My dear Prime Minister,

PASTORAL RESEARCH

The day before yesterday Casey [1] informed me that he had
received a further cable from you in which you intimated that it
was now felt that the most satisfactory arrangement in regard to
Theiler [2] and Orr [3] would be if Australia could obtain the
complete services of Theiler and that, in this case, it would not
be necessary to make special arrangements in regard to Dr. Orr.

It so happened that I had arranged for Walter Elliot [4] and Sir
Charles Nathan [5] to lunch with me yesterday and, without
mentioning the fact that a further cable had been received from
you, I steered the conversation in the direction suggested by your
wire and we had a very interesting discussion.

Sir Charles Nathan was very impressed with Elliot's grasp of the
situation. The upshot of the discussion was that Elliot said that,
as an administrator responsible for Scottish agriculture, and as
the Chairman of the Research Grants Committee of the Empire
Marketing Board with a very large number of problems connected
with Animal Husbandry in many parts of the Empire to consider, he
would be glad to see a solution which relieved him of having to
loan Orr's services to Australia for any considerable period.

Looking at the position from an Australian point of view, he felt,
however, that even if Australia obtained the whole time services
of Sir Arnold Theiler, it would still be wholly desirable that an
arrangement could be made whereby Orr should visit Australia
perhaps twice during the next five years. He pointed out that
Theiler and Orr were men who could get along together very well
indeed.

Elliot promised to give us the fullest possible support in an
arrangement whereby Theiler should take up an Australian
appointment. He strongly reasserted the desirability of a clause
in an agreement with Theiler whereby Theiler, after being
appointed to the staff of the C.S.I.R., should be made available
for Imperial purposes for (say) 8 months in each 24.

Elliot expressed the view that such an arrangement would be
regarded as a definite contribution towards cooperation in inter-
imperial agricultural research on the part of Australia and he
thought it would also be highly advantageous from a purely
Australian point of view, because it would keep Theiler in touch
with workers throughout the British Empire and that Australia
would gain in that way more than she would lose from the temporary
absences of Theiler.

Of course I fully understand the difficulties of the Commonwealth
Council in regard to Dr. Orr. Brailsford Robertson's [6] view of
what is necessary in Animal Nutrition work in Australia is
fundamentally different from the point of view of Dr. Orr. I have,
however, the most profound conviction that at least so far as the
immediate practical objectives are concerned, Dr. Orr is right and
Professor Brailsford Robertson is wrong. By this I do not for a
moment intend to suggest that, over a long period of years,
Professor Brailsford Robertson's work may not prove of very great
value. It would be presumptuous on my part to make any such
suggestion but Brailsford Robertson himself acknowledges that it
will be at least four or five years before the work on which he is
engaged can have any direct and practical bearing upon the various
branches of the Australian pastoral industry; whereas the
application of the nutrition work of the Rowett Institute to
Australian conditions can, I am convinced, effect dramatic changes
in Australia's economic position within a very short period.

Yesterday I saw Ormsby-Gore [7] who stated that he was personally
prepared to agree to Theiler being appointed to Australia a year
hence but thought it would be very advantageous if Theiler could
occasionally be released for ad hoc jobs in other parts of the
Empire. He told me, however, that it would be necessary for me to
see Amery [8] before cabling the views of the Colonial Office to
Australia. Owing to the Conservative Conference at Yarmouth, I
have not been able to arrange an appointment with Amery until
Monday but directly after I have seen Amery, I shall cable to
Rivett [9] giving him a full statement of the position in regard
to Theiler.

My view is that, provided we can obtain Theiler's services, we
should let the matter of a further visit from Dr. Orr stand over
for some months but that some arrangement should be come to
whereby the Australian Pastoral Research can obtain the impetus
which, I am sure no one is quite so qualified to give as is Orr.

While on this subject of research, I should like to impress on you
how very desirable it would be for some arrangement to be made
whereby Dr. Rivett could visit England in 1929. The General
Election is practically certain to occur in May or June and
directly after the result becomes known, the general policy in
regard to inter-Imperial research activities will be reconsidered.

Personally I have no fear of any reversal of general policy in
this direction whatever the result of the elections, unless the
impossible happened and the Liberals secured a working majority.

As soon as the political strain of the elections is over, the
reconsideration of large scale research questions will become
possible and it would be a very great advantage to have Dr. Rivett
here. I also understand that Dr. Rivett has felt the strain of the
new administrative responsibilities which he has undertaken and a
visit to this country would be useful both to him and to the
general work of the Commonwealth Council.

PRESENTATION OF AUSTRALIA TO THE BRITISH PUBLIC

Sir Charles Nathan has had several conversations with me and also
with Mr. Collins [10] and Casey on this subject. Last night he had
us all and also Colonel Manning [11] to a dinner at which the
subject was discussed at great length. At the conclusion of the
dinner they all asked me to put the result of the conversation
into a memorandum to serve as a basis for a discussion which Sir
Charles Nathan hopes to have with you on his return. We were all
agreed as to the need for a radical change in the present
publicity methods at Australia House. I am, however, writing to
you under separate cover on certain aspects of this question.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE

After further conversations with members of the British Delegation
who were emphatic as to the desirability of Australia being
effectively represented at the General Assembly on this occasion,
I sent you a cable through the High Cornmissioner [12] asking you
to refer to my letter of the 17th August [13] in which I clearly
set out the position and suggesting that I should be appointed as
the Australian representative. I am anticipating a reply from you
today.

POLITICAL

The result of the Cheltenham By-Election was announced last night
and, in a way, it is distinctly interesting. At the last Election,
when as you know the Liberal Party was at the lowest ebb that it
has been for very many years, the sitting Tory member secured the
seat with about 2,000 majority. On this occasion it was a three-
cornered fight and the Conservative got in with a 3,000 majority,
polling 10,000 votes against the Liberals 6,000 and Labour 3,000.

There is, therefore, no sign of any real change.

Another By-Election at Tavistock is pending which may give some
further interesting indications.

So far as I am able to judge, intelligent people of most parties
are very disturbed over the British Government's foreign policy as
indicated by the discussions at Geneva and by the publication of
the secret naval arrangement with France. [14] There is a very
strong feeling that we are being dragged at the chariot wheels of
France with a considerable loss of dignity and without any
compensating advantages from a British or an Empire point of view.

Questions of foreign policy are, of course, not my concern but I
cannot help feeling that it would be a very desirable thing if the
British Empire could be more frequently in line with the desires
and sentiments of the nations with a standard of political
morality approaching our own, namely the countries of Scandinavia
and Holland rather than occupying a very difficult position in
relation to France and her satellites particularly Poland.

The present situation seems to be forcing us into an anti-American
position which does appear to have elements of real danger. The
naval mess seems to make it probable that Great Britain will be
forced into spending more money on naval construction-a most
undesirable result.

If the countries of the British Empire at Geneva and elsewhere
could cultivate the friendliest understandings with the Northern
European countries, one cannot help feeling that this would, in
the course of time, result in a new attitude as between England
and America. It appears to me vitally important, not only from an
international but also from an Imperial standpoint that Great
Britain should appear in the right moral camp at Geneva. By the
exercise of a certain amount of wisdom on the part of Great
Britain, Australia and New Zealand, I believe that the attendances
of the more disgruntled parts of the Empire at Geneva as State
Members of the League can actually become a unifying force in the
Empire. To many this idea would sound paradoxical but after all
when representatives of a State of the standing of (say) South
Africa arrive at Geneva for the Assembly or for a meeting of (say)
an Economic Conference, they find that they are of little
significance or weight unless they are associated with some Group.

For many reasons (and mainly economic ones) South Africa and
Ireland cannot align themselves with Groups other than the British
Empire Group. It appears to me quite conceivable that, over a
period of four or five years, those responsible for the Government
of South Africa and Ireland might, through association in a
British Empire Group at Geneva, come to realise, in a practical
way, the value of the British Empire to themselves.

This is a subject to which I will return in the near future but I
am quite sure you will not have time to read long screeds about
rather far-off objectives until after the turmoil of the General
Election is over.

Yours sincerely,
F. L. MCDOUGALL