54403/2/48.
1026
Mr. Bourdillon returned these files to me as he thought we should be well-advised to await the Colonial University Grants Advisory Committee meeting on the 27th before deciding what to say to Hong Kong. Mr. Sidebotham agreed.
2. I attended the C.U.G. A. C. meeting on the 27th. Mr. Bourdillon was present and also Mr. C. W. M. Cox for part of the time. At that meeting I saw the relevant extracts from the Inter-University Council Executive Committee meeting of the 21st (copy filed at (9) on 54403/2/48 and another at (43) here).
3. It will be seen that the I.U.C.E.C. advised the C. U. G. A. G. that:-
(a) they reaffirmed the Council's support
of the conclusions of the 1946 Committee in London on the future plans for the University of Hong Kong, namely that 'either the University should be developed to serve as a worthy representation of British scholarship and an effective centre for Sino-British contact in the sphere of learning (which would require large-scale financial eseistance from Imperial, not Colonial funds) or the University should not be revived;
(b) because adequate Imperial funds for the
development policy had not been made available and because they considered that the Malayan scheme had priority of claim on the D. D. & W. higher education allocation, they could not support an application for using a substantial sum from the allocation on what were essentially rehabilitation schemes
(The Committee was, it seems to me, incorrect in terming the Sloss proposals "essentially rehabilitation schemes"; they appear to be, in so far as C.D. & W. assistance is asked for, development.)
However this may be, the C.U.G.A.C. were swayed by this advice and by certain other arguments adduced before them (see below) and, while recognising that no official Hong Kong case had been before them, decided to allocate £1,000,000. This is rather more than the total sum (£950,000) provisionally allocated to Malaya plus Hong Kong and the decision means in effect that unless Hong Kong can put up such a strong case that the Committee can be persuaded to withdraw money already provisionally allocated elsewhere there is no hope for assistance for Hong Kong. That any such case would have to be exceptionally strong is indicated by the emergence of two other arguments at the meeting, both of which clearly impressed the C. U. G. A. C. One was that the development of the University as envisaged by the 1946 Committee (and indeed now - according to Mr. Serpell by Sir stafford Cripps)
18