Sent J.R. Cross to G.L. Simmons, 17th November, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
17 Nov 1955
Description:

'...

3. I went with Lane Petter to see Kochar of the Minstry of Commerce and Industry on Saturday 12th November. We had a very friendly and interesting discussion and Kochar emphasised that provided the monkeys were for approved medical research and the consignees, the exporters and the carriers were all approved by the Government there would be no difficulty in handling future consignments and the Public Notice of September did not imply any major change.

...

5. We mentioned briefly the requirements of the Ministry of Supply for protection against bacteriological warfare. As mentioned in Dr. Lane Petter's memorandum, Kocher took the line that he really did not want to know anything about this and it was up to us to keep the matter quiet.'

Sent J.R. Cross to G.L. Simmons, 20th October, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
20 Oct 1955
Description:

'...

4. At first glance it appears to me that while the recommendations embodied therein are admirable they will inevitably result in a very substantial increase in the cost of delivering the monkeys in the U.K. Lane Petter is well aware of this but not unnaturally takes the line that other considerations are more important than cost. The Canadians with whom he has discussed his proposals in general and who of course have considerable practical experience in sending large quantities of monkeys, claim that if Lane Petter's ideas are adopted the cost of a monkey may well go up by 30% to 40%.

5. I should be very grateful if you could manage to let me have some idea of how the M.R.C. regard these new proposals and in particular whether they are prepared to pay substantially more for their monkeys, particularly as I understand their demands are likely to rise to some 30,000 monkeys a year. I hope you will be able to do this without managing to give Lane Petter the idea that I am checking on his reliability.'

Sent J.R. Cross to [Commonwealth Relations Office], [1955] (DO 35/8639).
1955
Description:

'...

8. I would like to make one point on the minute of the meeting on 28th May. In paragraph 2 (d) someone suggested that monkeys could be killed on the spot, and the kidneys transported. I trust that this will not be mooted with the Indians as it would be sufficient to ruin the whole programme. The Rhesus monkey is sacred in India - their ancestors assisted Rama in his battle with the King of Ceylon by stringing their tails together to form a bridge for him to cross. Just as the Hindu will not strive officiously to keep old cows alive so he can turn a blind eye to what happens to the monkeys after they leave India, but any attempt at "monkey slaughter" in this country would outrage religious feelings. Even now trappers - who are all Muslims - have difficulties in certain areas and are quite likely to be chased off by villagers. A possible idea which might save freight space and cost would be for a laboratory to be set up in some reasonably adjacent part of the globe, e.g. Singapore or the Persian Gulf, to save the long haul but I imagine that this would be a very difficult one to pursue.'

Sent J.R. Cross to [CRO], [1955/6]. (DO 35/8639).
Between 1955 and 1956
Description:

'5. I think on balance our conclusions here are that in view of our reasonably modest requirements and the fact that there is an existing medical organisation in India, namely Glaxo (India) Ltd, we should do everything to try and persuade them to take over the business of organising the monkey supply from India. They could easily arrange sub-contracts with people like Patterson and other traders and would have some form of organisation on the spot in case of difficulties. We are virtually certain that this arrangement would be acceptable to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and I am quite sure that it could be worked.

6. If the proposal to use Glaxo fails (and there appears to be no other similar medical firm in sight who could act in such a position) then we would advise re-consideration of the possibility of a consortium. Our fear, however, is that if it were purely a consortium of national firms, the major share of which would be borne by the U.S.A. we might find ourselves in difficulties if at any time a further objection arose about the American use of monkeys, e.g. for defence purposes. This might possibly be obviated if some body such as the World Health Organisation could be introduced to provide a "front" for the consortium. I have not attempted to raise the matter with the W.H.O. officials here but if you think it worth while pursuing I will do so.

7. Incidentally, we now learn that the race continues; that the Germans and Swedes are both believed to be interested in purchasing monkeys and the Italians are reported to be looking for a thousand a month. It would look as if the total demand for Rhesus monkeys from India is now of the order of 240,000 a year which will probably stretch supply to the limit.

8. I would like to make one point on the minute of the meeting on 28th May. In paragraph 2 (d) someone suggested that monkeys could be killed on the spot, and the kidneys transported. I trust that this will not be mooted with the Indians as it would be sufficient to ruin the whole programme. The Rhesus monkey is sacred in India - their ancestors assisted Rama in his battle with the King of Ceylon by stringing their tails together to form a bridge for him to cross. Just as the Hindu will not strive officiously to keep old cows alive so he can turn a blind eye to what happens to the monkeys after they leave India, but any attempt at "monkey slaughter" in this country would outrage religious feelings...

...'