(Due to arrive Canberra 13.4.29)

My dear P.M.,

I am sending by this mail, in another letter, what I hope is about
the last of the C.I.D. papers on Belligerent Rights and the Anglo-
American Arbitration Treaty. [1] This final report on Belligerent
Rights is being taken by the Cabinet in this next week. I do not
imagine that they will come to any conclusion on it but I
anticipate that a selection of papers on these two subjects will
go to all Dominions in the course of the next month, on which they
will be asked to give their views.

I thought that these papers would have gone officially to you some
time ago, but delay is inevitable on subjects of such magnitude.

On the question of Belligerent Rights, without having had any
opportunity of discussing this matter with yourself or anyone else
holding the Australian viewpoint, I should imagine that you will
be on the side of high Belligerent Rights-and for two reasons.

Firstly, because anything that tended to reduce the effectiveness
and force of the British Navy would be to the detriment of
Australia.

Secondly, if freedom of the seas were to become the
order of the day, then there would be but little excuse to
maintain an effective imperial cruiser strength, which would again
be against Australian interests. There may be many finer points
than these from the Australian point of view, but it would seem to
me that these two major facts will be conclusive in themselves.

However, it is unlikely that any decision will be come to on
either Belligerent Rights or the Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty
prior to the Election. In fact, every effort will be made to
postpone decision until the next Imperial Conference.

Sir Hugo Hirst's [2] first action on his return has caused rather
a flutter. He found that, in his absence, the heavy buying of his
General Electric shares by United States citizens had resulted in
60% of the shares being held by Americans and that the price had
been forced up to a point that he considered fictitious. However,
this buying had begun before his departure for Australia and he
had defended himself by getting a resolution passed which
eliminated other than British shareholders from voting rights-so
that his control was secured. But, in spite of this, the intense
American buying had gone on, and, on his return, in order to spike
the guns of the Americans, he made an issue of new shares at 40/-
(the market price being 55/-) to British nationals only. This has
caused great annoyance to the Americans, and an active press
controversy is under way. He thinks that his action is the
forerunner of similar moves on the part of many British companies,
who desire control of their enterprises to remain British, and to
have a predominantly British share register for the purpose of
maintaining British and imperial interest in their products and
their prosperity.

I enclose copy of an article by Harold Cox [3] in the 'Financial
Times' of 13th March, inspired by the Industrial Mission's Report.

[4]

American capital has flooded into the London securities market in
this last year. This is to the good, I suppose, in that it helps
the exchange and supports the price of good securities here, but
it is bad to the extent that it links up this fairly stable
securities market with the volatile New York market, and brings
non-assessable factors into the investment business here.

I talked to the Imperial Defence College on Australian External
Affairs yesterday for an hour, and managed to get away with it
with reasonable success. Anyhow, they have asked me to talk to
them again.

I have met Shedden [5] (Civil Servant from the Commonwealth
Defence Department), who has been on the Imperial Defence College
course and who is now doing a course at the London School of
Economics. He seems a very good type and should be a welcome
addition to our Civil Service on his return. He would, I think, be
a useful man either in the Treasury Department or the Prime
Minister's Department.

I enclose an article from this week's John Bull', entitled
'Fifteen Invisible Men'-in which the heads of Government
Departments are described in a chatty way-including Hankey [6] and
Tom Jones. [7] This is almost certainly by Sir Wyndham Childs who
recently resigned from being second-in-command at New Scotland
Yard to go on the staff of 'John Bull'. I am afraid that I never
had much of an opinion of Childs (who was an ex-Cavalry officer of
a swaggering and rather stupid type), and this was confirmed when
he prostituted himself by joining 'John Bull'.

I hear on fairly good authority that the Prince of Wales has not
shown any very pronounced filial feeling during the King's
illness, and that he has been to see him very little. I believe
that it is true that the King remonstrated with him for spending
such a great deal of his time in hunting, at which rebuke the
Prince went straight off in a pet and sold all his hunters. And
again, he has not been very regular in his attendance at the
Council meetings at which he and other members of the Royal
Family, the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
others are representing the King during his illness.

The story is going about that the Prince of Wales is going to
marry Lady-Wellesley [8], daughter of Lord Douro and granddaughter
of the Duke of Wellington. But I don't know if any reliance can be
placed on the story. She is only nineteen.

There is a regular but unofficial quotation each day on the Stock
Exchange here whereby one can bet on, or insure against, the
results of the General Election. Today's quotation is:-

Conservative 274, Labour 260, Liberal 82. The system is that you
'buy' say a 'Conservative return' of 274 by agreeing to pay 274
for it, and on the results you get or pay a difference of 1 per
seat above or below 274. There is some small jobber's turn' that
you pay in any event. No money actually passes until after the
Election.

Chamberlain [9] told a story to the Cabinet in this past week
which it was thought interesting enough to have recorded in the
Cabinet minutes. Stresemann [10] and Hindenburg [11] were in
conversation and the latter said that the man who won the war had
just died. Stresemann asked him which he meant-and was told that
it was Haig [12], at which Stresemann expressed surprise.

Hindenburg said that from the moment Haig made the decision that
he would subordinate his own command and work under Foch [13], the
war was as good as won for the Allies. 'For', said Hindenburg, 'it
is a great thing to conquer one's enemies, but a greater thing to
conquer oneself.'

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY