014
al
15
ad
26.6.40.
·
މ
2
Cms
Ref.:
CO 537/1427
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
2
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet.
Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
21/6
000 15
her mage
this
mis minnate of 30/5 suggests
pasibility of
ths Chinese
contation
cooperate
at Day Sex Bay.
anak underthin
thuse
ཆ"་
سبعة
wwited
of the ausport
at (44) this mcq. the Treaty's
Калька
under which the low Territoris an la and t
the U.K.
نسدا
右一
pot clinde
question
перепелов адай
the Deep Sea Ray project
have to will presumably
th
ميا
Geographical sept, after
wild wish to un
མ༔།
все в водов
with her may!.
817
the
mint.
す
Cms
Ref.:
CO 537/1427
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
N
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
leaflet.
ла
54 John Loire Seald
2816
Mr. J. Swire, of the firm of John Swire and Bons, called to see me last Friday about the desire of Australian National Airways to operate a service from Australia through Manila to Hong Kong.
I informed him that we now knew that Skymasters had operated into Kai Tak but that we were not happy about a regular service into Kai Tak operated by such craft. (In this connection, the letter from Ratcliffe Cousins which I have placed opposite is particularly relevant and Hiss Holgate will presumably have passed on the information given in it to the High Commissioner).
I told Mr. Swire that the H.Or, in Australia had been asked to approach the Australian Government in the matter and that it had been made clear that it was the desire both of the Government of Hong Kong and of H.L.G. that a service should be operated, whether by A... or by any other organisation. We could not order the Australian Government in the matter and we must be content to await their reply.
•
Mr. Swire asked me if it would be advantageous to have a question asked in the Australian Parliament on the matter. I said that this would amount to a breach of confidence and that he would be bettor advised to wait for the reply from the Government, the substance of which would be comunicated to his Company when it was received.
It now remains for us to take the point raised in (44) by the M.C.A., together with the suggestion made by Mr. Mayle in his minute of the 30th of May.
I have