(Due to arrive Canberra 24.5.29)

My dear P.M.,

I enclose Baldwin's [1] policy speech from the 'Times' of April
19th. I am told by those who heard it delivered that it was done
in his most nervous and 'affaire' manner-which doubtless was taken
in many quarters as a sign of earnestness-but really, I think, was
due to the fact that he was not very much impressed by what he was
saying himself. The references to the Dominions were
inconsiderable.

Snowden's outburst in Parliament [2] on 17th April, on the subject
of the Balfour statement (we to accept from Europe only what we
pay to U.S.) in regard to International War Debts, may possibly
prove a useful election gambit for the Conservatives, in that they
have some grounds for representing the Labour Party as sponsoring
repudiation. But I hardly think it would be an effective battle-
cry. I enclose rather voluminous cuttings in case you are
interested.

Whilst I do not suppose, from what I know of affairs here, that
any definite plans as to Cabinet reconstruction have been made by
the Conservative Government in the event of their being again
returned to power-yet I hear from a high quarter that the proposal
to divide the control of the Dominions Office and the Colonial
Office has recently been tentatively discussed on the lines of
putting Dominion Affairs under the Lord President of the Council-
and so effecting the divorce without creating a new ministerial
portfolio. Presumably, in this event, Dominion Affairs would come
rather more into Hankey's [3] province, in his capacity of
Secretary (or 'Clerk') to the Privy Council, although he could not
be expected to concern himself with the day-to-day affairs of an
additional Department.

Lord Balfour, who is now Lord President of the Council, is
retiring, and, as Amery's [4] stock is fairly low at present,
there is likely to be a considerable re-shuffling, if the
Conservatives come back.

The Lord Privy Seal (at present Lord Salisbury) has also been
mentioned as a possible Minister-at present not overworked-who
could attend to Dominion affairs.

I read your speech (14th March), introducing the Economic Research
Bill, with great pleasure, and have circulated it to a number of
people here who have been delighted with it. [5]

Most people who think at all have felt the necessity for digging
below the surface in an attempt to lay bare the forces which,
slowly working over a long period, are producing the surface
phenomena, but people are constrained by the day-to-day necessity
of keeping their particular ship on an even keel to treat symptoms
as if they were basic causes-politicians and doctors and others
all suffer from this disability.

Economics and the social and physical sciences, however, are
beginning to show signs of asserting themselves or being
recognised as the sharp and effective tools of those in power-
political or otherwise.

But research is slow and Governments are ephemeral, and economic
research may produce facts and evidences of tendencies that are
politically unpalatable-so that progress on sound economic lines
is liable to be slower than the progress of physical science-the
'lag' between discovery and implementation will be longer.

I don't suppose that the general trend of the economic history of
Australia differs relatively very much from that of Canada, some
of the South American States, or even of the United States-and
possibly we could learn something on broad lines from their
experience.

As you know, the Empire Marketing Board has been allowed to use
2,000 a year of its funds to endow a Chair of Imperial Economic
Research in the London University. This is another good move and
should have useful results in the course of time.

In your personal letter of 11th March you warned me off
McDougall's [6] field in the matter of Australian overseas trade
and financial figures. [7] You evidently thought that I was doing
this without his knowledge. Actually I had told him all about it
and had sent him a complete set of all the compilations and graphs
that I had made. I put this material together over the course of
several months for my own information and in order to have it on
hand in graphic form if I ever required it. I sent a set out to
the External Affairs Department solely for their information, as I
am firmly of the opinion that they should not be without general
information at least on this important subject-and the form in
which I presented the information seemed to me a very appropriate
one for their purposes. Far from treading on McDougall's toes, I
work in very closely with him and we meet and discuss this and
many other subjects each week.

The work that I put in on these world trade figures was mostly out
of my ordinary office time and I employed an outside draughtsman
to put the graphs into workmanlike form. I may say that I have
been obliged through lack of sufficient assistance at this end to
spend a good deal of my own money on getting work done that I
think comes well within the province of this department.

Sir Hugo Hirst [8] has been obliged to withdraw his proposals for
his new share issue to be virtually confined to British subjects.

I enclose cuttings from the 'Times'. He has been most worried
about it all. I only hope that he does not feel that the situation
arose through his being absent from this country.

I enclose 'Financial Times' cutting regarding the opening of the
'Industrial Peace' Conference.

You may be interested to know the final result of the 'Francs'
case [9], in which four Foreign Office men were unfortunately
involved. Gregory (who was most concerned) had to leave the
service-and voluntarily exiled himself abroad. He has recently
written a book of reminiscences in which he has decently avoided
all reference to the incident. [10] The only hint of any feeling
lies in the fact that he has studiously and obviously avoided all
mention of Tyrrell's name in his book. Tyrrell was head of the
Foreign Office when the Francs incident occurred [11] and is a
fellow Roman Catholic.

O'Malley was suspended for 12 months [12], most of which time he
spent as a personally paid Private Secretary to Winston Churchill
[13], devilling material for his latest book, 'The Aftermath'.

Maxse [14] is still in the Foreign Office. G.H. Villiers, a senior
Counsellor in the Foreign Office, was implicated to a minor extent
but he was given to feel that any hope of promotion was gone, so,
after lingering on for nine months, he has retired and gone to the
City. [15] So ends an unhappy affair in which 'the punishment'
seems to have outstripped 'the crime'. [16]

You will shortly be faced with the necessity of choosing someone
to come to London for the Experts Conference on the Operation of
Dominion Legislation which is to open on 8th October. As I
recently telegraphed you, the Dominions Office think that
appropriate representation would be a Minister and a Law Officer,
as there will be political and legal aspects-but as no Minister
that you will be able to send will care to commit the Commonwealth
without frequent reference back to Cabinet by telegram, I cannot
see the point of sending a Minister, when Garran [17] would do as
well-I am assuming that you will send Garran. It may be necessary
to send someone else as well with a knowledge of the legal side,
as the Conference may divide itself into Sub-Committees sitting
simultaneously. [18]

I see that you have chosen Marr [19] to lead the delegation to the
League Assembly. I don't suppose you would consider sending him on
afterwards to do the Conference on Operation of Dominion
Legislation, as he is not a legal man, I understand, and nobody
without considerable legal experience would be of any use at this
Experts Conference.

I think you will like Dame Janet Campbell. [20] She is apparently
very capable, both on the administrative and technical sides, and
has managed to remain a human being through it all. She is
unmarried but maintains her father, who is between 80 and 90. She
is very highly thought of, and the Department of Health made me
fully conscious of the privilege we were asking for in trying to
get her. I was rather mystified for a moment when the head of the
Department referred to her as 'M. and C.W.'-which turned out to be
'Maternity and Child Welfare'. Sir George Newman (Chief Medical
Officer of Ministry of Health) is most anxious that she should not
be asked to 'stump the country' in defence of whatever scheme she
may put forward.

I enclose 'Times' article (24th April, 1929) on 'Industry in
Australia'. If this is a true picture, I had not realised that
things had come to such an abrupt state.

I write in another letter (which presumably you will pass to the
External Affairs Department) on Disarmament, and the proposal that
a British Cabinet Minister should visit America after the
Election. It will interest you to know, in great confidence, that
if this Government is returned, the present intention of Mr.

Baldwin is to go to America himself and to take Tom Jones [21]
with him. This, I think, is quite a big idea, as Baldwin would
probably go down very well with the Americans, particularly in the
Middle West.

Baldwin's going to America would be good liaison. The Big Four to
Australia [22], even apart from their mission and report, was good
liaison. Possibly a Big Labour Four to Australia would be good
liaison. [23] To my mind you can't have too much personal liaison
in these days of complications. The one real way to break down
misunderstandings is by personal contacts.

A very good example of this exists in the fact that Hartshorn
(Postmaster-General in the Labour Government here in 1924) is
coming back from India (member of the Simon Commission [24]) with
entirely changed ideas about the relationship of Great Britain to
India. He was previously in the habit of talking wildly and
without personal knowledge about India, and the iniquity of this
country not taking immediate steps to grant self-government and
Dominion status to India. In a personal and confidential letter to
a high quarter in London, he has the grace to cry shame on himself
for having talked previously on hearsay evidence. He has come to
see India in its proper light through personal contact, and
presumably will have influence on his colleagues on his return.

A new departure appeared in the form of an advertisement in last
Sunday's 'Observer', copy of which I enclose. It is a plea for
investment within the Empire, inserted by Corporation and General
Securities Ltd. The sentiment is admirable, and there does not
seem to be any ulterior motive behind it.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY