[matter omitted]
I think that we should be content to go for accredition by the King, partly because this will keep the appointments on all fours with our 'foreign' appointments but chiefly because I think any alternative suggestion must arouse the suspicion that we are using this Commonwealth issue to give us a lever, later, to raise the wider issue of who should sign the letters addressed to heads of foreign States.

So long, then, (to revert to my argument) as the King is represented by a person close to him, such as the Duke of Gloucester, it would be difficult to frame a letter, based substantially on the recognised form of credentials letter but modified to meet the special position of Commonwealth associateship.

When, however, the representative of the King is a complete stranger to him and chosen by the Overseas Government, less drastic changes in the usual letter would be needed, notifying the name of the person chosen by the Government of — to be Ambassador or Minister and recommending him to the courtesy of the Governor General etc.

What I am driving at is that we should try to stick as closely as possible in the new 'Commonwealth' letter to the text of the 'foreign' letters; and I feel that your hint to Hearne 'we would prefer some other mode of accredition' may lead us against a wall instead of circumventing it.

There is another point which has struck me, arising out of a Commonwealth Conference as the proper way to settle this and similar matters. Consultation there must be; and the British will suggest consultation of all together at a Commonwealth Conference. There is an alternative to this which we might gradually try out. For instance, I shall have consultation with Dr. Evatt and then report back. Would it not be an advance, after that, (depending, of course, on the result of my conversation with Dr. Evatt) if our Minister for External Affairs were to write to Dr. Evatt and send me the letter to hand to him, and as a basis for further conversation? If this system were developed, passages of letters might put an end to Commonwealth Conferences, in time; and it will be much easier to handle each of the overseas Ministers separately than for our delegation to get progress at a full formal Conference. It eliminates to a great extent the power of the Dominions Office officials to 'atmosphere' the discussions.

I feel that if this notion appeals to the Minister, it would be easiest to begin with Dr. Evatt because he is not tied to orthodoxy in these matters and prides himself on practical approaches and he is also vain enough to be impressed by a direct consultation from our Minister to him.