By prior arrangement with Colonel Hugo, Ceremonial and Reception Secretary, Commonwealth Relations Office, I paid a courtesy call on Lord Home, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, at 10.45 a.m. on Thursday, 18th October. After the exchange of a few general remarks and an enquiry from Lord Home as to the strength of Italian Communism, he asked me what attitude Italy is likely to adopt towards the Messina proposals. I said that, subject to the possible consequences of the prevailing uncertainties in the internal political scene, I thought that the Italian Government will go along with these proposals, that they may, however, see difficulties when it comes to implementing them, but that on the whole they feel that Italy has rather more to gain than to lose by such projects.

2. To a query from me as to how the British Government envisages the development of the proposals for a Free Trade Area, Lord Home said that the Government feels that it should work in this direction provided, of course, that agricultural products are excluded. It is not, he added, at all certain how this exclusion will be received by some of the potential Continental partners like the Dutch, the French and Denmark (sic). It is on the other hand rather doubtful whether France will be prepared to take the steps required to bring about a Customs Union on the lines proposed at Messina and Brussels: the Government is bound to encounter strong opposition from farming interests and may equally find some sectors of heavy industry very reluctant to accept the project. In any case, he added, the working out of the scheme is bound to take a considerable time – he would expect not less than two years or so.
3. I asked Lord Home how he thought the Suez issue would evolve. He answered that it is not easy to form a good forecast and that he is not very au fait with the most recent development as he has had only brief contacts with the Foreign Secretary since his return from New York. His personal opinion, however, is that nothing the Egyptians have said so far gives any solid ground for believing that they are prepared to envisage a solution likely to be acceptable to Britain and those who think like her. Here it is still considered essential that the Canal be subject to effective international control; and a system of control which would adequately cover the fixing of dues, maintenance of the Canal, and non-discrimination for shipping would in practice be almost equivalent to international management. Britain cannot in any case accept a final solution which does not guarantee, without risk of mishap, the efficient use of the Canal in reasonable conditions, as she regards this as vital to her existence, whereas Egypt is only offering some kind of international consultation. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister, rather to the surprise of many people, repeated again only last week what he had said at the outset of the dispute – that the use of force if need be cannot be excluded to secure the primary objective of having the Canal open. The American attitude is a weak point – even the idea of an effective Users’ Association, Lord Home remarked, although it emanated from Mr. Dulles, is no longer warmly supported by Washington and he is not sanguine that the US position will be less fluctuating after the Presidential elections than it has been in recent months.
4. The British Government, Lord Home continued, regard Colonel Nasser as entirely unreliable and it is absolutely essential, if his designs for control over the Arab world are to be defeated, that he should not have his own way on the Canal issue. The Jordan affair¹ is really linked directly with Nasser’s effort to extend and consolidate his influence in Arab countries. It is vital that these efforts be countered. There are in fact strains and stresses within the Arab group which could be exploited for this purpose – Lord Home mentioned Jordan and Iraq and, rather strangely, Syria as apparently recalcitrant to Nasser. There are no good indications on the other hand that Nasser’s situation at home can be undermined: groups anxious to take his place are not lacking in Egypt but at the moment his position is too strong. It would be difficult to say that time is playing against Nasser: he is not receiving more than a small proportion of the Canal dues – certainly not 50% – but the way in which he has been able to hold the line to date reacts to his credit. The whole situation in the Near East area is at the moment, Lord Home concluded, very ‘sticky’, and one can sympathise with Israel’s uneasiness and Ben-Gurion’s² declaration that she is second – after the Canal – on Nasser’s programme.
5. Lord Home remarked that there seemed to be no serious problems pending between us at the moment. I said that, apart naturally from the major issue of Partition which unfortunately remains, and although I cannot yet claim to be very familiar with the position, this seemed to be generally true.
6. When I took leave of Lord Home, he said that he hoped I would always feel quite free to call to see him at any time and to discuss any question I might wish of a general or particular character; by such contacts we would be able to keep matters under more or less regular review and thus, if a problem should arise in a concrete form, it would be the more easy to dispose of it. I thanked Lord Home for his suggestion and said that I would like to feel free to avail myself of it.
7. After my interview with Lord Home, which lasted about 20 minutes, I had a talk of about the same length with Sir Gilbert Laithwaite. I had, of course, known him well in Dublin and he had written me a letter of welcome when the appointment was announced.
8. My conversation with Sir Gilbert also embraced Suez (and the Near Eastern problem) and the proposed Free Trade Area. On Suez he had little to say except that it had been a great trouble for Ministers, a few of whom are now feeling the strain (the Prime Minister, Sir Walter Monckton and Lord Salisbury in particular), that a lot of the heat seems to have gone out of the issue but that it is impossible at the moment to say how or when it will be disposed of. He remarked that the Commonwealth Governments have been kept informed very closely of developments and, while they have not all, or always, agreed with the line taken, they much appreciate the way in which they have been kept au courant and consulted. Mr. Krishna Menon has, of course, he added, been playing a very active role although it cannot be said that those he has been seeing, ‘including some of those he claims to represent’, have always been anxious to see him.
9. The immediate Near Eastern trouble is, Sir Gilbert remarked, more short term and one can expect to see it terminated quickly although the situation there is extremely uneasy.
   [matter omitted]

12. Sir Gilbert remarked that he would perhaps from time to time have occasion to speak to me about the IRA which creates a problem both for the people here and for us. When the need arose in the past, he and Mr. Boland had had quite useful talks about this problem, one of his (Sir Gilbert’s) particular difficulties being to restrain the ‘zealots’ in the Home Office. Fortunately, at the moment the issue seems to be very quiet and one can only hope that it will remain so.
13. Sir Gilbert told me that he had recently attended the Annual Dinner in London of the Trinity College Dining Club where he had met the Provost for the first time. He was very impressed by Dr. McConnell³ and was very glad to hear him pay a high tribute in his speech to the financial contribution the College receives from the Government. He had also been very glad to learn that the President received an Honorary Degree from Trinity this week.