My dear Prime Minister,

I have to acknowledge your two letters of March 20th, one of which
dealt with a number of points raised in my letters to you and the
other with the British Government's proposal to use E. M. B. funds
to advertise the British Industries Fair. [1]

I am very glad that you liked Low's [2] cartoon. The
ineffectiveness of Amery [3] in this country has been particularly
evident since his return. I think that he was really very
overtired when he got back. I had a talk with him yesterday and I
think he is recovering but an incident which occurred last night
in the House of Commons will have damaged him to a very
considerable extent in the Party and in the country.

BUDGET INCIDENT

Yesterday Churchill [4] had to remain at home owing to a
temperature, probably caused by overstrain. In his absence, the
new Financial Secretary to the Treasury-Arthur Michael Samuel-had
to hold the fort. Everything went alright until a trivial question
on the new duty and excise upon Mechanical Fire Lighters came up.

Churchill has proposed a duty of 6d. on each mechanical fire
lighter and a countervailing excise of 6d., the whole intention
being to protect the substantial revenue derived from the duty and
excise on matches and to discourage the use of mechanical fire
lighters.

One of my protectionist friends-Ramsden [5], the member for North
Bradford-quite in the ordinary course of a debate, moved an
amendment urging that the excise should be reduced to 3d. so as to
encourage the manufacture of mechanical fire lighters in this
country. This was seconded and Samuel replied that he could not
accept the amendment. Esmond Harmsworth [6] then supported the
amendment and Samuel, who was sitting on a front bench empty of
Cabinet Ministers except for Amery, after a whispered consultation
with Amery got up and said that, as the revenue effect of the
amendment would be so trifling, he was prepared to accept it on
behalf of the Government. Immediately there was a storm in the
House, Snowden [7] and Sir John Simon [8] making it clear that
they regarded this as a most serious thing. An adjournment of the
House was moved and for two hours a debate went on, the main point
of which was that the Financial Secretary had no right, in the
absence and without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, to give away a definite point in the Chancellor's
programme. Finally the Government had to be rescued by the Chief
Whip [9], who had arranged with Ramsden for the withdrawal of the
amendment on the understanding that it could be raised on the
Finance Bill when the Chancellor would be present.

The scene has received a great deal of publicity in this morning's
press and Samuel's reputation as a parliamentarian, already poor,
has been, I should imagine, hopelessly damaged but Amery's
reputation, as a serious politician, must also be regarded as
having been considerably affected. It was a stupid business as I
have no doubt you will agree.

A few hours before this occurred, I was discussing with several
Members the reason why the Government had decided to invite Walter
Elliot [10] to assist the Chancellor in the heavy work entailed in
the passage of the Budget and the Finance Bill through the House
of Commons. I had asked whether it was not felt that this
invitation reflected rather seriously on the capacity of the
Financial Secretary-Samuel. I was told that there was no doubt
about that and that the personal relations between Samuel and
Churchill were so bad that Samuel had complained bitterly over the
fact that the Chancellor treated him with the utmost contempt and
that the Treasury Officials regarded him as a cipher. What the
upshot of all this will be is impossible to say. It is hardly
probable that it will embarrass the Government but I think it is
certain to affect the political future of Samuel and I should not
be surprised at it having a considerable effect upon Amery's own
prospects.

While referring to Churchill, I should like to draw your attention
to what I think is the best political phrase that I have heard for
a very long time. Speaking the other day Churchill said that
socialism was a deficiency disease, in fact it might be described
as 'political rickets'. You are, of course, aware that rickets in
human beings and animals is due either to a lack of sunshine or to
a lack of proper food (Vitamin D). The idea of socialism as a
disease, due to unsatisfactory social conditions, could not have
been more ably expressed. Perhaps on some occasion you may find
this phrase of considerable service.

COMMONWEALTH TRADE UNION CONFERENCE

On Wednesday I sought out J. H. Thomas [11] in the House of
Commons to discuss with him the prospects of the forthcoming
Commonwealth Trade Union Conference being made of use in the
development of Empire understanding and spirit in Labour quarters.

Thomas said that it was quite futile to discuss anything of the
sort. His own phrase was that the Conference would simply be 'b-dy
tripe' and that he did not propose to associate himself in any way
with it; in fact he might refuse to be present.

BRITISH MEAT SUPPLIES

I should particularly like to refer you to my letter of the 26th
April [12], pages 6-8. I am now enclosing a very important
resolution proposed by Sir Merrik Burrell [13], seconded by Sir
Archibald Weigall [14] and carried unanimously by the Royal
Agricultural Society of England. [15] The Commonwealth Veterinary
Officer [16] here has been consulting me about the idea of the
compulsory storing of all meat imported from countries affected by
foot and mouth disease. He has for some time had the idea in mind
and he made the suggestion that the High Commissioner [17] should
write to the 'Times' pointing out how slight would be the effect
of such a requirement upon the British trader and consumer.

I have very strongly advised that, instead of the High
Commissioner taking any action, this information should be
communicated to British agricultural people with the idea that
they should use it, In my view it is possible that the British
Government may come to a decision that it is desirable to insist
on Argentine meat being stored or otherwise treated to eliminate
the danger of infection. Should this prove to be the case, I feel
sure that the British Government will want to put the matter
purely on a veterinary basis and would only be embarrassed by the
raising of this issue from the High Commissioner which would
suggest to everyone economic reasons for quarantine action.

I am enclosing the Hansard of the Budget Discussion on Mechanical
Lighters [18], which you may find interesting to look at.

Yours sincerely,
F. L. MCDOUGALL