My dear P.M.,

Sir William Tyrrell [1] goes to Paris and Sir Ronald Lindsay from
Berlin to take his place at the Foreign Office. So the great
secret is out that has been intriguing this part of the world for
some time. Everyone speaks well of Lindsay, although admitting
that he lacks the impish cleverness of Tyrrell. I am told that
Tyrrell was influenced to a certain extent, in accepting this
appointment abroad, by his distress at the 'Gregory' affair. [2]

Lord Erroll died a few days ago. He was British High Commissioner
in the Rhineland and I knew him quite well. His daughter [3]
married my brother-in-law (Rupert Ryan) and she was staying with
us when he died.

Erroll's death means that no less than seven new and unexpected
appointments will have to be made to or from the Foreign Office in
the near future, and possibly ten. The British Representative to
Canada (if it is a Foreign Office appointment) [4], Nichols [5]
(who has gone from the Foreign Office to New Zealand), Paris (Sir
William Tyrrell), Rhineland High Commissioner (Erroll), Vansittart
[6] (from American Department to Prime Minister's office), men to
replace Sir William Max-Muller [7] and Sir L. Carnegie [8] (both
retired Ambassadors), and possibly men to replace Gregory [9],
O'Malley [10] and Maxse. [11] This is a greater clearance than has
taken place at one time than almost ever before, and will
undoubtedly, in my mind at least, strain the resources of the
Diplomatic Service. It will, however, have the advantage of
getting younger men up into positions of responsibility a good
deal earlier in life than would normally occur, and so enable them
to prove themselves while they have some 'spring' in them.

There is a good deal of uneasiness in the Dominions Office as to
the way the office is tending. They see themselves administered in
part only of the time of an overworked Cabinet Minister. They see
the New Zealand liaison appointment given to the Foreign Office,
and they know that the Foreign Office is lobbying hard to get the
Canadian appointment. They see the Foreign Office more and more
tending to deal direct with Dominions on Foreign Affairs. They
wonder, not unnaturally, if the tendency is not towards the
Dominions Office in the future being taken over by the Foreign
Office as a Department. I put the above thoughts to a high
official in the Dominions Office lately and he gnashed his teeth
and said that undoubtedly there were signs in this direction.

Personally I think it would not be a bad solution, although I know
the many arguments on both sides of the question.

The weekly meetings that Amery [12] instituted at which he used to
see all the Dominion High Commissioners together have lapsed for
some time and I believe will not be reinstituted. I hear that
Mackenzie King [13] was instrumental in having them stopped as he
thought that they amounted to an assumption that the High
Commissioners were the channel of communication with their
Dominions.

It has been quite obvious for some time that Larkin [14] and Smit
[15] have agreed to work together whenever co-operation is
necessary. Previously, the Australian and New Zealand High
Commissioners at Geneva and elsewhere usually thought and spoke
alike, whereas Canada and South Africa, although vaguely of a
mind, were not constituted as a 'bloc'. Now, however, I am told
that they see a lot of each other and speak practically with one
voice.

The scandalmongers even go so far as to say that Larkin finances
Smit in order to ensure co-operation. Larkin is very rich and
Strut notoriously badly off.

South Africa has been in touch with the Foreign Office for some
time with regard to making their Commissioner for Commerce in
Europe into a 'Charge d'affaires and Consul General for Europe',
with headquarters in Switzerland but not at Berne, the capital.

The Foreign Office have pointed out that the composite title is a
meaningless one, according to accepted diplomatic usage, and would
create confusion in people's minds. They point out (a) that a
single individual cannot be accredited to a dozen countries at
once; (b) that 'Charge d'affaires' is the diplomatic designation
given to a temporary occupant of a regular diplomatic post; and
(c) that if he is South African Consul-General, then he must
arrange to look after the interests of South African nationals in
Europe, in which case it would be redundant and confusing if South
Africans were also coped with by British consular posts.

They have also, I am told, been enquiring at the Foreign Office if
their Trade Commissioner in New York can with advantage be turned
into a South African Consul-General.

It has just been decided that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of
York are to get copies of all Cabinet papers. I was astonished to
hear that they had not been seeing them these several years. I
believe that the King has been against it; in fact he is, I am
told, not very keen even now. It is history repeating itself, as
King Edward would never let the present King have access to such
papers or indeed, I believe, have any responsibility for as long
as he could keep him out of it.

Yesterday I showed the letter I wrote you last week on the Duke of
York [16] to Vansittart, and he suggested that Hodgson [17] and he
and I should meet soon to discuss it. He agrees that you are the
person to bell the cat! He bases this on the fact that advice or
prompting on the subject from the London end has become, in his
eyes, hackneyed and suspect of being inspired by his family. He
agrees that Mackenzie King could not possibly approach the subject
with him but that you are ideally situated to do so. I suggested
that, at the next Imperial Conference in 1929, if you asked for an
audience with the Prince of Wales immediately you arrived in
London, and then (after the usual and suitable preliminaries) you
rather bounced into the subject, as if you had had it on your mind
following on your knowledge of public opinion in Australia-it
would have the merit of spontaneity and dramatic effect.

There has been some little display of feeling on the part of Major
Rowe [18], Military Liaison Officer at Australia House, by reason
of the material that I have sent out to you suggesting that there
might be something in the South African Coast Defence Report that
would make you hesitate before implementing our Australian Coast
Defence Report. [19] The 'leak' came about through the 'Air'
people in Defence in Melbourne wiring to the Australian 'Air'
Liaison Officer [20] in London saying that I had sent out certain
'advice' on this subject and asking for full particulars. The
'Air' Liaison Officer here talked to the Military Liaison Officer-
and so on. However, I have put it right with the High Commissioner
[21] and with Major Rowe. But the 'Air' people in Melbourne were
rather ham-fisted in the matter. I have explained to the High
Commissioner that it is your desire and intention that I should
send out to you any information that arises in the Committee of
Imperial Defence dealing with Australian defence from the policy
or political standpoint, notwithstanding the fact that any or all
of the Australian Fighting Services Liaison Officers might send
the same material out to the Defence Department. Only in this way
is it possible for the External Affairs Department in Canberra to
be kept up to date in the larger aspects of Imperial Defence that,
I take it, are just as much their affair as Foreign Affairs
proper.

The personal letter that I wrote Sir William Glasgow [22] a month
or so ago on this subject turns out to have been timely.

Amongst the Foreign Office print going to you officially this week
are two despatches (from H.M. Minister in Cuba [23] and H.M.

Ambassador at Washington [24]) about the Havana meeting of the
Pan-American Union. They are cynical and illuminating about the
relations between the United States and Latin America.

As Sir Esme Howard said:

The Expression on the face of Uncle Sam ... on approaching the
Conference might be described as a cross between the benevolent
Nordic Viking, the stern nurse who slaps naughty children who make
trouble in the nursery, and the cat which ate the canary.

The opera bouffe procession of Amanulla of Afghanistan through
Europe continues. The record of his time in Paris is contained in
this week's print. The French press couldn't find much to say
about Afghanistan so they threw out the suggestion that as Great
Britain and Russia were interested parties vis-a-vis Afghanistan,
wouldn't it be a good idea for Afghanistan to look to France as a
disinterested country with which to promote trade and culture?

I believe that the High Commissioner has written you lately on two
subjects that I have also mentioned in the past-the scale of
allowances for Australian delegates to League meetings, and the
question of an up-to-date cypher for official Commonwealth use.

Both these subjects are ones on which considerable economies could
be effected.

There is, unfortunately, a good deal of depreciation of Australia
as a field for investment going on in London at the present time.

One hears it directly and indirectly from a good many quarters. I
don't know what you can do about it. It is not the sort of thing
that can be properly countered by assertions of our prosperity,
although, no doubt, occasional well-written articles in the
financial press would do some good.

I now hear that Trenchard [25] will continue as Chief of the Air
Staff until about October 1929.

At a small dinner party recently, Air Vice-Marshal Sir Robert
Brooke-Popham [26] was announced by a rather flustered maid,
unaccustomed to such lengthy nomenclature, as 'Mr. Air Popham'!

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY