CO885-11 — Page 628

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

80

(3) That we should make a public announcement on the lines just suggested by

Sir Malcolm Delevingne as to Hong Kong and Malaya;

(4) That the necessary instructions should be given to the Straits Settlements

at once;

(5) That we should repeat our proposal for an impartial Commission to visit the

Far Eastern parts where opium smoking is permitted.

MR. WATERLOW objected to (2). He did not think the Americans would be prepared to withdraw their proposals and he expressed the opinion that if you allow Americans to talk sufficiently they become more tractable.

SIR GILBERT GRINDLE strongly deprecated any such public statement in regard to the revenue considerations since the Malayan authorities had reported that raising these revenue questions would have very serious effects on our relations with the Malay Rulers; but SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE thought it was impossible to overlook these considerations and that a promise to eliminate them in the future would be preferable to a mere attempt to ignore them. It was left that these proposals should be seriously considered.

SIR LOUIS KERSHAW referring to Mr. Waterlow's suggestion that the Americans should be allowed to talk, asked whether we could possibly give way on the question of competence, which he regarded as a vital question of principle. MR. WATERLOW replied that in view of a letter which had just been sent by Mr. Chamberlain to Bishop Brent, he understood Mr. Chamberlain's view to be that we ought not to take a stand merely on the question of competence. The IПOME SECRETARY asked whether Mr. Waterlow had a copy of this letter but was told he had not. He then asked whether this letter in fact tied the hands of the Government on this important point, but MR. WATERLOW did not think that it did so and SIR LOUIS KERSHAW, who had seen the draft, agreed.

SIR GILBERT GRINDLE, agreed that we ought not to give way on the question of competence but suggested that we might express our willingness for the matter to be referred back to the convening authority for an extension of the powers of the Second Conference.

(N.B. The convening authority is the Assembly of the League and no action could therefore presumably be taken until next September.)

SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE pointed out that four or five other countries repre- sented at the Conference besides ourselves had taken a firm line on the question of competence and would probably adhere to it. MR. WATERLOW's view was that in that case we ought to desert them and let them bear the odium. In reply to a question from the Home Secretary SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE said that the President of the Second Conference had not yet ruled the American proposals out of order and that if the seven Powers represented at the First Conference agreed to their being con- sidered he would accept them. On the other hand, if any delegation opposed their consideration, he would not accept a majority decision and would probably resign. This would probably mean the end of the Conference.

On the suggestion of the HOME SECRETARY it was agreed to sign the draft Agree. ment of the First Conference (Conclusion 1).

The HOME SECRETARY then asked whether we were to agree to a further discussion of the American proposals or to take our stand on the question of competence. He pointed out that the former alternative would let down other countries which had hitherto taken the same position as ourselves. Nevertheless MR. WATERLOW preferred this course, subject to our giving prior warning to those countries of the action proposed. SIR LOUIS KERSHAW maintained his attitude that we should not give way on the question of competence and as a final compromise it was decided that the British Government should consent to an opportunity being given to the Americans to state the case for their proposals (how this should be done would be a matter for arrangement). At the same time the view was expressed, particularly by the HOME SECRETARY, that however much the Foreign Office wished to please America, we must not leave in the lurch those Powers (particularly France and Holland) which had acted with us hitherto and that we must take no action on this matter which was not agreed to by them. If necessary, Sir Malcolm Delevingne should arrange a private meeting with the repre- sentatives of France and Holland to endeavour to bring them round to our view (Conclusions 2 and 3).

It was also agreed that in the event of a discussion taking place in the Second Conference on the American proposals, the British Representative should make a public defence of the British position, and (if this policy was approved) should make the announcement regarding Hong Kong and Malaya which is referred to above (Conclusion 4).

$1

It was further agreed that the Foreign Office should consider the question of making representations to the Governments concerned regarding the misrepresentation of the British position and the unwarranted allegations against the bona fides of the British Government which had been made in the course of the Conference. It was agreed that Mr. Porter's speech was in a special position and should be dealt with Sir Malcolm Delevingne was to first, any other matters being considered later. prepare for the Foreign Office a memorandum on Mr. Porter's speech, and subsequently a further memorandum on the other points in which the British Government was attacked; and the India Office was to submit a similar memorandum on the points in which the Indian Government had been attacked (C'onclusion 5).

MR. WATERLOW then emphasized the importance of publicity for the British case, especially in this country and in America. He proposed that the Foreign Office should initiate a campaign of publicity, to be organized by Mr. Randall, who would co-ordinate information received from the Home Office, Colonial Office and India Office. The HOME SECRETARY Suggested that the campaign in this country should be started by a letter from himself or from the Foreign Secretary to a selected correspondent setting out in full what Great Britain has done in the opium question. MR. WATERLOW said that in America the information would be disseminated through the British Library of Information.

The initiation of this publicity campaign was agreed to (Conclusion 6).

MR. WATERLOW then made the suggestion that the Cabinet should be recom- mended to add a delegate of Ministerial rank (such as Lord Cecil) to the British Delegation. The Home Secretary deprecated any discussion of such a matter at this Conference, involving, as it did, considerations of the personality of the delegate. He considered that this was a matter entirely for the Cabinet.

SIR JOHN ANDERSON reminded the Home Secretary that there was no Cabinet meeting before the 7th January, but expressed the view that all the decisions reached at the Conference were within the powers given to it by the meeting of the Cabinet The HOME SECRETARY agreed but Sub-Committee on Tuesday, 16th December. intimated that he would communicate the results to the Prime Minister and suggest that the Foreign Secretary should be asked to agree to them without waiting for a decision of the Cabinet.

Annexure to No. 63.

CONCLUSIONS OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONFERENCE AT THE HOME Office on

FRIDAY, 19TH DECEMBER, 1924.

1. That the draft Agreement reached at the First Opium Conference in regard to the measures to be taken for the more effective application of Chapter 11 (Opium Smoking) of The Hague Convention should be signed by the British Government as soon as possible.

2. That (subject to the agreement of other Governments, as provided in the next paragraph) the British Government should agree to an opportunity being given to the American Delegation at the Second Conference to state in the Conference as fully as they wish their case for the proposals which they have brought forward on the subject of the suppression of the use of opium for smoking, the British and other Delegates having equal opportunity of replying and defending the policy and action of their Governments; but that there should be no abandonment of the position already taken up that the Second Conference is not competent to decide any of the questions (relating to opium smoking) relegated to the First Conference, and in the event of the American proposal to extend the scope of the Conference being put to the vote the British Representative should vote against the proposal.

3. That the other Governments concerned in the First Conference who have acted in concert with us should be informed at once of the two foregoing proposals; and that our adherence to the policy in paragraph 2 should be absolutely dependent If necessary, Sir Malcolm Delevingne on its acceptance by France and Holland. should arrange a private conference with the representatives of those countries.

4. That in the event of a discussion taking place in the Second Conference on the subject of the American proposals, the British Delegate should make as full a statement as possible of the policy of the British Government. In particular, he should renew the suggestion of the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, to be

622