Dear Mr. Bruce,

GENERAL STRIKE

After signing my last letter to you [1], I was able to add the
words that the General Strike had just been called off. Last week
there was no mail and to-day it is possible to get the happenings
of the General Strike a little more in perspective. There can now
be no doubt that the Trade Union Congress called off the strike
unconditionally. This has become clear owing to the way in which
the Left Wing has been attacking the Right Wing and the attitude
of the miners to the Trade Union Congress.

Mr. Bevin [2] and two of the other leaders last week made a rather
futile attempt to show that Sir Herbert Samuel [3] was really
empowered by the Government to initiate negotiations for a
settlement of the coal stoppage but this attempt broke down
hopelessly.

Apart from Mr. MacDonald [4], who, since the strike, has described
the Government as being incompetent to run even a Whelk Stall, it
seems generally admitted that Mr. Baldwin [5] played his part
extraordinarily well. In this connection I had a very interesting
talk with Casey' some little time ago. He told me that the general
impression in the Cabinet Secretariat was that the Prime Minister
was not particularly able and not particularly energetic. In the
two or three interviews that I have had with Mr. Baldwin, I have
found him extremely nice but not very quick in the uptake and I
have had no means of knowing as to whether he is really energetic
or not. At any rate Mr. Baldwin did not create in my mind the
impression of being a very big man. In the strike crisis there
can, however, be no doubt that he acted as a real leader and in
his case I feel that character has proved more important than
great ability or even than energy.

During the last few days there has been a tendency in the press to
compare Mr. Baldwin with Abraham Lincoln and when one remembers
the way in which Lincoln was attacked during the first two years
of the Civil War because he was not prepared to adopt a ruthless
attitude, there may be something in the parallel.

I enclose a copy of the 'Times' report of the Debate in the House
of Commons on the day following the calling off of the strike.

Probably there was more pessimism on May 13th than actually during
the strike itself. All sorts of rumours were flying about as to
employers adopting a reactionary policy but, fortunately, this did
not prove to be the case and if you will read Mr. Baldwin's
speech, it gives a very clear idea of the way in which he faced
the situation. [7]

Unfortunately up to the present time no progress has been made
towards a settlement of the coal dispute. Both the owners and the
miners are adopting a recalcitrant attitude and both parties
received, over the weekend, a severe public rebuke from the Prime
Minister. There is so much bad spirit between the owners and the
miners that, on this ground alone, some form of Government
interference in the industry appears to be almost essential. The
coal stoppage will have a very disturbing effect upon the course
of British trade but it is important to note, as I am pointing out
at every opportunity, that up to the end of April-that is before
the beginning of the General Strike-1926 was creating a worse
record than 1925.

COMMERCIAL EFFICIENCY AND INDUSTRIAL PEACE

With my letter of the 11th May [8] I forwarded a copy of a
memorandum on this subject and informed you that I had sent a copy
of it to Mr. Tom Jones [9] and had also shewn it to Mr. Ormsby-
Gore. [10] Later I showed the memorandum to Mr. Amery [11], who
expressed great interest and said that he would like to circulate
the document to the Members of the Government. Mr. Amery also
asked me to send copies to as many of my friends in the
Conservative ranks of the House of Commons who I thought would
take a sympathetic attitude. I, therefore, had the document
roneoed and distributed about 50 copies. After the Whitsuntide
recess, I propose to try and arrange for a meeting in the House of
Commons to consider the memorandum and at this meeting I propose
to talk about Empire Development and to get Mr. Francis Lloyd, one
of the joint authors of 'The Secret of High Wages' [12], to talk
about Industrial Reconstruction.

Having been urged by Mr. Amery to push these ideas for all I was
worth, I discussed them with Lloyd and Austin [13] and also with
the Editor of the 'Spectator' (a Mr. Adkins) who published a
portion of the memorandum, omitting all reference to my name, in
the 'Spectator' on 15th May. [14]

WEST INDIAN CONFERENCE

Some months ago the Colonial Office asked me if I would address
the Conference of West Indian Legislators, which was to be held in
London during May, on the subject of Agricultural Organization.

The Conference is meeting in a room in the House of Lords and, as
you know, is considering the possibility of some federal
development for the whole of the West Indies. The Colonial Office
have felt that this provided an excellent opportunity of bringing
home to a number of important West Indian people the significance
of order rather than chaos in the marketing of West Indian goods.

I met the Conference on Friday last and spoke to them for about
forty minutes and there followed a discussion lasting for about an
hour and a half. I am enclosing a copy of the notes which I made
for my address. If you have time to read these notes, you may find
them a rather useful basis for showing the Australian producer how
large a load of responsibility the new Merchandise Marks Bill [15]
and the Publicity Campaign, which the Government is about to
inaugurate, places on his shoulders so far as quality, regulation
of supplies and orderly marketing are concerned.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL

I listened to Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister's [16] second reading
speech on this Bill in the House of Commons and to a considerable
portion of the Debate that followed and, two or three days later,
in the course of an interview with Mr. Amery, I asked him whether
he had carefully considered the memorandum which the Imperial
Economic Committee had submitted in which the Committee objected
to a choice being given to the retailer as to whether he should
mark goods with the name of the country of origin or with the
words 'Empire' or 'Foreign'. Mr. Amery stated that the Government
was perfectly aware of the Imperial Economic Committee's attitude
but, unfortunately, the views of the Governments of the Empire had
been solicited by cable and, on balance, the answers from the
Governments indicated that they would prefer marking with the name
of the country of origin. I told Mr. Amery that, in my opinion,
there was some little confusion and I did not think that the
Governments clearly distinguished between marking at the time of
importation and the requirements for marking by the retailer. Mr.

Amery asked me to write him a letter on the subject, which I did
and I enclose a copy herewith. I also decided to send a cable on
the 15th May, of which the following is the text:

Merchandise Marks Bill. British Government under impression Empire
Governments desire retailers to mark goods with name of country
rather than as Empire or Foreign. Imperial Economic Committee
attaches great importance to words 'Empire' and 'Foreign'. Please
see your cable H.M. Government on this subject, Imperial Economic
Committee's memorandum attached my letter 11th March and my letter
4th March. [17] If you agree with memorandum suggest you cable
Government.

AUSTRALIAN WINE

Since my letter of the 3rd February last [18] I have had a long
discussion with Sir Sydney Chapman [19] on Australian wines and I
asked him to write fully the point of view of the British
Government on the subject. I have just received a very lengthy
letter from Sir Sydney traversing the whole of the ground. I think
that you will find this letter quite useful to prepare your mind
before the Imperial Conference and I therefore forward a copy
herewith.

I am sending a copy of this communication to Major Oakley [20] as
I have had two or three communications from him on the subject of
wine.

In connection with Australian wines, I met Sir Park Goff, M.P.,
the Vice Chairman of the House of Commons Kitchen Committee, the
other day and as a result of our conversation, I wrote him a
letter to bring before the Kitchen Committee on the subject of
Australian wines and the Wine Card of the restaurants in the House
of Commons. I told him that on one occasion I was dining in the
House and a series of divisions took all my hosts away for about a
quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. To avoid boredom, I studied
the Wine Card and, being statistically minded, counted the wines
of foreign origin and the wines of Empire origin. I found 152
foreign wines, 3 South African and 1 Australian, the latter being
of a particularly unrepresentative character. I told Sir Park Goff
that Australia produced a certain quantity of really reputable
wine which no one need be ashamed to drink at dinner. Sir Park
Goff promised to bring the matter before the Kitchen Committee and
I hope that, as a result, we shall be able to get several
representative Australian wines on the Wine List.

My efforts to induce Clubs to stock good Australian wines have
been seriously hampered by the very high prices asked by the
Agents of the Australian companies. It is absurd to imagine that
people will cheerfully pay 7/6d. a bottle for even a good
Australian burgundy when they can get reputable Beaune for 5/- a
bottle or a very fair Pommard for 6/-. I am glad to say that at
least one Australian firm-Lindeman's-realising this difficulty,
are taking steps to ship a good dry wine in casks and to arrange
for bottling on this side of the world.

