(Due to arrive Melbourne-13.3.26)

My dear P.M.,

Many thanks for your handwritten letter from Frankston of January
1st which I was particularly glad to get. [1] I am very pleased
that you think the appointment at this end has been useful and
justified by results, and I much appreciate your generous remarks.

2. The Cabinet have not taken anything that directly affects us
lately, except the Imperial Conference. Domestic matters
altogether.

3. At yesterday's Cabinet, Chamberlain [2] made a statement to the
effect that there was no political bargain made in connection with
the Italian debt settlement. Rumours had been going about to the
effect that H.M.G. had got some quid pro quo in return for the
very easy terms allowed to Italy.

4. Hankey [3] tells me that he has been instrumental in squashing
another suggestion to revive the idea of a Minister of Defence. He
says that this and the Channel Tunnel are hardy annuals and he
works hard to squash them whenever they raise their heads.

5. Hankey looks on the entry of Germany into the League and on to
the Council with dismay. [4] He thinks it will make for unending
disturbance within the League, although, of course, he does not
suggest that it is anything but inevitable.

6. The question of increasing the number of permanent members on
the League Council, that has been a dormant problem for so long,
now appears to be about to come to a head. It will be difficult to
avoid the issue at the extraordinary session of the Assembly in
March, as the various claimant parties are pushing the matter. As
you know, Spain, Poland and Brazil are the claimants.

To my mind there is everything to be said against increasing the
numbers of the Council. The more second or third rate powers on
the Council, the more the intrigue and bargaining and the greater
difficulty to achieve unanimity.

The arguments in favour of Spain seem to me to be entirely
sentimental-a one-time great colonising nation and the Mother-
State of the many Spanish-speaking countries of the world. But
after all, we live in today and Spain is nothing today. Dinner-
table diplomacy says strange things that are better not repeated
as to the motives that influence the sponsors of Spain's claim.

Poland's claims are based almost entirely on Germany's prospective
seat on the Council. She affects to think she would be in a
position of relative weakness in certain anticipated future
arguments with Germany, were the latter a member of the Council
and she not. Also Poland is thrust forward as the European spear-
point at the U.S.S.R.-the European question mark, and so might be
said to have some enhanced importance.

France naturally backs both Poland's and Spain's claims. As
regards Poland, France has gone so far as to suggest that if
Poland does not get a permanent seat, she will regard herself as
representing Poland's interests on the Council, which is
altogether against the spirit of the League. She backs Spain
because Spain is always ready and willing to back her.

Brazil is a large and spacious country and the leading Portuguese-
speaking state of South America, and so is supposed to represent
South America's claim to a permanent seat in the halls of the
mighty.

I understand that Chamberlain is ready to support the claims of
both Spain and Poland. It is strongly rumoured that he has
committed himself to this action with both countries, although
this is hard to believe when he has not yet had Cabinet sanction.

The present permanent members of the Council are, of course, Great
Britain, Japan, France and Italy, with Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay,
Czechoslovakia, Sweden and Spain as non-permanent members.

The original scheme, as you will remember, was to have 5 permanent
members (the present members plus U.S.) and 4 non-permanent
members. In 1923 the non-permanent members were increased to the
present 6.

The pros and cons of it all are numerous and mostly appear
pettifogging. Everyone wants to be glorified by having a permanent
seat, and no one wants to court unpopularity by standing out
against them. Where is it going to end? The demands for seats,
permanent and not-so-permanent, will not end where it is now. Will
it stop at a total Council of 15? or 20? And then what about the
Dominions? I have been told in conversation that it was admitted
in principle at the Peace Conference that a British Dominion might
be a member of the Council, as well as the British Empire. [5] I
will check this up.

7. Italy seems to me to be a potential disturbing force in Europe.

No doubt the mainsprings of her restlessness are Mussolini's
personality and her increasing population pressure. Mussolini's
monstrous 'Peace in the Shadow of the Sword' speech of ten days
ago, followed by his 'Tyrol minorities' speech, shows his lack of
faith in the League and his belief in the possibility of a revival
of European conflict. I think that this country has more influence
with Italy than any other, because in reality we are the nearest
approach to friends that she has got. All Italy's neighbours hate
her-France, Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia. I cannot but think that
if Mussolini turned words into deeds and started any buccaneering
he would have the League down on him with a surprising unanimity.

The League of 1926 would seem to have more punch than the League
of 1923 and another Corfu would not be popular.

8. I have, from my brother [6] in New York, a nice comment on
Italian affairs-'When in Rome, do as Mussolini says'.

9. A few days ago there was a Group Meeting of the B.I.I.A. on
Dominions and Foreign Policy, at which Holman [7] (N.S.W.) was
present. As far as what was discussed went, nothing new came out
of it; the same old ground was flogged over. However, as I sat in
a corner and said nothing, it was brought home very clearly to me
that Holman knew nothing at all of what had happened in Europe
since the war and, in fact, nothing about the Imperial position
generally. And Holman is, I take it, a man of considerable
intelligence and much greater breadth of view and knowledge than
99 per cent of Australians generally. If he knew nothing of where
Australia stood in the world and what the rest of the world was
doing and thinking, then how abysmally ignorant must the rest of
the population be. I don't say that Holman would not pick it all
up very quickly, as I am quite sure he would.

Is there no channel whereby one can bring home to the general run
of people in Australia some understanding of these subjects?
Cannot Australian public opinion be informed and an interest
awakened in something outside our own Australian shores? Could not
some means of expounding the British case-and the Australian case-
be evolved?
Holman made the point that, in his opinion, there was practically
no desire in Australia, except in a very limited intellectual
circle and amongst a few extreme anti-British Labor politicians,
to alter the pre-war position of Australia in the Empire. He
thinks that as long as the people have their vanity tickled a
little from time to time with regard to their autonomous status,
they are quite willing to let the foreign affairs of the Empire be
conducted by H.M.G. He emphasises the characteristic of
Australians to do the right and decent thing, as long as the
reason for it is made clear to them, and one does not attempt to
dragoon them. Tell them, he says, the difficulties that Great
Britain is up against in Europe and the virtual impossibility of
anything like effective consultation in an emergency, and they
will respond sympathetically and back up the Home Government
without question when called upon.

Whilst I think the above is an under-statement, it does bring out
the divergent tracks that Canada and Australia are pursuing in
Imperial matters.

10. I talked over with E. J. Harding [8] (Dominions Office) the
Irish Free State debate of 5th February, when Desmond Fitzgerald,
their Foreign Minister, tried to make a too clever distinction
between the British Empire and the British Commonwealth of
Nations. He implied that the I.F.S. belonged to the British
Commonwealth of Nations but had nothing to do with the British
Empire, which included the Colonies and Dependencies. Harding said
that this devil's argument was not new-that it had been made by
the I.F.S. before and that their error had been pointed out to
them.

I asked him how he managed to maintain patience with such
manoeuvres and produce a soft diplomatic answer each time. He
said, confidentially, that it was extremely difficult at times but
that they found it paid handsomely not to lose one's temper nor to
give a sharp reply. He said that a living evidence of the success
of their nursing methods was shown in the attitude of Hertzog [9],
who had been very recalcitrant and trying in his attitude towards
this country when he first came into power, but that, Harding
thought, due to their correct and painstaking attitude, Hertzog's
attitude had improved immensely and he was now infinitely more
reasonable to deal with.

11. Poliakoff [10] (Diplomatic Correspondent of the 'Times') is an
interesting character. I have frequently spoken of him in my
letters. A Russian engineer of very considerable ability who got
out of Russia intact, did hack journalism on the 'Daily Telegraph'
for a bit and eventually got to his present reasonably important
post. Particularly unprepossessing in appearance-rather like
Rasputin without the beard!-and with an active and intriguing
mind. He is a personal friend of Berthelot [11], the permanent
head of the French Foreign Office and is reputed to get a lot of
information from him. I make a point of giving him food and drink
once a month, at which he tells me his schemes for the
rectification of Europe. I always tell him that one Poliakoff may
make the 'Times', but two Poliakoffs would make a war. A few weeks
ago, I asked him why, in the name of common sense, he expected
that Berthelot would tell him anything other than what he wanted
to be known in England. After some diffidence (which is rare with
him!) he said that Berthelot probably recognised that he
(Poliakof) had a constructive mind and that in the to and fro of
intelligent conversation, both sides gained! Lacking in modesty
but probably true.

You will find Poliakoff frequently quoted by Mendl [12] in his
weekly letters to Tyrrell [13], which I have got into the habit of
sending out to you. He keeps on the side of the angels by dropping
in at our Embassy in Paris after seeing Berthelot and telling them
the gist of his conversations.

A few weeks ago Poliakoff unfolded to me his Machiavellian theory
about the future of the North American continent. He said that he
was convinced that eventually the U.S. would have to use force in
Mexico and that, in his opinion, the sooner the better. When it
happened, Canada would wake up to the realisation that what had
happened to Mexico might some day happen to her, and that she
would thereby be thrown back into the Empire with a rush! He was
wise enough to think that this might not happen for 25 years. I
think this theory shows, as well as most, the quality of his mind.

12. Whilst staying with some people for a recent week-end, they
produced a sackful of old parchment documents, Indentures, Deeds
of Settlement, etc., that had accumulated in the old house, dated
from 1625 onwards. Some in Latin but mostly in very badly spelled
English. The Elizabethan documents described her, amongst other
titles, as Queen of France. They were all quite legible and the
ink still black and clear cut, although the style of writing was
quaint.

I mentioned this to Headlam-Morley [14], the Historical Adviser of
the F.O. His comment was that people did not realise how different
our present day records are in lasting power. He says the ordinary
typewritten carbon copy becomes very faint in ten years and
practically illegible in 20. The original typewritten sheet lasts
longer but even this has a definitely limited life. In the F.O.

anything of any importance is printed, which does ensure a long
life.

13. Colonel House's [15] Memoirs are appearing in the 'Daily
Telegraph' in serial form. From the few that have already
appeared, I think they are well worth reading. I will send it out
to you as soon as it appears in book form.

14. Lord Burnham [16] made a speech of weight on Australia at the
Royal Colonial Institute a few days ago, of which I am able to
send you an uncorrected proof copy with this letter.

15. There have been no further developments regarding the L. of N.

Economic Conference (see my LON. 232). It is expected that the
date of convening of the expert commission will be decided at the
March Council. It will probably be April 15th, I believe. The
papers in this country are beginning to wake up and wonder how it
will affect Great Britain. [17]

16. Waterlow [18], late Head of the Far Eastern Department, is
about to be posted to Siam as Minister!

With best wishes, I am, Yours sincerely,

R. G. CASEY