I agree. The maintenance of long kong as a
prosperous mercantile centre under ritish Control
must bring indirect benefits to financial and
shipping interests in this country over and
above that shewn in the returns of im orts
into Hong Kong from the .K. urther, there is
no danger of Hong kong departing from its tradi-
tional policy to the extent of fostering local
manufactures by the imposition of protective
tariffs; and I cannot believe that the interests
of this country as a whole are going to be ser-
iously prejudiced by the limited production of
cheap shoes of which the local industry is
capable without gov rnment as-istance.
#Rlowell
21.11.34
This is certainly of some interest.
I had a discussion some time ago with Mr. Beale
who is, I think, Commercial Secretary attached
to the Embassy in China. He was very pessimistic
indeed about Hong Kong and said that Shanghai
was a place of incomparably greater commercial
and financial liveliness. He seemed to
attribute the decline of Hong Kong more to the
easygoing habits and traditions of the place
than to any definite economic handicaps from
which it was suffering. I do not think that
from a long distance point of view the idea of
industrial development in Hong Kong has much to
be said for it. The probability seems to be
that there will be a very great industrial and
commercial development in China proper in the
course of the next ten or twenty years, and
that the real possibilities for Hong Kong lie
in