t
เร
was of sufficient importance or of a nature to trouble Your Lordship with.
356
7.
The question of a contribution by the Chinese Government to the Hongkong University stands in quite a different category. There was in this case no question of urgency, and I left it to Sir J. Jordan's greater knowledge and experience whether my suggestion were feasible. My letter (of which I forwarded a copy to Your Lordship in my Despatch No. 12 of the 12th. of January last) was addressed as a private letter from myself, and not in the name of the Governer, in
in Euf
view of the fact that the University is being privately promoted and though this Government, with your sanction, is giving a free site (as has been done in numberless other cases) the project is not an official one and the Government accepts no responsibi- -lity for its success or failure. I am very fully aware that a Governor in such circumstances cannot divest himself of his official position, and that my action in regard to this project has identified the Government in its support, I was careful in consequence to ascertain that I had the support of the leading Members of the Community before moving in the matter; but on the other hand I emphasized in my printed memorandum on the subject the fact that its promotion lay in private hands, and it must not rely on Government financial support, and would be controll- -ed by its own representative Council, upon which however Government would for obvious reasons require to be represented. This attitude is illustrated by the fact that in answer to a letter from the Chinese Sub-committee, dated 13th. March, 1909, I caused the following reply to be sent:-
"With reference to Resolution III, His "Excellency desires me to remind you that his letter to Sir John "Jordan was a private one and that he has not asked the Chinese "Government in his official capacity as Governor for any "subsidy, and does not propose to do so. His Excellency has only "invited Sir John Jordan to put the matter before them"
8.