CO129-560-17 Kowloon- expropriation of Chinese property 6-1-1937 - 4-9-1937 — Page 10

See 14,19 & 20.

- the above file

We mak

extomed at

(1) ∞ 33744/34,

were of the opinion that military necessity made

the continuation of British jurisdiction in the City

essential to the defence of Hong Kong.

From the point of view of the Colonial Government

the continuation of British jurisdiction is not so much

a matter of military as of administrative necessity.

The old City of Kowloon is now an integral part of the wewe han

Kowloon sa, which, again, is part and parcel of

Hong Kong. It is a city of large buildings with Y

military and naval establishments and contains, also,

the chief docks and the terminus station of the Canton

Railway. It appears impossible that an administration

enclave under foreign jurisdiction, should be allowed

in the middle of an area which is essentially all part

of the Port of Hong Kong. Quite apart from any

question of military necessity, though I presume the

same arguments as were expressed in 1934 still apply,

[unless they can be avoided by a gentleman's agreement

De

with the Chinese Government, as suggested by the

Ambassador in (12) on this file such an enclave would

present an impossible problem in everyday administra-

tion. The case of Weihaiwes which the Ambassador

quotes does not seem to me to present any parallel,

since it was a small town in a rural area whose total

population amounted to less than 200,000.

I do not know quite what the legal position is.

The Foreign Office and the Ambassador have doubts as

to our

legal rights and consider that if the case

went to the Hague it might well be decided against us.

I presume that we should do everything possible to

prevent the case being referred to the P.C.I.J. since

a decision against us there might have most serious

shouted

wwwmg effects on British prestige in China. I mean that

our right to alter the terms of an international

Convention by unilateral action is, to say the least,

Page 10Page 11