I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could give us any indication as to when the elections for the Senate are likely to be held. It is a matter of very great importance to many members on both sides because many will have to travel a long distance to Cape Town or to Pretoria as the case may be, and it is difficult to make arrangements when this is hanging in the air.

I may say the idea is to have the dissolution as soon as the House rises and—immediately after the necessary limit of time, I believe 14 days or so—we shall proceed with the election, that is, as soon as possible after the dissolution.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 3, “House of Assembly,” £128,780, put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister and External Affairs,” £73,111,

I wish to move—

—not from any ill-will, because I am sure this pay is fully earned, but because I want to discuss the question of the policy of the Government in regard to our external relations. I am precluded by the rules of the House from referring to the speech, the very provocative speech I may say, with which the Prime Minister concluded the debate on the budget on Monday night. That speech was full of contentious matters, and if there had been opportunity one would have liked to have said a word on those matters, but the rules prevent me, and I am restricted to certain specific matters which I wish to raise on this motion.

You cannot refer to the speech, but you can discuss the matter.

Yes, I shall discuss specific matters which I wish to raise under this motion.

I want to say a few words on the position in which we now are in reference to the German treaty. As the committee is aware we have on former occasions very fully discussed that treaty, and we have stated from this side the objections which we entertained towards it. We have attacked it on the ground of policy. We have said that it makes a very serious and far-reaching inroad into the policy of preference which has been existing in this country for a long time, and we have also attacked it because we have held that a treaty of such far-reaching importance for the economic life of this country should have been submitted to Parliament for ratification. These two points were very fully argued before, and I do not want to enter into those aspects to-day. We do not change our opinion; we hold, if possible, more strongly now than before that the Government made a very grave blunder in entering into that treaty and in weakening the policy of imperial preference which is of such importance for the growing industries of the country. But now a third point has emerged which brings the whole subject into very grave confusion. During the debate on the budget the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) raised the question of the dumping duty which the Government has recently imposed on some German importations into this country. The action of the Government in imposing such a dumping duty was clearly in conflict with the terms of the treaty. Article 8 of the German treaty makes it perfectly clear that we could not differentiate against German products and that we had no right to impose any such dumping duty. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) the Minister of Justice made a statement which seemed most disconcerting to this House and raised an entirely new aspect of the matter. He declared the treaty was signed subject to the most definite retention by the Union Government of its rights to impose dumping duties, and that the Germans were under no wrong impression on this point, so that there was no question of arbitration or of invoking article 23 of the treaty; although this might not be provided for in the express words of the treaty the treaty was signed subject to that proviso. This raises a very important point. We have debated this treaty fully. The point raised by my hon. friend during the debate on the budget had been raised by him and by other members before when we attacked the German treaty. This point which has now been made by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Government was never made before. We always took it we had before us the treaty, the whole treaty and nothing but the treaty, and our whole discussion on previous occasions has taken place on that assumption. But now at this late stage we are informed by the Government that that is not so; that there were stipulations or conditions or reservations to this treaty which were never disclosed to the House or to this country, but of which the Germans were aware, and which close their mouths so that they cannot raise any objection. I submit this is a most serious state of affairs. The House was asked solemnly to ratify the treaty, and now it is ratified, we are informed by the Government: “Oh, that is not the treaty, there is something more behind it. There are undisclosed stipulations or reservations on which we are acting and of which the country was not aware.” I think this is a most lamentable state of affairs, and the Government ought to be very severely criticized for the manner in which they have dealt with this question. Now the Government knew perfectly well what lines to adopt. They had before them a precedent which was perfectly clear. They were following almost word for word, except for a few articles, the wording of the Anglo-German treaty of 1924. That Anglo-German treaty was placed before the British Parliament, and not only the treaty, but all the correspondence that bore on it. All the reservations or stipulations, or whatever the two Governments had agreed upon supplementary to the terms of the treaty, were published with the treaty and put before Parliament. I have this treaty before me, and I see it has a number of annexures. There are no fewer than eight different annexures giving the correspondence which was binding on the two Governments in addition to the express terms. This the Government had before them. They had this precedent before them. They chose to ignore it and treated this House and the country with contempt, and have kept back certain information. Certain parts of the agreement have not been placed before us. My hon. friend put a notice on the question paper to elicit this information, and the Minister’s reply to that was that he wanted more time. I should have thought it would have been the easiest thing in the world to place before the House the information which the Government had in its possession. We are now debating the matter without any clear and explicit information, but on the statement of the Minister of Justice that there were other terms and reservations which justified the Government in taking this action, apparently in conflict with —

I replied to this question on Friday, and it can be dealt with again on the Mines Bill.

My reply is that the Government should at once supply this information that was wanted. The treaty as it stands to-day is a matter of confusion and uncertainty. There may be secret understandings which bind this Government; but, suppose there is a change of Government, is another Government to be bound by the secret understandings and conversations between representatives of the German Government and the Government of the Union? We are now, as a country, put in this invidious position that we are entering into a treaty, and it is not clear, as it is put before the House, and the country, so that they do not know where they are. This is a contentious matter, and it has been fought over, and to-day we have not yet got finality. If these are to be precedents, if this is the way we are going to deal with our external relations, I can foresee only great confusion and eventual difficulties. I hope the Minister will give us the information to-day and explain to us and the country exactly what are these additional terms, conditions and regulations. Let us have the whole story before us. Why should we have this secrecy? The Prime Minister says he is against secret diplomacy; so are we all. I want to say a word about this preference question, which, to my mind, is one of the most important questions which can be raised in the interests of the country, and whatever theoretical views we may hold on the preference question, one thing is quite clear—our economic policy has been based for many years on the preference. We have given preference to Great Britain and the other dominions, and more recently we have had preference extended to us in return. It is not a matter of theorising, but has become part and parcel of the policy of our country, and we should speak quite clearly and with clear views on this policy. There should be no misunderstanding about this. The last year or two the Government has seemed more than lukewarm on this question. I have always gathered the impression—I may be wrong—as if the Government were frankly hostile to this policy. In 1925 they reduced the list of preferential subjects very materially, and some years later followed it up by this German treaty which made this preference policy less feasible.

On a business footing.

That is a different policy.

I thought you had been converted to this.

My hon. friend knows I have never been dominated by the sentimental policy. I am looking at it from the practical business aspect of the country. For a course of years we have been building on these preferences which were provided in the British market and encouraged our fruit-growers and other producers to bank on this and embark on a forward policy. Australia has gone further than we have. To my mind, it is very late in the day either for this Government or the British Government to turn back and repudiate this policy. I cannot criticize the British Government, which has its own views on the matter, and we must leave them to deal with their own affairs; we can put the matter only from the point of view of South Africa and its interests, and we can point out that, apart from all the abstract considerations, and looking at the matter practically, we have trusted to the arrangements made in the past and embarked on a policy of production. If at this late hour, a change were to take place because a change of Government has taken place in England, it would be a very serious matter for us. Surely, in the interests of the empire at large, of South Africa and of all members of this great group, the matter must be looked at with wide vision, and no precipitate action should be taken. I hope our Government will protect the interests of South Africa in this matter. There is no doubt that the policy of preference has meant, means, and in future will mean, a very great deal to the producers in South Africa. Whether we look to sugar, fruit or wine, or any form of agricultural production in South Africa, we have in this protection a pull which will mean in future a tremendous lot to us. Take the case of tobacco; to take one particular case, we do not export much yet to Great Britain; the people there have not yet learnt a taste for our tobacco, and we have not found a market there; but we want only more time. The taste is said to be very good indeed. Rhodesia is making very great efforts, and not without success, to induce people to smoke our tobacco, and there is a great opening here. In Great Britain enormous quantities of tobacco come from America. In the preference we have a pull of over 2s. per pound weight for our tobacco, and hon. members can understand what an enormous advantage that must be in the long run and under such a powerful shelter to build up a real flourishing tobacco industry in South Africa. In this country we are always faced with the situation that our market is too small. Whatever we produce we almost immediately overrun the limits of the local market. And here we have this enormous market abroad, and to my mind we would be studying the interests of South Africa if this system were retained, and if we made fullest use of it. I have mentioned the case of tobacco, but we know what advantages we already get in the case of sugar and dried fruit and wine. Already we can say that this preference system is going to be a solution of all the troubles experienced for a generation in the wine industry. If this preference system is continued, our wine farmers will be free from troubles for many a day. It is the same more or less with the sugar people. Let the Government adopt this policy heartily, and let them press on the British Government to the fullest extent the practical economic aspects as they present themselves to the dominions. I am sure that the other dominions will press this matter very hard, and I think in the interests of South Africa we are justified in hoping that our Government will also do their very best to make the British Government realize that this is a question of practical far-reaching importance. There has been talk of an economic conference. I asked the Minister yesterday whether any steps were likely to be taken. I could not gather clearly from him whether such a conference would be held before the Imperial Conference, but whether it is held before the Imperial Conference, or after the Imperial Conference, I do hope that our Government will do everything in their power to help our country by the retention of this system of preference, and by that means give us the market we need so badly. Here is the best market in the world. Every nation is pressing on this British market, and if we retain there the advantages we have at present, I can see a great economic development benefiting the people of this country. With regard to our trade relations in Africa generally, I was pleased to see a statement by the Minister of Agriculture at Pretoria at the Pan-African Conference that the Union looked to the north for markets. It seemed almost like a change of heart. When I remembered how the north had been spoken of in recent months, I felt a glow of satisfaction on reading the Minister’s statement. You don’t extend markets by insulting people. I agree fully with what the Minister of Agriculture said on that occasion, that we must look to the north, and I hope the Government will bear that in mind, and that whilst they are doing their best to foster the development of exports in other directions, they will remember that Africa is going to be our greatest market for years to come. For our farmers and our manufacturers a very great opening is beginning there. It will be very difficult for us to make the products of our industries compete with the products of America and Europe. Our factories for many years to come will not produce the class of article which will enable us to compete with the great centres of production in the old world. But here is Africa, our natural market, our hinterland, destined by nature to be a market for our produce in the future. I impress very strongly upon the Government to do whatever they can to develop that market. Col. Turner, our representative in Kenya, is a real live wire, and has done his work well. He points out in his latest report what can be done to develop our trade. The natives in the north are making progress. The cotton crop of Uganda this year alone will bring £4,000,000 into the pockets of the native people there. That shows what an opportunity there is to push our products, and to find a market in those areas among the native peoples. I wish to impress upon the Government the great importance when they are appointing representatives to push our trade, of not forgetting Africa, and of remembering that we have probably in the long run a more important market awaiting development for us there than anywhere else in the world. I see that the Government will probably have to hold a conference again with regard to the customs union with the Government of Southern Rhodesia. I hope the Government will do its utmost at that conference to see that the bonds between Rhodesia and us are drawn tighter rather than loosened. We should never forget that Rhodesia has always been destined to be a part of the Union. At the time of Union this was held in view, and Rhodesia has been in the customs union. She has been treated as part of the Union, and I hope that policy of special friendship will be continued. It is a thousand pities from the point of view of this country that Rhodesia did not become part of the Union some years ago, and it is only due to insane propaganda in this country that Rhodesia did not come in. I wish to assure hon. members on the opposite side of the House that in years to come we may find a most important market for our products in not only Southern but also in Northern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia, we are told by most authoritative people, is going to be one of the greatest markets in Africa. The mountains of copper found there may lead to development in a few years such as we have seen on the Witwatersrand. I should not like to see the producers of this country cut off from that great market. I do hope that the Government will take the long view, and secure for the people of this country the possibilities of trade expansion that lie there. I wish to say a few words on our foreign representation, which figures prominently on the Prime Minister’s estimates. I see that we are to have envoys extraordinary and ministers plentipotentiary in countries in Europe. I wish to say at the outset that there is no question of right involved in this matter at all. Nobody disputes the status of this country, or the right of this country to appoint its representatives abroad. We have a clear right, a definite status, and we can do so without any question being raised by anyone. But it is a practical question as to how far we should go. This question was put to the Prime Minister last year: “How far do you wish to go?” and what was his answer? Last year, two years after 1926, after he had come back from London with this gift of sovereign status in this country. Two years afterwards, in 1928, his answer was: “I am going to appoint a charge d’affaires abroad. We are finding it very difficult for our representatives with their undefined commercial status to do their job. We are going to raise some of the posts to a diplomatic position on the Continent.” That was the policy last year. This year he has gone much further. Not only does he maintain a commercial representative in the United States, U.S.A., Italy and Holland, but he adds these diplomatic representatives. It is going to be a great deal of expense to the country, something like an addition of £20,000 per year. The question is a purely practical one. How far are we to go? We have in twelve months gone from the previous status to having these ministers plenipotentiary.

Comic opera.

The Prime Minister has changed his mind with these years. These matters are going to affect our expenditure considerably. We are embarking on a course which will be a great deal of expense to this country. There is no question of our status as far as this side of the House is concerned. It has been fixed once for all. I would have given the representatives we have abroad diplomatic standing, but I do not think that our self-respect or our dignity requires that we should have these extraordinary envoys. I am not sure that we are not making ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the world. We need not ape the great powers. I am afraid the way we are going on that next year we shall have ambassadors too.

What is the difference?

I hope the Prime Minister will get information as to the difference between an ambassador and minister plenipotentiary.

What would the difference in status entail?

I believe the ambassador to the United States is paid £25,000 a year.

You are wrong.

Dollars, not pounds.

It will cost us much money. Let us be modest in these matters. It is not a question of status, but a question of being modest. It is no use making appointments which will be nothing to this country, except that people who lost their elections in this country will hold good positions. Coming to details, I fail to see why there is to be this high diplomatic officer at the Hague, when our interests are centred in France and Germany. The Prime Minister has reports from our commercial representative on the Continent, in which he points out that the bulk of our foreign trade is done with France and Germany, very little with Holland, more with Belgium, and little with Italy. In spite of these facts Germany is passed by, France is passed by, and relations are established with countries we have hitherto had very little commercial relations with. I think instead of sending these representatives round the Continent we should send a high class official to Geneva. It would be the best thing from the point of view of our interests, to have a first-class man representing us at Geneva, and I welcome the appointment of a representative to Geneva. Canada keeps a permanent man there of the highest class, and he is now a member of the Council of the League of Nations. That is the right policy, and it would be far better for us to appoint a very high-class man at Geneva rather than scatter these wonderful individuals around the rest of Europe. It is customary not to send a representative to a country unless a similar representative of the same standing is sent to yourself. If we send a minister plenipotentiary to the United States an agreement should be made with the United States to send a similar representative to us. It is a matter of reciprocity, and it would be a very severe indignity for us to send representatives abroad when there is no reciprocity in this matter. I hope the Prime Minister will bear that in mind. Has it been arranged with the Government of the United States that they will be represented at Cape Town or Pretoria by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary? Has a similar arrangement been made with Rome or the Hague, or are we going to suffer this indignity that we send representatives abroad and the Governments concerned do not deem it worthy to send similar representatives to us? That would be to expose South Africa to insult. I hope the countries concerned will not extend to us any less consideration than that which we extend to them. Therefore I ask what arrangements have been made that we shall have representatives from the Governments concerned of an equal standing to those we propose to send abroad. The Prime Minister has more than once criticized this party—my party—and he has put the matter on this basis: he says the South African party is for the empire, and his party is for South Africa, and the same tale is becoming a commonplace on the platform. I deny that entirely. The attitude which my party and I take up on these and other matters is that we want to protect the interests of South Africa, but that it is quite a wrong point of view to raise this unnecessary opposition between South Africa and the empire. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member not be permitted to conclude his speech?

The rules of order do not permit it.

Well, the hon. member will have an opportunity later. I just want to answer at once a number of points raised this afternoon. The hon. leader of the Opposition first discussed the German treaty. I will only say in this connection that nothing which has not yet been published will be kept back from any future Government that may come into power, and my hon. friend need not be afraid that if another Government came into office the day after to-morrow everything would not be in its place.

But the public ought to know.

The country will hear everything on which information is asked, but with all respect for the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) I think he is demanding too much if he says that it was the duty of the Government at that time to give the information about dumping which is now being given.

Of course.

I do not consider it a matter of course. The natural thing was to lay before the House everything on which we had agreed and which was included in the treaty, as for other matters of a subsidiary nature which were possibly also casually discussed and on which some understanding or other was reached, the treaty does not deal with them at all. As long as they are not mentioned in the treaty it has nothing to do with them. Dumping is a matter which concerns quite a different subject and about which there might just as well be a separate treaty. If when the treaty was before the House hon. members had put the question, they would have got the same answer as they have got now.

It was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter).

I do not recollect it but it possibly escaped the Minister’s notice when he was answering the question. That sometimes occurs in answering points.

It was also raised in the Senate.

I can only say that I do not know why it was not answered if it was raised. So far as the Government is concerned the hon. member will have got the information now supplied. Nothing was kept back which ought to have been made known. We could have given this information at any time. Then the hon. member mentioned the preference and expressed the hope that the Government would try and retain the preference for South Africa. We have in the past done everything in our power to retain the preference. The hon. member for Standerton says that we gave the impression as if we were now lukewarm, almost hostile towards preference. Why? From the first day this Government came into office it put into practice the policy of the hon. member for Standerton. It is indeed true that the hon. member subsequently tried to oppose us but we only did what he had striven for only a year before his resignation, namely, that the preference should be put on a quid pro quo basis, on a business footing. Since the revision of the tariff in 1925 we have always said that we attach the greatest importance and value to our trade with Great Britain and that we will always try to guarantee the trade. The hon. member said previously that we were encroaching on the imperial conference and indicated it again this afternoon. I deny it. Would the hon. member still maintain it after what according to the papers has possibly been done by the British Government? Will the hon. member still say so if what the newspapers state to be possible is actually carried out? Will he then continue to hold that it was a wrong step for our Government to enter into the treaty with Germany?

Yes.

In other words the hon. member is one of the men who says that whether we get anything from Great Britain or not we cannot in any case go to other countries to extend our markets, whether there is a market in England or not we must not go to other countries.

No, that is not my attitude.

But the treaty with Germany is nothing else but to find more markets for our produce. Was it anything more?

Yes, it encroaches on future preference.

“It encroaches on future preference from Great Britain”! It may happen that all the preference we enjoy will disappear, then we shall still have to count on something that we may get in the future and in the meantime we shall have to trifle with the good feeling of other nations. It is the old story once more; the hon. member for Standerton and the whole of his party have always adopted—here we have another proof—the Unionist attitude. According to them it cannot be thought of that anything should be done about which the question is not first asked beforehand: what does that imaginary empire state say? They tacitly adopt that as the basis and their whole political view is based on nothing else. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that it is not so, but let me then tell hon. members opposite that they must make their conduct harmonize with what they say. Every time, as happened this afternoon with regard to preference, it appears that it is purely British or imperial reasons which induce them to take action. If that is not the cause what is it then, in heaven’s name? Because this afternoon the hon. member for Standerton said that even if the British Government said that there would be no preference then we still dared not enter into such a treaty as the one with Germany. Why does the hon. member say that? “Because you must not forget that we may yet get further preference”! Let me tell the hon. member that it is asking too much of us who are taking practical action that we should pursue such imaginary things. No, we shall not do so. We still stand where we stood consistently with the attitude of the hon. member when he was still in office, namely, that we must try to live on the best possible footing with England, but we must see that the relations are on a business footing. We have always been prepared to stand by that attitude and will continue to do so. It was because we felt it that way that at the time of the debate on the German treaty we said over and over again: “We are only making the treaty for a short period because we do not know how soon it may be asked of us to make further concessions to England on account of the development of our markets there.” The hon. member further said that we must not lose sight of Africa as a market—indeed as one of our chief markets—I can tell him that this has weighed with the Government since 1924. We have taken the necessary steps since 1924 to see that the way was prepared for the opening and extension of our markets in Africa. It is for this very reason that we put Col. Turner, who has previously represented the Union, on a more favourable basis and asked him to see that it was done. I admit that as matters are to-day it will undoubtedly be necessary to take further steps shortly to get further representation in Africa in order to develop our market. I do not know what the hon. member meant by saying that we shall not extend the markets if we insult those countries.

You called them Kaffir states.

It is a good thing I asked the question. What insult is there in that?

To call them Kaffir states is intended as an insult.

No, pardon me—

It means that they are not good company for us.

It was intended to counter the foolish policy of the hon. member for Standerton and if it is necessary the phrase will be used again. But I ask once more what insult to the northern states there can be in it? My sympathy for the states in the north is very strong. I know what we went through in South Africa in the past when people from England wanted to adopt the same line of conduct to us as they are doing today to the northern states. There was a time when we were on the point of getting that policy adopted here. I sympathize with the Europeans there but the fact remains that those territories are governed by the British Government on a basis of the native first, to-day, to-morrow, and always. That has been repeatedly told us in reports on those territories. Only four or five months ago there was another report and in that all the rest is again repeated and the same attitude taken up, namely, that the previous policy of the British Government in those territories was the right one, that the interests of the natives must take precedence of the Europeans, and if there is a conflict between the interests of the Europeans and the natives then the interest of the natives must prevail? Is that not correct? Does that not amount to Kaffir state and Kaffir policy? Are states which are governed on those lines white men’s countries? Are they so, when we think that in those territories there are more than 13,000,000 natives and some hundreds of thousands of Asiatics and only 13,000 Europeans? If the people who govern say that they are native states and must remain so and that they will be governed on behalf of the natives what right has any person to say that it is an insult to call them Kaffir states? As long as they are governed in that way no one dare regard them as anything else. If the hon. member for Standerton said that we should try to do something—

This speech is intended to advertise our markets in Africa!

No, it is intended to publish the truth and to prevent lies. Whether our markets are affected by it or not I want the truth first and then markets. It is because in the past we have tried to shut our eyes to actual facts and to live on lies that we are what we are to-day in South Africa.

What is the lie?

Is is implied in your statement that they are white states.

But they are trying to become so.

Let them try and then they will become so. So long however as they are not so I must regard them as they are.

You are making an enemy of Africa.

If they are so stupid —

You are making an enemy of the empire and of Africa.

Do you see that? Precisely. These people cannot get away from the empire. The hon. member now repeats: “You are making an enemy of the empire.” They have the empire on the brain. Their whole policy cannot be otherwise than based on that imaginary empire state. The hon. member has again said that we must not forget that Rhodesia is practically ready to become a part of South Africa in the future. Yes, I do not think that I have ever forgotten or shall ever forget it, but then the hon. member also spoke of “silly propaganda” which a few years ago was the cause of Rhodesia keeping out of the Union. I know the “silly propaganda” which so annoyed the Rhodesians against the hon. member for Standerton. They nearly stoned him. He went there for propaganda purposes and it was so foolish and mad—what did he effect?

It was the secession policy.

Very well then there must have been others besides the hon. member who made insane propaganda. I have several times heard from Rhodesian people of their complaining about it and I have seen letters in the newspapers complaining that the hon. member for Standerton, our Prime Minister at the time, played such a foolish part—they said so—as to go and tell the people while a general election was pending that they ought to follow a certain course. Just imagine while a general election is on the Prime Minister from a neighbouring state going to the people in the neighbouring state to persuade them to take a certain course! I must honestly say that I quite agree with the people in protesting against such bad taste. As for our diplomatic representatives abroad I am glad the hon. member says that the policy I announced to this House last year, namely, the appointment of charges d’affaires had received and still has his approval. He even went so far as to say that it was a sound policy but he now wants to know why I have abandoned it and adopted the appointment of extraordinary envoys and plenipotentiary ministers. I just want to say that after thinking over the matter again and consulting other people who are possibly even greater authorities than the hon. member himself I found that we could not attain the object we desired in any case, and the recommendation I then adopted was to follow the line we now intend to adopt and to appoint the extraordinary envoys. The hon. member fears that we may still resort to the appointment of full ambassadors. Well I do not think that we shall do so because it is not necessary, but as for the money the hon. member spoke of it makes little difference. The whole question is whether it is necessary for us to have embassies abroad. I do not doubt it for a minute and even say that it is called for. The hon. member is quite right when he says that we shall also have to consider the appointment of similar ambassadors in Berlin and France. It is clear that that time will come. It is a requisite for any state in the world practically from the earliest times that it should have embassies. We must do it in the first place to find the necessary markets for our produce. We are to-day selling produce abroad but it is of great importance for us to get into the best books of the nations to whom we want to sell in future. The embassies are therefore primarily to make it as easy as possible to win the friendship of other countries more especially in the interests of the disposal of our produce. What is strange to me in hon. members opposite is that we are always running up against a lack of South African sentiment—a thing which we almost regard as lack of national spirit. Is there a single country in the world—T am speaking of free independent countries which would take up the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton and say that no ambassadors should be sent? The argument of the hon. member again comes down to this that we have British embassies in all parts of the world but I just want to say—and I feel that I am speaking on behalf of the great majority of South Africans—that I still have enough self-respect to feel that if we want to be respected abroad, as we ought, and would like, to be respected, we can no longer simply shelter ourselves behind Great Britain. There are few things that we ought to appreciate more than the readiness with which the whole British machinery of embassies has been placed and is still being placed at our disposal, but still we are not altogether beggars and I am not prepared to allow the work to be constantly done only by British ambassadors. There is moreover certain work to be done which we cannot expect the British ambassadors to do. If we demand and desire the esteem of foreign powers we must take this step. The hon. member spoke about the salaries of ambassadors, £25,000. Yes, the embassies of Great Britain in America and Paris cost a large sum, but that includes the offices, the officers, etc. The hon. member will note that we are paying the same salaries to all the ambassadors but where the cost of living is high a small allowance is given. It all amounts to the large sum which the hon. member has mentioned. It is a matter of a few thousand pounds and I want to say at once that if it is necessary—I do not say we are going to do so—levy certain fees which are now paid, that the embassies will then possibly pay for themselves over and over again. I do not want to commit myself in any way about that, and as I have said it is still doubtful, I think, how far we should go in that direction. They are however charged to-day. Hon. members also asked what the people were going to do. I have not the least doubt that at the start the ambassadors will have very little to do but that has always been so the whole world through. The ambassadors will be engaged all day in getting everything ready and making contacts which are not visible and which cannot be valued in pounds, shillings and pence. Their duty primarily is not to create trade relations but to prepare invisible bonds. The hon. member for Standerton wants us to go to work in a different way. I do not think that I am over-doing it with these three embassies. There are many nations in the world, and three embassies are certainly not many. No it is clear to me that if it should later be necessary, so far as Germany and France are concerned, then no one will be able to say that there is any extravagance and that it ought not to be done. The hon. member for Standerton himself said this afternoon that the trade relations which had been established with those countries were of such a kind as he would have expected. Well I feel that we shall come to see whether it ought to be done here. We cannot run away from our obligations, they are national obligations which we must observe and which are demanded by our own interests and dignity. Now the hon. member asked me whether arrangements had been made with America, Italy and Holland to get an assurance that they would in their turn return the compliment we were paying them. No, I think that is a matter which we are called upon to leave to them. I am convinced that we need not be afraid that one of them will not do so, if politeness demands it. If it is not done it will be necessary for us subsequently to consider the matter; I can only say that two of the countries without being asked have told us that they were going to do so. I think however that there are certain things which we must accept which apply and must be observed just as much amongst nations as amongst private individuals. I am not prepared to think that nations will be less courteous towards each other than is usually the case in private life. If that does not happen then there is always the opportunity of reconsidering the matter.

I did not expect the Prime Minister to reply so heatedly. I do not intend to provoke a big argument and I do not know why he has put his remarks in such warm phraseology. I do not think it was necessary because we are dealing with a matter of great importance to the country and with something which is a new development. It is therefore absolutely necessary to discuss the matter calmly and composedly. Let me say that I am sorry to learn from the Prime Minister that there is no agreement with other Governments about reciprocity in representation. In my opinion South Africa is not going to do honour to itself or be worthy of its status by sending envoys. The only thing there is in the whole matter is that other powers honour us and send representatives to us of the same rank; as far as I know it is customary amongst nations that when envoys are sent it is agreed upon that envoys of the same rank shall be sent. Otherwise you merely lay yourself open to insult. If we send an envoy to Washington without one of equal rank at the same time being sent to us then there is no doubt it is an insult to South Africa and if the Government wants to uphold its honour it will be immediately required to recall its envoy. I am sorry that the Government has not protected the honour of the country and made arrangements beforehand but has waited the turn of events. It may possibly lead to an insult to South Africa and affect the honour of our country. I very strongly advise the House not to approve one of the envoys unless it has the assurance of the Government concerned that we shall have representatives of those states in Pretoria. There is another point I want to mention, namely, the argument of the Prime Minister that our attitude is Unionistic and that we do not regard business matters from the standpoint of the interests of South Africa but from the point of view of the interests of the empire—that we are dominated by the idea of the empire.

Is not that so?

I can tell my hon. friend that I have long since learnt that the Prime Minister has a very weak case when he uses that kind of argument. I have noticed that when he has no further argument he falls back on the British empire. Let me say clearly what my attitude was years ago on this point and still is. I regard the question of preference as a business matter, what I said years ago in the House and repeat as my opinion to-day is that we cannot forever go on with one-sided preference. The system has been in operation in South Africa since the end of the second war of independence and I warned the British Government in 1923 that in my opinion it was a system which would not be continued by the dominions and especially South Africa on a one-sided basis. That is still my attitude to-day. I went to the Imperial Conference and took up this attitude and in this I was supported by others. The Prime Minister repeatedly said that Australia would not continue with one-sided preference. This attitude caused the conversion of the British Government in 1923 and they realized that things could not continue so and that if preference meant anything to Great Britain they must give something in exchange. That is why preference has been adopted since 1923.

Why then did you object to our action in 1925?

My objection was that the British Government had met us by request.

The position still remains one-sided.

No. My hon. friend will understand that you cannot suddenly bring such a system into full working. If a preference is given on fruit, tobacco and wine then we are not going to reap the benefit of it at once. It is a thing which grows in time like a tree and in the course of a small number of years the preference which Great Britain is giving us will reach such dimensions that it will mean more to us than our preference to them.

The preference may increase on both sides.

No. The Minister will agree that the preference we receive from Great Britain grows faster than the preference we give and it will not take many years, if the export of fruit and sugar goes on as at present, before the British preference to us will be bigger than ours to her.

Then we will take action.

No, the difficulty is that the Government has laid down a policy by the German treaty which will make it impossible for South Africa to take action in the future. The Prime Minister’s sole argument now is that the treaty was only entered into for two years but it is difficult to get rid of a treaty when once it is entered into. You cannot play fast and loose with a great power, entering into a treaty which grants benefits one day and then two years later going to the other country and saying: “My friend, my interests are now different, I cannot go on with the treaty and now want something else.” When you have once taken a step expressing the policy of the Government it is difficult to depart from it. The Government will see in two years, if it possibly wishes to rid itself of the German treaty, that it will not be possible without much trouble, because Germany will then adduce arguments which will make it difficult to get release. No, I am in favour of building up the preference system. The struggle for markets is going to be very great in future and young countries like South Africa, Australia and Canada will have a difficult task in finding markets. The United States has now closed its markets to us and we know that it has now placed a customs duty on our wool; the more we export the more the customs duty will be. Unfortunately it looks as if the countries of the world are building tariff walls round themselves to pro tect their own products, and there is only one market in the world which is not only open to us but where a special benefit is given us. That is the British market. I hope the Government will take up the matter very seriously and will appreciate that the development of South Africa is bound up with the development of the preference system. The Union Government can use its influence with the British Government and persuade it that this is a very serious matter for us. I think that it will protect the interests of South Africa by that method. I do not want to go further into the question of envoys. With me it is a question of proportion. Our status is not at stake and no one can throw doubt upon our right to representatives abroad. It is a question of proportion and of remaining within bounds, in view of the youth of the state and its financial weakness, we cannot go and swagger abroad like great powers and even middle class powers, whatever our status may be. We are a young beginner and a small nation, therefore I hope the Government will remain within bounds. It seems to me the Prime Minister is moving fast. Last year he spoke about charges d’affaires and I was satisfied with that, because he then adopted an attitude which appeared to me to be reasonable. [Time limit.]

A very important question has been raised and the Prime Minister in replying to our leader elected to make his speech in Dutch. A few days ago an appeal was made from the Government benches that we on this side of the House should address the House in Dutch.

You do it now.

Unfortunately I cannot. The Prime Minister from almost the inception of this session has invariably spoken in Dutch.

Why not?

This question so intimately affects the English section that for once the Prime Minister might have condescended to reply in English to a debate that was started in English. I understand from the remarks made on both sides of the House that the question of preference is to be regarded as a business transaction. However, it has another aspect for many of us, and I say this with all deference to my leader, that many of us cannot dissociate the question of sentiment even from this matter of preference. It is for that reason that I regret that the bulk of the remarks from the Prime Minister are entirely lost upon me. I understand the Prime Minister did not reply to the question put to him by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as to whether he proposed to accede to the request of the British Government to attend the Imperial Economic Conference. Another point is the composition of the conference. Is it to be composed exclusively of Government representatives, or are other sections of the community to be represented, as has been suggested by Mr. Thomas. Another suggestion is that a permanent conference of experts should be set up in London to study preference from all possible angles, this body to report to a subsequent conference. The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware that a practical proposal has been made to this end. Does the Prime Minister propose to send any representatives to that committee? Rumour has it that the representative of the Union Government on the committee, which I believe has been set up to deal with some matters left over from the Imperial Conference, is to be Mr. Beyers, the late Minister of Mines and Industries? The subjects to be dealt with by the committee are also of very vital importance to those of us who are British, some of us old Unionists against whom the Prime Minister never ceases to jibe. How is that committee to be composed, and will only the Government be represented? Can the Prime Minister inform us the subjects to be dealt with by this committee? For instance, is the question of the continuance of the privy council to be one of the matters to be discussed? Is the question of the flying of the flag over Government House to be another? Generally I would like the Prime Minister to tell us what are the subjects that will be dealt with. I should have liked to deal with some other points, but the Prime Minister having apparently made up his mind to speak only in Dutch, my observations are necessarily limited.

That is your own fault.

How can the hon. gentleman say it is my own fault? I have done my best to acquire a working knowledge of Dutch, but the Prime Minister speaks Dutch of a type I cannot understand. I hope the Prime Minister will be good enough to give me the information I asked for in English.

I am extremely sorry the hon. member cannot understand my Dutch, but I think he will realize that when I speak in this House I am entitled to speak in the language which is my own and through which I can best express myself without its being taken amiss. I hope always to be as courteous as possible in this respect, but my hon. friends must forgive me if I tell them that I always feel I am handicapped if I have to express myself through the medium of their language.

No, you are not.

The hon. member wishes to know if I intend to accept the invitation to the Economic Conference. No economic conference has been decided upon yet. There was a suggestion made by one of the dominions that an economic conference separate from the Imperial Conference should be held, but I do not think that suggestion will be accepted. I have every reason to tell him that what will happen will be that the economic conference will again be held simultaneously with the sitting of the Imperial Conference. At such a conference those who have authority to decide upon policy, that is, the Ministers, must be present. It is found an impossibility to have the Imperial Conference held every three years because of the difficulty of Ministers getting away; and if they start multiplying these conferences, it will make it quite impossible. I do not think the country should run the risk of being ultimately ruled, not by Government but by imperial conferences. Then the hon. member asked me about a preference conference. I must say I know nothing about that.

A committee of experts who have studied preference.

No suggestion whatever has been made so far as this country is concerned. All I know is what I have seen in the papers with regard to the intention of the British Government with respect to preference, except we have been informed that the British Government will be soon discussing how to advance inter-dominion trade. That is all. Then the hon. member asked about the Constitutional Conference and whether only representatives of the Government are to be sent. Yes, I think he can see why it should be so. These questions will be very responsible and weighty questions. I do not think the Government ought to shirk its responsibility by trying to shift the onus on to others. The conference is going to be of only a technical nature. They can do nothing final. It can only reduce things to such a state that when the Imperial Conference meets, it will be all the more digestible, and can be disposed of in shorter time. Then he asked what are the questions which will arise. There are quite a number of questions, the Merchant Shipping Act, for instance, and matters regarding privy council appeal. He also asked me whether the flying of the flag over Government House is to be one. No, I should say not, except that whatever flag is flown there will be a question for us to decide and not the Imperial Conference, but I know other dominions take an interest in the question, and I have no doubt we shall exchange opinions.

I asked you whether Mr. Beyers was to be the Government’s representative.

Yes, I intend asking Mr. Beyers to be at the head of the conference. I intend having the delegation to consist of three, Mr. Beyers, and two others from my department.

I would like to revert for one moment to the German treaty and to discuss it in rather more detail. It would have been very much easier to have done so had the acting Minister of Mines and Industries replied to the question I put to him the other day which I gathered involves so much research and so much examination of records that instead of the information being available immediately, as one might, have concluded from his speech the night before, it requires a great deal of care and preparation. But, at any rate, I must take the matter as it stands at present, and I propose to discuss it on the information put before the committee. Before doing so, may I comment on the fact that whenever we have endeavoured to obtain information which was relevant and important to enable the country to understand the treaty, and the circumstances that surrounded its making, the answer was that it was not in the interests of the country that the Government should disclose the required information. I remember last February such a question was put to the Government, and the reply was that it was inexpedient to answer it. I asked again for the information, and was told two weeks ago that the Government did not consider it in the interests of the country that we should have the information I called for. I think the Government must not be surprised, if there is that reluctance to give information which can legitimately be called for, if we are left to draw our own conclusions, and if those conclusions are founded on inferences and deductions which are not, or do not seem to be, in accord with the actual facts, we must not be blamed. We cannot restrict an enquiry into matters which affect the trade and commerce of the country, and which are hot essentially diplomatic. This treaty is no more than a commercial treaty. It may regulate matters of greater importance in future; but as to the right of South Africa to impose a dumping duty, and the right of Germany to exercize similar rights, we are left entirely in the dark. This policy of secrecy represents an entire change in the policy of the Government. In 1925 there was a discussion whether in making treaties of this kind this House would be fully consulted. I have the words of the Prime Minister himself, and I would like to read them to him.

I would not deny it; I am still of the same opinion.

Let me read what he did say. In Hansard, Volume 4, 1925, page 2594 he says—

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) then interposed “In advance?” The Prime Minister replied—

Hear, hear.

Let me see how that compares with the statement made by the acting Minister of Mines and Industries with reference to the manner in which the German treaty was negotiated by the Government. I take it that the words as reported in the “Cape Times” report accurately what he said.

You will find the exact words in “Hansard.”

Although he may have corrected them (as he is, I admit, entitled to do), I will take the words I heard there, and which are reported here in this newspaper. If I am quoting what is not correct, he will put me right. He said—

This means that the question of dumping was, when the draft treaty was in process of consideration, meticulously considered by the Minister in charge. Why, may I ask, was that not put in the treaty? On the admission of the hon. gentleman himself, if there was this collateral agreement made on or before September the 1st, 1928, why was it not disclosed to the House, and what becomes of the declaration of the Prime Minister that the House was to be consulted? I would like to go a bit further and I would ask, is there any other undisclosed agreement in existence with Germany?

I shall reply to it.

May I enquire whether I shall get a full and an unequivocal reply to that?

Certainly.

If the Prime Minister leaves the country to draw its own inferences and deductions, he must not complain when hon. members assume—as he says they do—too much. I shall proceed on the assumption that there was a collateral agreement.

A wrong assumption.

I shall also deal with it on the footing that if it were not a collateral agreement made at that time, there was a collateral agreement made on a subsequent date. [Time limit.]

The complaint of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) amounts to this, that I did not immediately answer the questions he had put on the order paper. When did the hon. member hand in the questions? I saw them for the first time on Tuesday; did he possibly hand them in on Monday? Then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that it seemed strange to him that the questions were not answered. I have tried to make it plain why I could not answer them. Has the hon. member possibly not read the question? There are a number of questions, almost a complete page, and the information asked for is possibly not available in the country. The hon. member apparently does not even want to permit me to look into them; so much for that, but when the hon. member for Gardens on the other hand himself complains that they cannot get the information because I say that the hon. member apparently does not know what he is asking, and what information is necessary to answer it. But other hon. members as well asked why they were not answered. The matter is surely not so urgent; this question surely does not so much come under this vote as under mines and industries. The hon. member may rest assured that he will have his reply on Friday next. There is therefore time enough to debate the treaty under the mines and industries vote on the ground of the answer to the question. I mention this to put an end to the wrong assumption on which hon. members so much like to argue. I want to add this, that the German treaty, including Clause 8, must be read as it stands subject solely and only to this that the Union has in no way abandoned its right of imposing dumping duties and that Germany was and is aware of this and that in this respect it can make no claim to arbitration. If the hon. member wants to address the House further on the subject, he can do so, but in my opinion it comes rather under the other vote. As for me, I would prefer it discussed under the Mines and Industries vote when the hon. member will have the answer to his questions, before him.

If I understand the Minister correctly, he has read from some document which expresses a right on the part of the Union to impose this dumping duty, and which makes it clear that Germany would have no right to object to the imposition of that duty.

I have read from my notes, so that there will be no dispute upon what I said.

We are still without information from the hon. gentleman as to whether that collateral agreement was made on or before the first of September. He is prepared to read from some notes explaining his own words, but not for the purpose of informing the House of the actual contents of the supplementary document of which I speak. On the 16th of November this treaty was advertised for public information, and the country was informed that a treaty of that character had been made with Germany. We were not told that there was something in addition. In the middle of December, 1928, this treaty came before the Reichstag for consideration and approval. That was a necessary step in order to confer upon it validity, just as at a later date it was necessary to bring the whole treaty and nothing but the treaty before this House as a part of the “competent legislative authority." I ask the Minister whether I am not correct in saying that the only document approved by the National Assembly in Berlin was the treaty as published without this collateral agreement. I am correct so far as my information goes in making that statement. I presume that the Department of Mines and Industries sometimes has recourse to the international law expert recently employed by the Department of External Affairs, but I do not think that the Minister will contest the point that before a trade treaty can be binding upon Germany it must be approved, and approved wholly, by the National Assembly. Article 45 of the Weimar Constitution is, I think, clear on that point. What then has been approved of By that Assembly? The treaty as we know it, or the treaty with this collateral agreement? I should like to have some information on that point, because it seems to me to be very important. Those people who are engaged in trade and commerce, who must regulate their contracts involving considerable sums of money, are entitled to know by exactly what diplomatic instruments that treaty was rendered valid. I ask the Minister again; has that supplementary treaty had the approval of the National Assembly of Berlin? This matter came before the House in February. This House was asked to approve of the treaty. Not a word was said about the supplementary treaty. Not a word was said about the secret agreement. Not only was there a failure to disclose the terms of the secret treaty, but when the point was raised in this House, and it was pointed out that it constituted a serious defect in the treaty, that we would be bound to admit the surplus production of Germany without any power to prevent it, not a single word was said about the secret treaty. I wonder when we would have learnt of it if it had not been for the fact that the Government now desires to impose a dumping duty on German sugar. Let me take it a step further. We know that this treaty, to have any validity at all, must be registered, every line and every word, with the League of Nations, and presumably the Department of External Affairs has done its duty in this respect, and lodged this treaty at Geneva. Here we have the astonishing fact that a Government which has told us so much about “South Africa first” has put us in the position that when we as South Africans desire to know the terms of a treaty with Germany, we must go, not to Cape Town, but to Geneva. Let me say it is not a laughing matter. The Minister seems to think it is a matter for amusement. It may be that on the arguments put forward by the Minister of Mines and Industries it is a case for amusement with him, but it is not amusing to those who want to know about these things. They will prefer to have no arguments from the Minister, but the simple statements and facts, and I contend that my facts are correct. The questions then arise, when was this supplementary agreement signed? Why was it not put before this House for consideration? Was it approved by the National Assembly at Berlin? Was it registered at Geneva? And finally, what are its contents?

Is the Minister going to reply or no? No matter what vote it comes under, I would like him to keep this in mind. It is not whether we are entitled to put a dumping duty on German goods. What we are concerned about is, whether a treaty has been entered into by this Government, which contains all the provisions of the agreement between us and the other party. We do not want to know afterwards that there are other conditions, secret conditions, which we have never heard of before. When a treaty is laid on the Table of this House we are entitled to assume that no underhand agreement will be entered into. Article 8 says South Africa shall not impose on goods of German origin any duty which is not imposed on goods coming from other countries, and you are imposing dumping duties on goods coming from other countries. Why is it necessary to make special provision for Mozambique?

They are only beginners; give them a chance.

The Prime Minister immediately avoided the real point and raised the whole question of “Nasionale gevoel” and all that sort of thing. The policy that I am opposed to is the announcement of the Prime Minister that we are to send our representatives even if there is no work to do under the plea that the work will come in time. He considered there might not be much work to do, but the work would grow. I understood the Minister to say that, and if he did not say that, then he is in entire agreement with me. I would like to know from the Prime Minister how much work for South Africa has the British Ambassador in Rome been relieved of? Do not send our representatives there simply to create a sort of fictitious court in the eyes of the world. I suggest that we send these representatives there when there is some national South African work to perform, when there is something to do, and I have heard nothing that leads me to think that there is in Rome any work to do. With regard to South African prestige, and South African self-respect, it will do more for South African self-respect and South African prestige, if we spend money in bettering the conditions of our own people and land rather than in sending ministers plenipotentiary to these countries. Evidently there is more hope for me than for some who have only taken on Unionism by adoption. In this new status of ours the Prime Minister emphasizes always, and only, that side of it which gives us freedom and leaves out the fact that we are in free association with the other dominions. I hold, on the other hand, that that association with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations is of the greatest importance, and not only materially, and it involves no slight to our national spirit, and it involves no detraction from our national dignity and status. If that is being an old Unionist, then I am one. I agree that we have the right to maintain our prestige and dignity, but I also hold that we can spend the money we propose to disburse over the appointment of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to far better advantage in South Africa from the point of view both of our prestige and of our self-respect.

Evidently our friends opposite are very sensitive about being called Unionists. We have had a typical instance this afternoon of what we mean when we apply that term to them. I agree there are degrees in that party of Unionism. There are degrees in which its principles are still being upheld in that party. I have always been impressed by the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is fast becoming a good South African, if, indeed, he is not already a Nationalist, for when he has to formulate a policy, I find that in every case I can subscribe to it. Take this question of preference. We have laid down what should be the correct policy of South Africa, and when the hon. member spoke a few days ago he formulated a policy on exactly the same lines in which I used to do it, and he is now prepared to face this question on business, and not sentimental grounds. I was gratified this afternoon when I heard the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) express the same views, thus showing there is no difference between us on the point. But they were immediately repudiated by the Natal members, who are unable to look at this question from a South African point of view. I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville can really say that his Natal friends have advanced in regard to these questions as far as he himself has advanced. Until our friends come to look upon these questions from the South African point of view, they will be called Unionists, and so long as that is the spirit they evince, they will never govern this country again. If they look at these questions in the South African spirit, their influence will grow, but in that other spirit their chances of ever governing South Africa again will become less and less. South Africa, however, will force them to take up the right position. It is said from the other side that when we look at this question, we must not forget our association with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations. I agree with the hon. member, who also says that that association does not diminish our national status. Again, I agree with him, but unfortunately he has a number of friends on his side who still refuse to realize the change that has come over South Africa in regard to our status, and who think our position does not entitle us to regard ourselves as a free people.

Nonsense!

On this question there is really very little difference between us and the hon. member for Yeoville, but the trouble is that his views are not shared by his friends. This was typically exemplified this afternoon when he and his leader were repudiated emphatically by a gentleman whom I must still continue to dub a Unionist.

The Minister of Finance has stated that this question of preference is not looked upon from a South African point of view on this side of the House. I will remind him how this question of imperial preference originated. It was started by the late hon. Jan Hofmeyr. Will the Minister say that the late Mr. Hofmeyr did not look at the matter from a South African point of view? Mr. Hofmeyr suggested that imperial preference should be given by all the dominions, and the money thus collected should be handed over to the British navy.

Hear, hear!

That was the basis of imperial preference, and always has been the basis, until it was upset by the Minister of Finance, and that is the position we have objected to. There was never any bargaining between the dominions and the mother country, by which I mean Great Britain. Imperial preference was given freely from the other side on the basis laid down by the late Mr. Hofmeyr, who was a South African of the South Africans. We on this side have never departed from that point of view. But the Minister of Finance is prepared to take everything we can get in the way of protection from Great Britain, and give nothing in return if he can avoid giving it. It is because as South Africans we feel that such an attitude is not worthy of us that we object to it.

What surprises me somewhat in this debate that has been going on here to-day is in connection with the question of preference. It is now suggested that this side of the House is opposing preference. But this side of the House has never yet said that we want to abolish preference. The point is that because Mr. Snowden casually made a few remarks about the possibility of abolishing preference, a strenuous debate is now taking place here about the question of whether the Government is going to abolish preference. No such intention exists. The question has been put to the Government, what is it going to do if the British Government abolishes preference? This Government can do nothing if the British Government lays this down as its policy in connection with preference. But nothing, however, has happened yet, and if they do it the Government can always still decide what attitude to take up. It seems to me useless to carry on this debate here to-day. There is no proposal to abolish the preference. What then is the object of the debate? Is it in order to stir up feeling about a question which does not exist? The Government does not propose to abolish preference, or to increase it. An expression has only been made by a Minister in England because he, personally, and perhaps his party, think that the British Government ought to review the whole system.

What we have been asking for from the Prime Minister is a clear declaration of the Government’s policy on preference. We have been asked by the Minister of Finance to take a business view. Let us take a business view, and leave sentiment out of it altogether for the moment. How do we shape? When the Minister altered the preference in 1925 he did an unjust thing to British trade, from a business point of view. In 1925 he established what was called a quid pro quo.

Was that not advocated by your leader?

No, it was not. It was not argued by my leader on those terms. Prior to his departure for the Imperial Conference he argued in favour of getting greater preference for our goods from South Africa. What was this quid pro quo policy based upon? The Minister, when he introduced it into the House, calculated the rebate on customs in Great Britain and the rebate on customs in South Africa, and balancing those, he said we must give a similar amount of preference in South Africa for that received in Great Britain. But he did not take into calculation one factor, that the market for our products in Great Britain is limited solely by our own production, while the market for British products in South Africa is entirely limited, because we are not able to absorb them. Our preference in Great Britain would grow continually from year to year by the mere fact of our own production, but our population is limited, and we cannot consume more than a certain amount of British products. For everything we produce there is an unlimited market in Great Britain. Take sugar. If we produce a million tons of sugar, which would give us a preference of £4,000,000, Great Britain could consume the lot. There is another factor. When the British Government, after the 1923 Imperial Conference, promised to give a greater preference and then found she could not carry out those obligations, what did the British Government do? They said they would give, for the purpose of improving the sale of dominion products in Great Britain, precisely the amount in round money that they would have given through the customs, and the £1,000,000 which went to establish the Empire Marketing Board is just as much part of the preference which we obtain upon our goods, as if it were actually received in cash. It was given in lieu of preference. That has never been taken into calculation by the Minister. It was completely ignored when the Minister drew up his policy in 1925. So, considered solely from the business point of view, and leaving sentiment aside, we find we have not done justice to Great Britain in this matter of preference, and no reasonable man, examining the whole position in the light of the full facts, could decide anything different. I want to say a word about the ministers plenipotentiary it is proposed to send to the Continent. I do not know whether these ministers plenipotentiary are also to be trade commissioners. If they are, and if they are to be diplomats as well—

Why assume that?

Here is the report of the trade commissioner in Milan—

If our ambassadors are going to be trade commissioners also that is an infringement of the diplomatic rights which one country has in representing another. If he is going to carry on trade in diplomatic circles we shall not benefit from it very much.

Where do you get that?

Ambassadors cannot engage in the business affairs of the country to which they have been accredited. I assume it from the Prime Minister’s statement last year that he was going to raise their status. If I am wrong, the Prime Minister can explain what is the position. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will tell the House what recommendation he made to the British Government in connection with the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia. I understand the British Government have communicated with the dominions, and the matter is of very great importance to us, having regard to communistic activities among our natives. Another matter I would like to mention is that, as my leader has said, the future of South Africa in regard to trade and development lies in the north. Some time ago, after visiting the Congo, I approached the then Minister of Mines and Industries and asked him whether he would appoint a trade commissioner in the north where a good deal can be done. If we could have one or two trade commissioners there to open up a future channel for our trade we would do far more good than having the present trade commissioners where they are.

I do not know whether it falls under the vote, external affairs, and whether we can raise it here, but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) heartily on his victory, and the victory of Natal in his promotion to the front bench. During the previous debate I reminded hon. members of the history of empire preference, and pointed out how the people who fought hardest against it were the people of the old Cape Parliament. For the education of members opposite I mentioned a few of them, such as ex-Minister Burton, ex-Senators F. S. Malan, Sir Frederic de Waal, and others, who regardeded empire preference as an evil and resisted it violently.

There are people who learn.

You never learn.

The hon. leader of the Opposition, apparently, afterwards also came to the conclusion that those who said that empire preference is wrong were, after all, not so wrong because before he went to the Empire Conference he said that an end must be put to the everlasting one-sided preference system. The hon. member thus thought that the one-sided preference could not last for ever, and I would like to ask hon. members opposite how this differs from the policy of the present Government during the last five years. I would also like to remind hon. members that South Africa really does not get such a pure preference. We indeed give preference to England, but we do not get a perfect preference, because we have to compete with the other dominions who get the same rebates as we do. It is therefore not pure preference, and according to the most reasonable calculation, the amount which England obtains as preference is much more than what we obtain on our preference on really only four products. Hon. members opposite know quite well that the policy of this Government has always been to obtain as much trade as possible with England, but the attitude of the Government is that of the leader of the Opposition, when he said that the one-sidedness of the preference must disappear. Our Government has always tried to remove this and to get rid of the one-sidedness to which Lord Milner drove us. I do not know if I can touch the other point which I want to discuss here. Perhaps it is somewhat bold to say something about it, but we must air the feelings here of the public outside, and it can do no harm. Hon. members will have noticed that certain conduct of the Governor-General has offended people outside. I do not think it is necessary to hurt people unnecessarily—

The hon. member must not discuss the Governor-General.

I do not want to discuss his conduct. I only want to ask if perhaps the Prime Minister could not give him a little fatherly advice. There are things in connection with administrative activities, which I think must be done, and in connection with which the public outside who think differently should be considered. I would also be able to speak in praise, just as now in connection with a few points I express disapproval, but the rules of the procedure permit neither. We ought not to satisfy just one section of the people. Apart from the question of flag-wagging, of which we have now had almost enough, hut in connection with which we think that the feeling of the people who are proud of our own flag, and are proud that we at last have our own flag, should also be considered. When the British scientists were here one of the members said to me that in all his life, the greatest part of which he had spent in Scotland, he had never yet heard so much “God save the King” as here. He asked me the reason for this. When the high officials come in it is played, and when they go out it is played. I would just like to suggest to them that they should also satisfy the other section of the people a little, and perhaps on one occasion have “God save the King” and on another occasion “The Voice of South Africa.” A strong feeling exists in that respect, and I think that it should be considered. We can well understand this feeling, and it will create a better state of affairs if this feeling is taken into consideration.

I am not going to follow the example of the Minister of Finance and that of the Prime Minister in hair splitting about the Unionists and what the Prime Minister called the “so-called British empire,” which seems to have become a sort of “King Charles’ head,” a sort of obsession with him. Whenever there is a movement of co-operation between hon. members the Prime Minister gets up, I notice, and says this thing about the Unionists and the empire. I am not going to worry nor to follow his example. I was listening to his speech about his sending envoys extraordinary to Rome and elsewhere, and I think he was suffering from megalomania. I wonder what in his heart the Minister of Finance thinks of this snobbery, which is so little in accord with the democratic instincts of the people of this country. Some time ago the Minister of Finance lectured the people of this country on extravagance, and I hope he will take a dose of his own medicine. He advised the people of this country against spending money on unnecessary luxuries. I wish he would practise what he preaches, because in the matter of spending money on superfluous luxuries, he is setting the country a very bad example. He has set down £20,000 to be spent on foreign envoys. When a government proposes to send an envoy to a foreign country, as a rule it is because that country has a great many citizens and great interests overseas. Had we many citizens and great interests to represent, we would not object to the sending of envoys or ambassadors. Has the Government ever thought of what these unfortunate officials will do with themselves? On arrival at Rome our envoy will impress Signor Mussolini with what a wonderful people we are, but after he has presented his credentials to the Italian Prime Minister, what else will he do for the rest of the year. At eleven o’clock, I suppose our envoy will turn on the electric kettle and make himself some tea. For doing nothing all the year round we are going to pay him the same salary as the Prime Minister. I understood the Minister of Finance to tell us yesterday that our envoy is going to do exactly the same in Rome as the British ambassador. I wish the Minister would not make himself ridiculous. Britain has tens of thousands of citizens in Rome, and great interests in the Mediterranean. Our envoy has nothing to do compared with the British ambassador. It reminds me of the frog in the fable which tried to inflate itself to the stature of an ox, and I am afraid that when our envoy comes along in his official dress of gold lace, he will remind the Italians of a monkey tied to a barrel organ. If there was any necessity for such a step we would all vote for it, but as the thing stands it is simply empty bombast. The Prime Minister has told us that the necessity for this is to assert our national unity and our national dignity, but the place to assert our national unity and our national dignity is not in Rome, but in South Africa. In that respect the position has been altered for the worse during the last five years. If we survey the last five years it will be admitted that to-day we are a weaker and a more divided nation than we were five years ago. Five years ago when the South African party were in power, we were tending towards unity as a nation. Things were shaping that way. To-day we are a house divided against itself.

A party!

The world knows the record of the two parties, and will judge which has been the disturbing factor.

They have judged.

The public has not had a chance of judging because of the complexities of our electoral system. The larger half and the better half, and the more intelligent half, of the people of this country are members of the South African party. Although we have lost the elections our heads are bloody but unbowed. Every member of the South African party will agree with me when I say we would rather sit in Opposition with men who are right, than on the Government benches with men who are wrong. There is no doubt that to-day our country is in a weaker position than five years ago. Five years ago our reputation in the eyes of the world stood much higher than it does to-day. Five years ago we were living amicably with all our neighbours. To-day, thanks to the tactlessness and the bad manners of the Prime Minister, the position is different. Five years ago there was a strong party in Rhodesia in favour of joining the Union. To-day despite the optimism of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), I doubt whether you will find a single Rhodesian who will dream of joining the Union. Five years ago a great field was opening up in Rhodesia for our young people. Today it is closing, owing to the tactics of the Prime Minister. They look on us with dislike. I am afraid that the Union is going to be allowed to stew in its own juice by the northern countries owing to the folly of the National party. Five years ago the Europeans of Swaziland were looking towards union, and the people of Bechuanaland Protectorate were also inclined towards us. To-day they won’t look at us. Five years ago the natives were contented. To-day they are sullen and suspicious. Our internal solidarity has been seriously undermined. [Time limit.]

I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words after the speech of the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz).

You ought not to take any notice of it.

No, I do take notice of it, especially because of the fact that he has spoken of the manners of the Prime Minister. It reminds me of the proverb “Go to the devil for confession.” If the hon. member wants to speak of manners, then he himself is indeed a good example of good manners! We who went through the country during the last election, sometimes had experience of the manners of the South African party. I was in Natal, and there the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) addressed meetings, and so good were his manners that he dared to attack a lady, the wife of the ex-Speaker. If this is proof of good manners then I only want to express the hope that the Nationalist party will never go and learn their manners from the Opposition, who are guilty of a thing like this. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to-day spoke of Rhodesia, and I can say that in 1921 I had the privilege of travelling from Europe with a member of the Rhodesian Parliament, and he said to me personally “Rhodesia does not dream of joining the Union.” Further, he made a remark about the hon. member for Standerton, who went like an election agent through Rhodesia to plead his cause, and so take sides in a neighbouring state. This afternoon, too, we heard about racialism, and it was strange to me to hear the hon. member for Barberton speaking about it. I can, however, say to him that the feeling among our races has never been so good in South Africa as since we have come into power. If ever there was anyone who has caused racial feeling, then it is the hon. member for Barberton, and certain members opposite. He may laugh now, but he has done his best to stir up the races against each other. There is also the case of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at Herschel.

He denies it.

I can state that we, on this side of the House, have done our best to remove racialism. The Prime Minister has, through his life, by means of co-operation with English-speaking people, gradually driven race hatred out of South Africa, and if there were the same desire among members opposite the position in South Africa would have been much better than it is to-day. Their conduct, however, in the past has shown that they do not desire racial co-operation, but that they want to drive them apart. Why do they now raise objection to the appointment of envoys overseas? The whole reason is that they cannot yet swallow the independence of South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs, but that is the whole position. The hon. member for Barberton has said that we are a small state. I admit that, because with a white population of 1,750,000 we are not big. Yet we are a state which has proved in the past that we can be great in the things which weigh most in the world.

You have helped a lot to show this.

Yes, the hon. member specially can speak about that! He is a symbol and an example —

He must tell us where he will stand again for the next election.

Where I can again frighten one of you away.

There are opponents of the external appointments who do not want to see that we fly our national flag in Washington, Rome and the Hague. With them the great point is that they do not like us to send representatives to represent us there as an independent nation, together with other countries in the ranks of the nations. The hon. members for Barberton and Standerton should be very grateful for this and every South African should be proud of it. Unfortunately, the South African feeling disappears from amongst some members opposite.

Is this all they are going to do, fly the flag?

We feel that members opposite are always looking 6,000 miles away, instead of carrying the people of South Africa in their hearts. Now they are trying to make South Africa look ridiculous, and to laugh at the appointment of envoys. Here in South Africa, however, gradually a South African feeling is being developed, but the misfortune is just this, that this feeling for his people and his language has disappeared from the hon. member for Barberton. We shall send overseas South Africans who will be proud to bear the name of South Africans. To the hon. the Prime Minister I would like to say that this side of the House is very grateful for what he has done to cause racial feeling to disappear. One of my English-speaking friends asked me how I could say this, and my answer was “In the Cabinet there are English-speaking Ministers representing the English-speaking people.” I know that this is laughed at, but I would like to say that the Minister of Defence and Labour is just as good, perhaps a better, representative of the English-speaking people, than the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Robinson) who is laughing. He has shown, especially in connection with the flag debate, that his heart is most certainly with the people of South Africa. The Opposition now raise objection to the expenditure which the external appointments will cause, but did we hear anything of it when £38,000 was required after 1910 for the appointment of the High Commissioner in London? No. In Britain we may have a representative, but if it is in Germany “Then you require a long spoon to sup with the devil.” In Washington, Rome and the Hague, too, we may not have representatives! We, on this side of the House, all feel that we must send men overseas to represent us, and I am sure that there are a number of members opposite who feel with us and who also want to see that the name of South Africa is held high, and who are not opposed to the Prime Minister’s striving for the honour, welfare and interests of South Africa. The envoys are sent overseas to look after the interests of South Africa, and to hold the name of South Africa high, and for no other purpose. [Time limit.]

When the reverend gentlemen on the other side of the House get up to speak we can be perfectly certain that what they are going to say will not be in the cause of peace. But we do not expect humour: yet the hon. gentleman who has just sat down gave us one piece of humour when he told us that the Minister of Defence and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs sit on the ministerial benches as representing the English-speaking people of this country. That they certainly do not do. Now when we think of the question of ministers plenipotentiary do we approach it as a business matter or as a matter of sentiment? If business then in what way is it good for business? What are we going to get for the expenditure? Instead of giving a fair answer, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have tackled hon. members on this side of the House as if they had no regard for the honour and dignity of the House. What are we going to get for the appointment of these Ministers? Why are these particular countries selected? Are there not other countries with which our business relationships are just as important as they are with Italy, Holland and America? If there are other countries of equal importance from a business point of view, who will look after our interests—are the British ambassadors to do it?

You may understand when your temperament has cooled down a bit.

Does the Prime Minister think that really worthy of the Prime Minister of this country? Is that a specimen of good manners in a debate on a very important subject like this? That observation was really unworthy of him.

I am sorry—I did not think you would be upset.

May I ask the Prime Minister if he is willing to tell us whom he proposes to appoint as our ambassadors?

Not you.

That I know because I am not a pal.

No, because you have no dignity.

Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance inform us who will be appointed to represent us?

Do you really want that question answered?

Of course. I am dying to know and so I think are very many others. Now the Minister of Finance has adopted a curious attitude. At one time he attacks the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) most furiously and at other times he embraces him as a political brother. When the Minister calls the hon. member a Nationalist, is he not taking advantage of the Privileges of Parliament Act and would he call the hon. member that outside the House? Is there no law of liberty to protect the hon. member for Yeoville? The Minister of Finance when we come to the question of preference says it must be treated only as a matter of business not of sentiment. But can we feel sure that there has been no question of sentiment in the fixing of the existing preferences after the speeches of the hon. members for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and Wonderboom (Mr. van Broekhuizen) and after the report of the Board of Trade, which ushered in the whole of our new system of preference. Is there no basis for the fear that sentiment does come in, but that it is a sentiment not favourable to Britain but antagonistic to Britain?

No.

Well, we have the Minister’s assurance but there are many members on that side who express very different views and who in the debate of 1925 revealed most clearly that their support was given to the Minister on the grounds of antagonistic sentiment.

Who were they?

The hon. member knows. He is probably one who made that type of speech himself like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) who is repeatedly making such speeches. The Ministers and the Government never repudiate this kind of speech we are getting from over there, speeches which exacerbate feeling between British and Dutch. But the Minister dares to get up and lecture us as if we speak with low voices because sometimes some of us from the point of view of a sentiment which does not override business feel our duty strongly. If the Minister’s assurance is what it is then it is in direct conflict with the views of a large number of people on his side of the House which he has never yet repudiated.

I believe, according to hon. members opposite, I do not represent any of the English people in this country!

Hear, hear.

They are misrepresented, and British sentiment and the ancient British tradition have been too often misrepresented in this House. The hon. member asks us now what are we going to get in money’s worth for these ambassadors who are to represent us abroad. I wonder what answer would be given in the British House of Commons if the Opposition asked: “What money’s worth are we getting from the ambassadors we send to Washington and to Germany and to other European countries?” Is it measured in terms of money? For precisely the same purpose as we mean to encourage friendly relations which will promote the interchange of goods we are to give full facilities for diplomatic representation. I will say this, I will give the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) the fullest credit for the sincerity of his opinion in what he said just now. I do not give the same credit to other members over there and to the hon. member who has just spoken for an entire absence of sentiment and of a sentiment of distrust in relation to this matter. I will not do so for the very best of reasons, because, according to members over there, in many of their speeches they have intimated I am not really fit to represent British feeling and have no British feeling myself.

Hear, hear.

These things have been said behind doors and even on the platform. I have stood for my own people in this country and for the right of my own people to earn a living in this country when the party hon. members over there represent would employ anyone except their own people—I will be perfectly candid with this House. In this development of representation abroad at almost every step my own sentiments prompted a certain repugnance to it. When I examined my repugnance I found it was not on any business grounds; it was based on old feelings connected with old sentiments, and it is based ultimately on a repudiation of the actual progress and the actual process in which we are involved—the development from an anglo-centric empire, centred in Great Britain, into the British commonwealth which exists to-day, which is a commonwealth of free nations, freely associated as members of the British commonwealth. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in one portion of his remarks asked why we do not stress, while stressing our freedom, at the same time stress our association in the British commonwealth? May I say why? Because in my opinion—I am expressing my own opinion—if there was a good deal less asseveration from hon. members over there who pride themselves on the British stock from which they have sprung about their attachment to this association and flinging it about in this country, there would be a great deal more readiness on the part of my hon. friends on this side to take it for granted, and we would progress far more away from this continual jangling on these old subjects. We are continuing a process which has been developing for the last eighty years. [Interruption.] If it is in the interests of South Africa it is also in the interests of the British commonwealth.

Window-dressing.

Window nonsense. It is becoming a fashion in political controversies here for one’s private letters to be obtained by the press—the South African party press—for confidential letters to be published and for those to be used as political … [Interruption.] It shows how far manners have declined in the last eighty years. When a certain letter, written by O’Connell, the great liberator, was found by a member visiting a house, and used in public, Sir Robert Peel’s remark in that debate was that while there was nothing dishonourable and of dishonour in that letter, if it were ten times as compromising, he would far rather have been the writer of that letter than the blackguard who used it. Let us come to the question of preference. To hear hon. members over there one would imagine that there was only one party in Great Britain and that this matter of imperial preference had been pursued for generation after generation and was the whole principle on which the British commonwealth hung together. Historically that is not correct. It is a matter of the last thirty years. You have had men in the old Cape Parliament, like the late Mr. Merriman and others, indignantly opposing such measures on economic grounds, and here we have the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) saying this afternoon that we should make representations from South Africa to have adjustments made in Great Britain. It reminds me of what has been said in a previous debate, said outside, and said in the press which so admirably serves the interests of hon. members opposite—that the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England was influenced by the action of the Government in entering into the German treaty. Six or eight months ago I read an article in a newspaper by Mr. Philip Snowden on this very subject of preference, where he pointed out that grave danger lay as far as the British commonwealth is concerned, in the direction of making this preference a sort of arcana of the commonwealth. He pointed out that the products principally produced by the dominions are raw materials and foodstuffs. It is obviously the opinion of the Government in power in Britain to-day that you should not tax the people’s food for any purpose whatever. He pointed out that you could only develop this preference system by putting duties on those raw materials and foodstuffs, because you could not give rebates unless there was a customs tax imposed. He went on to say that in the 18th century Britain’s first empire was broken up because the people of Great Britain desired to tax the colonies in the interests of the people of Great Britain, and the danger is that the British commonwealth will be broken up by an insistence that the people of the United Kingdom should be taxed in the interest of the dominions to maintain this preference system.

We are considering a motion for a reduction of the Prime Minister’s salary. I am sorry it is not the reduction of the total vote. I want to point out that hon. members have brought a serious charge against the Government of a suppression of facts in regard to the German treaty. On that ground alone the total vote should be cut out, because the Government have presented to us a treaty which they ask us to ratify, and they have suppressed certain facts. I asked the Minister to place all the facts before the country, when the German treaty was before us. I asked the Minister of Mines and Industries then if his trip to Germany had something to do with it, and the Minister said: “Has it never dawned upon you that I am an accomplice of Germany?” The fact is now made clear that someone has been acting secretly with Germany, although to the disadvantage of Germany. At the time the treaty was discussed, I pointed out that if there were any such arrangement, if all the facts were not disclosed, it was impossible to say what could or could not be done under such a treaty. This is a most serious charge which has been delivered against the Government, and as the charge has not been answered, it shows that Ministers are not fit to occupy the Government seats.

I would like the Government to tell us the duties of the Ministers who are to be appointed to foreign countries. We had a reference this afternoon to the Imperial Conference report of 1926. I would be very pleased if the same emphasis were laid by the Government on the obligations as is laid on the rights which have devolved upon us in connection with that report. When our Ministers take up their residence in the capitals of Europe there may be some questions which affect South Africa which are bound to come up for consideration. I thought, first of all, of the question of reparations which is under discussion to-day at the Hague, and in which South Africa has an interest which, last year, turned into cash amounted to £100,000. With reference to the administration under the mandate for South-West Africa, one can quite imagine that questions with regard to that country might arise. There again, South Africa would have a common interest with other portions of the commonwealth holding mandates, and it becomes important to know what instructions are to be given to our ambassadors. What provision is to be made for the diplomatic unity of the empire? I have thought, when listening to the Prime Minister, that he is sometimes afraid to refer to the word "empire.” Its meaning was clearly registered here in 1927, when, so far as this House was concerned, we gave complete approval to the Imperial Conference report. On this side of the House that report was adopted without any reservation or qualification of the principles contained in it. Thus, when the Prime Minister embarks on the important step of appointing representatives abroad to act for one section of the British commonwealth, the question naturally arises what provision is to be made for preserving the diplomatic unity of the empire as a whole? I may remind the Prime Minister of the important debates that have taken place in the British House of Commons and elsewhere as to how far steps were to be taken to preserve that unity. I can quite understand that if South Africa speaks with one voice, and the representative of another dominion with another voice, that differences of opinion may arise. Before this vote is sanctioned for the appointment of a representative who would have in effect, so far as the Government to which he is accredited is concerned, a practically unlimited power of attorney, we are entitled to know whether they are to receive definite instructions to co-operate with our sister dominions, and to what extent and in what cases.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the Minister of Defence spoke this afternoon I hoped that he would give us some information as to the utility of the appointments of ministers plenipotentiary. Characteristically as a Labour man he brushed aside the question of expense and explained how he had come to see the light, and asserted that all of us on the Opposition benches were left in darkness. Has he forgotten that the right hon. gentleman who initiated the debate was one of the Ministers responsible with Gen. Botha for our new position in the empire? They were the authors of the new status.

