CO885-11 — Page 627

621

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

ETC.O. 882/11

سانس سانس

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

78

Asked by the HOME SECRETARY whether the American proposals had the support of the majority of the Conference, SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE replied that he thought that at first the majority of the delegates had been in favour of them, but he had gainea the impression later that the impropriety of the Second Conference trespassing on the ground of the First Conference had begun to dawn on some of them and that their opinion was inclined to waver, particularly in view of possible trouble at the next Assembly. The HOME SECRETARY asked whether the American proposals would wreck the Second Conference SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE replied that some at least of the seven Powers represented at the First Conference would abstain from discussion on them. He himself, on express instructions, had taken that line.

SIR LOUIS KERSHAW asked whether the President of the Second Conference would himself give a decision as to whether the discussion of the American proposals should be permitted, or whether he would leave it to the Conference. SIR MALCOLM DELE- VINONE replied that the President was in a position of great lifliculty. If on his own initiative le ruled the American proposals out of order it was almost certain that the American Delegation would withdraw and this was a greater responsibility than the President could be expected to take. The Americans on their part claimed to be bound by the express terms of the resolution of Congress under which they were sent. the same time this did not excuse the unwarranted attack made by Mr. Porter in his speech and Bishop Brent in his " Appeal" on the "evasion" by certain signatory Powers of their obligations under Chapter II of The Hague Convention, or the allega- tion that the draft Agreement reached at the First Conference was intended to be a method of shirking these obligations.

At

The HOME SECRETARY asked Mr. Waterlow whether a remonstrance could not be addressed to Washington on this point. SIR JOHN ANDERSON making it clear that this remonstrance should be confined to the undiplomatic conduct of Mr. Porter and Bishop Brent, and should not be an attempt to persuade the Americans to withdraw their proposals, which it appeared that under the Congress resolution they could not do. MR. WATERLOW thereupon said that he was going to propose that Sir Malcolmu Delevingne should prepare a full list of all the misrepresentations of the British position which had been expressed at the two Conferences in order that the Foreign Office might consider the making of representations to all the Governments concerned. He mentioned a Foreign Office proposal to initiate a campaign of publicity in defence of the British position. In the first place, however, he thought it necessary for the Conference to decide on the fundamental line of policy. Were we or were we not to sign the draft Agreement under the First Conference?

The HOME SECRETARY 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 a public defence 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 Agree- ment 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 examine the actual possibilities of the situation with a view, if necessary, to modifying the existing provisions in Chapter II of The Hague Convention, SIR Gilbert GrinDLE remarked that the chief new factor

79

in the present state of affairs was the changed situation in China, which was sufficient to justify any apparent failure to carry out Chapter II.

SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE did not entirely agree with Mr. Newton's view. Definite progress had been made under Chapter II of The Hague Convention, though it was admitted that the position had now become stationary. SIR LOUIS KERSHAW interposed that the Convention fixed no date for the ultimate suppression of opium smoking; the HOME SECRETARY agreed. SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE continued that in spite of the attenuated proposals which he was authorized to make, after the dis- cussions between the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Colonial Office in the summer, he had not been so much embarrassed by the restricted character of his instructions as had been expected owing to the fact that the other States concerned, with the exception of Japan, were not prepared to go even as far as those instructions permitted.

AL

Referring to what Mr. Newton had said. SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE stated that he had already explained publicly the difficulties in the way of further progress towards the suppression of opium smoking at the present time. It was admitted that the draft Agreement represented a lower standard than is already in force in the best Far Eastern Territories, but this was no justification for the allegations made by Mr. Porter and Bishop Brent that it represented a retrograde step. It would not, of course, result in a lessening of the control in those countries where control is already on a higher standard, but it would tighten up the control in territories such as the Portuguese Possessions where the present standard is much lower. It did definitely establish the principle of a government monopoly of opium and the abolition of private retail shops. MR. WATERLOW commented that this was not much of an achievement to put before the world. The question was the subject of much sincere, if ill-formed, agitation by earnest and high-minded persons. The HOME SECRETARY here remarked that with Exeter Ilall" and the Church regard to the situation at home, his relations with would enable him to convince such people of the bona fides of the British position.

MR. WATERLOW asked the question whether the Colonial Office could not in fact accept the progressive suppression of opium smoking within 10 years, or some such period. He had just come from an interview with Sir John Jordon, who was much disappointed with the results of the First Conference and regarded proposals on the lines of the American Article 8 as quite practicable. Mr. Waterlow added that the SIR GILBERT Foreign Office was extremely anxious to meet American opinion. GRINDLE replied that so far as Hong Kong was concerned this proposal might be possible, but that it was quite impossible for Malaya, both on financial grounds, and for the reason that suppression of opium would seriously endanger the maintenance of public order. MR. WATERLOW said that he was thinking of the effect on public opinion. It was for that reason we had offered the suggestion of an impartial Commission.

The HOME SECRETARY asked whether any country where opium is now smoked was prepared to accept its suppression in 10 years. SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE replied that the only country approaching this position was Japan (in respect of Formosa). The Japanese claimed that in Formosa the smoking of opium was limited to registered No new smokers were smokers who were already confirmed in their addiction. allowed to settle in Formosa and no opium was supposed to be supplied to persons

not already registered. Complete suppression would therefore be achieved as soon as the existing smokers died off. SIR GILBERT GRINDLE pointed out that Japan wished to exclude Chinamen from Formosa, whereas our territories, where smoking is per- mitted, depend on Chinese labour.

SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE proceeded to formulate a definite proposal that we should announce that Hong Kong will prohibit opium smoking as soon as the situation in China has been re-established and the smuggling of opium on the present huge scale out of China into the Colony ceases; and that as regards Malaya where the abolition of opium smoking would involve complete reorganization of the finances of the States and the protected States could not be forced to dispense with the opium revenue, the colony of the Straits Settlements would be instructed to prepare a scheme at once for the gradual elimination of the opium revenue from their budget, and a similar course recommended to the protected States.

The HOME SECRETARY then formulated the following definite proposals :-

(1) That we should sign the draft Agreement of the First Conference;

(2) That we should communicate to Washington to represent the impropriety of the American proposals regarding opium smoking before the Second Conference;