CO885-11 — Page 622

616

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.882/11

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

68

provision will be required as regards the Dominions. It will presumably not be possible to make any reservation as regards the Eastern Colonies without rendering any such Convention nugatory, but we think that there should be a provision rendering it possible to make a reservation at the time of ratification as regards sovereign Malay States under British protection, if only on the ground of courtesy to the native rulers, though we do not anticipate that the Malay States would in fact refuse to fall into line with the Straits Settlements. The same applies to North Borneo and Sarawak, since we are pledged not to interfere with their internal administration, and therefore are not in a position to accept obligations under a Convention of this nature on their behalf without first obtaining their consent.

As regards the Second Conference, invitations have been sent to all Members of the League, and therefore the Dominion Members of the League (Canada, the Common- wealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State) have the right to send separate representatives (though we have not heard whether they are in fact doing so) and to sign or not to sign any Convention negotiated at the Conference, as they please. There remain Newfoundland, Southern Rhodesia, and the Colonies not possessing responsible Government, and Protectorates, for whom His Majesty's Government are responsible vis-à-vis the League. Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia are self-governing and could not be bound by a Convention of this nature without their consent. It would, further, not be in accordance with practice that we should accept obligations under such a Convention on behalf of the Colonies not possessing responsible Government and Protectorates without consulting them because, amongst other reasons, in some of them the Secretary of States does not control legislation. The best course, as regards any Convention negotiated at the Second Conference, would appear to be that adopted in the case of other Conventions of a technical character negotiated under the auspices of the League, viz., to insert an Article enabling the signatory States to make a declaration at the time of signature or ratification, excluding any of their Colonies, &c., from the Convention. The latest form of such an Article is Article 9 of the Convention on the International Régime of Railways (Cmd. 2142) which reads as follows:-

Any State signing or adhering to the present convention may declare, at the moment either of its signature, ratification, or accession, that its acceptance of the present convention does not include any or all of its colonies, overseas possessions, protectorates, or overseas territories under its sovereignty or authority and may subsequently adhere, in conformity with the provisions of Article 5, on behalf of any such colony, overseas possession, protectorate, or territory excluded by such declaration.

"Denunciation may also be made separately in respect of any such colony, overseas possession, protectorate, or territory, and the provisions of Article 3 shall apply to any such denunciation."

If this course is adopted in the present case, it will not be necessary for any declaration to be made at the time of signature of the Convention, but in the interval between signature and ratification we can take steps to ascertain whether any of the Colonies, &c., are to be excluded, with a view to the necessary declaration being made at the time of ratification.

N

54466/24.

Yours, &c.,

G. GRINDLE.

No. 45.

FOREIGN OFFICE to MR. LONDON (Geneva).

(Sent 5.30 p.m., 19th November, 1924.) TELEGRAM.

(Copy received in Colonial Office, 20th November, 1924.)

No. 108 (R). FOLLOWING for Delevingne :-

We understand that American Delegation to Second Opium Conference consider themselves free to reopen whole question of Far Eastern opium smoking discussed at First Conference. If they do so we feel that on political grounds best course would be that you should bring forward proposal for Commission of Inquiry with American

69

Chairman on lines already discussed as a means of disarming criticism. Colonial Office have no objection and would, if anything, welcome impartial investigation in territories of all nationalities.

Please act accordingly unless you see objections outweighing probable good effect on public opinion. In that case you should refer to London for instructions stating pros and cons fully. In any case please let us and Home Office have your views.

54466/24.

No. 46. MR. J. J. PASKIN (COLONIAL OFFICE) to SIR M. DELEVINGNE (GENEVA). DEAR SIR MALCOLM,

Downing Street, 20th November, 1924.

impartial As I promised, I lost no time in discussing the question of the " Commission of investigation," with Collins and Grindle and with Waterlow. I also saw Sir John Anderson, though only for a few minutes as he had to catch a train. The result was embodied in the telegram which Waterlow sent to you.

41

I told Waterlow how you had heard from Dame Rachel about the trump card up your sleeve." Waterlow explained that he had discussed the suggestion of a Commission of investigation with Drummond, who had been much impressed with the idea. A propos, your point that, even if you had wished to bring forward the suggestion at the First Conference, Drummond's absence from Geneva had made it impossible for you to ascertain whether a suitable American could be found for the job, Waterlow said that Drummond thinks that there would be no difficulty in finding suitable men for such a Commission.

I made it clear that you had discussed the matter with me and that we had agreed that, as things had gone, there was no occasion for you to make the suggestion at the First Conference, particularly in view of the fact that such progress as was made was on the initiative of the British Delegation, and that in fact the other European Delega- tions concerned were not prepared to go so far as we were.

Waterlow, however, is much impressed with the desirability of doing something more to disarm American criticism; and he, Collins, and Grindle are still of opinion thut, if the general question of opium for smoking is reopened, an impartial investiga- tion by such a Commission would be very valuable from this point of view; and that, even if other powers would not agree to it, the fact of the suggestion being made by the British Delegation would have a good effect.

You will also have received a telegram from Grindle about the "Colonial reserva- tion clause." I must confess that I had not appreciated the fact that a very much narrower clause would be sufficient for inclusion in the first Convention. It was Malkin who pointed out that the inclusion of the full Clause would leave a loophole for Portugal to make a complete reservation in respect of Macao. Malkin also considers that in the operative part of the Convention (as distinct from the preamble), it should be made quite clear as to the territories to which the Convention is to apply (i.e., the territories in which the use of prepared opium is still authorized).

The discussions on these two points took so much time that I saw no chance yesterday of going through our papers about transhipment, &c., at Hong Kong. In order, therefore, to prevent delay we sent off the telegram to Hong Kong asking for a résumé of the position.

I

I found that the correspondence for which I telegraphed from Geneva had already been sent off, but that a copy of the latest Hong Kong Ordinance was not included. enclose a copy-"

*

*Not reprinted here.

Yours, &c.,

J. J. PASKIN.

الأندية

70