CO885-11 — Page 623

71

54503/24.

No. 47.

FOREIGN OFFICE to MR. LONDON (Geneva).

(Sent 6 p.m., 19th November, 1924.)

TELEGRAM.

(Copy received in Colonial Office, 21st November, 1924.) No. 110. (R.) Following for Delevingne from Grindle:-

Begins-Fear some misunderstanding as to insertion of Colonial Reservation clause. Full clause not necessary in first Convention and inclusion may provide loophole for Macao. All that is necessary is provision for reservation as regards Protectorates not under British sovereignty. See paragraph 2 of my letter of 27th October.*-Ends.

54466/24.

No. 49.

MR. SP. WATERLOW (FOREIGN OFFICE) to SIR M, DELEVINGNE (GENEVA), (Copy received in Colonial Office, 28th November, 1924.)

DEAR DELEVINGNE,

Foreign Office, S.W.1,

22nd November, 1924. THE object of our Commission of Inquiry proposal is to draw the teeth of hostile criticism, particularly American, and to make unequivocally clear to the world that we welcome investigation. I therefore see no point in sounding the French Government about it beforehand, as suggested in your letter of 20th November. If the French object to it, so much the worse for them.

I earnestly hope that, unless you see very strong reasons to the contrary, you will bring our proposal forward when the Americans deliver an attack giving the oppor- tunity. If you see reasons to the contrary, the sooner you can refer the question home, the better, as in that case it will have to go to the Cabinet. Meanwhile we are assuming that you will act on the lines indicated. I may mention that Drummond told me there would be no difficulty about finding a suitable American Chairman.

Yours, &c.,

54466/24.

No. 48.

SIR M. DELEVINGNE (GENEVA) to MR. S. P. WATERLOW (FOREIGN OFFICE). [Answered by No. 49.]

(Copy received in Colonial Office, 28th November, 1924.)

Dear WaterLOW,

The British Delegation, Hotel Metropole,

Geneva, Switzerland, 20th November, 1924. MANY thanks for your two telegrams received this morning. As regards the intention of the American Delegation to reopen in the Second Conference the question of opium smoking in the Far East in the event of a satisfactory agreement not being concluded by the First Conference, the only objection I see in the way of our making the proposal for a Commission of Inquiry is the probability-which is almost a certainty -that the French Delegation (and, I imagine, one or two other Delegations) would strongly object to the proposal. Would it not be well to sound the French Government privately before I actually bring forward the proposal here? The matter is hardly likely to come up in a definite shape before next week. The Second Conference has appointed a strong Committee of Business to make proposals for the arrangement of the business of the Conference, and the matter will presumably first be raised by the United States Delegation in that Committee. The First Conference does not meet again till Saturday afternoon, and until it has definitely decided on the terms of a Convention, the United States Delegation would hardly be able to raise the matter.

I received this morning from the Home Office a copy of your letter to Anderson of Tuesday, and the drafts of telegrams to Tokio and Washington. I have no com- ments to make on the telegrams except that our policy of restricting exports of opium and the drugs to Japan has not depended solely on the case of Formosa, but also, and even more, on the huge illicit traffic in opium and the drugs between Japan proper and China; on the situation in Kwangtung, &c., &c.; and that the exports to Japan proper and Kwangtung are involved as well as exports to Formosa. I am telegraphing you to this effect to-night. We are a little hampered in dealing with the matter here, because I have not known exactly what has been happening at Hong Kong. The representative of the IIong Kong Government who accompanied me here did not seem very certain as to the position. I am hoping to get a telegram to-night stating exactly what the position is.

I may add that I am not quite sure that the compromise arrangement which you have suggested in your telegram to Sir C. Eliot will work quite in the form in which you have suggested it, but I think it is quite possible to arrive at some arrange- ment on the general lines of your proposal.

Yours, &c.,

MALCOLM DELEVINGNE.

56458/24.

No. 50.

S. P. WATERLOW.

SIR M. DELEVINGNE (GENEVA) to SIR C. HURST (Foreign OffiCE). (Dated 19th November, 1924.) TELEGRAM.

(Copy received in Colonial Office, 2nd December, 1924.) [Answered by No. 51.]

CONFERENCE re opium smoking in Far Eastern Possessions will probably con- clude agreement re measures for effective application Chapter II, Hague Convention, measure partly administrative partly will require legislation in territories affected. French suggest making it an accord rather than a convention on ground convention If requires ratification while accord only requires governments notify acceptance. this view is correct there may be advantages in course proposed. Please wire to- morrow at latest Foreign Office views. Waterlow knows situation.

56458/24.

No. 51.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN (FOREIGN OFFICE) to MR. LONDON (GENEVA). (Sent 19th November, 1924.)

TELEGRAM.

(Copy received in Colonial Office, 2nd December, 1924.)

PLEASE deliver the following message from Sir C. Hurst to Sir M. Delevingne. The customary procedure is to insert a ratification clause in the case of any inter- national agreement which necessitates legislation on our part to make it effective, and accordingly we do not ratify until the necessary statute has been enacted.

In the present case, before the Protectorate Governments are finally committed, their opinion must be taken. For this reason especially we do not favour any departure from the general practice; and we cannot understand how the French can avoid the insertion of a ratification clause. This will surely be required, if they conclude an agreement which involves legislation, without having submitted it to their parliament.

* No. 44.

617

- PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.882/11

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO |

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

72