(Due to arrive Melbourne-7.11.25)

My dear P.M.,

Nothing in this letter is of any immediate importance.

This country is in a most depressed state. The big industries are
just carrying and no more. Tom Jones [1], who has a very wide
circle of friends who feed him with information, admits that
things are in a 'bad way' and that conditions are ripening for
industrial trouble. He thinks that the opposition to Amery's [2]
25 year scheme in Iraq and Mosul is due to weariness on the part
of the people and reaction against taking on what may well be
further financial commitments miles away in the Middle East, while
things are bad at home. [3]

This is apart altogether from the note of bitter personal
animosity that some of the screaming daily press are showing
against Amery. They probably, however, sense the temper of the
country and give their comments this personal turn to add snap and
point to them.

I hear that the French Government (Painleve) [4] is likely to
fall, mainly owing to the failure of Caillaux's [5] financial
eloquence in Washington. However, I am told that he is likely to
be succeeded by Briand [6], which would suit this country very
well. It must be the very devil to be a politician in France.

Mr. Amery's present intention is to visit Australia after
Parliament rises in July 1926. He would go via either Canada or
South Africa, staying a few weeks there on the way and returning
by the other Dominion. His visit will probably coincide with that
of the Empire Parliamentary Association although he would not be
tied to their itinerary. If, of course, any suggestion for an
Imperial Conference in 1926 materialises, this would stop his
trip.

Mr. J.H. Thomas [7] also talks of a visit to Australia during
1926, which might or might not coincide with that of the E.P.A. In
speaking to me about it, he expressed the desire not to embarrass
Mr. Amery by being there at the same time as himself. I think,
however, that he is probably thinking that the pond is not big
enough for two big frogs.

The popular subject at present is the activity of the Communists,
towards which the Government is showing a masterly inactivity. It
is generally recognised in inspired quarters that Mr. Baldwin [8]
has no 'drive' or initiative, and the apparently supine attitude
of the Government is not a little influenced by his lack of
leadership.

As some one in close touch with him said to me only today, he
shows a remarkable power of resistance to any suggestions for
definite action, which my informant explains as constitutional and
not in the least the result of considered conservative conviction.

Lord Thomson [9], in commenting on the subject to Hankey [10],
expressed the firm belief that the national necessity of coping
with the Communists would bring Lloyd George [11] back to power,
by virtue of some sort of fusion, as he thought he was the one man
capable of dealing with the internal situation. Hankey does not
subscribe to this view. Thomson, as you know, is an able
freelance, an ex-regular Sapper, who took a Labour peerage. He is
a great talker but has got a good deal of commonsense and
shrewdness. He lives by writing and lecturing.

As a matter of interest, I hope to get from Sir Hugh Trenchard
[12] before long his ideas (or those of his staff) as to how he
would set about the defence of Australia, based primarily on an
air force, if he were given complete freedom of action, keeping,
of course, economy in mind. He will, of course, have to admit,
possibly reluctantly, that a few ships are necessary, as an
ancillary force, but I am interested to see how far he would go in
accepting, even in this hypothetical case, the major
responsibility for the air.

The separate air force controversy gives point to a new story
circulating about 'Boom' Trenchard, and which he tells himself
Lady Culme Seymour [13] (wife of the late Admiral) was sitting
next to him at dinner and didn't really know who he was, and said
to him: 'And where do you work, Sir Hugh; at the War Office, I
expect?' to which he says he replied: 'Madam, I refuse to say; you
ask Lord Beatty [14], he knows where I work!'

It is an amusing coincidence that Trenchard's wife and Sir Roger
Keyes' [15] wife should be sisters. Keyes, when he was at the
Admiralty, was the spear point of the naval argument against a
separate air force.

Trenchard is the Air Ministry and, while he is there, no one gives
a -decision on any matter of other than minor importance. He is a
very strong, but far from silent man. He has a wonderful name for
getting things done. As they say about him, his manner and bearing
prompt people to get jobs for him done, not today but the day
before yesterday.

One of his faults is that he is a bad talker and cannot
spontaneously produce his arguments in a connected coherent form
in conversation, or, for that matter, on paper.

I enclose Lord Cecil's [16] memorandum on his return from Geneva.

His instructions as to his attitude at the Assembly did not, I
understand, leave much loophole for him to go beyond the views of
H.M.G., as he is criticised for having done in the past.

The summaries of your early election speeches (Dandenong and
elsewhere), as reported in Times and Telegraph, have been very
favourably reviewed in London. Tom Jones has just been in to
register very considerable enthusiasm. I have heard it said that
your opposite number in this country would do well to be delivered
of a series of speeches on just these lines.

With best wishes, I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY