43
substantive
led the Committee to say "better no university than an unworthy one"; there is an ominous hint of a repetition of the pre-War mistakes in para. 7 of (51) where the University seems prepared to embark on developments without assurance of the financial stability to carry them through. It is this Micawber attitude which makes it essential to know what new developments the University would undertake from the Treasury grants if the needs under para. 2 are met by a C. D. & W. grant.
4.
If the reply to (51) does ask for a summary of the development plans, it would be advisable to include a warning that the C. D. & W. higher education allocation is so fully committed that it is improbable that any grant to the University will be made.
5. I should like to correct any misunderstanding, that the Inter-University Council has been indifferent to Hong Kong or inadequately informed, to which Mr. Cox's minute of 19th July might unintentionally give rise. Mr. Sloss has fully reported on the University when he has been present; the Council cannot be expected to visit a University unless that University invites it to do so - such an invitation has only just been received from Hong Kong; if visitors went (at a time when the new Vice-Chancellor had not taken office or developed his own plans) it is debatable whether they could advise on the longer- term policies without clearer guidance on H.M.G.'s attitude, since the main recommendation of the Cox report has been rejected (see para. 10 of the Cox report), and an inadequate University has been per- mitted to revive.
Wow Cam
Walter Adams)
8th September, 1948.
$1" Sept 194 on 51
Mr. Wallace.
I am sorry to have kept this. I think there is much force in what Mr. Adams says, and I am afraid No.51 does not strike me as being a very useful contribution. It seems to me that this document is entirely devoted to specious arguments and gives no sort of answer to the plain request in No.44.
2.
I suggest that we should now reiterate that request i.e., that we should ask Hong Kong to explain in detail how they propose using H.M.G.'s grant of £250,000 € in addition to the Hong Kong Government's own assistance for the benefit of the University.
3. As regards the renewed request for a C.D. & . grant, I have the following comments:-
(a) The argument in para. 4 of No.51 is a
ridiculous travesty of what we said in our outward telegram - so ridiculous, in fact, that I can hardly believe the paragraph is meant seriously. course C.D.& W. assistance would not
Of
be/