"الشيفرات والوثائق السرية: تقارير الحفظ الآمن وتسليم الشهادات الخاصة بالوثائق السرية" [و‎‎٩‎٥] (٥٢٣/١٩٤)

21
Case No. 6.
Memorandum, paragraphs 6 (2) (iii) (6) and 14.
E 2015/90/31 of 1932.
This is the continuation of the preceding case. The permission accorded was for the
inspection of certain documents at the Colonial Office. Among these were copies of certain
communications to His Majesty's Government from the French Government. Normally,
inspection of such documents by private parties without the consent of the foreign Government
concerned would not be allowed [Memorandum, paragraph 6 (2) (iii) (b)]. The circumstances
of the present case were, however, peculiar. The matters in dispute between the British and
French companies had already been the subject of diplomatic correspondence between His
Majesty's Government and the French Government, each of whom had taken up the case on
behalf of its nationals. It having been found impossible to settle the matter diplomatically,
private litigation was resorted to, but the matter nevertheless was, and remained, of a semi-public
nature. The principles applicable to the correspondence from the French Government were to
some extent rather those set out in paragraph 16 (3) of the Memorandum than those of
paragraph 6 (2) (iii) (6). It was certain that the French Government would have refused its
/-^consent to production of the correspondence if it had been asked. While this circumstance would
certainly prevent any production in open court, or even supplying the British litigants with
copies, it was felt that in all the circumstances they might be allowed to inspect the documents,
and possibly to take notes [Memorandum, paragraph 6 (2) (iii) (?>)].
By a misunderstanding, the agent of the Palestine Potash Company was permitted by the
Colonial Office to take away copies of the documents, and inter alia of the correspondence with
the French Government. It was felt that this was improper in the absence of the consent of
that Government [Memorandum, paragraph 6 (2) (iii) {h)~\, and that, while it might be possible
to allow simple inspection, it would not be proper to run the risk of extra copies being made and
^ permanently retained in non-official hands [Memorandum, paragraph 14]. The company were
^ therefore asked to return the documents, and an assurance was obtained that no copies would
be taken or kept.
Case No. 7.
* Memorandum, paragraph 6 (2) (iii) (h).
T 2233 and 6424/1/373 of 1930.
His Majesty's Minister at Santiago stated that he had been requested b}' a British company
engaged in local litigation to furnish copies of correspondence regarding the company's affairs
which had been exchanged between the Legation and certain Chilean Government Departments.
He was instructed to state his views as to the Chilean Government agreeing to production. He
accordingly consulted that Government, who stated that the production of the correspondence
would be embarrassing to them politically. The company were thereupon asked not to press the
matter.
Case No. 8.
Memorandum, paragraph 6 (2) (iii) (b).
T 4774, 6686 and 7453/4774/371 of 1932.
The validity of a will was in dispute in the English courts, the deceased being alleged to
have been of unsound mind. He had committed suicide at Nice, and the French authorities had
in their possession a letter written by him before he died which was stated to afford some
evidence of insanity. The Foreign Office were asked to obtain this letter for the purposes of the
lawsuit. The letter was accordingly obtained from the French Government under cover of a
note from the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The question of proving the genuineness of
^ the letter arose, and it was thought possible that the French covering note might have to be
produced in court. It was decided that this could not be done without the consent of the
French Government, who were accordingly asked if they had any objection. They replied that
in principle they had, but would make an exception in this case, provided no copy of their note
was allowed to remain in the records of an English court.
Case No. 9.
Memorandum, paragraph 11 (3).
N 3794/2823/38 of 1932.
An English company, the London and Northern Trading Company, were engaged
in litigation with the Russian company Arcos in the English courts. It was material to the
English company's case to obtain information as to recent legislative changes in Russia, and
copies of certain Russian laws. The Embassy, being asked to attend to the matter, furnished
the company with information direct through the commercial counsellor, who, however,
accompanied it by a request that the source of the information be not revealed, as it would tend
*