My dear P.M.,

Since I wrote you about what Hankey [1] had told me of Philip
Kerr's ideas [2], I have had a long session with him in which he
repeated what he had said to Hankey. The gist of the rest of what
he has to say is as follows.

Thinking Canadians have weighed up the relative advantages of the
Empire and the United States and have come to the conclusion, on
other than sentimental grounds, that the Empire holds more for
them. They dislike the British class-bound social system, they
dislike the possibility of being embroiled in Great Britain's
wars-on the other hand they dislike the American system of justice
and they dislike their educational system. They admire the British
character and they admire American business and industrial
methods. But they realise that they can only foster within their
boundaries such parts of the British tradition that they like if
they remain within the Empire-and an increasing degree of
Americanisation is inevitable by reason of propinquity-so they
realise that they must weight the balance in favour of the Empire
if they want to get the best of both worlds.

Not a very idealistic doctrine!
Kerr thinks that, with the growth of American naval power to some
approximation of parity with Great Britain, the recent fever of
competition will die down. He thinks that already there is a
tendency amongst those who think at all to regard the British and
American aims as regards blockade rights as more or less
equivalent.

Great Britain does not need to employ the blockade in a small war.

She has used the blockade only twice in the last century-against
Napoleon and against Germany. The blockade is an essential British
weapon in a 'major', 'world' or 'League' war-but not in 'small'
wars.

Similarly the use of the blockade would be essential to the United
States in a war with Mexico or Japan-i.e. wars that come somewhat
loosely into the sphere of the Monroe Doctrine. [3]

Kerr thinks he sees in the above the elements of an arrangement
between the United States and Great Britain. He thinks we should
work towards an agreement (verbal, if possible, as a written
treaty brings the unknown factor of the vagaries of the United
States Senate into the picture) with the United States, whereby
the employment on either side of the rights of interfering with
the other's merchant marine in war is confined to 'League' wars on
the one hand, and 'Monroe Doctrine' wars on the other. And that in
wars other than these either country is at liberty to trade
without hindrance with the other's enemies.

He is putting together an article on the above lines for the next
issue of the 'Round Table'.

He says that Vincent Massey [4] is putting up a very good show as
Canadian Minister at Washington. He has a very nice Legation,
entertains a good deal and is full of work and activity. He made a
great parade of Lord Willingdon [5] when he visited Washington and
jockeyed the President [6] into putting on a top hat and returning
the official call in person at the Canadian Legation!

He arranged for a memorial to be erected in the American National
Memorial Cemetery by Canada to the memory of Americans who were
killed in the Canadian Forces in the War, and he had two companies
of gorgeously dressed Canadian Scottish sent down from Canada to
be present at the inauguration. They paraded in the White House
grounds-the first time that British troops had been there since
they burned it down!

I think you know Philip Kerr. He was one of 'Milner's young men'
[7] in South Africa. Is now Secretary of the Rhodes Trust and the
active man in the 'Round Table'. Has a really good brain which he
devotes unceasingly to the study of international and imperial
affairs. He is financially independent, knows everybody and can
get his ideas well received. He speaks lucidly and well.

He goes to the States and Canada every year and keeps in close
touch with people and events in both countries.

He had a talk to Mackenzie King [8] about the methods of keeping
touch between units of the Empire. Mackenzie King doesn't like our
method of liaison but thinks the solution lies in British High
Commissioners in Dominions, and Dominion High Commissioners in
London.

I had Sir Austen Chamberlain [9] , Harding [10] , Batterbee [11]
and Thompson from the American Department of the Foreign Office
[12], to meet Sir Hugh Denison [13] at lunch this week. Sir Austen
talked well and freely and I think Sir Hugh enjoyed meeting him.

I asked Sir Austen if he had ever considered going to Washington
to get into direct personal touch with the President and the
Secretary of State, in view of the success of his policy of making
friends with the foreign secretaries and heads of European States.

He said that he had seriously considered it but had decided
against it by reason of the fact that he would have to have a
mission to perform or else his visit would be misconstrued. And,
moreover, it would have to be a mission which was capable of
achieving something definite which could be announced to the
world. The visit of a British Foreign Secretary to Washington was
so unique an event that America would not believe that it was
merely a friendly gesture. If Washington was on the route to
Geneva, he could well 'drop in', but as it necessitated at least a
month's absence from London it was almost impossible.

He deplored the fact that Borah [14] (Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee of the Senate) had never been to Europe, and
said that it was his information that Borah made a point of not
coming to Europe as he did not want to disembarrass himself of his
100% American outlook.

I have arranged subsequent appointments for Sir Hugh Denison with
the Dominions Office people and with the Foreign Secretary.

It has been a heavy ten days from the point of view of food. We
gave a luncheon party a week ago for the High Commissioner [15]
and Lady Ryrie to let them meet Sir Maurice and Lady Hankey, Lady
Northcote [16] and others.

We lunched with the Trenchards [17] to meet some of the highly-
placed Air people, and Sir Francis Humphrys (H.M. Minister in
Afghanistan) and his wife. Humphrys travelled from Kabul to Cairo
with Amanulla, the King of Afghanistan, and then came on to London
to help arrange his time in England.

Hankey reminded me yesterday of a conversation that he had with
Houghton (the American Ambassador) three years ago, soon after the
latter arrived in London from Berlin. The conversation brought the
remark from Hankey that he thought that war between Great Britain
and the United States was impossible, to which Houghton replied
that he didn't think it was impossible at all. He then asked
Hankey to explain what the Australian liaison appointment meant,
and on being told said that he couldn't imagine that it would work
successfully. Houghton then opened the third and last phase of the
talk in which he said that it was his opinion that prohibition was
inevitable in Germany, with which Hankey disagreed entirely.

At that the conversation languished, which is in accord with the
dictionary definition that equable conversation presupposes
certain accepted and common premises between those conversing!
In other words, Hankey did not get on with Houghton, in which he
was not alone. Chamberlain, Tyrrell [18], Vansittart [19], and a
number of others have expressed their disapproval of him on
various grounds from rudeness to readily discernible anti-British
feelings.

In a recent conversation between Houghton and Tom Jones [20],
Houghton said that when in Washington recently he had had several
talks with Colonel House [21] on Freedom of the Seas, and went on
to say that he would much appreciate an opportunity to have a
friendly and unofficial talk with Chamberlain on the subject, no
record of which would be taken. He wanted to talk without
authority and really to think aloud and develop his own ideas.

This desire duly reached Chamberlain, who has declined the
invitation for the present. The fact is that while the Committee
of Imperial Defence Sub-Committee is examining the subject,
Chamberlain does not want to embarrass himself by such a
conversation. Nor does he want Houghton to get the idea that the
subject is being made one of governmental attention.

The result of Houghton's lack of popularity is that he is not
folded to the bosom of the leaders of this country as he might be.

He has not been asked to Chequers [22] for over two years and even
then, I believe, for only one night. He cannot be indifferent to
the fact that he is not completely persona grata to Baldwin [23],
Chamberlain, Winston Churchill [24] and the rest. All these three,
I understand, in their hearts react against the things that modern
America stands for, and they can see no good in her. This
attitude, added to the fact that they do not like Houghton
personally, must make it difficult for a man of Houghton's
temperament to react other than adversely to this country. All
this, I imagine, must colour his despatches to our detriment.

For reasons which I don't pretend to be able to fathom, Englishmen
are, I think, more liable than most people to be influenced in
their business and other dealings by their personal likes and
dislikes. If a man is likeable and presentable he gets his job
done well. If he wears yellow socks and brushes his hair queerly
he is suspect and conditions become such that his job is made
difficult to accomplish.

When the policy of this country is that of getting on well with
America, it would seem to be good policy (whilst maintaining
dignity and selfrespect) to be nice to Houghton, in fact, in a
quiet way, to make rather a lot of him. It might go against the
grain a little, but it would surely be worth while.

D'Abernon [25] is a great gambler and is reported to be something
of a financial wizard. He was in Berlin from 1920 to 1926. I have
heard that he is shaking in his shoes a little over the Gregory
enquiry. [26]

I hear most confidentially that Trenchard is to retire in May
1929, and that he will be succeeded as Chief of the Air Staff
either by Sir John Salmond (now commanding the Air Defences of
Great Britain) or Sir Philip Game (now Air Member for Personnel).

[27]

As an example of the queer ways in which things happen. Vansittart
(aged 46) accepted the job of Chief Private Secretary to the Prime
Minister chiefly because he saw himself blocked for any promotion
of consequence in the Foreign Office by Gregory (aged 49), who was
Assistant Under-Secretary of State and was immediately above him in
seniority. Within a week of Vansittart's accepting the new
appointment, the 'Gregory' case begins and Gregory, in
consequence, is likely to go, leaving the Assistant Secretaryship
of State vacant. Thomas Hardy's 'ironic spirits' must be laughing.

I think you will be interested to read one of the Foreign Office
prints that I send by this mail-Japan, Section 1 of January 31st,
1928-being Sir John Tilley's (H.M. Ambassador in Tokyo) remarks
about the possibility of war between Japan and America. The
previous despatches to which it refers deal with Sir John Tilley's
note of warning about the growth of 'Pan-Pacific unions' and
similar organisations.

I enclose copy of R.G. Hawtrey's little book-'The Gold
Standard'that I mentioned to you recently. [28]

Without going into detail, and for what it is worth, it is my
impression that the British motor industry has made considerable
strides in these last few years, particularly in the cars in the
lower price range to compete with America.

I am in course of trying to get for you copy of the report of
Major Sir Archibald Boyd-Carpenter's motor car mission to
Australia. [29] It has, I find, been kept very secret over here. I
doubt if I shall get it but I am making efforts.

Lord Salisbury [30] produced a report to the Cabinet on Australia
after his visit as head of the Empire Parliamentary Delegation in
1927. Hankey asks me not to ask for it, and, in any event, says it
would not be of much value to us. I gather that he adds his voice
to those who criticise the finances of the States.

There is not, as yet, much to say about Sir John Simon's Indian
Constitutional enquiry, other than what you will have seen in the
press. [31] They are at Delhi and will be in India for a few
months more; they then return to England for six months to think
it out and then return again to India in the next cool season. The

noisy subversive minority in India have set going a boycott
('hartal') of the Commission, based on the objection that there
are no Indians on it. The reason this is so is that of the
impossibility of getting representative Indians. To get anything
like a reasonable cross section of Indian thought and feeling, you
have to have several different brands of Mahomedan, numerous sorts
of Hindu, as well as representatives of British India and of
Native States, and the many other factions with which India is
divided. In other words, India is not a nation and it would take
twenty Indians to be the least representative; and as this would
wreck the Commission, it was decided to have none.

I pointed out to McDougall [32] recently an article in the 'Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science', entitled
'Great Britain's recent trend towards Protection'. He read it and
says it would interest you. Henderson [33] or the External Affairs
office I am sure gets this publication, so you will be able to see
it if you are so minded.

Baldwin has an intense personal dislike of Lloyd George [34]-they
are antipathetic personalities. Lloyd George had a great personal
triumph at the by-election at Lancaster last week, when he
obviously secured the election of the rather indifferent Liberal
candidate by two rousing speeches. The Prime Minister had been
preparing (before the Lancaster election) a speech for delivery a
few days after the election in which he was going to make a great
point of the series of continuous Conservative gains at by-
elections, but Lloyd George spiked his guns at Lancaster and he
was rather maddened by having to recast his whole speech in
consequence!

An amusing sidelight on the activities of the King of
Afghanistan's entourage is contained in a recent despatch from Sir
Ronald Graham (H.M. Ambassador at Rome), describing his stay in
Italy. The Chairman of the Fiat Company told the British Consul at
Turin that after visiting the Fiat works '...every effort had been
made to induce the King to buy Fiat cars but the scale of bribery
expected by His Majesty's entourage had made negotiations
difficult'.

I find that when I allow myself the free and easy vernacular in
which I write these personal letters to you, my ideas flow more
readily and I am more at home, more communicative and, I hope,
more lucid. The more rigid and stilted form of official letters
inevitably cramps one's style. This, I suppose, is why there is a
benefit in personal liaison. [35]

I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY