(Due to arrive Melbourne-28.11.25)

My dear P.M.,

The Greek-Bulgar border incident [1] has been of interest in
bringing out the welcome difference that exists between such a
dispute now (with the League of Nations in existence) and before
the War. I understand from the Central Department of the Foreign
Office that on such an incident happening before the War, the
Great Powers generally took a sympathetic side with one or other
of the disputants, irrespective of the merits of the dispute.

Russia was a particular offender in this respect, especially in
relation to any Balkan dispute. Certainly the position is
simplified by the post-war elimination of Russia and Germany as
side-takers, but there is, I think, quite a noticeable lack of
partisanship amongst the European states. Pre-war the temptation
for Serbia to have taken a hand in such an incident would have
been irresistible. The present incident is, at least, a happy
augury for the success of the policy of localisation of Balkan
incidents and the putting into immediate force of measures of
conciliation between the two parties under the aegis of the
League.

I spent last week-end with Sir Arthur Lawley at his place in the
country. He was Governor of Western Australia in 1901,
Administrator of the Transvaal and Matabeleland, and Governor of
Madras just prior to Lord Carmichael. One of his daughters married
Geoffrey Dawson, Editor of the 'Times', who was also there for the
week-end. The other daughter is Maid of Honour to the Queen.

Nothing very interesting came out of the week-end. Lawley is 65
and a spent force, and takes an interest now only in various
companies of which he is a Director, amongst them being Dalgety's.

Geoffrey Dawson is rather wooden in my humble opinion. I find that
I am far from being alone in this view. I can't quite understand
how he comes to make such a success of the 'Times'. One of the few
remarks of any interest that he made was that he knew that the
'Times' representation in Australia was not all it should be.

Sir Almeric Fitzroy's 'Memoirs' in two volumes were published
recently. He was Clerk to the Privy Council before Hankey. [2] I
haven't read it as one can't possibly keep up with all these
books. I have dipped into it far enough to see that it is on lines
which have become conventional for this type of publication. I
don't think it necessarily shows a weakness in character to say
that they are undoubtedly interesting, as we are all interested in
'people' and the sidelights on their characters and motives which
such books show up by the questionable practice of revealing
private conversations when people are off their guard. I believe
this book is rather feminine in its gossip. He has been very much
criticised for revealing incidents which became available to him
by reason of his official position. I am told by someone well
placed to know the truth that the Queen returned unopened the
presentation copy that Fitzroy sent her.

The latter may have had some connection with the unfortunate Hyde
Park incident in which Fitzroy was implicated some couple of years
ago. [3]

In connection with this memoir writing, I am told that Lord Esher
[4] intends to have his diaries and papers connected with the War
period presented to the British Museum, with stipulations that
they are not to be published until, I think, it is 60 years after
his death, and, in the meantime, are to be made available to
accredited students for legitimate historical purposes.

Hankey himself has a formidable and growing pile of notes which he
intends, I believe, to publish after his retirement.

Miles Lampson [5] (Head of the Central Department, F.O.) has
recently accompanied Mr. Chamberlain to Locarno and to the special
(Greek-Bulgar) meeting of the League Council in Paris. [6] He also
made quite a name for himself with the British Delegation to the
Washington Disarmament Conference. He is a very large, genial
person with a considerable number of the virtues that go to make
up a successful diplomatist. He is not by any means the
intellectual type (who usually lack many other things), but is a
very commonsense, shrewd fellow, honest and straightforward. One
often hears him spoken of as the eventual head of the F.O., which
I think he would do uncommonly well. He gets on very well with all
the foreign diplomatists in London and one always meets them at
his house.

It has often occurred to me that it might be a politic move for
H.M.G. to offer one or two of the Colonial Governorships to
selected men in the Dominions from time to time. I mentioned the
subject once to Hankey and he agreed that it would be all to the
good, but he said that there was, even at present, great
competition for them in the Colonial service and that, as there
were not a great number of them available and the term of
appointment was generally for five years, they could not,
therefore, make sufficient available to Dominion people to make
any great impression.

He went on to say that we had the appointments to the late German
N.G. Territory Mandate, and to the Nauru Mandate, and that if the
New Hebrides was partitioned and put under mandate, we would
almost certainly get that.

If you thought the idea was worth following up, perhaps you would
let me know, or mention it to Amery [7] when you write. The
various appointments available are given in the Colonial Office
List, with salaries, &c.

I enclose, as a matter of interest, the curiously worded form of
summons to a Cabinet meeting that is still in use in this country.

I have mentioned before, in private letters to Henderson [8], the
weakness of the Australian Press Association and the Australian
Cable Service on the Foreign Affairs side. The basic source of
public information on Foreign Affairs in this country is the News
Department of the Foreign Office, where there are three permanent
F.O. officials (Sir Arthur Willert [9], Mr. A. Yencken [10] and
Mr. C. J. Norton [11]) whose primary duty is to give daily
interviews to some 30 or 40 representatives of the Press, mainly
British, but amongst whom are probably a dozen foreigners. These
three officials of the News Department see all cables and
despatches in and out of the F.O. and spend their mornings in
getting themselves up-to-date from cables and print and by
visiting all Departments of the F.O. Their afternoons are spent in
'releasing' such information as their experience tells them is
legitimate for the Press to know. Each pressman is seen
individually and is allowed to ask what questions he likes.

