My dear P.M.,

Parliament has recently been convulsed by its efforts to decide
whether or not to revise the Prayer Book, and eventually decided
not to. The question raised a storm of interest and even passion
that was very surprising -to me at least. The non-party debate in
the Commons evoked speeches from members of the Cabinet and
private members that, I am told, were of an order of sincerity and
even emotion that has not been heard for many years. I believe
that the centuries-old cry of 'No Popery' eventually carried the
day. One member that I know, who represents an obscure
constituency on the borders of England and Wales, told me that he
received 600 letters on the subject prior to the debate-which is
more than the total that he has received in the last three years
on all subjects. These evidences of deep-seated religious
convictions, that emerge from time to time in all countries, never
fail to surprise me and make me wonder if I know anything about my
fellow-man at all.

I showed the above remarks to Tom Jones [1] for comment-which was
as follows:

This is pretty near the mark. The debate made one wish that one
could abolish the Party Whips for ever. It was intensely serious
and sincere. The supporters of the new Book (Bridgeman [2] and
Lord Wolmer [3] specially) were much weaker in debate than Jix
[4], Hogg [5], Inskip [6] and Mitchell [7], who opposed it. The
new Book, minus the Eucharist changes, would pass the Commons
tomorrow but, of course, that would not satisfy the Anglo-
Catholics.

Mr. Baldwin's trip to Canada was a great success I am told. He was
very well received and was happy in his choice of subjects and
expression in his speeches. Hankey [8] tells me that he has been
more confident and has shown more grip generally since his return.

He stands well with the party and with the country and there is, I
am told, no question of his not remaining at the head of the party
and the Government as far ahead as can be seen.

I am told that he was understood to have travelled to Canada in
the same ship as the Prince of Wales in order to try to exert his
influence with him in the matter of persuading him to marry. A
Swedish princess is said to be the proposed object of his
synthetic affections: it was thought that, whereas he wouldn't
allow himself to be persuaded in such a matter by the King and
Queen, he might nevertheless let himself be influenced by the
democratic head of the state. No one, of course, knows the result.

Baldwin is said to be 'growing to' the job of Prime Minister and
that for this reason and the fact that the rest of the Cabinet is
divided on the question of his successor, he will remain in the
saddle. There is a conscious-or subconscious-rivalry always
stirring on the subject. Austen [9] is the obvious successor, on
his past record and on his merits, but he is not popular with the
party or with the country. Winston [10] and Joynson-Hicks and
Birkenhead [11] I oppose the P.M. and Austen and Neville
Chamberlain [12] on many subjects. Hankey still thinks that
someone rather apart from both factions (such as Bridgeman, or
possibly Douglas Hogg) would be the compromise P.M. if anything
happened to Baldwin.

The best opinions I can get seem to be to the effect that the
Conservatives will get back at the next election, provided nothing
of moment happens in the meantime. Lloyd George [13] told someone
here in great confidence lately that his opinion was that the
Conservatives would undoubtedly be returned as the largest
individual party but that it was a toss-up as to whether they
would have a clear majority over both the other parties.

Winston is writing another book, 'The Aftermath of the War'. [14]
He is not well off and has to write books and magazine articles to
maintain himself -rather than as an evidence of an uncontrollable
creative urge. None of the people of prominence in the Cabinet are
at all well off, for that matter. Baldwin's money is to a very
large extent in the ordinary shares of Baldwin's Ltd. and they
haven't paid a dividend for some years. Birkenhead is notoriously
hard-up. Amery [15] has very little besides his salary. Neither of
the Chamberlains has very much. Lord Salisbury [16] has a lot but
has large commitments in his many seats. Sir Samuel Hoare (Air),
Guinness (Agriculture and Fisheries) and Cunliffe-Lister [17] (B.

of T.) each have a good deal of money but they cannot be said to
be prominent in the Cabinet.

Hankey is very pleased that his son (Robin) got into the
Diplomatic Service lately and has been posted to Berlin. There
were only four vacancies, of which Sir Eyre Crowe's [18] son and
Hankey's boy got two.

In the Committee of Imperial Defence, the 'Defence of India' was
the big subject of 1927. The Report is printed and has been
accepted by everyone except Winston so far and he is thought to be
on the point of agreeing. I will send you copy, together with a
very brief summary of it, by an early mail. Just as this was the
big event behind the scenes of 1927, so, in Hankey's opinion, will
the 'Surrender of Belligerent Rights at Sea' be the magnum opus of
1928.

The gist of the 'Defence of India' controversy, I am told, is as
follows. The people of the country north of Afghanistan have been
netted into the Soviet bag and it is thought that sooner or later
Soviet Russia will make use of the fact that these so-called
Soviet peoples have racial affinities with the inhabitants of the
northern part of Afghanistan, and that some attempt, either by
gradual absorption or by a revolt, will be made to sever Northern
Afghanistan from the rest and Sovietise it. The imperial General
Staff here are alarmed at the prospect, which they consider would
jeopardise the defence of India. The Indian General Staff do not
take this view. The War Office has prevailed, I understand, and it
has been decided that any further penetration of Russia into
Afghanistan must be resisted. The King of Afghanistan is now on
his way to England and will, of course, be made a great deal of-he
is to stay a few days at Buckingham Palace.

The question of our Belligerent Rights at Sea is a momentous one
and I have dealt with it elsewhere. It is a subject such that, if
uninformed public opinion got loose on it, would raise all sorts
of passions. It is one of those subjects on which the head has
great difficulty in convincing the heart. The press here have got
hold of it, but, of course, have no idea that it is the subject of
governmental attention, and this is being kept completely secret.

The public think it is one of the usual silly season topics. I am
in the stage of being rather appalled that such weight of argument
can be marshalled on the side of suggesting that we should
consider the surrender of our rights.

The Foreign Office (and Hankey too) are full of indignation over
Cecil's resignation. [19] You can imagine what they say-letting
the country down-advertising our domestic troubles-encouraging the
intransigence of the Americans-fanatic-and the rest.

I dined with Julius [20] last night and am arranging with the F.

O. for him to be properly looked after in Washington by H.M.

Embassy. He is said on all sides to have done extremely well here,
as he was likely to do as he is a firstrate man.

I met McDougall [21] at dinner lately. He is very fit and
maintains well the exceptional position he has made for himself in
London.

I have now seen Chamberlain and Lovat [22] and have made contact
again with all the men in the Foreign Office, Dominions Office and
my usual round here. They are a very easy set of people to settle
in amongst again.

I shall take the liberty of giving Nichols [23] a letter to you.

He is a Foreign Office man who goes to New Zealand as Liaison
Officer with Mr. Coates [24] on behalf of H.M.G.

During my talk with Sir Austen Chamberlain yesterday, I asked
about Canada's prospective legations at Paris and Tokyo. He gave
me to understand, in confidence, that he didn't like it and didn't
see the necessity for it, but naturally he had expressed no such
sentiment to the Canadians. He said that the Paris Legation was a
sop to the French Canadians and that at Tokyo was based on the
supposition that it was necessary to have means of discussing the
emigration question with the Japanese at closer range. He said
that he didn't know as yet what was afoot but he imagined that
both the French and the Japanese would want to return the
compliment and send diplomatic missions to Ottawa, which would no
doubt complicate matters. He also confirmed the fact that there is
some stirring in the minds of the South Africans regarding their
representation at Lisbon, but that the formation of a Legation
there was not in immediate prospect.

Sir Austen lent me a book of speeches of Lord Balfour's [25]
('Essays Speculative and Political') from which I have had copied
an article on 'The Freedom of the Seas', being an interview given
to the American Press in 1916. He said it had a bearing on the
present phase of this question so I am enclosing it amongst the
other papers on this subject in another letter to you by this
mail.

Sir Arnold Robertson, as you may remember, was promoted from
Minister to Ambassador at Buenos Aires a few months ago on the
elevation of that Legation to an Embassy. It was great luck for
him that he happened to be at Buenos Aires at that moment as he
was a comparatively junior Minister and was elevated above the
heads, I am told, of no less than sixteen of his colleagues who
were senior to him. He is a brilliant but rather erratic person
whom I have met several times. On arrival in Buenos Aires about
two years ago he found practically no real diplomatic work to do,
so he threw himself with brutal energy and enthusiasm into the
task of assisting the British Commercial community and achieved a
good deal. As it was put to me, he is one of the few diplomats who
realise that Diplomacy is the handmaid of Commerce.

I have had an intolerable cold for the last week. Christmas is
between me and the next mail to you, which shuts all doors, so
that my next mail will probably be a light one.

With all good wishes for the New Year, I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY