My dear P.M.,

I send by this mail copy of the C.I.D. Paper, 'Principles of
Imperial Defence' [1], with my comments. As I have said in my
covering letter the main criticism that can be made of this paper
is that, whilst providing a useful conspectus of the position, it
avoids the real problem of stating how the fighting forces of the
several parts of the Empire can, or should, be coordinated and
directed in time of war. No centralised, or even decentralised,
form of control by a war cabinet or other means is suggested or
discussed.

It also brings out, indirectly, the difficulty under which the
Chiefs of Staff labour by reason of the Dominions reserving the
right to decide to what extent they will participate with armed
forces in any future war.

However, this is a matter of high policy which may come up at the
next Imperial Conference.

The Dominions Office have closely watched this document taking
form over the last eight months in case some wording should creep
in that would offend the susceptibilities of the Dominions.

Canada, in particular, has been very touchy about the whole thing.

I am told that Mackenzie King [2], in the course of reading
through an early draft of this paper that had been submitted to
him by one of the Canadian service representatives in London,
discovered that there was someone in London who was known as the
'Chief of the Imperial General Staff'. That such an offensive
title should exist in these enlightened days, even if admittedly a
relic of a past age, angered him greatly. He was not appeased when
told that it was no doubt an abbreviation of 'Chief of the British
Section of the Imperial General Staff'. I expect he will move to
have this obnoxious evidence of Dominion thraldom swept away at
the next Imperial Conference. Surely no one man can claim credit
for having done so much as Mackenzie King to damage what remains
in these autonomous days of the fabric of the British Empire. His
efforts to make political capital out of his domestic nationalism
are analogous to a vandal who pulls down a castle in order to
build a cottage.

Sir Hugh Trenchard [3], as you may know, wants to have it
established and recognised that the bombing of civilian
populations is a legitimate activity of the Air Arm. He wanted to
get this principle enshrined in the 'Principles of Imperial
Defence' but was curbed in his bloodthirsty endeavours by the
other two Chiefs of Staff.

With regard to Sir John Salmond's mission to Australia [4]-I hear
confidentially that he wishes to go alone and does not want any
British air officer of any seniority to accompany him. This
accounts for the fact that the suggestion for Group Captain
Freeman [5] to accompany him did not mature. Apart from his
probable desire to plough a lone furrow, I gather that he suspects
that Trenchard was trying to foist Freeman on him. Trenchard and
John Salmond do not see completely eye to eye, and as Freeman has
been very closely associated with Trenchard, this may account for
Salmond's lack of enthusiasm.

I still think that the mission would have been strengthened by
Freeman's presence, but as Salmond is apparently very keen to do
the job by himself, it would be no use pushing the matter of
Freeman.

Hankey had a conversation recently with Sir Alfred Mond [6] with
regard to the latter's proposals for developing on a commercial
scale the extraction of fuel oil and petrol from coal. Mond said
that there were now no technical difficulties in the commercial
exploitation of this process. The only doubt is as to whether it
will be a paying business at the present low price of petrol. When
Mond started to consider the business, petrol was approximately
1s.6d. a gallon; it is now 1s.0d. Mond is trying to get a bonus
out of the Government in order, as he says, to encourage him to
start the process on a commercial scale, so that there will be in
the country existing factories and trained personnel, both of
which could be enlarged in time of war.

Mond says that he is in touch with Australia with regard to the
extraction of liquid fuels from brown coal and that he ultimately
contemplates units in South Africa, India and Australia, as well
as in Great Britain-all of which would be capable of war-time
expansion with the object of making these countries less dependent
on imported fuels in time of war.

Lord Haig [7] has left behind him a personal diary of the war,
copy of which has been deposited in the British Museum with
instructions that it is not to be published until, I think, forty
years after the end of the war. The Historical Section in this
office have a copy, which the King, Hankey, Lord Esher [8], and
one or two others have seen. All those who have seen it agree that
it would be inadvisable ever to publish it, and Hankey hopes that
steps will be taken to effect this. Hankey tells me that it would
damage Haig's reputation and could do no possible good. It is very
partisan, very antiFrench, and reads more like an apologia than a
serious objective account.

Hankey tells me that Hogg [9], the new Lord Chancellor, is keen to
rejuvenate and improve the judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. I quoted Amery [10] to you in a personal letter of a few
weeks ago as having spoken to me on the same subject. [11] Hankey
says that Hogg also talks of combining the judicial functions of
the House of Lords with the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. Balfour [12] is against this as he thinks there is merit
in having the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a
separate institution to deal with appeals from the Dominions. If
its functions were merged in those of the House of Lords, it
would, he thinks, lose its position of being independent of any
purely English and local institution like the House of Lords. He
thinks there is merit in the Judicial Committee being located
geographically in its own building and entirely apart and distinct
from any branch of the British legislature.

Hankey says that he is afraid that Balfour will not do very much
more active work. His recent illness has weakened him
considerably, and although it is improbable that he will agree to
resign from the Cabinet, the future part that he will play will be
a much reduced one.

The Briand-Kellogg proposals for the outlawry of war [13] rather
naturally do not provoke much sympathy from Hankey. However, he
has not yet made up his mind about it although he tends to regard
the proposals with a cold eye.

Poliakoff [14] came to see me lately. He tells me that Houghton,
the American Ambassador, recently said to him in so many words: 'I
have just delivered to the Foreign Office our proposals for a
universal pact to eliminate war. They are expressed in terms which
H.M.G. cannot avoid considering seriously. The Dominions-Australia
and New Zealand in particular-must now see that we have more to
offer them in the Pacific and in the way of world peace generally
than Chamberlain has with his Locarnos.' [15] If this is strictly
true, it is rather interesting.

I sat next to one of the Secretaries of the American Embassy at
lunch lately. He asked the routine question: 'When is Australia
going to establish a Legation at Washington?'-and backed it up by
the usual statements of the great success of the Canadian and
Irish Legations.

The Foreign Office are progressing well with the records of the
'leading personalities' in all countries, for which activity I am
told my repeated requests were responsible. During my first year
in London, I was constantly confronted with the necessity of
knowing something about people referred to in despatches, and I as
constantly asked the Foreign Office for information. The idea that
I suggested to them took root, of getting H.M. diplomatic posts
abroad to make regular 'returns' of short biographies of leading
personalities. This is now a regular practice and you have on your
files at Canberra the gist of the life story of most people of
prominence whose activities are in any way political.

On his request I went to see Sir Hugo Hirst [16] this week. He
wanted to talk about the 'Big Four' mission. [17] He thinks a
great deal of Sir Ernest Clark. [18] I had heard previously from
another source (and confirmed it with Hirst himself) that when it
was first suggested that he (Hirst) should go, he said he would
only do so on condition that Clark went too, and said further
that, as Clark was not a rich man, he (Hirst) would be prepared
personally to pay his salary and expenses while he was away. This
did not turn out to be necessary as Lord Ashfield's Companies are,
I believe, continuing his salary while he is away-but it shows
what Hirst thinks of him.

Hirst is writing you a personal letter by an early mail, generally
with regard to the mission.

Lord Beaverbrook [19] has started his political war reminiscences
in serial form in the 'Evening Standard', with a great display of
publicity-but it has all, I think, left people rather cold. The
politics of the war period are over and done with. It reads as a
not very inspiring story and it doesn't become any more palatable
in the re-telling. I haven't read all the instalments, but it
seems to be made the vehicle for a good many sly digs.

I attach copy of a letter that I have written to Henderson [20] by
this mail, with a proposal that you should allot 100 a year to
this office for the purpose of having articles compiled by
selected people on foreign affairs for distribution to the press,
etc. in Australia. I think the idea is a good one and I hope you
will agree to my going ahead with it.

I enclose cuttings from recent issues of the 'Times' suggesting
that the provision of aerodrome sites should be taken into account
in town planning. This has a direct application to Australia.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY