Thank you for your letter of the 12th November,¹ about your conversation with Linebaugh. I am rather surprised that Linebaugh should have referred to the question of the repatriation of the German Minister. On the basis of the conversations we have had here from time to time with the British and American representatives, we had rather gathered the position to be that, if the question of the repatriation of the former German agents was satisfactorily disposed of, we were not likely to be bothered further about the former German Minister and his staff. I definitely got the same impression on the 'Queen Mary' from Alan Dulles,² who said they knew that Hempel's conduct here had always been correct and that he had done his best to prevent German espionage activity and similar German violations of our neutrality. In any case, we are quite satisfied as to that ourselves and there is no possibility whatever of the Government here requiring Hempel and his family to leave the country. I don't think you should seek further conversation on the subject, but, if the matter is mentioned to you again, you could properly make this latter point clear, quietly but firmly.

I am even more surprised at Linebaugh's observation about the German assets. As you know, we got an official Note from the Allies on this subject, and, after some delay, we sent a very full and informative reply completely disclosing all the information at our disposal on the subject.³ I think we sent you a copy of this Note at the time. We did not keep anything back and I can't imagine any further query on the subject that we would have difficulty in answering. I find it difficult to understand, in these circumstances, why the State Department should be any longer dissatisfied with our attitude on this matter. Perhaps you might take the occasion, some time when you are talking informally with Sweeney or Linebaugh, or Linebaugh's successor, to find out what precisely is behind Linebaugh's reference to the German assets question.

The European recovery programme seems to have been going well before Congress, but I am afraid that President Truman's anti-inflationary measures are going to raise a storm and slow things up. They are considerably more drastic than anything that we had been given to expect. Considerable interest is now being taken in the Marshall Plan business here, so I will be glad if you will continue to keep us closely informed, by means of the airmailed Press cuttings and reports from time to time, of the developments on your side.

The 'Financial Times' of the 17th November carries a despatch from its Washington correspondent saying that the possibility of an early visit by Sir Stafford Cripps is being discussed in Washington, and that the purpose of his visit would be to help in fixing the final terms and principles of Marshall aid and in making more specific the general purpose of the European recovery plan. I would be very interested indeed to know whether there is any substance at all in this report. I should say straight off that, to my mind, a visit to Washington by Sir Stafford Cripps, unaccompanied by representatives of any of the other 16 participating countries, would be a great mistake. It would give the European recovery programme the appearance of a device for aiding Great Britain in particular (and we know how that would be viewed by some of our friends in New York), and it would be contrary to the principle of collective negotiation hitherto followed in the dealings between the US Government and the 16 participating countries. If it were necessary, and if the occasion presented itself, the Minister, or any of you in the Legation, could quietly suggest that as the view likely to be taken, not only by our Government, but by the Governments of other participating countries as well. There is a great deal to be said for the view that, before the operative principles of the European recovery programme are finalised, there should be consultations in Washington on the Ministerial level. Personally, I think that would be very desirable. But it is extremely important that, at this stage at any rate, any such consultations should be conducted on the European side, not by an individual Minister, but by a Ministerial delegation broadly representative of the Paris Conference in the same way as was the group of 7 delegates who were recently in Washington.

I should be glad if you would show this letter to the Minister, with particular reference to the immediately preceding paragraph.

I had a very pleasant journey home, except for the fact that, immediately after take-off from New York, we developed a petrol overflow from one of the wings, which necessitated a landing at Gander. In the result, we reached Shannon at 1.30 p.m. instead of 8.50 a.m.

Kind regards and renewed thanks for all your help while I was in Washington.