which
32
IH
has already been sent to Sir H. Seymour, is a combination of Mr. Gent's note behind (17) and Sir H. Prideaux-Brune's note at (18). The only addition I think might usefully be added to this and to the other papers mentioned in
Mr. Sterndale Bennett's letter (the C.O. note on British Colonial Economic Interests in China and the two letters from the China Association) is a copy of the note on policy regarding the future status of Hong Kong, which was prepared for our C.0. delegate to the San Francisco Conference, Mr. Poynton, which is registered at (71) on the 1944 file. A copy of this note was sent to S.0.E. but not I see to the Foreign Office. Alternatively, we might extract the last four sentences of the note at (71) and send them to the Ambassador as summarising H.M.G's attitude. (I have had a copy of this extract placed on this file as in any case it may be useful in the future.) I don't think it is worth including the third letter we have had from the China Association and the reply which are at (19) and (24).
? Reply as in draft.
H. he
15. 6. 45.
lou
J
But
Ꮽ
might
be
done
Schimme
to make
Au.
acceptable
agues with I reply.
at
" to produce
presene
(ie. Sc. the Chris Gout.).
to the Chenier"
The existence
loss
to what
Forume
at
q M.
A
Br. Colour
Ras
many
& varied advantages
угов.
for the Chriese,
wr. be lost to
(as the Chuine Gout.
be well
aware)
if
the status of the were
the Mar
allues.
of face
face
Cannot
The
Fran
that any thing
retro-cassini y
short
д
itu.
and serve
the point of
Vieir
Ме
مسما
ވ