In connection with your report on your conversation with Mr. Charles Selden of the New York Times concerning the Optional Clause, your explanation for avoiding reservations in adhering to the Optional Clause was correct. It was always the Government's intention to sign the Optional Clause with as few reservations as possible and especially in such a way as to leave us completely free to go to the International Court in intra-Commonwealth matters should a very grave issue arise. As the Minister said in the Seanad, the Government are determined to have all ordinary intra-Commonwealth issues decided by an Intra-Commonwealth Court (not Privy Council) but they cannot and will not sacrifice the right to go to the International Court. Issues such as a threat to our integrity or independence would be of the kind considered as appropriate for the International Court. A British reservation excluding disputes with the Dominions would prevent us taking Great Britain to the Court. In actual practice the danger of the Court making a declaration derogatory to our status would probably prevent us going there in any case until all doubts about the International status of the Dominions have disappeared from the Text Books. A case of Lough Foyle type would not be considered worth this risk.