of the lease draws nearer, with this question still unsettled, the position in which the British will be seen to be will come more and more to resemble a forced sale, and accordingly Chinese resistance will stiffen and the
assuming, that is, that China price to be paid will rise - is open to any such bargain by then.
For that reason I
deplore particularly Cowell's suggestion (page 7) in
for when
relation to commercial leases of shelving the question until it becomes obvious that the shoe is pinching'; those difficulties begin to make themselves felt they will be just as obvious to Chinese eyes as to our own.
6. One further reason for acting now is that Japanese influence and power will always be thrown against any proposal that would strengthen a European nation's position in China: at the present moment, however, that factor can be disregarded as between Great Britain and
China.
•
I have throughout this correspondence kept to the economic argument and kept off that of defence
but I feel that I should add this.
If inquiry goes to
show that the commercial importance of Hong Kong does not justify the expenditure that would be necessary to procure a long extension of the lease, then this Colony must be
regarded as a wasting asset;
for it is undeniable that
it cannot continue to exist into the next century as a British Colony without that extension.
the following questions arise as riders:-
(1)
In that case surely
Is it worth H.M.G's while to spend many millions
of pounds fortifying a wasting asset?