CO129-538-1 Hong Kong University 31-12-1931 - 6-8-1932 — Page 216

-21-

323

"

handing over full control of the funds to the National Govern-

ment of China and to rely upon their appreciation of our action

in order to obtain fulfilment of the original intention of our

policy, viz., that the proceeds of the Indemnity should be de-

voted to projects equally beneficial to China and Great Britain.

It will be seen from this quotation that the

ostensible cause of the change of policy was Great Britain's

recognition of the 358 alleged fact that even under "the

measures suggested in 1926" (that is to say the recommendations of the Willingdon delegation which had been accepted by the British Foreign Office) the ultimate control of the funds would still remain with His Majesty's Government; and that changed conditions in China had rendered it desirable that such ultimate

control should be surrendered. Now this is a puzzling state- ment;

for the outstanding feature of the Willingdon proposals was, as we have seen, that the British Government "should cease to exercise any control over the funds or the disposal thereof", and the very reason why the British Government's acceptance of the proposals was declared at that time to necessitate fresh legislation was that the existing Act of 1925 kept ultimate control in the hands of the Secretary of State and would there- fore have to be repealed.

It has already been pointed out that a new bill which was intended to repeal the 1925 Act is believed to have been actually drafted; and though we cannot refer to its precise terms it was presumably drafted in full accordance With the Willingdon recommendations (already accepted in principle by His Majesty's Government) whereby control was to be taken out of British hands and given to the Board of Trustees. If the bill was not drafted on these lines it cannot have been the bill which the Secretary of State had in mind when he said that his acceptance of the Willingdon recommendations would "make it necessary to amend the Act"of 1925. If the Foreign Office could be persuaded to produce the bill drafted in 1926-7 but never introduced into Parliament, we should know whether as