(Due to arrive Melbourne 7.3.25)

My dear P.M.,

SIR EYRE CROWE [1]

He is the great opponent of compulsory international arbitration.

Whilst listening to his forcibly expressed views, one might be
hearing the views of one of the many opponents of industrial
arbitration in Australia. Such arbitration as there has been in
the international field, even with carefully chosen arbitrators,
has resulted, so he says, in no clear-cut decisions but in
findings framed to save the faces of both litigants, giving the
one not all but part of what he seeks, and taking away from the
other part only of what he seeks to conserve. He not unnaturally
throws up his hands in horror of this system applied to momentous
issues.

Crowe personally is a sick man. He is over 60 and very obviously
in bad health, to such an extent that it is quite plain that he
cannot for many more years stand the continuous strain that falls
on the Permanent Head of the Foreign Office. Without knowing him
more than casually, I should not give him much more than a year
more of it. [2]

As to his successor, I should not think, from what I have seen and
heard, that it would go to Sir William Tyrrell, his next in direct
succession in the Foreign Office. [3] The latter is very clever,
very agile-minded, well known for his ability at discovering
'formulae', but without the high principle and sound judgment and
knowledge of Crowe. I have heard Sir Eric Drummond's name
mentioned (Secretary-General to the League) with more certainty.

Crowe is very illuminating about the morality of the European
nations. He says that Great Britain alone amongst European nations
signs a Treaty with the full intention to carry it out. He says he
has very good reason to suspect that France has a legal department
at the Quai d'Orsay, whose main business is the word-by-word
dissection and analysis of all Treaties she enters into, to find
holes in them, which are filed with the Treaty for future possible
use! He says that the smaller nations play fast and loose with us,
knowing that it is not our custom to make use of their past
misdeeds against us, in our present dealings with them; and also
that they cannot by favouring us in small ways get other than just
and impartial treatment from us in their troubles.

With regard to the 'Declaration' which (in the Protocol Sub-
committee papers that I have sent you) is proposed between France,
Belgium and Great Britain, he points out that the sanctity of the
North Sea and Channel Ports was specified with intent, to draw
attention away from the Eastern (Czecho, Polish, &c.) frontiers of
France and her allies, which this country has no intention of
committing herself to defend. [4] It might be said in consequence
that Germany might declare a holy war in France with the express
and limited object of recovering Alsace-Lorraine, and with the
stated purpose of not even approaching the Channel ports. The
answer to this is that the 'word' of a country already committed
to arms is no guarantee, and we would have to assume, even in this
case, that such aggression was the beginning of a menace to the
Channel ports.

When Hankey [5] told me privately ten days ago of the proposed
wording of the 'Declaration', I suggested to him that it would
give the pact a nice warm Imperial flavour if he worded it 'Menace
to Imperial Communications and the Channel Ports', and asked him
if I might cable you explaining the proposal, and asking if you
concurred in putting this forward. He liked this at first but, on
subsequently discussing it at the Sub-committee meeting, they
decided that if we put this in, then France would retaliate with
some similar phrasing designed to protect her colonial
possessions, and that it would get unwieldy, complicated, and full
of pitfalls. I also talked to Crowe about cabling you in the above
regard, and he said they wanted to keep this proposed 'key'
Declaration simple and free from any implication other than a
commitment that we would go to war again under circumstances
similar to 1914. He said that there was nothing to stop similar
and possibly more detailed Declarations being subsequently entered
into, containing some such wording. I pointed out that the
proposed Declaration as it stood contained, to put it at its
worst, no 'bait' to attract Dominion enthusiasm, but was without
adornment a local pact between Great Britain, France and Belgium.

His answer was that this was unavoidable; it was up to the
Dominions to say whether they would bind themselves to come to the
assistance of this country again in circumstances similar to those
of 1914.

I am anxious to tell you of what I think is a very decided step
forward in the 'liaison' work here. As I have told you, up till
now I have been very careful to get Crowe's personal permission
before sending any F.O. document to you. He has now given me the
privilege of deciding myself what I send, relying, as he says, on
my discretion in the matter not to abuse the privilege. This saves
a lot of work, as I can now send F.O. documents themselves without
the labour of copying or digesting them, or tramping across to the
F.O. to get the royal assent. However, the privilege carries with
it added responsibility with regard to the secrecy of these
documents in Australia, about which I spoke in one of my letters
by the last mail.

The above, of course, applies only to F.O. documents and not to
the records of C.I.D. Meetings, which will always, I am afraid,
remain sacrosanct as far as the printed proceedings go, although I
am free, as before, to send you digests of what goes on.

CANADA

Geoffrey Dawson, Editor of 'The Times', seems very pleased at your
having made the appointment that I am doing, and said to me that
he was very interested to see what Canada would do on the same
lines. He said that if she held off and did nothing, she would be
cutting off her nose to spite her face. She would be letting

Australia get ahead of her in inside knowledge of what was going
on, by persisting in her attitude that the day to day conduct of
foreign affairs is no concern of hers. He holds that this
appointment is really a move towards greater independence on the
part of Australia, by giving us an opportunity to build up a
Foreign Service of our own, based on the experience and knowledge
of Great Britain. We have got to the inside and are looking out,
rather than Canada's viewpoint from the outside looking in.

In conversation with Batterbee [6], lately at the Colonial Office,
he said that in the past it has been at times the habit for Canada
to open up a disputed question with the Consul-General in Canada
of the foreign power concerned and through him carry the
negotiations to such a point that if they succeeded, well and
good, but if they looked like failing, they said that in any event
this was only a preliminary airing of views and the matter must
now be referred to the Colonial Office for settlement!
This tendency to pass the responsibility on has apparently not
been onesided. The Portuguese Charge d'Affaires said to me lately
that the Dominions were of great diplomatic assistance to the
Departments of State: 'when they get in a hole they say that
whilst they themselves are perfectly reasonable on any point, it
is very difficult to get the concurrence of the Dominions!'
As to the attitude of Canada and Australia to the Empire, I think
the position is well summed up by the tone of their respective
replies to the invitation to Protocol Conference, contained in
C.O. cables sent you on 15th January. [7]

Mackenzie King's [8] most recent pronouncements of any importance
on the subject of Imperial relations are contained in the two
extracts attached, marked 'A' and 'B'. His views in these two
places are not really inconsistent, and (apart probably from
political colouring to suit the needs of his position) not
unusual, considering Canada's practically guaranteed immunity from
aggression. Selfish no doubt, but understandable.

GENERAL

In any conversation with Foreign Office officials or with Press
men, with regard to European countries, talk gets back almost
inevitably to French security. By logical means -or by French
diplomacy and pertinacity -it has been well drilled into everyone
that there can be no new Heaven and new Earth until this question
is settled to the satisfaction of the French. It has thoroughly
permeated the Foreign Office: not to say that they are ready to
dash into any onesided proposal -as the plus and minus of the
position have been thoroughly thrashed out-but it is recognised
that, although the danger is not immediate, they have to
thoroughly explore all avenues until one is found that is fair and
reasonable to both France and Great Britain, and is politically
possible of achievement in both countries.

As to whether Australia would bind herself on paper to a
'Declaration' or Pact with France and Belgium, such as may be
proposed as a result of the investigation of the Protocol Sub-
Committee, I should think is very doubtful. Although Australia
almost undoubtedly would assist Great Britain in the event of the
channel ports being threatened by reason of aggression on the 1914
lines, she would, I imagine, want her Cabinet and Parliament to
decide on the merits of the facts and circumstances of the moment
whether she would send troops. [9] And it is difficult to imagine
Canada taking any other attitude than this. Other Dominions don't
matter much.

FRANCE

In order to get the views of people on the spot and to be in a
position to read the telegrams and despatches from our Embassy in
Paris with more intelligence, I have just returned from spending
four or five days in Paris, where I met and had long conversations
with Phipps [10] and KnatchbullHugessen (Counsellor and 1st
Secretary) of the Embassy, and Hubert Walter, the Chief
Correspondent of 'The Times'; and others. I also spent a day in
the Chambre des Deputes under the guidance of a local personage
who knew about it all.

The following rather elementary facts were made clear to me, which
I repeat, with the risk that the gist of it may be already known
to you.

The French Parliament (Chambre des Deputes) is elected for 7 years
and almost invariably lasts out its full term, dissolution and
appeal to the country being unpopular. The result of this is that
at frequent intervals, regrouping of the many 'cartels' and
factions in the Chamber cause the downfall of a Government and the
immediate formation of its successor. It is said that the average
'life' of a French Government before the war was five months.

The shading of political opinion from 'left' to 'right' includes
the group of Communists on the extreme left, through the 100-odd
Socialists, the Radical-Socialists, the Centre, the Republicans,
the Independents, as well as the many small and fluid associations
of deputies.

The present Government under Herriot [11] is a Government of the
Left, in that it has its support from the left centre rather than
the right centre. It is supported and is dependent for its support
on the 100-odd Socialists, of whom the leading member is Leon Blum
[12], said by some authorities to be the ablest man in the
Chamber.

The British Embassy regard the Herriot Government as a 'good'
Government from the British point of view, in that it is a relief
from the unbending Nationalism of Poincare [13], which was out to
grind Germany to the ground and stick fast on the Rhine until the
last penny was paid. Herriot is dependent on Blum and his 100-odd
Socialists for his support, and this ensures a more lenient and
conciliatory spirit towards Germany.

It is for this reason that the Embassy was so disturbed at
Herriot's outburst in the Chamber on 28th and 29thJanuary, when he
made a militant speech, specifying the urgent necessity for
guarantees of French Security-it was spoken of in many French
papers as a 'reversion to Poincareism'. Their explanation of it
(in which Blum concurs) is that it is aimed at Great Britain,
rather than for home consumption, as a cry to hearten this country
at this period when they know that the Protocol (or something to
take its place) is being considered.

In the ordinary course of events, it is not considered by expert
British opinion in Paris that Herriot's Government can last more
than (say) from one to four months more.

The Briand [14]-Loucheur [15] group seen to be watching events
closely and it is thought that Briand will make a bid for power
before long. This new regrouping is not thought to be as
favourable to us as the present Government, as Briand is more to
the 'right' than Herriot and if he succeeds in welding sufficient
support to his banner, it will most probably not include the
Socialists, whose modifying influence is thought to be no less
than essential in France's dealings with Germany.

Herriot's 'Security' speech has started France off again on an
orgy of self-pity and 'French Security' is again the paramount
subject of the day.

It will be noted that I have not sent forward any information as
to the day-to-day and voluminous negotiations with regard to the
Commission of Control in Germany. This has been international on
account of the impossibility of condensing the large amount of
printed matter, and of its only very long-range interest to you in
Australia. Should any 'situation' arise that is of sufficient
importance, I would cable you information, but I do not think the
semi-domestic negotiations warrant my reporting them.

I have also sent no information about the affair in Chile, as its
importance is small.

The expulsion of the head of the Greek Church in Turkey has made
some tension between Greece and Turkey, but it is not thought to
be a matter of any great importance.

GENEVA PROTOCOL

I cabled briefly yesterday stating the fact that the Union of
South Africa had notified the British Government of its refusal to
accede to the Protocol. I understand that the full text of the
South African cable is being posted to you by this mail.

Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY