(Due to arrive Melbourne-14.11.25)

My dear P.M.,

The Government in this country has been increasingly Criticised
these last three months. To the list of its critics (besides the
Beaverbrook [1] and Rothermere [2] press) must now be added the
'Observer' and 'Sunday Times'.

The attitude of J.L. Garvin [3] in the 'Observer' rather surprised
people, considering that the paper is owned by Lord Astor.

I hear that Astor agreed to Garvin taking the attitude he has, as
they are most disappointed at the lack of preparedness of the
Government in the face of each emergency that arises-housing,
unemployment, coal, railways, communists, land policy, and all the
rest. They take things too easily and badly want gingering up.

One gets the impression of its being a 'comfortable' Government
and that, generally speaking, individual Cabinet Ministers hate
getting up early and sweating and striving early and late to
produce results. Events seem to catch them up rather than their
being ahead of the game by the well-known but little practised
'intelligent anticipation of events'. They take their weekends if
the heavens fall. Men who, as civil servants, were private
secretaries to both Labour Ministers and Ministers in the present
Government tell me that things were much more strenuous in the
days of the Labour Government. This may all be rather over-
coloured, but I think it has a certain amount of truth in it.

The Liberals have produced their new 'Land Policy', copy of which
I enclose as a matter of interest. [4] Lloyd George [5] is
stumping the country.

The Liberal Land Policy is the result of a self-imposed task on
the part of Ll.G. when he found himself with leisure. He enlisted
the best Liberal brains he could, inside and outside the House.

The 'Policy' that has resulted is definitely socialistic and is
irresponsible in that it is not supposed that they imagine it will
be put into force. It is an evidence of activity and will produce
thought on the subject, and will draw public attention to the
Party. Liberals are not unanimous about it and if Ll.G. nails it
to the mast and stands or falls by it, there are people who say it
is likely to split the Liberal party. Hilton Young [6] has
pronounced against it. Asquith [7] has as yet been silent.

Now that the Cabinet has started meeting again and the August-
September holiday period is at last over, I am again bringing up
the question of Australia being allowed the privilege of having
copies of the Embassy despatches direct from Tokyo and Peking. It
has not been lost sight of.

The C.I.D. Sub-Committee on research into new methods of defence
against air attack, which I have frequently mentioned (LON. 55 and
71 [8]) Still carries on. They have reached as yet no general
conclusion worth sending you (and probably will not for some
time), but their individual memoranda on the subject are most
entertaining.

The C.I.D. are discussing at an early date the Spanish proposals
for the exchange of Gibraltar for Ceuta, which is on the African
shore opposite Gibraltar. Hankey [9] has prepared an historical
memorandum dealing with the various proposals of this sort that
have been made in the last two hundred years. It is, of course,
most unlikely that anything will come of this business but as it
is a serious Spanish proposal, it has to be seriously dealt with.

You will remember that there was a suggestion that Rosyth and
Pembroke Dockyards were to be scrapped as part of the price that
the Navy were to pay for the continuance of the Cruiser programme.

The Admiralty now propose to the C.I.D. that, in view of the value
of these yards in war time, they be placed on a 'care and
maintenance' basis and not scrapped.

Lieut.-Col. Rupert Ryan [10] (Deputy High Commissioner of the
Rhineland and son of Sir Charles Ryan [11] whichever title and
description is the more impressive!), who is an old personal
friend of mine, said to me recently that it was very interesting
to him to have discovered the fact, by close personal experience
over four years, of the astonishing lack of political sense
exhibited by the vast majority of the Germans. If they can make a
tactical error by saying too much or too little, he says they
almost invariably do so. This is backed up by Dufour [12]
(Counsellor of the German Embassy in London), who recently said to
Nicolson [13] of the Central Department that he hoped there would
not be much delay in the calling of the Pact Conference as, if
there was, 'his people' (meaning his own Government) would be
certain to do or say something to compromise themselves, which
they did, of course, in due course, by linking up the unfortunate
subject of their war-guilt with the Pact negotiations and their
entry into the League. [14]

Eric Phipps (Counsellor [15] of the British Embassy in Paris)
lunched with me recently with Hankey and Tom Jones. [16] Phipps
says there is really no unemployment at all in France. Even the
100,000 odd who are absorbed into the Army each year have to be
more than replaced by immigration of Poles and Italians. The
experiment has apparently been tried of working off some of the
British unemployed on France, but the French standard (and method)
of living doesn't suit Englishmen and they drift back.

With regard to the question of what is usually called the
declining birth rate in France, Phipps says that this is not the
problem at all. Their crude birth rate is reasonably high, but the
percentage of infant mortality is very high indeed and almost
wipes out the birth rate.

As a matter of historical interest only, he explains the curious
insistence with which Herriot pushed the question of the abolition
of the French Embassy to the Vatican, as due to ultra-
conscientious feeling about an election pledge that he gave to the
Freemasons. It hurt the feelings of the clerical people and was
not very strenuously sought after by anybody (even the anti-
clericals) except the Freemasons. It was one of the several
incidents that finished him. [17]

He expanded a little on the subject (which will not be new to you)
of the increasing dependence of France on her black troops from
Africa, and how she looks to the British Navy to keep open her
lines of communication for this purpose across the Mediterranean.

The Mosul affair is temporarily in abeyance. [18] The
International Court expect to give judgment on about November
22nd-just prior to the League Council meeting early in December.

Assuming the Turks signify their intention before then to abide by
the Council's decision, the matter should be quickly finalised.

But I very much doubt if it will.

Amery [19] has written a long Cabinet paper on the subject, which
goes to you officially by this mail. It has a strong undercurrent
of hatred for the Turks on the one hand, and indignation at the
rough handling he has had from the London press on the subject.

However, it is an interesting story, particularly as it contains
the germs of trouble. You will not have time to read it all, but
open it at page 6 and you will see the questions referred to the
International Court on the top of page 6, and on the lower half of
page 7, Amery's forecast as to the possibilities of the situation.

These two extracts constitute the essence of the whole paper, from
your point of view.

Grey's autobiography ('Twenty-five Years') is said to be a very
first-class effort. [20] He was assisted in its compilation by J.

A. Spender [21], who was given access to the F.O. in order to
check up dates and documents. I am sending it out to you, for the
External Affairs Library, by this or the next mail.

A third volume of Page's Letters will appear shortly. [22]
Extracts have been appearing in the press from time to time. They
comprise, I believe, letters that it was not considered politic to
publish during Wilson's [23] life.

A telegram arrived on 8th October at the Dominions Office: 'I have
this day assumed the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia',
which caused a few smiles to break out even on the cracked
countenances of some of the Dominions Office people. [24]

Two stories about the Duchess of Atholl [25] at Geneva are quite
worth while, although I don't give any written guarantee of their
strict accuracy.

She is supposed to have arranged to be taken out to see the
chateau where Madame de Stael used to live but, when the time
came, she said that she had too much to do and that 'perhaps it
could be arranged that Madame de Stael should come in and see
her'!

The other hinges on her supposed habit of opposing everything that
she was not very sure about in the course of discussions in the
5th Committee. [26] Albert Thomas [27], who was present, is quoted
as saying: 'The Duchess will have to change her name from Atholl
to Not-at-all.'

I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY