-2-
entirely misled by it myself, when I first read it and
when I drew your attention to it. On reading it again,
I see that the Committee is partly referring to
sales in China. T suggest therefore that the statement
is open to objecti
objectionon the ground that, if it refers to
sales in "ong Kong,it is inaccurate, for there can be
so "sale" of a free person, and that, if it refers to
sules in
it is outside the terms of reference,
and is calculated to give grave offence to a friendly
Government.
68
Commander Tazlewood (who is doubtless well
known to you by reputation) And the British Commonwealth
League would be fully justified in contending that the
statement was in answer to their resolution.
If they
did so they would place the Colonial Office on the horns
So,
of a dilemma.
It would be necessary either to admit
the impeachment or to argue that it applied to China.
A further complication might arise if (as is quite poss-
-ib the Committee itself does not agree on what it meant.
The attitude of the Chinese "overnment is that
it abolished" the i-tsai system by the regulations
in these
of september1952. Tt is extremely sensitive to suggestions
that the regulations have not had their effect.
circunstances, the publication, on pages 51 onwards, of forms
of sales, etc, taken fron the Pei-lai-tai-tsun, is to be
deprecated. Nothing is said of the date,authenticity
TA
is only a
or official recomition of the work.
watter of antiquarian research, it has no hearing upon
the present day circumstances of ang "ong.
succested that, despite the 1 tha
in China,itis distinctly offensive.
it is outside the this of reference.
stin
In either case,
In items (I) and (9) of its conclusions,