(Due to arrive Canberra 7.9.29)

My dear P.M.,

I referred in a recent letter to the apparently malignant efforts
of the 'Financial Times' Correspondent in Australia (Myers) to
disparage our condition. [1] I spoke to W. S. Robinson [2] about
it lately, who is a friend of the Berrys [3], who own the
'Financial Times'. He had not noticed it, but said that if we
could make out a case for 'persecution' by the 'Financial Times',
he was sure that the Berrys would have it stopped. I subsequently
arranged with him that Collins [4] (Financial Adviser) and I were
to lunch with R. J. Barrett (Editor and Director of the 'Financial
Times')-which took place yesterday. Collins had meanwhile made out
a 'case' on paper which we handed to them after lunch. The net
result is that the 'Financial Times' is to publish an article (and
give special prominence to it) by Collins, designed to put
Australia in better perspective and as a corrective to Myers'
damaging articles over the last several months. They are also
cabling to Myers about the tone of his articles.

Barrett astonished me by saying that Myers was on terms of
intimacy with you and was in the confidence of the Commonwealth
Government-which I feel sure is untrue-and about which I
telegraphed you. I will use your reply with discretion-it will, I
am sure, be most useful as a corrective to their views about
Myers. [5]

The general line we took was that Myers was picking out all the
damaging statements and reports, most of which were meant for
local consumption in Australia and which did us great harm when
published in London, where the background and other relevant facts
were not known. In addition to which, we were about to face a
difficult year in 1930, which, of course, would be surmounted, but
for which we wanted all the help we could get from our friends-and
not carping and biting criticism. Barrett saw the point and
responded well, and I think considerable good will come from the
meeting.

W.S. Robinson was at the lunch and was most helpful.

During lunch there was a good deal of talk about the spectacular
fight now going on in Newcastle for the supremacy of the local
press-being waged between Rothermere [6] and the Berrys. The
latter have had an old established paper there for many years and
recently Rothermere bought a small rival paper and started out to
get increased circulation by the almost incredible means of giving
a free half-crown meal and tickets for local entertainments to
anyone who would place an order for his paper for six weeks! The
circulation immediately went up to about 160,000, whereupon
Rothermere published his circulation figures and challenged the
Berrys to publish theirs! The latter replied that Rothermere's
circulation was not genuine and lasting-and a somewhat bitter
controversy is proceeding.

W.S. Robinson says that Rothermere is, in his opinion, showing
signs of going a little 'queer'-in support of which he told me
many stories, which time stops me from repeating.

On receiving your telegram re Mark Sheldon's son [7], I got in
touch with his elder brother who is here. He said that efforts
were being made to get his brother into any one of several
colleges at Cambridge, and that he hoped they would be successful
without bothering us about it. I left it that if their own efforts
failed, I would be glad to do what I could and said that, in this
event, I had your authority to use your name-which I will do, if
necessary, with discretion. I have heard no more, so I imagine he
has got in.

There is not much to say about the Reparations Conference.

Everyone is very intrigued about it and there is much speculation
about the result. [8]

The Latin countries are obviously sticking together in an unholy
alliance against Germany on the one side and Great Britain on the
other. Obviously the French agreed to back the Italians at the
Experts Conference, otherwise it would have been impossible for
the Experts Conference to have recommended that the Italians get
the considerable concessions that were made to them. In return,
quite obviously, the Italians and other Latins have agreed to back
the French at this International Conference.

The situation is quite delicate because, on the one hand, Arthur
Henderson (Foreign Secretary) very much wants to get a general
settlement on the Reparations question-on the other hand, Snowden
[9] wants to snatch every penny he can out of the fire. Henderson
will have to curb Snowden's enthusiasm in order to stop the
Conference breaking down. One of the few advantages is that France
has now ratified the U.S. Debt Funding Agreement and she will want
a general settlement in order to ensure her receipts from Germany
in future to meet her outgoings to America.

France is obviously going to fight to get the last comma of the
Young Report-the Paris Press for several weeks has been labouring
the point of view that the Young Plan must be adhered to to the
letter.

The British Delegation is strong on the Treasury side, but weak on
the diplomatic side.

Actually Australia is not very much concerned, because, as you
know, this country has practically agreed that even if the Young
Plan is adhered to to the letter Great Britain will bear the brunt
of the sacrifices. And they hope to get a little better than the
Young Plan.

I will not deal with Egypt in this letter other than briefly. The
Australian press reaction has been prompt, and has been cabled
back to London. The enclosed cutting from this afternoon's paper
will have a good effect. The whole negotiation has been a negation
of the 1926 Imperial Conference resolution with regard to
consultation-the first really important example of a subject of
real Imperial concern being dealt with as a local matter by this
Government. I have tried to 'expose' the attitude of the Labour
Government to you in indiscreet (but recyphered!) telegrams-which,
in order to preserve the spirit of the arrangement here, I have
shown both to the High Commissioner [10] and General Bruche [11]
before sending off-and with which they have both been in
agreement.

I have not made mention to you in these letters of the Empire Free
Trade campaign that the 'Daily Mail' is waging here. It seems
rather a lot of nonsense that will fall down on its own weight. I
expect McDougall [12] is keeping you informed.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY