With reference to your letter of March 21st 1929 (E.A.231/3/148)¹ on the question of communications between our Government and the British Government, I note that copies of all despatches will in future be sent, as far as possible, by the same mail as the original.

It is thought that a certain amount of official correspondence must continue to pass direct between the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Revenue Commissioners on the one side, and the General Post Office and the Boards of Revenue and Customs and Excise on this side. It would be desirable to know what is passing and to take official cognisance of communications which will continue to pass direct. Semi-official correspondence is still occasionally referred to in Despatches.

It is noted that communication between Government and Government is considered to be more satisfactory than communication through an Envoy; and that the diplomatic procedure of communication between independent states is regarded as a relic of the past. It will, it is thought, be difficult for our Government to make a change where foreign countries are concerned, and it is noticed that a beginning is being made in the case of Great Britain where, undoubtedly, no difficulties will be made. As, however, legations are established for the purpose of diplomatic communication and to enable the Government at home to be kept intimately informed of the views of ministers and politicians and other political factors in the foreign country, their raison d'être disappears if the more satisfactory method of communication is followed. Assuming that the Minister did wish to put the High Commissioner's Office in a position similar to that of a Legation, and that, at the same time, he withdrew from the High Commissioner the conduct of negotiations with the British Government, it is difficult to appreciate what the duties of the High Commissioner would become.

As the Minister does not wish at this stage to put the High Commissioner's Office in a position similar to that of a legation, the general consideration of the obsolescence of diplomatic communication does not for the moment arise. It is noted that the special relationship existing between the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations changes the status of the High Commissioner's Office, while still making the post of High Commissioner a special post of extreme importance. It will really considerably help me if the Minister will make clear to me what my duties are. I do not feel that I should continue to see the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs since I am powerless to discuss matters with him. He will, in any case, soon cease to trouble me, as the interviews can not but be one-sided, Mr. Amery talking to me while I listen. The Minister will have seen from my letters, giving reports of interviews (e.g. interview with Sir H.F. Batterbee on March the 15th 1929)² that the Government here will at the present stage talk to me, and it is surely their expectation that I will give them some kind of reply. Am I to cease seeing the Secretary of State and, through Mr. Kiernan, hearing the permanent officials? If not, should not an arrangement be made to give me a reply to their approaches? I cannot see any other alternatives, because the approaches will cease if replies are not given. Is it considered desirable that the approaches should cease? What, in that case, are my duties? I have been asked on a couple of occasions to remind the Dominions Office that a reply to a Despatch is awaited. I have been asked to say that the Minister does not intend to reply to a certain Despatch. And I have been asked to repeat a statement in a Despatch, as to the date when visas will be given by our Consular representative in New York. Is this typical of the duties which I shall be given to perform? If so, how does the post of High Commissioner come to be described as one of extreme importance?

The Minister states that the importance of the High Commissioner's post does not in any way depend on the degree of its assimilation to posts in non-Commonwealth countries. I ask if the duties of other High Commissioners in London are to be considered as a guide to my duties. I have been told by the Canadian High Commissioner that all communications except those of a routine nature are made through him. The Canadian arrangement is that the only deviation from this practice is that the Prime Minister reserves the right of communicating directly with the British Prime Minister. This is the direct opposite of the arrangement laid down in your letter of March 21st.

The Minister's view that our Government must not be bound by any forms or agreements except through an official despatch is entirely understood. There was at no time in my mind any suggestion of his being so bound.

I took a recent opportunity to discuss your letter with the Minister, and Mr. McGilligan suggested that it would be well to elucidate your meaning by writing further.