CO129-560-17 Kowloon- expropriation of Chinese property 6-1-1937 - 4-9-1937 — Page 35

the New Territories of which the walled city was in the

pre-cession era the Chinese administrative centre. Only

this year there had been suggested in Nanking the

possibility of the appointment of a Chinese Magistrate in

the Leased Territories and in Macao, though this had not

been pursued. It showed clearly, however, the direction

in which Chinese thought tended, and there was no question

that the eventual rendition of Hong Kong itself was

eagerly desired.

Sir J. Pratt said that there were two questions

to be considered:

first, the rights of the individuals

concerned in the eviction, and secondly, the Chinese claim

to jurisdiction in the city of Kowloon. He thought it

was clear that the individuals had no legal case and no

grievance, but with regard to the claim to jurisdiction

he was doubtful whether we were not legally in the wrong.

The Foreign Office legal advisers had considered it

possible that if the case were taken to the Permanent

Court of International Justice, the Chinese Government

might win.

Mr. Cowell pointed out that the Chinese had

acquiesced for thirty-eight years in the essential fact

that Kowloon city had been subject to the jurisdiction

of the Hong Kong Government and he considered it

impossible after this lapse of time to admit the Chinese

claim to Chinese jurisdiction.

Sir A. Caldecott