Australia House, London, 9 May 1967
Personal
My dear Murray,
I have had several discussions here about honours and the like that it is worth letting you know about while they are fresh in my mind.
I led off with a good talk with Bowden (S. of S. for Commonwealth) who had Joe Garner with him—mainly about the long letter that I had written him about a lot more medium to low level honours for Local Government people in Australia. He said (that I had not known before) that they now worked on a quinquennium as regards the distribution of the various honours amongst the Commonwealth countries that still accept them, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and some other of the smaller Commonwealth countries and colonies. They try to maintain the numbers of the various honours to individual countries during the period of any one quinquennium. The end of the present quinquennium is about 2 years ahead. This sounded as if they were going to try to refuse what I had asked about a good many honours for Local Government people, so that I launched myself into a considerable talk on this in the course of which I said that we had more than a suspicion that Australia got appreciably less honours (on a population basis) than the U.K. This was not denied outright but it was said that this might be the case in respect of some honours but not by any means all. However, after some discussion it was said that they thought they might be able to give us half the numbers (O.B.E’s and M.B.E’s) that I had asked for, starting with the next New Year’s List, and that they would endeavour to increase this up to the total number that I had asked for in subsequent Lists. I think that we will probably have to be content with this for the time being—and anyhow it isn’t a bad start.
At the same meeting with Bowden I said that we did not get any civil C.B’s or K.C.B’s and only a limited number of C.M.G’s. I said I was not going to ask for a regular allocation of these particular honours but that I hoped that, when we did want any of them, we would only have to ask for them. They nodded, I thought a little gloomily, at this.
There was a good deal more said than this, and I asked that Bowden might write to me setting out the matters that we had discussed and his attitude to them, which he said he would do.
Then I saw Harold Wilson, who told me (in respect of honours) that he was going to greatly reduce (if not entirely cut out) honours for political reasons, so far as Britain was concerned. He made no reference to this in any way concerning us, and I did not raise it.
When I saw Michael Adeane soon after the above, I told him of my correspondence and talks with Bowden and Wilson on honours, although he took the point of view that this did not directly concern him. However, I had quite a reasonably good talk with him about the Crown and Republicanism. I said that there were the beginnings of Republicanism in Australia in quite recent years, but that I did not believe that it was yet at all important. He said that the situation in this regard in Canada appeared to be appreciably worse than it was in Australia.2 In speaking of the attitude towards the Crown in Australia, I said that I thought that there were the beginnings of some degree of apathy or even indifference, but again this was not very marked. This led me on to speaking of the content of The Queen’s Christmas and Birthday speeches on the radio and (sometimes) television.3 I asked who were consulted in respect of the content of these speeches. He gave me to understand that The Queen herself had an appreciable hand in it and that he ‘consulted’ others, without saying who they were. He gave me the impression that he personally did not have much of a hand in this. I said that I thought it would be a good thing if such speeches were made to contain appreciably more content in recent years. I think he realised this and said that it was not at all easy, as The Queen had to take into account the fact that anything that she said was heard in every country of the Commonwealth, which increased her difficulty in avoiding subjects that were in any way controversial. He then suggested that it might be a good thing to direct any particular one of her speeches to, say, Canada or Australia, although it would be broadcast in all Commonwealth countries. I said that a speech directed to, say, Canada would not be of particular interest to Australia or other Commonwealth countries. I then suggested that it might be worth consideration for The Queen to make a different speech to Canada or to Australia and to Britain and India and Pakistan, and say one speech to all the African Commonwealth countries—although I realise that this would put considerable additional burden on The Queen herself. He did not enthuse about this.
I then (with Adeane) reverted to honours and asked if it had ever been considered that The Queen might initiate a new Commonwealth Order, without knighthoods, for all the Commonwealth countries. He said that he did not believe that most of the ‘new’ Commonwealth countries would agree to accept such an honour. I said that I thought this might be discovered privately, although if any appreciable number of them did not accept it, it would of course not be politic to start it.
He (Adeane) then spoke about the new Canadian honour4 and asked if we had ever considered a particular Australian honour. I said that I did not believe that we ever had, and that anyhow it did not appeal to me very much as it would not be a ‘Queen’s’ honour. He said that the new Canadian honour was a Queen’s honour—and he imagined so also would be a distinctively Australian honour. I did not pursue this.
In speaking of The Queen’s televised Christmas and Birthday speeches, I suggested that it might be appropriate for her to speak against the background of a television screen on which the highlights of anything that she had done (at home and overseas) in the past year might be shown as she was speaking. He said they had done this once in a modified way but did not speak with any great enthusiasm about it.
The main thing that came out of the above talk with Adeane was that they had difficulty in getting suggestions as to subjects for The Queen’s periodical speeches. I emphasised, so far as I could, that I thought it was necessary to pursue this business of getting suggestions (particularly in respect of things of ‘human’ interest), in order to liven up and make more interesting these periodical speeches.
I saw Joe Garner (Permanent Head, Commonwealth Office) and told him the gist of these various talks that I had had. I said that we were a bit bothered at times about the ‘relics of Colonialism’ that we were conscious of. He said he realised this very well, but that they were difficult to remedy. At one stage he said that it should be remembered that all honours were ‘British’ honours. I took him up at once on this and said that ‘we were British too’, although they (the U.K.) seemed to have tried to pinch the word ‘British’ for themselves, by calling their overseas posts ‘British High Commissions’, etc. He cackled at this and said that this was done by Duncan Sandys when he was Commonwealth Minister and that we had been consulted about it. I said that, in spite of this, I could not accept his implied argument that honours were ‘British’ honours and not ours. He did not pursue this.
I then said (to Garner) that I hoped very much that I would not have to argue any more with him about the number of Knights Bachelor that we were seeking in the forthcoming Birthday List. He said they were doing the best they could for us but that we had asked for a great many. He said he would let me know shortly about it. He said that I hoped what he would tell me would not mean my having to see his Minister again in order to pursue the subject with him. Actually a day or so later, as I telegraphed you, I got a message that they were ‘just able’ to give us the 14 Knights Bachelor that we wanted.
When I told Garner about Adeane having said that he sought advice from ‘others’ about the content of The Queen’s speeches, he said that he (Garner) had never ever been consulted, and that he did not know who had been.
I then said something about the position of State Governors in Australia and that at least some of them thought that they were not given sufficient importance in the scheme of things. He said he realised this. I said that I thought a little more attention might be given to keeping them rather more in the picture than they were at the present.
I then saw Sir Charles Dixon5 at the Commonwealth Office, but the old boy has become frightfully old and infirm and is being retired from the Commonwealth Office in September. I am afraid he has ‘had it’.
Nothing more of any consequence came out of my talk with Garner.
I am seeing Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the course of the next few days and will talk to him about the people who are consulted as to the content of The Queen’s speeches. I know him well enough to speak to him without restraint or hesitation.
By the way, when I was seeing Michael Adeane I also saw Philip Moore who started as Deputy (or Assistant) to Adeane a month or so ago. I think he is good, and a lively minded fellow, although what he may be able to achieve is to be seen.
In the course of some of these talks I threw in my view that the present ‘East of Suez’ policy and the U.K. seeking to enter the European Common Market, would tend to be interpreted in Australia as a sign of further isolationism on the part of Britain towards Australia. This did not draw anything more than a nod.
I think the above talks may have done some little good although it remains to be seen how much.
If you think fit you can show this letter to John Bunting who may think it worthwhile showing to Mr. Holt prior to his visit to London in June.6
I am sorry to inflict such a long letter on you but I thought it worthwhile to put all this down on paper while it was fresh in my mind.
Our time in London is going quite well and we are seeing a great many people of consequence, although it is being most strenuous. Everyone here is playing up very well indeed. We are being deluged with invitations of all sorts, most of which we are obliged to refuse. You’ll see the detail in my diary if you have the fortitude to read it in due course.
I hope all goes well with you and the others.
1 Sir Murray Tyrrell, Official Secretary to Governor-General of Australia, 1947–74 (retired).
2 See Document 417, note 2.
3 See Document 418.
4 The Order of Canada was created in 1967 to commemorate the centennial of the Canadian Confederation. It was the first distinctly Canadian honour. As Queen of Canada the Queen is Sovereign of the Order.
5 Formerly Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs/Commonwealth Relations, 1940–48.
6 Tyrrell sent a copy of this letter to Bunting on 18 May 1967 with a covering note which explained that besides honours, the letter made reference to other matters Tyrrell had asked Casey to talk about when he was in the UK. His note ended, ‘I think you will find it all interesting’.
[NAA: Al209, 1967/7334]