CO537-2187 — Page 41

Mr. Mayle

As a result of Mr. Seel's minute of the

10th November you wrote to Mr. Scott (140) seeking Foreign Office views on the question of reconsidering the issue of a reassuring statement about the future of Hong Kong.

Mr. Scott's reply is at 143. The Foreign Office still consider it undesirable to make such a statement.

Since Mr. Scott wrote, it has been agreed in connection with the Kowloon incident that it is undesirable for us to do any thing which would add to the difficulties of the present Chinese Government and therefore that, specifically, we should not take the present occasion to make the statement that we have no intention of giving up Hong Kong. There is no question, therefore, of disagreeing with Mr. Scott's main conclusions.

But his final argument that His Majesty's Government ought not to give a perpetual guarantee of retention of Hong Kong and therefore (apparently) that no statement of any value could be made is beside the point. Of course His Majesty's Government could not give any such guarantee. We haven't asked for it. All that we wanted was a statement such as - "His Majesty's Government has no intention of returning Hong Kong to China". That means the present government and is all that any Government could say.

However I suggest it is not worth while answering Mr. Scott on this point in present circumstances.

?Put by when Mr. Seel has seen.

I

J. Walla

14th February, 1948

aquar

hom

No 1443 was written over 2 months

адо

With the development suce

them, and exper

especially

The Howloon

City wadent and iti repercusions,

there could be

da

a statiment.

h.

2012

бы

even-hen furtification

16/2atorce