(Due to arrive Melbourne-9.8.25)

My dear P.M.,

The new Committee of Civil Research (the 'Civil C.I.D.'), with Tom
Jones [1] as Secretary, is getting into its stride.

I enclose copy of Lords' Debate in which notable speeches by Lord
Haldane [2] and Lord Balfour [3] were made on this subject of the
Committee of Civil Research. My letter No. 76 of 28th May dealt
with the formation of this Committee. [4]

I have often wondered whether some such organisation as this, or a
cross between this and the C.I.D., under the title of (say)
Permanent Development Commission or Commonwealth Development
Committee, would not be of assistance to you in Australia. It
would really be like a Permanent Royal Commission with the Prime
Minister as Chairman, some capable M.H. R. or Senator as
President, and a first-class Secretary. These would be all the
permanent members; other members of the Government (and, for that
matter, of the Opposition), as well as business and technical
experts, would be co-opted from time to time in accordance with
their special aptitude to deal with the particular question under
discussion.

Such problems as the Northern Territory, Industrial Arbitration,
Railway Gauge Co-ordination, Commonwealth Railways, Defence of
Australian Ports and Migration might be referred to it. The
Committee would calmly and at leisure, and with the best expert
advice procurable, thrash out, or at any rate work up to fairly
fine points, the plus and minus of these and other great problems.

Hoover's [5] activities in America as Secretary of Commerce are
working on something like these lines.

One has been hearing for some time that the Liberal Party in this
country has lost its vigour and will disintegrate between the
upper and nether millstones of Conservatism and Labour. Certainly
the loss of Asquith [6] to the Lords, and Grigg [7] to Kenya, has
sapped its vitality. One can get no evidence of the rumoured
division of the Party into two -the 'right' going to the
Conservatives and the 'left' to Labour. Any sloughing off of
Liberal members to one party or the other must, I think,
necessarily be by groups, as the stigma that would attach to
individual secession would be too obvious.

There was a debate in the Lords two days ago on the Pact [8], in
the course of which Asquith practically gave it his blessing. I
know that Asquith and Balfour lunched together a day or so before
and thrashed the matter out as to the Liberal Party's attitude in
the Lords on this subject.

The apparently growing tendency in this country to take selected
members of the Opposition into at least the minor councils of the
Government is thought to be useful. Even before the war, John
Burns [9] was made Chairman of a C.I.D. Sub-Committee to enquire
into the question of diverting traffic from the approaches to
London in case of invasion. Sir Alfred Mond [10] (Liberal) is
being made a member of the Committee of Civil Research. Several
Labour men and Liberals are at the moment on various Government
Sub-Committees and Commissions. You sent Charlton [11] to Geneva
last September. President Wilson's failure to take a Republican
delegate to the Peace Conference led to his undoing.

One would think that it would tend to smooth out some at least of
the bitter party feeling, as well as educate the other side in the
difficulties of Government.

The 'Brisbane' incident showed, if proof were needed, that there
is no 'dictator' in H.M.G. [12] It is almost impossible to get a
rapid authoritative decision from any individual Minister. They
insist on consulting their colleagues before committing
themselves. Which is a good thing, I expect, but it does slow
things up.

I have been trying to read into H.M.G.'s attitude towards China
and Russia in particular some sign of a settled policy, but it is
hard to discover. 'Close touch but non-interference' must
certainly keep other countries guessing. It keeps a number of
people at home guessing too!

General Spears [13], who writes an article 'A Basis for European
Security' in the current Review of Reviews (going to you in news
cuttings this week), may not be known to you. He was a protege of
Lloyd George. His father's name was Speyers or Spiers. On changing
his name to Spears he adopted the crest of a hand grasping six
'spears'. His critics say he should at the same time have adopted
the motto 'Dum spero spiras'. He is not altogether trusted and is
known generally as a wire puller. He writes a good deal, travels
in France and Germany, and speaks both languages very well; is
'clever'. He married the woman who wrote 'Jane, our Stranger', a
very well-known novel of life in Paris, which is said to have
enraged the French. [14] His article on 'European Security' merely
sketches a scheme of demilitarisation in the Rhineland.

Winston Churchill [15] finds himself in some difficulty in his
efforts to reduce expenditure. As far as I can gather, it is a
fact that the expenditure of Government Departments (other than
the Fighting Services) is cut to the bone. Still further minor
pruning would reduce the efficiency of the machine. It is a matter
on which I am unable to comment, as to whether or not it would not
be possible to eliminate certain Government Departments
altogether, but this is a matter of high policy and the Government
are apparently not looking in this direction. The only real trees
worth pruning are the Fighting Services and they fight like wild-
cats against it. Winston has the name of being a good fighter too,
up to a point, but he is said to be liable to break down at the
last moment. His position is not an easy one. He is not quite
persona grata with the body of the Conservative party. He is
regarded by his fellow Ministers as having got rather a bigger
plum than he deserved in the Chancellorship. And the Treasury
people are not too pleased with his being there. They realise that
if they had (say) Austen Chamberlain [16], he would resign rather
than give way on some all-important point, whereas they feel that
Winston would protest up to the last and then put the
responsibility on the Cabinet, and retain his job.

I am celebrating my centenary this week-my hundredth letter goes
by this mail.

I am, Yours very truly,
R. G. CASEY