(Due to arrive Melbourne-27.3.26)

My dear P.M.,

It seems generally recognised that Colonel Jackson [1], the
Chairman of the Conservative Party, is no use. This is certainly
one reason why things move so slowly with his Government-there is
no centralised party driving force to spur on the P.M. [2] to
initiate things and push them through. This, added to the P.M.'s
natural reluctance to get a move on, leaves individual Cabinet
Ministers without any incentive to move out of a walk.

2. It is the custom in a number of big American manufacturing
concerns to have a small band of men, who are familiarly known as
'follow-up guys'. When an order is accepted for a big machine or a
batch of goods for delivery by a certain date, or as soon as
possible, these 'follow-up' men are given particulars of the
order, the departments affected and a schedule of dates on which
the requisite raw material has to be delivered and on which the
various parts of the finished machine are due to reach the
assembling shop. Their job is to see this schedule is adhered to,
to find out why delay takes place and generally to ensure that the
company's word is honoured as to final delivery date.

Some efficient 'follow-up guys' are badly needed in H.M.G. When
some draft document has to be approved by more than one
Department, it is liable to most heartrending hold-ups through
inefficient private secretaries, through the inviolability of
Ministers' week-ends, and by the general lack of momentum of
matter which it is no individual's responsibility to push.

The telegram to you on H.M.G.'s attitude to the proposed increase
of the League Council is a shining example. The resolution that
such a telegram was to be compiled was come to at the Cabinet of
18th February. The draft was compiled in the Dominions Office on
20th and went to Chamberlain [3] for approval on that day. He kept
it till 22nd and passed it to the P.M., who dealt with it on 23rd.

His private secretary did not pass it back to D.O. till 25th
(today). It may be despatched today. A full week.

3. A first-class example of a radical difference of opinion
between the Foreign Office and one of H.M.'s Ambassadors abroad is
to be seen in the present controversy between the F.O. and Sir R.

Macleay [4] in China, over the question of the future policy to be
followed with regard to China. The F.O. suggest a loosening of our
grip an the customs revenues, shifting the burden of financial
responsibility from Peking to the Provinces, whilst Macleay
advocates a continuance of the present control. Meanwhile the
extremely lengthy exchange of telegraphic views continues between
the F.O. and Peking. One would need to be a specialist in Far
Eastern affairs to even venture a guess as to which was right.

This brings one to the point that it seems to me that it will
undoubtedly be necessary at some time in the future to have a
specialist in Far Eastern affairs in your External Affairs Branch
in Melbourne. It is a highly specialised subject and the man who
does the job should, I think, have spent some time in China and
Japan.

4. Regarding Tyrrell's [5] pet idea of a British-Turk-Italian-
French Pact of non-aggression to operate in the Near East (see my
LON. 240 [6], page 3, para. 5). A Cabinet Committee has been
appointed to consider it, with Chamberlain as Chairman.

Chamberlain is rather appalled at the idea but acknowledges it
merits discussion. His first remark after reading Tyrrell's
memorandum on the subject was: 'You take my breath away!'

5. I hear on good but confidential authority that General Seely
[7] was offered the Governorship of Palestine but that the pundits
of the Conservative Party got up in arms at a Liberal getting an
undeserved plum, and the offer was withdrawn at the last moment
and it went to Plumer. [8] Poor Seely must be getting something of
a feeling that he is not wanted!

6. The 'Daily Mail' of yesterday (24th February) contained a
leader entitled 'Great Britain and Turkey: A Word to the Wise', in
which they solemnly shook their finger at the Turk and said that
if the Turk was so wrong in his judgment as to think that there
was any person in this country so ill-advised as to help the
Turkish cause against Great Britain, well, they were jolly well
mistaken! Surely there have been few such complete somersaults as
this. The 'Daily Mail' and the 'Express' joined hands in December
last to make the Turk believe that British public opinion was
against H.M.G.'s policy of resisting the Turk claims on the Iraq
frontier. There is every reason to believe that the Turk thereby
believed that H.M.G.'s policy was unpopular in this country, and
he (the Turk) was encouraged thereby to make a more intransigent
stand than common-sense would otherwise have dictated. And now the
'Daily Mail' says to the Turk: 'Don't you believe a word of it!'
People don't eat their words for nothing. I wonder what is behind
this bouleversement.

7. I send a paragraph in my LON. 268 of this week re Imperial
Diplomatic Unity. In the technical connection in which I use this
term, the situation has to be thrashed out. But no form of words
will start a 'Back to the Empire' movement. The spirit of Imperial
loyalty is everything and the letter of comparatively little
importance.

It occurs to me that the Canadians, South Africans and I.F.S.

might well have parodied for them the Salvation Army hymn:-

Count your many blessings,
Name them one by one.

You will be surprised to find
What the Lord has done!
with the word 'Empire' in place of 'the Lord'!

8. Your telegram re inclusion of British agricultural products in
educational publicity scheme to facilitate marketing of Dominions
products. [9] Amery [10] was delighted at what you sent and used
the telegram to great effect in the Cabinet. It brought about an
amusing incident which Hankey [11] tells me passed unnoticed.

Winston [12], after reading your telegram, said that he quite saw
the point and the only thing that caused him mild surprise was the
remarkable similarity not only of thought but of language between
that of Mr. Amery and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth!
Amery kept a stony face and did not comment, and the incident
passed unnoticed!

9. King Fuad of Egypt comes to England in June and is to be housed
at Buckingham Palace. His loyalty is, I understand, decidedly
questionable and there will not be many of his movements, or those
of his entourage, that are unmatched.

10. I am told that Lloyd George [13] is very unpopular with the
King, who regards him as an opportunist who would be a Kerensky
[14] if events shaped themselves that way.

11. Both Allen Leeper [15] and Arthur Yencken [16] are due to
start their families on about 8th March. They wear the
conventional air of outward calm and inward perturbation.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY