bout de papier, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2008), pp. 5–7
For most of the first half of the 20th century, notwithstanding the images projected during recent fits of harmony, the relationship between Canada and Australia was more often marked by political and diplomatic, as well as geographic, distance. Most notably at Imperial Conferences and then Meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the clashes in experience, circumstances, attitudes and perspectives were more obvious than fraternal feeling, particularly as the two Dominions differed greatly on the major inter-war issues of constitutional change and imperial defence. As so frequently in politics and diplomacy, personalities exacerbated rather than eased the tensions, though these differences were usually more evident in private rather than public settings. Soon after the beginning of the Second World War, the countries exchanged high commissioners, to symbolize wartime alliance and Commonwealth solidarity. For the most part, that innovation worked well, as shared challenges were met in close association and with better understanding.
Readers may be familiar with the post-war rivalry over leadership of the smaller powers in the formative years of the United Nations. Scholars have drawn from the diaries of William Lyon Mackenzie King and other sources to highlight the bitter feeling between the Canadian prime minister and the Australian external affairs minister, Dr. Herbert Evatt. What has attracted less attention was the animosity between Evatt’s deputy, Colonel William Roy Hodgson (1892-1958), and those who had the questionable fortune to represent Canada in Australia in the early years of bilateral diplomatic relations. As Australian historian Alan Watt has noted, Hodgson “was not cut out temperamentally for the life of a diplomat. His direct, blunt and rather aggressive style was apt to give offence.” That tendency was evident when Hodgson represented Australia on the Security Council of the United Nations after the war, most conspicuously when the question of the conduct of the Netherlands in Indonesia came before it. As the report from Canada’s representative in Canberra reprinted below indicates, however, Hodgson also proved difficult for Canadians. Whether or not Hodgon’s prior education and employment invalidate the negative impression conveyed therein about his intellect, it should be noted that he was qualified as an accountant and a lawyer and that he had served as head of Australia’s military intelligence for a decade before he became official head of the foreign ministry.
As for the author of the dispatch, Thomas Clayton Davis (1889-1960), he was a former municipal and provincial politician from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, who briefly served as a Justice of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan. Before his appointment as High Commissioner for Canada in Australia in 1942, Davis had served as Associate Deputy Minister of National War Services responsible for National Registration and had been a member of the National Film Board and the Wartime Information Board. In 1946, he was appointed as Canada’s Ambassador to China. In spite of his varied experience, it would appear from the text below that nothing had quite prepared Davis for the task of dealing with Colonel Hodgson.
The original document may be found at Library and Archives Canada in the files of the Department of External Affairs (RG25), Volume 5699, File 4-G(s):
Office of the High Commissioner for Canada Canberra June 13, 1944 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL No. 61 N. A. Robertson, Esq., Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Norman:
I thought you would be interested in the following account of an incident which occurred here in Canberra on Saturday night last, the night of the arrival of the Parliamentary Delegation. Col. [William Roy] Hodgson, as you are aware, is Secretary of the Department of External Affairs [since 1935; he had also been responsible for the subject as an assistant secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office before the creation of a separate department]. His position here is comparable to yours in Canada.
No doubt my predecessors have told you all about him and it is quite possible that in some of my letters I have from time to time commented upon him. He is a little man – mentally and physically, with a very limited outlook and extremely limited experience. He is not qualified for the position he occupies and I doubt if you would even have him as a member of your staff in Ottawa, on his own merits. He is a Returned Soldier and was badly wounded [in fact, he was reported dead and his obituary was published] in the last war [at the Battle of Gallipoli, where he had served as a forward observing officer for an artillery battery; Hodgson was mentioned in dispatches and received the Croix de Guerre avec palmel, which perhaps accounts to some extent for his failings of which he has many.
He is a man of rather violent prejudices and a very bitter and also a very loose tongue. I could tell from the moment I landed here that he has not a very warm spot in his heart for Canada. I think that part of his feelings in this regard is actuated by jealousy because we have progressed much further than Australia. He is also an Imperialist and he does not like Canada’s attitude on Commonwealth relations. He is very very anti- American and I think he feels that we pay too much attention to the United States and he does not relish the friendship which exists between Canada and the U.S.A.
On top of all this he seems to consume as much liquor as he possibly can whenever he has an opportunity to secure it at other people’s expense. Whenever there is a cocktail party or entertainment of any kind to which he is invited, he sees to it that a considerable portion of the refreshments is carried away inside him. When he has a few drinks on board he becomes very quarrelsome. Even when not in this condition he is not wedded very much to the truth and when he is drinking, he throws truth to the four winds. Altogether he is not a very prepossessing individual. On top of this, his Minister, Dr. [Herbert Verel Evatt [Attorney General and Minister for External Affairs, 1941-491, also has not a very friendly feeling towards Canada, which coupled with the fact that he is very uncouth and ill mannered, makes him a rather difficult person with whom to deal. His outlook is very much akin to that of Hodgson although naturally he is a very much more brilliant man than Hodgson.
For recreation Hodgson is a great lawn bowler and bridge player. Dr. [Charles Jost] Burchell [High Commissioner for Canada in Australia, 1939-41] was a curler in Canada and naturally took to lawn bowling here and became one of the leading members of the local bowling club and whenever he travelled throughout Australia became associated with the bowling group and this naturally gave him a tremendous number of contacts. He became famous as a bowler all over the country. He was also a very ardent bridge player and he and Hodgson seem to have become quite good friends through the three way combination of Hodgson’s connection with External Affairs, bowling and bridge. I am not interested in bowling nor have I played bridge for a long time but I do play golf and have been consequently quite closely associated with the golfing crowd. On a number of occasions it has been made quite clear to me that Hodgson resented this, and through this diversity of interests, I have seen very little of him whereas Burchell saw a great deal.
I am giving you this as background to the matter I am going to deal with herein and which is covered by my Telegram No. 205 of today’s date.
The Parliamentary Delegation arrived here in Canberra late Saturday afternoon as stated above. I met them but could not remain with them as I was going out to dinner. Martin of the United Kingdom Office entertained them in his suite at the Hotel at a little cocktail party. He had a few outsiders in as well, including Hodgson. As usual Hodgson took on all he could get. They went in to dinner at the Hotel and were spread about at different tables – six at each table. Hodgson was seated with Dr. [Thomas M.] Donnelly [Liberal Member of Parliament for Wood Mountain, Saskatchewan since the general election of 1935 and before that for Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan, since 1925], a man named Butcher, a British Member of Parliament, Dr. Cheng of the Chinese Legation, John de la Valette of the United Kingdom High Commissioner’s Office, and one other. By this time Hodgson was very belligerent. Donnelly had never seen the man before except at the party for half an hour or so previous to the dinner, but no sooner did they sit down, than Hodgson opened up with a tirade against Canada. He deprecated Canada’s war effort in very insulting terms and when Donnelly took issue with him, he finally admitted that the war effort was all right everywhere else but he thought that Canada should have been in the Pacific helping Australia.
He then went on to say that [General Victor Wentworth] Odlum [High Commissioner for Canada in Australia, 1941-2] was a useless representative here and all that he had ever done was to sign an agreement of some kind on behalf of Canada with regard to the furnishing of military supplies to Australia. He may have had in mind the Division that Odlum was alleged to have promised here. At all events he went on to say that this promise had been repudiated and not lived up to by the Canadian Government. When he was through with this he then announced that Canada had entered into a Mutual Aid Agreement with Australia, which was given world publicity, but that no sooner was the agreement signed than Canada again repudiated its undertaking, and did not send anything.
After he was through with this he then started to speak very disparagingly of me and said that the only representative worthwhile that Canada had ever sent here was Dr. Burchell and that Odlum was totally hopeless and that I was a nonentity. He said I did not try to make friends for Canada and just went my own way without any attempt at doing so. What he had in mind of course was the fact that I did not spend my time around the bowling club and go out of my way to make friends with the gentlemen who bowled there.
Donnelly was very much upset about this but apparently restrained himself with a great deal of effort. After dinner Hodgson got into another row out in the rotunda with an Australian newspaper man, which is not pertinent to this discussion.
Donnelly was so upset about the matter that he spoke to Paul Malone [then Press Attaché in the Office of the High Commissioner for Canada] who was at the Hotel to dinner and on Sunday morning I went and saw Donnelly who told me all about the incident and said that Hodgson was abusive and most objectionable. I told Donnelly that I would see Hodgson on Tuesday and have a word with him about it. I could not see him on the Sunday and yesterday, Monday, was a holiday. The incident became known throughout the Hotel and amongst the delegates and yesterday morning Mr. Frank Green, Clerk of the House of Representatives [from 1937 to 1955] here, who is in charge of the tour of the Parliamentary Delegation, came to see me as he had heard all about what happened. He told me he did not propose to let Hodgson get away with this. He asked me if I knew anything about it and I told him I did and I proposed to see Hodgson today. He then said that regardless of what I did he was going to have the situation cleared up. I told him that if he was going to do anything he should see Donnelly himself, and anything he did should be done as a result of Donnelly’s connection with the Delegation and without reference to me at all because I would look after my own show. He saw Donnelly and confirmed what he had heard of the incident. He then went and saw Hodgson and told him, if he did not get over and apologize to Donnelly, he would report the matter to the Acting Prime Minister. Hodgson demurred at first, taking the stand that the statements were not correct, but when Green told him he would carry out his threat and speak to the Acting Prime Minister, he then decided to do something. He went over and saw Donnelly and I think took the attitude that he had not said the things that he did say. From what I can learn, although I have not had the opportunity as yet of talking to Donnelly, he told him off and made it quite clear to Hodgson that he thought his action was most offensive, particularly as he had made the statements in a loud voice in a public diningroom within the hearing of all the guests at one table and within the hearing of a large number of people whose tables were adjacent to the one at which Donnelly and Hodgson sat.
Shortly thereafter Hodgson telephoned me in great distress and wanted to see me at once and I saw him here in the office. He denied absolutely having said that things which he did say, and if what he told me he did say had been said, then I am positive that Donnelly, instead of being insulted, would have blown up completely with pride. Hodgson said he opened the discussion by alluding to Canada’s war effort. According to him, he stated that Canada’s Army was the best Army in the world as was being proved in the fighting in France and Italy. He told me that he had mentioned Odlum’s promise of a Division but had said that it was not Canada’s fault that it did not come but that this project had been killed by the Combined General Staff in Washington He went on to say that he had expressed deep gratitude at the signing of the Mutual Aid Agreement and appreciation for all the help Australia was getting thereunder. He told me that he had made a passing favourable reference about me.
He then went on to say that he had seen Donnelly in reference to myself, had told Donnelly I was an extremely successful High Commissioner and was seeing the country and meeting the people and making friends for Canada and all in all doing an excellent job of interpreting Canada to Australia and Canada’s viewpoint to the Australian people.
I have checked with some of the people who were at the same table and I know that what Donnelly says is right, which means that when Hodgson was half drunk, as he was, what he actually thought came out.
He told me that he had satisfied Donnelly and had expressed regret that any unpleasantness had occurred and I told him that, if this was the case, that we had better close the incident and forget it. The whole thing is typical of the man and of what he thinks with regard to Canada.
I feel that I should tell you this story because it will give you an idea of the type of man occupying your position in this country and his attitude towards our country. You will likely have dealings with him in years to come, long after I have passed from this field of activity. I might say that Evatt treats him like a dog but I doubt if Evatt will ever replace him because I don’t think he could ever get anyone else to fill his place who would take uncomplainingly from Evatt what old Hodgson has to take from day to day. They are a well-matched pair but it is extremely unfortunate that Australia’s foreign relations should be conducted by this team.
Yours very sincerely, T. C. Davis (I. C. Davis)
High Commissioner for Canada D
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2008), pp. 5–7. Read the rest of this issue →
