89
If I may, I should like to express my very strong personal opinion that Mr. Campbell's opinion is right and incontrovertible. But the situation which has arisen appears to me to contain a serious denger that nevertheless specific public references to the United Kgdom Government's message of October 24, with comments purporting to describe its content will be made by Members of Parliament in the impending debate on the Hong Kong report. Colonel Drew has sent copies of his two letters to you to Mr. Hanson, Mr. Coldwell and Mr. Blackmore. Moreover I understand that copies of these lettera are also in the hands of many Members of Parliament and that at least a summary of them is also in the hands of the press.
In view of the precise conditions laid down by the United Kingdom authorities, it seems to me, if I may say so, that the Canadian Government have a special obligation to ensure if possible that there is no further public reference to any of the telegrams concerned. It is true that the Commissioner has already referred in general terms to them. But "two blacke do not make a white" and a speech in Parliament referring to the message of October 24th and purporting to describe its tenor would not only make the situation, as far as the United Kingdom Government is concerned, more difficult but might well lead to consequences highly embarrassing to that Government and to its "relations with other governments and their representatives".
It appears that one or all of the three Leaders of the Opposition Parties may wish to refer to this telegram in their speeches. I wonder whether it is possible to indicate to these responsible leaders, in complete confidence, the strength of the United Kingdom Government's objection to any reference to this message, with a view to their desisting from any such intention? Then there is the difficulty about other Members of Parliament who have seen copies of Colonel Drew's letters and who may feel free to repeat in the Parliamentary debate his argument on this telegram. I wonder whether there is any means of indicating to the members of parties who may have seen Colonel Drew's letter the fact that such public reference would in effect be a breach of an understanding to which the United Kingdom Government attaches the utmost importance? The fact that the newspapers have also got, at any rate, much information on the contents of Colonel Drew's letters, and that some of them may be anxious to make public reference to his argument based on this telegram is of course another difficulty. Is there any practicable means of convincing them that publication of such material involves the above serious consideration?
I feel sure you will forgive me for sending these personal reflections to you, even if they appear to go in some respecte beyond my province. You will of course have had all the considerations in mind. Yet I feel it my duty to send you this personal expression of my view, as the representative of the United Kingdom Government in Ottawa, in the light of the very clear terms of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs' telegram of March 28th, the evident importance which the United Kingdom authorities attach to the matter, and the apparent danger of further public references being made to the telegram of October 24th. Unless and until the United Kingdom Government modify their attitude, it seems to me that it is as described above. Having said that, perhaps I should add that it seems equally clear to me that, if any suggestion were made to the United Kingdom Government that they should modify their attitude, they would almost certainly feel it impossible to do so. But this is only a personal guess based on the emphatic nature of the terms of their telegram of March 28th.
Copy to:-
War Office (M.0.2) War Office (M.0.12) M.0.12) Foreign Office
War Cabinet Offices
Colonial Office
Lt. Col. Spurling (4) Lt. Col. Dinwiddie Mr. Ashley-Clarke Sir E. Bridges Lt.Col. Stirling Mr. Monson
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.