(Due to arrive Canberra 29.3.29)

My dear P.M.,

I was very pleased to get your many letters written in the middle
of January. [1]

I appreciate what you say about Ryan. [2] It is possible he may go
out to Australia on a trip in any event. I will know about this in
about a fortnight, and if he decides to go, I will telegraph you
suggesting that you postpone a decision in the matter until you
have seen and talked to him. If he does go as a private
individual, I will see that he carries official letters of
introduction from Mr. Amery [3] and possibly from Sir Austen
Chamberlain [4] that would accredit him to you and formally state
his experience and qualifications for the work of the type that
you have in mind.

I will certainly look forward with the greatest pleasure to
getting periodical letters on what is going on in Australia behind
the scenes. This has been rather a disability in the past and it
has meant a lot of dull reading of press cuttings to try and
reconstruct in one's mind what is happening. [5]

I have read the Economic Mission's Report [6] and am to see Sir
Hugo Hirst [7] tomorrow. Generally speaking the impression that
the report gives one is that they do not think we have been very
clever with our nation planning in the past.

Their remarks about 15% to 20% of loans raised in England being
absorbed through our Tariff as Revenue is a new point to me, and
seems a real one. I cannot believe, however, that such a
fundamental point has escaped the Commonwealth Treasury.

I hope that the necessity for economy in public expenditure,
especially as regards new developmental railway construction, will
give a fillip to Australian interest in the development of the
100-ton tracked train. As I have said, I look on this as a most
important potential help to us in the back country districts and
in North Australia.

Would it not be possible to maintain some sort of connection
between Australia and the personnel of the Big Four [8] now that
they are back in England? They have been intensively cultivated in
Australian affairs, and presumably have a good taste in their
mouths. Would it not be a good thing to try and maintain their
interest in Australian affairs so that they could be used as a
sort of informal consultative body? Possibly this could be
regularised by asking one or two of them to become directors of
the Commonwealth Bank in London, should you decide to create an
effective Board here. Now that we have got our claws into men of
this type on this side, it seems a pity to let their interest
evaporate.

In case McDougall [9] does not tell you the story-He met one of
the ladies of the Big Four yesterday who was most enthusiastic
about everything and everybody Australian, except-rather
reluctantly-she found the 'smart set' in Melbourne and Sydney
exceedingly trying!

I sent Alexander Shaw [10] (P. & O.) a collection of Australian
press cuttings on the shipping freights question. In his note in
reply he says:-

I had a few words with one of the most important of the shipowners
in the Australian trade yesterday, and found that he takes a
somewhat gloomy view of the future of shipping to Australia if
what he calls the 'political element' interferes with ordinary
economic factors. I pointed out to him that the circumstances of
the present case were exceptional, and that the hostile attitude
of a large part of the Australian public and Press towards
shipowners, founded, as it must be, upon an entire misconception
of the situation, formed a most important element which we must
all consider very seriously; and that the best way to turn
darkness into light, and hostility into understanding was by
pursuing the course which Mr. Bruce had recommended at the present
critical time.

I enclose copy of an interesting circular with regard to British
taxation of Dominion visitors, issued by the Inland Revenue
authorities in this last week. It is short, authoritative and
easily understood. I have sent a copy to Australia House and
possibly it may also be of interest to your Treasury Department.

As I have peevishly reiterated in the past, it appears to me
evident that Sir Esme Howard is too old and too lacking in ability
to be other than rather a nuisance as British Ambassador at
Washington. He is obsessed to the exclusion of almost everything
else with the question of Belligerent Rights and draws pictures of
the intense domestic interest in the U.S. on this subject, which
even the Foreign Office are beginning to suspect are too highly
coloured. He writes Chamberlain weekly personal letters on the
subject-and of great length.

In conversation with Lord Thomson (Secretary of State for Air in
the late Labour Government) lately, I asked him what he was going
to do if his party had to form a Government. He said that he
wasn't sure whether they would want him to go back to Air-or to go
abroad. I did not press this other than to say that I thought the
latter would be congenial to him as he already knew the country
well!-meaning to infer that he meant the United States, where he
goes each year to lecture. He smiled but wouldn't say any more-but
I should think it probable that he has Washington in mind. He is a
great friend of Ramsay MacDonald [11] and is quite able, although
I do not think he is ambassadorial timber.

Hankey [12] thinks that H.A.L. Fisher [13] would be the man for
Washington-as a man of the type of Lord Bryce. [14] I have also
heard Eric Drummond [15] spoken of. [16]

The Radium Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research has
been at work for six months and has analysed the position. They
started from the standpoint that increased supplies of cheaper
radium were essential for medical treatment. The result of the
enquiry seems to be that there are but faint hopes that the Empire
(so far as it has been prospected) holds any radium supplies of
any importance at all. Of a very poor lot, the Mount Painter and
Radium Hill deposits in South Australia show some mild promise,
but are very low grade. The recommendations of the Radium Sub-
Committee are mainly directed towards the provision of a central
Government-controlled supply of Radium, from which the needs of
hospitals and institutions would be met by temporary loan. This
central body would be run by a Board of Trustees on which the
Government and the medical profession would be represented.

The Radium Report is still in draft form and liable to alteration.

I will send you copy of the final report.