EMPIRE TRADE

In my letter of 29th April I referred to some articles published
by Mr. W. T. Layton [21] in the 'Manchester Guardian' and told you
that I was writing a letter to them on the subject. They published
my letter on 30th April and I enclose a copy herewith. [22]

In the same letter I referred to Commdr. Hilton Young's [23]
remarks on the Budget. I was so impressed with the excellence of
his points, especially coming from such a quarter, that I drew the
attention of the 'Times' to his speech and suggested that they
might find it a useful peg on which to hang a leading article. The
'Times' published on 1st May the article which I suggested, of
which I enclose a copy.

I also enclose a copy of the 9th article on the Economic Problems
of the Empire from the 'Times Trade Supplement'. [24]

THE 'TIMES' EMPIRE DAY NUMBER

Yesterday the 'Times' published its Empire Day Supplement and I
read with the greatest of interest your message. If you take the
trouble to read the other messages from the Prime Ministers of the

Empire, you will notice that you alone have left the dull but safe
ground of pious platitude and rubbed in the great importance of
the economic issue. I wrote for this Supplement an article which I
had intended should have been called 'Empire Trade 1923-26' but
which the Sub-Editor dished up under the title of 'Trade under the
Flag'. I enclose a copy of my article which I hope you will find
of some interest. Apparently as I wrote it, the article was a
little longer than would fit into the space allotted and,
unfortunately, the Sub-Editing was far from intelligent, the
paragraphs cut out just destroying the contrast between 1923 and
1926 which I had intended to make a special feature of the
article. I am therefore attaching a copy of the article as I wrote
it with the portions that have been omitted marked.

EXPORT CONTROL

On the 17th of May, on the Board of Trade Vote, Mr. A. V.

Alexander, a front bench Labour Member, who was the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Board of Trade in the Labour Government, raised
the question of the effect of New Zealand, and, to a less extent,
Australian Export Control legislation on Great Britain and Sir
Philip Cunliffe-Lister replied. I enclose the pages of the Hansard
containing the report of this portion of the debate.

Mr. Alexander stated in his speech that he had, on an earlier
date, asked the question without notice on this subject. After
that question was asked, I wrote to Cunliffe-Lister giving him a
brief account of the Australian point of view and enclosing a copy
of the interview with Sir James Cooper [25], published in the
'Imperial Food journal', of which I sent you a copy with my letter
of the 29th April. Cunliffe-Lister made quite an effective answer,
except in the last sentences, in which he appears to have
neglected the all important question of produce returning a price
to the producer which will cover his cost of production.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

On 19th May I cabled to you as follows:

Imperial Economic Committee commenced Dairy enquiry yesterday. It
proposes to include Butter, Cheese and all milk products,
Margarine and its raw materials, Eggs and Poultry in scope of
Dairy Produce enquiry. First meeting Amery's spending body
tomorrow. Clearly realised that body is temporary and subject to
full consideration at Imperial Conference.

I cabled the proposed scope of the Dairying enquiry in order to
give your Government an opportunity of suggesting any further
addition or modification of the subjects which it was proposed to
include under the general head of Dairy Produce.

At the first meeting, the London Agency of the New Zealand Dairy
Produce Export Control Board attended as witnesses and Mr. Motion
was closely cross-examined by Sir Thomas Allen (the representative
of the Co-operative Wholesale Society) on the New Zealand Export
Control methods. On the whole Mr. Motion impressed the Committee
very favourably.

Since the first meeting, we have had two sittings, at which
witnesses from the Irish Free State gave evidence. The Committee
is sitting all day tomorrow taking further evidence from the Irish
Free State and next Tuesday the London Agency of the Australian
Dairy Produce Board will be in the witness chairs.

I have arranged with Major King [26] that he should give evidence
on this occasion and that Sir James Cooper should be invited to
give evidence at a later stage in the enquiry on general problems
and particularly on the finance of the industry.

The Committee tentatively decided at the first informal meeting to
set up 2 Sub-Committees, one to deal with Eggs and Poultry and the
other to deal with Margarine and the edible oils and fats. South
Africa, Ireland and New Zealand all desired to serve on the Eggs
and Poultry Sub-Committee and I, therefore, arranged with Forsyth
[27] of the New Zealand Delegation, with whom I would keep in
close touch, to see that Australian egg interests receive due
consideration in the work of the Sub-Committee and, on the strong
request of the representatives of the Crown Colonies and India, I
consented to serve on the Margarine Sub-Committee.

I have been anticipating that either Sir Mark Sheldon [28] would
have been returning to London or else that you would have made
some other temporary appointment on the Imperial Economic
Committee for the Dairy Produce enquiry. I thought it possible,
for instance, that you might have asked Mr. John Sanderson [29] to
have served.

PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE

I have already informed you that the Government have appointed Mr.

F. N. Blundell [30], M.P., to be the British representative of
Agriculture on the Committee and told you that I considered this a
most suitable appointment. Mr. Blundell attends accompanied by an
advisor from the Minister of Agriculture.

I understand that Mr. W. S. Crawford, the Advertising specialist,
is on the point of resigning from the Imperial Economic Committee
as he has been asked to serve on the Empire Marketing Board. The
Government will, I think, be glad to receive Mr. Crawford's
resignation and will probably appoint a Member of Parliament-
possibly Mr. WardlawMilne [31]-in his place.

It is also probable that Sir Algernon Firth [32] will resign at
the end of the present enquiry and the name of Lord Lovat has been
suggested as a very suitable leader to the British Delegation.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD

The first informal meeting of the Empire Marketing Board took
place on the 20th of May. Mr. Amery was in the Chair and there
were also present Mr. Ormsby-Gore, who has been appointed Vice-
Chairman, Lord Bledisloe, Parliamentary Secretary to the
Department of Agriculture, Major Elliot [33], Under-Secretary of
State for Scotland, Sir William Clark, representing the Department
of Overseas Trade and five Members of the Imperial Economic
Committee. The Canadian Delegate [34] was not present nor was Sir
Thomas Allen from the British Delegation.

Mr. Amery explained that he was making the first meeting informal
as it had been represented to him that it was desirable that he
should inform the Governments of the Empire of the proposed
personnel before the names were published. I suggested to Mr.

Amery that in cabling to the Governments of the Empire, he should
make it perfectly clear that the constitution of the Empire
Marketing Board was purely of a temporary nature pending full
discussion at the Imperial Conference and to lay especial emphasis
on the fact that the members of the Board were serving in a purely
advisory capacity, the whole of the responsibility resting upon
the Secretary of State.

Mr. Amery agreed that this would be desirable. I felt that in this
way the possible objections from South Africa and Canada would be
over-come.

There was a most interesting discussion principally on the subject
of Research, in which I took the opportunity of stressing as
vigorously as I could the importance of the Empire Marketing Board
making arrangements whereby the producers both in this country and
particularly overseas should be made aware of the work that was
being undertaken both as regards research and publicity on their
behalf. I was very glad to see that both Mr. Amery and Mr. Ormsby-
Gore strongly supported this point of view.

Towards the end of the sitting Lord Bledisloe, on behalf of
British Agriculture, made a suggestion that a definite percentage
of the Annual Grant should be allotted to British Agriculture. I
pointed out that while I could raise no objection to such a course
if it was considered desirable by the Secretary of State, yet the
Imperial Economic Committee, after most careful thought, had come
to the conclusion that any allocation of the Annual Grant in the
form of percentages to the various Dominions and Colonies would
prove a most hopeless and unwelcomed undertaking and that I very
much hoped that Lord Bledisloe's suggestion would be most
carefully weighed before the Board agreed. I was again pleased to
find that Mr. Amery supported this point of view and was again
strongly seconded by Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Yours sincerely,
F. L. MCDOUGALL