the area concerned, but also has on more than one occasion taken serious exception to the attempted assumption by the Hong Kong Government of such jurisdiction. Reference is made in particular to the plan which was formulated by the Chinese Government in 1946 for resuming its administration in Kowloon City, which was temporarily shelved only out of consideration to the friendly relations between our two countries. It may point out that, while the Hong Kong Government, in a statement issued at the time by the Governor of Hong Kong, questioned the right of the Chinese Government to re-establish administration of authority in Kowloon City, the spokesman of the Waichiaopu lost no time in refuting that statement.

be serious.

As soon as word was received last December that the Hong Kong Government contemplated the eviction of Chinese residents from Kowloon City and the demolition of their dwellings, the Chinese Government repeatedly requested the British Embassy in Nanking to warn the Hong Kong Government against the employment of coercive measures, the consequence of which, it was thought, might It is most regrettable that this warning was not heeded and that the Hong Kong Government showed no scruples in resorting to forcible action both on 5th and 12th January. On the latter occasion a large contingent of armed police, equipped with shields, steel helmets and firearms, and accompanied by a group of workmen, went into the Kowloon City and, by firing on the residents before the use was made of tear-gas bombs, caused injuries to a number of these residents, of whom two were seriously wounded.

Therefore the Chinese Government feels very strongly that the responsibility for the unfortunate incident in Kowloon City should clearly be borne by the Hong Kong Government. The provocative action on the part of that Government, taken at a time when conversations were still in progress between the two sides with a view to reaching an amicable settlement, contributed to the deterioration of the situation which led to the series of events that followed, including the incident of Shameen on 16th January. In the opinion of the Chinese Government it would not be just to attribute to newspaper accounts and comments the responsi- bility for the unfortunate occurrences in Kowloon.

The Chinese Government also finds itself unable to accept the view you have taken that the Po An magistrate's visit to Kowloon was to a degree responsible for the Kowloon incident. The action taken by the Po An magistrate in visiting Kowloon City and comforting the victims of the eviction of 5th January was the least that a magistrate legally responsible for the administration of the city area should do in discharging the duties devolving upon him.

Apart from all the facts stated above, may I add another observation to which I hope you will give equal consideration. In order to obtain a proper perspective of the Convention of 1898 regarding the leased territory of Kowloon, it is important to recall the circumstances in which the several leases of that period were granted. Unable to resist the successive rival of demands from the Powers who were each seeking a sphere of influence on the Asiatic mainland, the Chinese Government secured a minimum reservation in each of the leases where a local Government was functioning, in the form of a special area over which China should continue to exercise jurisdiction. In other words, China vielded to the force of circumstances by agreeing only to meet the military requirements of the Powers concerned without renouncing her jurisdiction in spite of respective reserved areas. That the failure of Great Britain to observe even this reservation in respect of Kowloon, which stands now as the last vestige of an out-moded

"

!