A scheme is being hatched very much behind the scenes to organise
a strong Industrial Mission to the Argentine, and possibly other
South American Republics, as a counterblast to Hoover's [17]
progress in South America. After Hoover's long interview with
Irigoyen, the new President of the Argentine (a Liberal dictator
of great strength), Sir Malcolm Robertson, British Ambassador at
Buenos Aires, was privately acquainted by a confidant of the
President with the gist of the interview. It appears that Hoover
painted a rosy picture of the increasing degree to which the U.S.

would take Argentine products (mainly meat) in the coming years,
and generally made a strong plea for reciprocity. Irigoyen was
courteous, but does not desire to become too closely dependent on
American trade. He wants British trade to maintain at least its
proportion of Argentine business, and I understand that the
proposal for the visit of a British business delegation actually
originated with Irigoyen. It was at first thought that Lord
Melchett [18] would be the best man to lead such a Mission but
opinion has swung round to D'Abernon [19], who, I understand, is
being approached.

Both Admiral Sir Charles E. Madden [20] and Sir Hugh Trenchard
[21]two out of the three Chiefs of Staff-are due to retire on 21st
December, 1929. As it would obviously mean a break in the
continuity, Hankey is trying to arrange that Madden stays on for
another three months. Madden's successor will be chosen from
Admiral Sir Osmond de Beauvoir Brock [22], Admiral Sir Frederick
L. Field [23] and Admiral Sir Roger Keyes. [24] Churchill [25] is
a friend of Keyes and is running him for the job, but I think it
is generally agreed that Field is the best of the three although
his health is not very good. Also Brock and Keyes are rather anti-
air, whereas Field is as open-minded on the subject as a sailor
can be. [26]

Hankey told me in private conversation recently that during the
Peace Conference Lloyd George [27] offered him the alternative
between a Baronetcy and a G.C.B.-and he chose the latter owing to
the fact that he did not have any private means. Presumably he
could get a baronetcy now or at some future time if he felt in
need of it.

I send in another letter by this mail a summary of a Cabinet Paper
on the relative 'Air' expenditures of this and other countries.

After summarising the paper, I showed it to the Air Ministry, who
have no objection to it going to Australia as long as its
circulation is limited and discreet. It shows how little this
country is spending on Air as compared with European nations and
America.

Any current estimates of Probable party strengths in the
new Parliament, I think the mean would be about as follows:-

Reasonable Conservative opinion............ Conservative - 320
Labour - 240
Liberal - 60
and reasonable Opposition opinion.......... Conservative - 250
Labour - 300
Liberal - 70
The strengths in the present Parliament are:-

Conservative - 388
Labour - 157
Liberal - 42
Various - 28

Forecasting is a dangerous game but reasonable people seem to
think that the strengths in the next Parliament will represent not
very far from a deadlock [28]-which always carries with it the
possibility of a second General Election within a comparatively
short time. My reason for referring to these domestic matters is
that it occurs to me that a second General Election would possibly
affect the date of the next Imperial Conference.

I enclose 'Times' report of Mr. Baldwin's [29] first real
electioneering speech.

I will not bother you here with Antarctic matters-other than to
say that it would appear that both Byrd [30] (in claiming 'Marie
Byrd Land' for the United States) and the 'Norvegia' (in claiming
Peter I Island) have stolen a march on us.

I am sending you a telegram tonight hoping you will agree to make
our Antarctic Expedition a two years' one. The additional expense
would be small (Mawson [31] estimates �10,000 or �12,000 at most)
and we would get the job done properly instead of cursorily.

Sir Austen Chamberlain is ill again but at present it is not known
how seriously. If he has to leave the Foreign Office, I suppose
Cushendun [32] Will fill his place again until the Election,
although I do not think he would be substantively appointed by
this Government if it gets back to power again. There are, of
course, several who aspire to the Foreign Office, according to
well-informed rumour-I have heard Hoare [33] and Eustace Percy
[34] mentioned lately as being keen, but I cannot see either of
them filling the job adequately. As I have said before, there is
no one on the Conservative side that I can think of who is
outstandingly fitted for the Foreign Office.

In measuring up candidates for this or similar Cabinet
appointments, Hankey has come to use the yardstick of their
'soundness' on the question of Belligerent Rights! Cushendun is in
a minority of one against our standing out for high Belligerent
Rights, and for this and other reasons Hankey writes him off as a
total loss.

There is increasing evidence of the determination of the United
States to build up a paramount merchant marine-I have sent many
instances of this in my letters-the most recent by this mail. I
presume that the External Affairs Department is keeping the proper
Commonwealth Department informed, so that Australian interests are
not sacrificed.

The immense labours of the Belligerent Rights Sub-Committee of the
Committee of Imperial Defence are coming to an end. The net result
in short is that we must maintain 'high' Belligerent Rights at all
costs and that we must, if possible, avoid a Conference on the
subject. The attitude to be taken towards the Anglo-American
Arbitration Treaty is not yet certain, as the Cabinet is divided
on the subject.

I enclose 'Times' cuttings re Board of Trade estimate of a net
favourable balance of trade of about �150 millions for the year.

This compares with past years as follows:-

1925 1926 1927 1928
Millions............. + �54 - �7 + �96 + �149

I submit that I am not to blame for the length of this letter. It
is the direct result of your encouraging remarks.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY