TNAG-0225-FCO40-261-Ministerial-meetings-on-internal-affairs-of-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 32

of course.

Mr.

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Reference.......

considered. Mr. Clinton then said that this put a different complexion on the situation; they had not gained that impression from the Secretary of State's

letter.

8. I had about two hours with the Governor on Friday,

11 September. Mr. Holmes was with us for most of the time but left about half an hour before the end in order, I think, to give me an opportunity of talking to the Governor by himself. The Governor again rehearsed all the reasons why he had been so astonished to receive the Secretary of State's letter. He said that it ignored the constitutional position; since 1958 the Legislative Council had been given responsibility for Hong Kong's financial affairs (there had been a delegation of authority). None of the proposals in the Secretary of State's letter could be implemented without reference to Legislative Council who would have to provide the necessary funds. He did not think that it was possible these days to use the official majority on the Council to push through measures not approved by the unofficial members. He kept referring to "half orders" in the Secretary of State's letter. This was a bad way of going about things; even in the days when the Colonial Office was responsible for Hong Kong's affairs there had been a tendency in this direction. He had feared that with the merger of the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office something like this would happen. He hoped there would be no more of it. Prior consultation

was essential. Fortunately, Mr. Holmes then suggested that there had been a misunderstanding. I supported him. The Governor then asked for my advice as to what he should do and, after some hesitation, he showed me the draft of a

letter to Sir D. Greenhill. The draft had come up to him from the Secretariat (presumably on his instructions) and he had made certain amendments. The letter was highly emotional, bitter and, in places, rude; it was much worse than anything else we have received from Hong Kong in recent months. After reading it I advised the Governor

not to send it. I said that I thought it would be better if I were to explain how he felt to Mr. Royle when I got back to London. The Governor accepted this. He then showed me the draft of another much longer letter going

/ into