CO129-610-1 Rehabilitation of Hong Kong University 3-1-1947 - 29-12-1947 — Page 21

30. Fir Orme Sayent (F.0)

Mr. Seel

17-6-7

20

I showed you on Friday afternoon the reply, at No.30, from Sir 0. Sargent to Sir T. Lloyd's letter at No.29. Our reaction was that the assurance which we proposed to give the Treasury will be considerably weakened if we are obliged to pass on with it the qualification in the last paragraph of No.30 that, so far as the F.0. concerned, their agreement to our giving a joint assurance to the Treasury in these terms is without prejudice to a decision on policy, which would presumably have to be taken at Cabinet level.

are

If we are obliged to include this proviso in our reply to the Treasury, it seems to me the latter may well point out that they can hardly regard as wholly satisfactory, and as resolving all their doubts, an assurance on what is, after all, a matter of policy, if that assurance is to be subject to this major qualification. Should the Treasury

adopt this view and the Foreign Secretary feel equally unable to agree in present circumstances to a submission to the Cabinet, we should have reached a complete impasse.

It will of course in any event be apparent to the Treasury that the joint view of the C.0. and the F.0. on the future of Hong Kong must always be subject to revision in the light of Cabinet decisions. But to emphasise this by drawing specific attention to it in our letter to the Treasury may lead them to suppose that the F.0. may feel there is some prospect of an policy decision which would invalidate the present assurance. If therefore the F.0. could be persuaded to agree that we need not mention to the Treasury their qualifying proviso, it might strengthen our case. It is a matter of presentation.

So far as assisting with regard to the airfield is concerned, I am afraid we have drawn a blank in No.30. Relevant extracts from previous correspondence on this subject to which No.30 refers are attached below No.30.

As we are discussing this to-day with Sir M. Young, I thought it would be convenient to have a draft letter to the Treasury ready for that discussion. I accordingly submit a draft opposite, which I am sure it will be possible to improve in the light of our discussion with Sir M. Young. I have prepared the draft on the assumption ththe F.O. will require us to include the proviso: if they agree that this is 15 not necessary, we can omit the portion in [ ] in paragraph 2 of the draft. I have also included the F.O. view that the value of a University in Hong Kong will be increased, not decreased, if

If we are we were obliged to give up the Colony. to say this, I think we might as well quote the specific examples of the American universities in China and in Beirut.

ANGalsworthy

23.6.47.

P.T.O.