provided that Hong Kong did not claim it as a
victory against our sterling policy.
Walker and
to some extent Mrs Hedley Miller are not unattracted
by this proposition, which we have of course argued
as strongly as we can, but they cannot know whether
it will eventually prevail.
curte realise dis
important matter very important
bold the Treasury that
Iiss the stallis
has to la intent asa
decision eventually goes to books like going the wrons way, our own
3. Meanwhile in speaking to Haddon-Cave we
suggest you should confine yourself to pointing
out how the information asked for in our telegram
will assist our understanding of the technical
consequences of the banks withdrawal.
You may
The
also wish to stress the presentational problem
in relation to the other sterling holders.
Hong Kong press would presumably want to make
much of any arrangement, but what matters most is
what the Hong Kong Government themselves would say
You could add that we will let Hong Kong have a
reply as soon as we can. You will be able to
bott
and Treasury
assure him that neither FCO.officials per the
minster will wish to be consulta
Treasury have been itttes, are doing their best to reach an early
solution which is acceptable to both sides.
4. You may wish to show this to Wilford in t
light of Bangkok telegram Ne
and also to
APS to Mr Royle (Bangkok telegram No 431).
Haddon-
Cave's comments about the lack of progress were
presumably made without having seen FCO tel No 983.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
5/10
(10382) Dd.392005;154m](77{sorts) 1/68 G.W.B.Ltd.Gp.863