ᄀ
thought therefore that the letter to the Treasury enclosing the memorandum (8) should emanate from the Colonial Office, but the Foreign Office were willing to write a separate supporting letter saying that they had seen our letter and giving additional Foreign Office reasons why they hoped the Treasury would agree to what is proposed.
I spoke to Mr. Bryant about this yesterday who thought that provision for the University should certainly be made in our vote. I mentioned it also to Sir T. Lloyd who agreed that the approach to the Treasury should be on the basis of a grant in the Colonial Office Vote but that nevertheless there might be psychological value in persuading the Foreign Office to write the covering letter so long as it made it clear that it referred to a joint approach.
I am afraid I have not been successful in persuading the Foreign Office to this view in spite of the fact that, as I pointed out to Mr. Montague-Pollock the original suggestion came from them (see 11). He promised, however, to write to me this week enclosing a draft of the letter which the Foreign Office "have in mind". To avoid further confusion I think we have better wait for this letter before drafting a letter for Sir T. Lloyd's signature and in the meanwhile I suggest that Mr. Bryant should see the
papers. paruaneways)
Ahat w
28.3.47.
Mr. See
Seer
You should see Miss Ruston's minute.
We are getting
a long way away from the original idea of a joint approach by Ministers, which I still think offers the only hope of getting any money for the Hong Kong University. Frankly, I suspect that the Foreign Office tactics are directed towards minimising the effect of the Ministerial agreement which was reached on this question. I don't think that they are really reconciled to the withdrawal of the condition which they originally proposed to attach to the approach to the Treasury, namely that any United Kingdom grant to the Hong Kong University would be without prejudice to the financial arrangements of the British Council's work in China and of the proposals in the Scarborough Report.
If the Fo. had not--suggerled
in 11. That they tho write
1
we sh
1. Mayk
29.3.47.
ho don't have had the letter drafted In now. If they do not send then draft
an
as fortunused the week we had better get on with the for ourselves
for
29/3