to which it leads up, is, I hope, of such a nature that
at this juncture could not be in any sense reasonably
regarded as "gratuitously provocative" to the Chinese.
I need hardly say that I should be only too glad if a paper on these lines could be submitted jointly by the two
of us, but in any case I should be grateful for any comments
you may have upon the draft. I hope that the doubts
expressed in your letter of the 25th February as to the case for a reassuring statement will be settled by paragraphs
12 and 13 of the draft. I would only add that last year we were advised that Hong Kong would not be able to raise money
as other Colonies, in this country on the same terms / because of the uncertainty
which is felt about its future. I am a little doubtful
whether H.M.G.'s bessing would help unless it took the form
of guaranteeing a loan; but a guarantee would involve an
Act of Parliament, the debate on which would no doubt bring forth a demand for a reassuring statement, probably of a much
more specific nature than is proposed in Annex V of the enclosed
draft.
As regards the second point referred to in your letter, there have been some recent developments in the airport project. The survey party has reported that to construct an airport would cost something of the order of £23,000,000. The estimated figure for the Deep Bay site in the new territories is £4,000,000.
looks as though for financial reasons alone we shall have to decide in favour of the Deep Bay site, but we should naturally want to be assured before embarking on expenditure of that
- W
It
magnitude, that if the lease of the new territories were surrendered,'
ntinued control over the airport would be one of the essential nditions attached to the surrender.
The future of Hong Kong is also a matter of interest to Dalton,
to
pps and Alexander; the first two from the point of British trade
nd
13
hina the Far East, and Alexander from that of defence.ava