3
stressing
this post with the for. & HK., I doil
think there cld be any strany objection to to
inclusion in the despatch.
The Fo
emendation seems also unobijectionable.
? Amend the draft drop. accordingly, adding fist the #7/M. emendation, I then the F.O. amendment, at the end of para. 3.
No. (5)
Mr. Talbot (F.0) spoke to me about this. Wer
had both independently anived at the same conclusion, oif. that there seems to be
discrepancy
-/38 pp.
по
between No (5) 9 No (90)
In No. (5) Mr. Pawleyf
have stated that as
far
a certain
on
the
is reported to
as he is concerned
uld.
the scheme for HK is not dead, & that he wich.
be
very glad to go on with it if the F.D. objections
were withdrawn. He then outlines his two
alterative schemes.
But in no. (90),
o the
-/38 file, the 500.
was
informed that the is no
objection to the setting up of the factory in HK, but that permission could not be granted for export of computed ainsaft to either China
or Japan. It is clear therefore that the F.O.
uld have no
objections to either
schemes outlined in (5).
7
the
As Mr. Pauley apparently intends