As¹ I mentioned to you, on receipt of your letter of the 20th April, I talked to Mr. Beasley about the title matter. He said that he would like to consult Dr. Evatt when that gentleman arrived in London. His own view was that it would be difficult now to make any change in the title because he thought the Australian Government had got the permission of Parliament to the appointment in the terms of High Commissioner. The Government had taken a good deal of care about these appointments and he was rather pleased at the smooth way they had got through Parliament. To make a change now, he thought, would be difficult politically for his Government especially as the coming General Election would take place as soon as September next.

At the first opportunity I raised the point with Mr. Chifley explaining how Sir John Maffey in Dublin held the title of British Representative. He said that he would talk to Dr. Evatt on the latter's arrival in London. I formed the impression that Mr. Chifley had no strong views about the title.

I spent last Friday evening with Dr. Evatt. I referred to my conversation with Mr. Chifley and as deftly as I could suggested the desirability of dropping the title 'High Commissioner' which the Australian Government itself had already done in the case of London. Dr. Evatt said that both Mr. Beasley, the Resident Minister in London, and Mr. Chifley had told him of my conversations with them. He said he felt for the present, at any rate, they would have to call Mr. Dignam their High Commissioner. From what Mr. Beasley had already told me of the appointments by the Australian Government of its representatives abroad, I gathered that some hostility was expected. Dr. Evatt seemed to take satisfaction from the fact that the only question raised in their Parliament when he made the announcement of the appointments was whether Mr. Dignam would be a Minister or a High Commissioner and he had replied immediately that he would be High Commissioner. Dr. Evatt said that to his mind the terms 'Minister' and 'High Commissioner' were interchangeable.

I yesterday talked again to Mr. Beasley; he told me that he had discussed the matter with both Mr. Chifley and Dr. Evatt and found that they shared the view which he had expressed to me at our first talk on this subject.

In view of these conversations I am disposed to think that for the present no further action can usefully be taken.