My dear Prime Minister,

I have to acknowledge your letters of the 17th and 23rd February.

[1] It has been extremely pleasant to receive your comments upon
points raised in my letters to you.

AUSTRALIAN WINES

Under separate cover I have written to you at considerable length
upon the subject of preference on Australian wines. [2] Long
before this can reach you, the subject will have been settled for
1927 in the Budget speech due on April 11th.

TROPICAL RESEARCH STATION

In my last letter [3] I mentioned this subject and I should just
like to suggest that if by the time this letter reaches you, no
communication has been forwarded to the Empire Marketing Board on
this matter, that a cable indicating the Commonwealth Government's
general attitude be sent even if it is impossible to give any
final decision. Probably the whole question of Staff and the
fitting of a large scale Tropical Research Station into the
schemes of the Commonwealth Council for Scientific & Industrial
Research, with the limited field of trained research workers to
draw upon, is causing the delay. In this connection may I remind
you that India may form a most useful field from which Australia
might draw a few highly qualified senior research workers, while
her own younger men are obtaining experience. The Indian climate,
indeed the rules of the Service, require early retirement and many
a man of say 50 years of age could give Australia a most useful
ten years of service.

AUSTRALLAN DELEGATION

On Monday I saw Harding [4] who showed me the cable sent to you in
which eight possible names were submitted for your consideration.

Harding suggested that I might desire to send a supplementary
cable giving an expression of my views on the names. I found,
however, that the order of precedence in each group of names
corresponded with my own ideas in so far as I can be said to have
any for I do not know very much about the men whose names have
been put forward. Business, finance, transport and mining are
represented. Fuel is not but if Weir [5] can be persuaded to go,
he will have useful views upon that subject. Sir Arthur Lawley [6]
I should have regarded as too old for this job. Harding feels that
if the first named in each of the four groups went to Australia,
you would have a combination of men who would carry great weight
and be definitely useful. The first four would be Lord Weir,
Rupert Beckett [7], General Mance [8] and Lord Ebury. [9]

The record of Lord Ebury in Who's Who is of such a nature as to
suggest that he would be a most useful person. I have only met him
quite casually and know nothing about him myself. General Mance is
stated to be a first class transport expert with a strong
imaginative power. He also appears to have an excellent record.

Beckett I do not know at all but understand that he has first
class financial reputation and Lord Weir you know well yourself
and it is quite unnecessary to make any further comment than to
say that if he could be the leader of this delegation, he would
certainly be very useful indeed.

Harding was of opinion that it would be much easier to get a
strong delegation to leave for Australia in July returning in
January than to get prominent people to leave England in May. This
view is, I think, correct.

TRADE UNION BILL [10]

I understand that the Intelligence Department at Australia House
is forwarding by this mail a copy of the Trade Union Bill. It is
much too early to give you any clear indication of the way in
which parties are going to react on this subject. It is, however,
already clear that in launching this Bill the Government has
raised first class political issues and that the future reputation
and final fate of the Conservative Government will probably depend
upon the way in which the public reacts to the measure.

The Bill has been condemned by every Labour Leader. This is but
natural and it should undoubtedly have the effect of solidifying
the Labour Party, although it may cause the influence of the
extremists to increase.

The Liberals have not yet defined their attitude. I understand
that Lloyd George [11] is all for opposition to the Bill root and
branch but that Sir John Simon [12] and Lord Reading [13] and
other Liberals see a good deal that is good in the Bill and their
influence would probably prevent the Liberals having a clearly
defined policy on the subject. If this happens, it may stultify a
tendency towards a Liberal revival which the by-elections at Leith
and North Southwark had encouraged the Liberals to think was about
to take place.

So far as the Conservatives are concerned, the young left wing
Tories are not at all pleased that the Bill has been introduced,
their contention being that, although the Bill itself may be
reasonable, its introduction at the present time means that the
Prime Minister's [14] slogan of 'Peace in industry' becomes quite
ineffective and that this will be regarded as 'war in industry'.

I had a talk with Walter E11iot [15] about it yesterday and he
stated that, in his opinion, everything depended upon the way in
which Mr. Baldwin handled the matter. If Mr. Baldwin was prepared
personally to fight the Bill through the House, there was every
prospect of the Bill becoming acceptable in the country and it
having a good result on the future prospects of the Conservative
Party. If, on the other hand, Mr. Baldwin left the handling of the
Bill to others and took little active part in the campaign, Elliot
was afraid that the reputation of the Prime Minister would be
irretrievably damaged and the effect on the Conservative Party
would be bad.

Generally speaking I think it safe to say that the attitude of the
Labour Party as regards China [16] has placed the Party in a very
false position so far as the country is concerned but that unless
the Conservatives handle the Trade Union Bill firmly, ably and
with resolution, the blunders which Labour has made in reference
to China will be lost sight of in the large political issues that
will arise in connection with the Trade Union Bill.

RE-ORGANIZATION OF AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN LONDON

Mr. A. F. Bell [17] is due to arrive in London on April 21st and I
understand that you have arranged to meet the Dairy Produce Board
in Australia on April 19th. I should very much appreciate
receiving a note from you as to the prospects for a re-
organization of the London representation on the Control Boards
and of the Publicity work here. Up to the present time nothing has
occurred to change my opinion that the schemes which we discussed
while you were in this country would not be the most suitable way
of dealing with the questions but it would certainly be very
useful to know something about how the matter is developing in
Australia.

'LONDON WEEKLY'

I enclose copy of the 'London Weekly' dated 2nd April, 1927.

Yours sincerely,
F. L. MCDOUGALL