My dear Secretary,
A very rushed report, for which I apologize. But I want to get it off at once to catch you in Paris.

I enclose my personal letter to M.¹ You will see that it contains quite a lot. But when I meet yourself and the Minister you will realize that I could have said a great deal more. I am accustomed to sending him personal letters about all sorts of things, especially Christian movements and means of spreading the practice of Catholicism in Continental Europe, and I had sent him a particularly long one about midsummer which pleased him very much. I can't now go into the reasons for every sentence in my letter but you can tell the minister that every word of it was most carefully pondered for 12 days. Moreover it is based on my knowledge of the H.S. and of M.'s character. I say just that much, at the moment, so that the Minister may not think there was any haste or annoyance at the back of it. Every word was essential.

What was the reaction. When I went to him on Friday morning 1st Oct. he received with open arms and with most edifying humility. I thanked him for the note in the Osservatore of the day before on the late Nuncio. He then apologised for the lack of order in his office, spoke at length and confidentially about the evils of having no centralised control in the Secretariat, especially the grave difficulties caused by having no Secretary of State etc. The attitude of 'ascolto ma no dico niente' was gone (I hope, for ever) and there did not seem to be any resentment for my plain talking. He said, finally that it would be better to talk the matter over outside office hours. I agreed wholeheartedly as it is extremely difficult to have a really serious talk while the other A.s are waiting in the Anticamera impatiently waiting for my exit. He proposed one of these Sundays, 'We could make it', he said, 'a kind of day of recollection together'. That doesn't bode too well, but at least he feels that we are unlikely to yield to the old methods, and he wants a little time to think it over. I doubt about his showing my letter to the H.F. though it would be the best possible thing for us, if he did. Unless he shows it as an argument for reorganisation under a Secretary of State ... he might feel that the H.F. would upbraid him for his lack of care in giving us such a good opportunity to raise the whole question of the bad treatment of Irish Catholicism in the world.

I hope the Minister will have no talks with Paro. The latter is regarded by his colleagues as a bit of a pup. He is not of the slightest importance but he never neglects an opportunity to push himself here. I am also very much afraid that M. might use him to try out various lines with the Minister, and even with the Bishops. I might be put in the position I was once placed with Edward Harding² about a most important matter, in analogous circumstances ... and, with full cognisance of the gravity of the statement, I believe that Paro is so ambitious that he is quite capable of putting a gloss on what he hears from the Minister or the Bishops.

I am afraid it is absolutely essential to canalize everything through me and to keep me informed of every conversation between him and the Minister or yourself. Otherwise I can't do the job properly.

From every hint I get these weeks from friendly sources I am completely convinced that we must not yield on the essential point of getting a man of Irish origin. But I am also now convinced that we can't actually name an individual candidate. We must wait to be consulted.

We have a wonderful chance for putting our friendship and loyalty to the Holy See on a really sound basis for the first time in centuries.

To yield would put us back even behind our present position ... and would destroy our prestige for years.

He spoke about Panico with satisfaction at the change. I congratulated him on having made a change which could be of such importance for our relations with the H.S., and I, once more, emphasized the giant role played by Mannix in the Australian Church.