CO129-603-2 Education Department- revised grant code 5-4-1948 - 6-1-1949 — Page 9

In Grace has Jin

The

Wha

docis an be im Bashop

An

pres.

13/8

i

was fully informed as to the Bishop's point of view, in case the matter was later referred to the Sub- Committee. Shortly afterwards hir. Grace rang up to say that Bishop H all had called upon him and stated his case to him. ir. Grace wanted to ask whether, if this proposed change in the Code was likely to be referred to the Hong Kong Sub-Committee of the A.C.E.C., Bishop Hall could be present, as the Sub-Committee had already heard Mr. Rowell, and it might be right fo them to have the Bishop's case at first hand. I explained that I thought there might be constitutional difficulties in such a course, as it would be setting a precedent for the airing of grievances by local unofficials direct to the Advisory Sub-Committee in London, which I thought would give the wrong idea of such Advisory Committee functions and in this case might well not be appreciated by Mr. Lowell. mentioned to Mr. Grace that when recently a delegation of the African Congress in Nyasaland visited London in order to place before the Secretary of State their complaints against Government support for Missionary Educational work in that territory he was strongly opposed to letting them meet the Sub-Committee direct, with which I was in full agreement. Mr. Grace saw the point, but as he would have the task of seeing that Bishop Hall's case was fairly put across if this matter is referred to the Sub-Committee, he would welcome it if he might come along with the Bishop when the latter and air. Rowell discussed the whole question with us in the Office. This Iregard as reasonable and I suggest that such a meeting should be arranged on one of the dates towards the end of September or early in October which Bishop Hall has

Xsaid he can manage and that, besides, Mr. Robison,

a representative of the Department and myself, Mr. Rowell, Bishop Hall and Mr. Grace should be invited to come along.

My own view is that, having at each stage so far, kept the Committee in the picture as regards the Code as a whole, we cannot now omit them when a drastic change is proposed; nor indeed would I wish to do so, as the issues involved are tricky and ones on which their corporate advise will be of value. I therefore suggest that the papers at (3) should be referred to the Sub-Committee as soon as possible after the proposed meeting with the Bishop, lir. Grace, and Mr. Rowell in the Office has taken place.

I will not lengthen this minute by relating the ways in which the Bishop amplified his case in his conversation with me. He spoke ably and persuasively and left me with the feeling that his case merits much more careful consideration than I thought it did when we were first told about it at the Hong Kong Sub-Committee by Mr. Rowell. At the same time, though I should like to meet him in every justifiable way, what he is asking for is such a drastic modification of the Code in respect of one group of schools that I think it would be very difficult to concede it.

Culn Cox

12th August, 1948.