8
has said that the Report must remain confidential for the time being. I assume that this would not exclude the issue of the Report confidentially to those responsible bodies on the same basis that it has been issued to bodies in this country who have the relevant interest in the University. we would, I think, first wish to consult the Governor and I wonder whether, for this purpose, Mr. Lloyd would be prepared to write semi-officially to Sir M. Young. I submit a draft letter for
conson.
But
Finally Mr. Sloss suggests that a copy of the Report might go to Dr. Han Lih-wu. The Chinese Vice-Minister of Education was most helpful during the war when so many Hong Kong students were refugees in China but there will no doubt be agreement that it would be premature at this stage to suggest to the F.0. that a copy might be sent to him.
(95) to (97) put by.
In (98) kir. Sloss discussed the project in the recommendations of the Scarborough Report that is most likely to affect the proposals for Hong Kong University, namely the establishment in Peking of an English speaking research institute. Mr. Sloss supports this proposal and maintains that there is need and scope for both institutions and that they would supplement each other. He points out that Peking and Hong Kong are 12,000 miles apart and that there are considerable differences between North and South China. Mr. Cox has reported that the Foreign Office are inclined to think that approval of the Peking proposal would make the recommendations for establishing Hong Kong University on a larger scale than is required for Colonial needs redundant. Or at any rate that the Treasury are unlikely to agree to finance both schemes and that their preference is for the Feking scheme.
As there has been nothing from the Foreign Office since the bare acknowledgment of the 28th October of the secretary of State's letter (91) I suggest that a letter might now go to the Foreign Office saying that at the time that the secretary of State wrote to iir. Bevin (85) the Scarborough Report had not been read by those concerned with the Report on Hong Kong University; that it is recognised that the Scarborough Report recognises the same need for the representation in China of British Culture and Scholarship; that for this purpose Hong Kong
University presents an existing and non-Governmental institution already in being and in respect of which detailed plans have already been worked out; that nevertheless it may be considered that in view of the distances between reking and Hong Kong and the differences in character between North and South China that there is ample room for both institutions. We should go on to say that as it has not been felt possible by the University Authorities to re-open the University until a decision on the Committee's Report has been taken and that as the consequent delay is liable to unfortunate misrepresentation in Hong Kong, it is very much to be hoped that the Foreign Secretary will be able to authorise his Department to work out with the C.0. a joint approach to the Treasury as suggested in iur. Creech Jones' letter of the 24th October.
/I
Page
a
I have put up a draft for conson on these lines.
A copy of the Scarborough Report is attached. The proposal in regard to the Peking Institute is referred to in paragraph 53 and in Subsection (7)(iii) of paragraph 115 and in more detail in paragraphs 26 to 28 of section C of Appendix 1. These three references are flagged. At a meeting at which Sir A. Dawe presided to determine the Colonial Office attitude to this Report, it was decided, I think, that recommendations for the establishment of English speaking institutes should be supported with the rider that where appropriate Colonial Universities existed they should be used. I have not yet seen the minutes of this meeting but it will be well to refer to any letter sent to the F.0. as a result on the Scarborough Report in this reminder about the Hong Kong Report.
(99) is the subject of Mr. Lloyd's minute above and covers the same two points of further distribution of the Committee's Report and relevance of the recommendations of the Scarborough Report.
Hocke
11th December, 1946.
Page
100
Cons of Celleupon Boop Rocky to this Rova low Солгу встрои
1985
file
2
101
Fo. (45499
(454909/4999/452)
102
Extract fr. F.O letter
20.
12.96
This file returned to me on 15th January.
1.1.4)
In their letter at 101 the Foreign Office quality their support or our proposals for the re-establishment of Hong Kong University to the extent of apparently regarding the Scarborough Commission's recommendation for the establishment or a centre in Peking and the British Council's work in China as of prior importance. They stipulate that any grant to the University from Imperial f'unds should be without prejudice to the financial requirements of these two objectives. This is the more curious in that the telegram from the Ambassador in Nanking of 14th December which is enclosed with 101 strongly supports our proposals for Hong Kong. In the Ambassador's view expenditure on British Council activities should be complementary and not in opposition to expenditure on the University.
The last paragraph of the Ambassador's telegram is somewhat cryptic without knowledge of the Foreign Office telegram to which it refers. Professor P.M. Roxby is the well known geographer and the Chief Lepresentative of the British Council in China. I have attachéd at 100 a copy of his letter referred to by the Ambassador from which it will be seen that the Professor is wholeheartedly in favour of the view that Hong Kong University should cater for the needs of China. He goes so far as to say that "whatever the future
activities of the British
/Council
age 9
age 9
Page
Page
ge 10
10
Council in China, it is probably true to say that Hong Kong University is potentially the largest single cultural contribution to China's reconstruction which Great Britain is capable of contributing." I gather from letters from Hong Kong that Sir Angus Gillan, during his recent visit there, also expressed general agreement with this view. It would seem therefore that we have the British Council with us rather than in competition.
As to the Scarborough Commission's recommendation for the establishment of an English-speaking research institute at Peking, while expressing our general agreement with the recommendations of the Scarborough Report we have said (in our letter to the Foreign Office of 11th January on 12062) that we would like to consider this particular project further. I have put a copy of the Scarborough Report in the back of the file and the three passages referring to the Peking project are flagged and marked. An extract from our letter to the Foreign Office of 11th January is at 102 and I have asked for a copy of the full letter. Mr. Sloss' view on this project is given in his letter at 98 (typed copy behind) in which he states that he is strongly in favour of it. It might be worth sending a copy of this letter to the Foreign Office at the official level. Mr. Sloss believes that there is ample room and need for both an institute at Peking and the revived University in Hong Kong which would aim not only at sinological research but also at the wider range of studies in the arts, sciences and professional subjects envisaged in the Advisory Committee's Report. In replying to the Foreign Office, I suggest that we might also make the point that while the Peking project is no doubt admirable it is at present no more than a proposal in broad form. But the University is an existing institution (although not at the moment functioning) and plans for its future have been worked out in detail.
In the last paragraph of the Foreign Office letter at 101 the suggestion is made that any public announce- ment about the University should await a decision on the general question of the future of Hong Kong.
I think we should resist this. The delay in making any announcement about the University with the increasing doubt as to whether it is intended to re-open it at all or at any rate to re-open it on an improved basis is liable to unfortunate interpretation in Hong Kong and elsewhere. It is generally known that a Committee has been advising on pans for its future and although the Report has remained confiden- tial I think it is equally known there are recommendations for its revival on an enlarged basis. Some announcement is therefore, I suggest, a matter of urgency and should be considered irrespective of any announcement about the general question of Hong Korg Indeed if for reasons of policy that general announce- ment is not made a statement about the University will go some way towards restoring confidence in our intentions.
This concern as to the future of the University finds expression in this country and is reflected
/in
ge 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.