Naturally a pressman who has made himself conversant with Foreign
Affairs will absorb more from a quarter of an hour's interview
than a man previously ignorant of his subject.

I repeat the above prior to saying that it is only on very rare
occasions that any Australian press representative ever visits the
News Department. I have spoken to all three News Department
officials and they say that between them they can only remember an
Australian journalist visiting them for interview once in the last
year, except as a messenger to collect printed 'released' matter
such as the Text of the Pact.

As you may not have seen the private letter I wrote Henderson on
this subject, I will risk baring you by quoting from it:-

The A.P.A. consists of journalists of general experience. None of
them have specialised in or know anything about Foreign Affairs.

They come to a subject, such as the Protocol or the Pact,
completely ignorant of what has led up to it or what it really
means. They very seldom go to the F.O. News Department as do the
British Press. They rely for their comment on clipping the London
papers with which they have special arrangements-a most tin-pot
method. They occasionally go and interview someone and get his
comment on some incident of the moment-but they haven't the
knowledge to know what his comment is worth. As regards anything
more abstruse than a divorce case, their detailed knowledge is
shaky. In an organisation that serves almost the whole of the
Australian and N.Z. daily press, there might surely be room for a
man who had some experience and knowledge of Foreign Affairs, so
that Australia might be served with something better than re-
warmed pap.

The only immediate remedy I can suggest is for leading Australian
newspaper proprietors, whose voice would mean something in the
A.P.A., to agitate for a Foreign Affairs specialist to be employed
on the A.P.A. staff in London. Intelligent work on the part of
such a man would go far to create a keener interest in Australia
in Foreign Affairs.

If you think this subject worth your attention, a suggestion to
the above effect to some of the leading controllers of the Press
in Australia would, I think, be of value.

The Dominions Office a day or so ago asked me how I thought you
would wish to be approached regarding the attitude of Australia to
the Security Pact. [12] I said that, at all events, you would not
want to be asked in such a way that you would have to reply before
the elections, and, even so, I thought the best plan was to
telegraph privately and 'ask you if you wanted to be asked'. I
think this is the form their query will take.

When you have time to consider the matter, you will realise, I
think, the very remarkable increase in the volume of information
going to you officially on Foreign Affairs. On the Pact, Mosul
[13], Chinese Tariff Conference [14], Greek-Bulgar incident, you
have had almost daily telegrams, frequently of great length and
detail-so much so that on all these important subjects there has
been practically nothing left for me to say.

I have spoken of this before and the reasons-psychological and
others-you know. What will be the effect of this shower of
telegrams on the other Dominions? They will be forced, I think, to
create some small department to deal with them-to read them
intelligently at least. They may affect to pretend that they have
no great interest in these matters but they will not like having
the uncomfortable feeling that this country has, at any rate, done
its part by supplying very full information, and they may have to
answer questions in their parliaments as to how the information is
dealt with and kept track of.

I expect you will have realised by now the general relations
between members of the Cabinet. I gather that the P.M. [15] does
not have much to do with Austen Chamberlain. [16] It may be that
A.C. doesn't feel very drawn to S.B.; A.C. being older, more
experienced and with greater mental attainments, doubtless did not
like giving way to S.B. for the leadership of the Government, and
the liaison and sympathy between them is weak in consequence. I
believe S.B. never mentions A.C., nor calls him in for private
consultation. Winston [17], on the other hand, living next door to
the P.M., is constantly in and out of No. 10 and no doubt uses his
considerable ability to influence the P.M., in his own way.

I am told that the men that the P.M. is in the habit of calling in
to talk things over quietly with are Sir Douglas Hogg [18] and
Neville Chamberlain. [19]

The P.M. shares the general distrust in Amery's judgment.

Birkenhead [20] and Winston run together generally. Birkenhead is
against the Mosul business. He was absent (probably on purpose)
from the Cabinet at which it was discussed and is, I understand,
now in course of preparing a screed, damning H.M.G.'s attitude.

The text of the Pact has now been aired for ten days and, during
that time, has received the public blessing of the heads of all
parties. The P.M. and Austen Chamberlain for the Conservatives,
Grey [21] and Asquith [22] for the Liberals and Ramsay MacDonald
[23] for Labour have all been extravagant in their praise. The
Press, with minor exceptions, have echoed it. Presumably the
people accept rather blindly what their leaders tell them, without
understanding very much what it is all about, in spite of the fact
that the Pact and the Arbitration Treaties are all simple
instruments. [24]

I am not yet able to send you the promised letter re British
Liaison Officer in Australia, as Amery has been very busy lately
and has not been able to give it attention.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY

P.S. Hankey has just told me that the question of whether or not
to ask the Dominions about their attitude to the Pact was
discussed this morning and it was tentatively decided that it
would be best to leave it over until the next Imperial Conference,
when it could be explained in detail to the Dominion P.M.s and the
subject thoroughly thrashed out. There is, however, no hint yet as
to when this is likely to be. You will, I expect, get a cable or a
despatch telling you the above.