.. 3–
line of policy. Were we or were we not to sign the draft Agreement under the First Conference?
The Home Scoretary expressed the view that we should sign the draft Agreement and refuse entirely any further discussion on the American proposals. Mr. Waterlow agreed that this was a possible policy but he doubted whether it would be acceptable to the Cabinet, and in particular to the Foreign Secretary, whose conversations with members of the American Delegation had not been on these lines,
Sir John Anderson summarized the position as follows:- (1) We must decide whether the draft Agreement under the first Conference is worthy of our signature. What advances on the existing Hague Convention does it make?
(2) Assuming that this Agreement is to be signed, two further points
arise:-
(a) are we to allow any further discussion on the American
proposals or are we to confine our action to publio refence of the draft Agreement to be signed?
(b) if we allow any further discussion on the American proposals
are we to agree to the extension of the agenda of the Second Conference so as to permit their full consideration?
Sir Gilbert Grindle stated that the Colonial Secretary wished the draft Agreement under the First Conference to be signed. It represented the best practical results which could be agreed upon in the present difficult position in the Far East and if the Agreement were signed we should be in a better position to deal with the agitation which is almost certain to continue.
Sir Louis Kershaw remarked that India had already signed this Agreement.
Mr. Newton took the view that while the draft Agreement might represent an advance in minor matters it represented no advance in major matters. He wished us to say so frankly, and on the broad issue to admit that we were not carrying out Chapter II of the Hague Convention. We should therefore continue to propose an impartial Commission to visit the Far East and examino the actual possibilities of the situation with a view, if necessary, to modifying the existing
Sir Gilbert provisions in Chapter II of The Hague Convention. Grindle remarked that the chief new factor in the present state of affairs as the changed situation in China, which was sufficient to justify any apparent failure to carry out Chapter II,
the Home
Sir melcolm Delevingne did not entirely agree with Mr. Newton's
view.
Definite progress had been made under Chapter II of th: Engue Convention, though it was admitted that the position had no become stationary. Sir Louis Kershaw interposed that the Convention fixed no date for the ultimate suppression of opium smoking; Secretary agreed, Sir Malcolm Delevingne continued that in spite of the attenuated proposals which he was authorized to make, after the discussions between the Home Offios, the Foreign Office, and the Colonial Office in the stammer, he had not been so much embarrassed by
500