When Mr. Kearney was attending the celebration of independence of Ceylon in February last, the question arose in a discussion with the Ceylonese Prime Minister as to whether Mr. Kearney might not be accredited as well to Ceylon. The Prime Minister of Ceylon appeared to be anxious to have this arrangement made and to have in turn Ceylon's High Commissioner in London accredited to Canada.

3. Since the Ceylonese Prime Minister suggested accrediting the High Commissioner in the United Kingdom to Canada, it was thought desirable to ask the United Kingdom's views informally. Officials of the Commonwealth Relations Office have indicated that although the United Kingdom, like Canada, is opposed in principle to the practice of dual representation, it would waive objections in the case of Ceylon in view of the special circumstances.

4. It is recommended that the Ceylonese Government should be formally approached in the matter. It should, however, be made clear to the Ceylonese Government:

(a) that in principle the Canadian Government is opposed to the practice of dual representation but in view of the special circumstances in the case of Ceylon, it would be prepared to accredit Mr. Kearney and, if Ceylon wishes to accredit its High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada, the Canadian Government would have no objection;

(b) that in accrediting Mr. Kearney to Ceylon it should be understood that the Canadian Government could not prepaTe to open up a permanent office in Ceylon or could not undertake in any foreseeable future to appoint a separate High Commissioner to Ceylon, or to continue the proposed arrangement indefinitely. The proposed arrangement should rather be regarded as an experiment;

(c) that Mr. Kearney would ordinarily reside in New Delhi but would pay an occasional visit to Ceylon for official purposes.¹³

L .B. P[EARSON]

¹³ Le Cabinet a rejeté cet avis le 6 mai. Saint-Laurent, qui avait soutenu la proposition, a expliqué cette décision comme suit dans une note à Pearson en date du 8 mai (DEA/5-C(S)† Cabinet rejected this advice on May 6. As St. Lau7ent, who had supported the proposal, explained in a minute to Pearson on May 8 (DEA/S-C(S))†:
      Council felt no extension of our services in the East should be attempted at this time.