(Due to arrive Melbourne-19.9.25)

My dear P.M.,

Another onslaught is to be made on the Air Force as a separate arm
in October or November. The plans are not yet finalised, but
Hankey [1] tells me that it is probable that Cavan [2] and Beatty
[3] will act in concert in the matter. The theory is that the
R.A.F. should be dismembered on the grounds of efficiency and
economy, the Army and the Navy being responsible for their
respective spheres of air defence.

It is mainly an Admiralty attempt (through political channels);

Cavan is said to be rather half-hearted as his term as C.I.G.S. is
nearly up. Trenchard [4] has survived such controversies before
and Hankey thinks he will survive this. I think he put it rather
well in his comment on the situation to an M.P. who is in the
forefront of the proposed attack-referring to the R.A.F. power of
retaliation he reminded him of the notice on an animal's cage in a
French Zoo: 'Cet animal est mechant; il se defend vigoreusement
quand on l'ennuie'. He meant by this that Trenchard would offer to
take over and be completely responsible for the defence and
policing of certain big areas (such as Egypt, Palestine, the
African colonies, Singapore, and possibly parts of India) on the
same lines as Iraq ('defence without occupation'), and would be
able to show considerable economies as compared with the present
military and naval control.

I cannot conceive that the Labor Party in the Federal H. of R.

have any personal animus in these querulous attacks on me or my
appointment. [5] I am, I take it, merely a convenient peg on which
to hang questions out of which they hope to make some political
capital. However, if they are consistent, it means, I suppose,
that if they happen to get into power at the next election, they
will put my appointment under Sir Joseph Cook [6] and the liaison
officer will be merely another Australia House official. They will
find, if they do, that the greater part of the value of the scheme
will disappear, as it has frequently been pointed out to me, both
when I first arrived and lately, that I would not get the
information that I do if it were to go through the sieve of
Australia House, or, for that matter, anywhere except straight to
you.

Personally I am not sure that I would continue in the appointment
under the conditions that I anticipate would result from a Labor
victory.

Amery [7] allowed himself to talk to me recently about Dominions
representatives in London and their connection with foreign
affairs. He said that he had written you saying that he thought
that the liaison experiment was a success and that he hoped
nothing would occur to upset the present scheme. However, he is
not quite happy in his own mind at the clear-cut segregation of
duties as between myself and the High Commissioner. He said that
he had had an expression of opinion from several High
Commissioners that they viewed the experiment with concern. No
doubt they did not, wish the precedent to become established
whereby foreign affairs are completely divorced from the subjects
which High Commissioners deal with. Apparently both the Canadian
and the South African High Commissioners are taking steps to
attempt to get authority from their Prime Ministers to allow them
to deal with foreign affairs.

I don't think Amery has yet made up his mind as to what the
eventual solution of the difficulty will be. Although willing to
discuss the possibilities, he is very loath to commit himself in
any way.

You will see in the 'Times' of 18.8.25 (in press cuttings) that
Sir Robert Borden [8] suggests that Dominion High Commissioners
should be members of the Dominion Cabinets and Privy Councillors,
with authority to attend Cabinet meetings when required. This
seems to me only a form of words.

The next most useful move that I can see would be the appointment
by H.M.G. of British Liaison Officers with Dominion Cabinets,
working in just the same way as I am doing here and having just
the same relation to the Governor-General as I have to the High
Commissioner.

You have made a very decidedly good mark with the Admiralty over
the cruiser business, and I have come in for some reflected credit
as having been mixed up in it to a small extent. [9] Captain
Egerton (Director of Plans) gave me a full hour's talk in front of
a map a few days ago on the naval plans in the Pacific (which I
will retail later) and opened the talk by laying stress on what an
important factor in the negotiations your telegram was.

In any such delicate business as this recent cruiser controversy,
one of the things that I have to look out for is not to allow
myself to be made the 'creature' of any one department here, from
the point of view of being propaganded at in the hope that it will
be passed on to you.

I expect you remember Sir Charles Davis, the new Permanent U.S. of
S. of the Dominions Office. [10] He is deaf and rather prosy and I
am afraid is not a tower of strength. He is rather a typical old
C.O. official [11], but always very pleasant and loves people
coming in to see him, but it is rather hard to get away from him.

Harding [12] is really the useful man in the Dominions Office.

You will be struck by the cordial and frank relations between
Chamberlain [13] and Briand [14] as evidenced by the Pact [15]
negotiations. This is borne out by de Fleuriau's [16] attitude
ever since he has been here these last six months. The F.O. have
nothing but praise for the 'let's get on with the job hand in
hand' attitude, both on the part of Fleuriau and his staff, which
they say is like a breath of fresh air after Saint Aulaire's [17]
pettifogging dotting of i's. They say that Fleuriau is a pleasant
reminder of the days of Cambon [18] (on whose staff he was) and
the heyday of the Entente Cordiale.

A.J. Cook [19] (Secretary of the Miners' Federation) and Inkpin
(Secretary, British Communist Party) are making a great deal of
noise and bombast at present as to what is going to happen next
May when the coal mining subsidy comes to an end. They threaten a
general strike. I should think their published remarks in the last
week on the subject of the undermining of the loyalty of the
fighting services must be very close to treason. The detail is
given in this week's Report on Communist activities.

I have seen Drake-Brockman [20] and will, of course, do what I can
to help him, although I have warned him that I have not
specifically dealt with L. of N. business. He was keen to get up
to date on the Pact negotiations and as he said that he was sure
you would have shown him the papers if he had been in Australia, I
saw the C.O. about it and cabled for your authority today.

I spoke to Amery ten days ago about the question of British or
domestic State Governors in Australia. He was waiting to get some
official (as apart from press) communication on the subject from
Australia.

He said the position was rather different to what was supposed. It
had been assumed that Milner's [21] statement was to the effect
that the change from British to local Governors would be met when
a majority of the States expressed such a desire. Really what had
been said was that the change would be made when the States were
unanimous and when it was clear that the feeling amongst the
majority of the people was in this direction. Also he was not
clear on the press report as to whether they wished to get away
from the principle of having their State Governors appointed by
the Crown (even if the Crown were advised by the State Cabinet of
a suitable local man), or if they wished to surrender a certain
rather vague sovereign right and have their State Governors
appointed by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, as was the
case in Canada. Until he had more light on the situation, the
question of a new Governor for Queensland was in abeyance.

Sir Charles Davis (Permanent U.S. of S. for the Dominions) is
sending me copies of the correspondence that was exchanged pre-war
on the subject, which shows clearly the policy that was then
favoured. I hope to be able to send you something on the subject
next week.

There is a well reasoned article by H. A. L. Fisher [22] in
'Contemporary Review' on the Security Pact, which goes to you in
this week's Press cuttings. He approves of the Pact but thinks a
number of high hurdles have yet to be crossed before the Pact
becomes a fact.

Elder [23] and my brother [24] go back to New York in a few days.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY