Your telegram 108, our comments on your draft are as follow:-

(i) We are not happy about the wording of the second sentence and
would suggest the following alternative 'we have already made this
suggestion to the New Zealand Government who have agreed that it
would be useful to have a Commonwealth meeting in order to secure
some agreement upon procedure and perhaps the general line of the
settlement before the question is raised formally with the United
States Government'.

As we explained in our telegram No.77, we are as yet unprepared
for a conference on matters of substance and may not therefore be
able to contribute substantially to any such discussions.

Moreover our message could not be interpreted as containing
agreement to the conclusion of British Commonwealth talks prior to
discussions in F.E.C. As you are aware out representative in
Washington has already had informal discussions with British
Commonwealth members on question of raising procedural discussions
in F.E.C. but we are willing not to proceed with our earlier
proposal if British Commonwealth talks are to be held. We should
not, however, be quoted as having bound ourselves to take no part
in any talks in F.E.C. This might be implied from the present
wording of your draft.

Your paragraph(2)we do not share your interpretation of D.376
(367) [1] but we are of course unacquainted with the discussions
which apparently took place between Mr. Bevin and your Charge
d'Affaires.

Your paragraph 3. If British Commonwealth discussions to be on a
Ministerial plane we see little prospect of taking part in London
and would for that reason find a meeting in Canberra much more
convenient. [2]