Oh, lor.

The Prime Minister seems to question that, but two years ago in this House, he said there was nothing new in our higher status, but that he had only got that declaration accepted by the other members of the British commonwealth. For the Minister of Defence to take up the superior attitude he did and to say that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was still in darkness, was either pig-headedness or impertinence. Is the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) obsessed by anglo-centric ideas? The Minister of Defence should think again.

The whole afternoon I have been asking myself, what is the use of this debate? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who has been about in the country to solve the riddle of life, while the debate on the estimates was on here for five days, comes here to the House to hold a discussion over the worn-out arguments which have already been brought up and discussed here over and over again. And while I am sitting and thinking, the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) comes and lets the cat out of the bag (or, shall I say, the jackal)? He comes and tells us that the debate is being carried on only to prove the intelligence of the other side. He has repeatedly pointed out that the best and most intelligent section of the people belong to the South African party. It is easy to make such a statement, but he forgot to inform us first from what point he started when he argued like that. It is a wild statement, so wild that it brings me under the impression that it is not intelligence which makes such unintelligent statements. The hon. member for Barberton knows well that almost 80 to 90 per cent. of the rising educated young South Africans are Nationalists. If he does not know this he could ask the hon. member for Standerton what his experience was on his visit to Stellenbosch. At Stellenbosch they very clearly indicated what the tendency of the rising generation is. The hon. member can himself testify that a large percentage of English-speaking youth think the same as this side of the House. It is clear that there a movement—the catch ’em young—has been started to prevent the progress of the Nationalist movement in the country. Because they are afraid of that national movement, an effort had to be made to check it. The hon. member for Standerton asks the Prime Minister that at the conference in London, or otherwise at the Imperial Conference, he must try to preserve this empire preference, or extend it. He wants to know from the Prime Minister what steps he is going to take towards that. He reminds me of what happened about 1907 or 1908—I am speaking from memory only—when the British Colonial Secretary interfered in the internal affairs of Natal. The Natalians were very angry, and threatened England to “cut the painter.” I say the Natalians were perfectly right, because the British Colonial Secretary could not do such things. If we now, however, interfere in the affairs of England, then the Minister of the Interior in England will say: “If you bother any further, then we will break the imperial connection.” What will become of us then? It is a dangerous thing. It is not “empire-making” which the Opposition want, but “empire-breaking.” I know that in 1907 or 1908 I asked myself, as a loyalist, what would become of the British empire if Natal carried out its threat? I did not ask what would become of Natal, because that was very clear. If England has nothing to do with our internal affairs, then we, too, have nothing to do with her internal affairs. If England has no right to tell us how to conduct our internal affairs, then, too, we have no right to take such a step. What the hon. member for Standerton demands of the Prime Minister is a very serious matter, because it may lead to a breach between us and England. That is why I am making this plea.

I have to congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken on his enthusiasm for the maintenance of the unity of empire. Is it too much to hope that enthusiasm might extend to his hon. and reverend friend the member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe)? The report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 has been accepted by this House. Perhaps the most outstanding principle in that report was the principle of co-operation and of the maintenance of Unity within the empire, of which we form a part, and which, obviously, extends to the maintenance of diplomatic unity in any representation we may seek to have in foreign capitals. I asked the Prime Minister to make some statement as to what was the considered policy of the Government in this regard, because I can hardly believe that the Government, in a light-hearted manner, has put down these amounts Upon the Estimates and has failed entirely to consider what the precise implications will be of appointing these ministers to these other countries. In order to emphasize the importance of the maintenance of the principle of diplomatic unity in the empire, I want to bring to the Prime Minister’s attention the procedure followed at the time ministers plenipotentiary were appointed to Washington from Canada and from Dublin to Washington, and I want to ask him what recommendation he proposes to make as to the form of the note which, as is the case, must be addressed by the British Government to Rome and the Hague at the time these ministers plenipotentiary are appointed. Obviously, it will be necessary in that note to define the position these ministers will occupy. They are appointed by his Majesty and their appointment has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the British Cabinet. We must be perfectly clear, if we make these appointments, that nothing shall be said or done which may be a breach in this essential diplomatic unity of the empire. At the time of the appointment of the minister plenipotentiary to Washington, Sir Robert Borden made the following statement in the Canadian House—

Both Governments concerned were at pains to make it clear that there would be no opportunity for conflict to arise when the holders of these appointments were exercising their functions. In the Irish Free State the matter was dealt with in similarly explicit terms, and a British note was issued on June 24th, 1924 (by a Labour Government, may I say, for the benefit of the Minister of Defence) and the statement that was made in that note was that the arrangement proposed by his Majesty’s Government would not denote any departure from the principle of diplomatic unity within the empire. Mr. J. H. Thomas, in a speech in the House of Commons, referred to a request that had been made by the Government of the Irish Free State for the accrediting of such a representative to Washington, and set out the agreement that had been arrived at. I presume that the Minister here will similarly come to an agreement with the British Government on that point, regulating the respective rights, functions and interests of these three representatives we are about to appoint. Mr. Thomas said—

I endeavoured to indicate to the House one or two points on which differences of opinion might arise, or matters on which differences of policy might arise, and I feel we are entitled to know from the Prime Minister very definitely and clearly in advance what arrangements he proposes to make to avoid such differences or conflicts. [Time limit.]

I fear that if I do not rise at once we shall have to listen to a lecture by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) until two o’clock tonight. I will at once, therefore, answer a few questions. As for the form of the letter to be sent to foreign powers to whom we intend sending envoys, I can assure him that the diplomatic unity of the empire will be maintained. The form of the letter has been drafted to the satisfaction not only of myself, but also of the British Government. This ought to permit the hon. member to sleep peacefully.

Can you tell me the contents of the letter?

No, but I can say that if there are two or more envoys from the various parts of the empire, if it is a question of problems which concern one or more, the envoys will consult together and decide jointly.

The principle of diplomatic unity is being preserved.

We are keeping strictly to what was agreed at the Imperial Conference in 1926. I can only tell the hon. member that the letter of 1923 or 1924 which he read out here can no longer be quoted as a precedent; the letter has been very materially altered in conformity with the new position created in 1926. The dominions are coming into their rights more than hitherto. Those are practically the two questions of the hon. member.

Will you lay the letter on the Table?

The hon. member can see it at any time, but I do not think it necessary to lay it on the Table. It was amusing and instructive to follow the debate this afternoon, and particularly instructive to notice the unity amongst the Opposition. It does not often happen that they are united, but they were united in their disapproval of the fact that the Minister of Defence might be a good Briton. If I mistake not, even the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini) was one of them. A chorus of disapproval followed when the Minister claimed that he was a good Briton. Just before we noticed disunion when the hon. member for Standerton’s interpretation as to the status of the Union was contradicted by his friends from Natal even by an hon. member on the front bench, one of the future Ministers. What do those protests of good Britons indicate? In my case the only thing that matters is that I am a good South African. Everything goes to show how they cannot possibly get away from the Unionistic basis. Those three things: Unionism, the empire or the word British, we must not touch. Then we are immediately throwing bricks. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) denies that he regarded matters from a Unionist point of view. I do not want to go quite as far as the Minister of Finance did when he said that the hon. member for Yeoville is in his opinion already a Nationalist, but I want to say that he is one of those on the other side, who is the least Unionistic or who has the most hope of ever becoming a Nationalist. He said of me this afternoon—

That was said in connection with the envoys. If I am to infer anything from it it is that in the appointments of envoys sufficient attention was not given to the interests of the “Free Association.” Then it is that in any question we do not knowingly or unknowingly consider the empire enough. He further asked, “How much work is the British ambassador going to be relieved of?” Now I ask my hon. friends if it is a reason for not appointing an enjoy, that the British ambassador will not be relieved of much work. Why is that raised then? We cannot get away from it that hon. members do not consider matters sufficiently from the point of view of the interests of South Africa and what we ought to do for the interests of South Africa.

We are so tired of that story.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has now referred us to the late Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr. Just imagine! It is more than half a century ago. We must abide by what he laid down about the fiscal policy! Have we then not changed at all? Are we still living in the past? Then I can well understand that my hon. friends opposite cannot get away from antiquities.

It is a policy to follow.

Yes, because he also provided for a contribution to the British fleet. When Mr. Hofmeyr was alive, the same people stoned him and tried to put him down in every possible way. Now that he is dead, and in one way or another thought about the British fleet, it is held under our noses. It is not because it was Mr. Hofmeyr but on account of the British fleet. Do you not see that if you want South Africa to dislike the British fleet then you must use it for the purpose of dragging it every day under our nose?

It is not a soft place!

What, I thought that I did not have a soft place for the British fleet. I have never yet paraded my great respect for the British fleet, but I regard it as a very good and efficient instrument.

Yes, and you take all you can get from it, and give practically nothing.

There you are again! That is what lies at the root of our not taking sufficient account in their opinion of the British fleet and of everything that is British. In other words, British motives must prevail in the solution of South African questions.

South Africa must have self-respect.

Think of it. South Africa must show its self-respect by building up the British fleet and by shouting “Hurrah” and singing “Rule Britannia.”

You want that navy to protect your ambassadors.

I have nothing against the British fleet, and I am glad it exists and I will do anything to see that we retain that strong force. As long as we are within the British empire I shall see that we retain it, and South Africa would be foolish to depreciate it. You who say: “We are better Britons than the Minister of Defence himself,” you who are such good Britons and who cannot think or sleep without that bleat must please not come out of your dream and create a nightmare for us day after day with the British fleet. It is a force which you can be proud of, but what are you doing? You make it a nightmare. I say again they cannot get away from Great Britain and the British motives. British motives must be the only reasons for solving South African matters. I therefore say again: the principles of the Nationalist party are that South African matters must in the first place be regarded and solved according to the spirit and traditions of South Africa. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) says, “You are doing something against British trade.” One half expects that from him, and it seems to be an established thing acknowledged by all, that Natal is Unionistic. They want it that way, and it is apparently admitted even by hon. members opposite. The first thing he says is, “You are doing something against British trade.”

South African trade.

Oh, no, it was British trade. The hon. member raised another point. He asked what representation the Government had made in connection with the reinstatement of the relations between Russia and England. As for that, I only wish to say it is a matter emanating from England and she is now dealing with it.

Were you consulted?

I do not know what the hon. member means by “consultation.” I only know that we are from time to time informed how the negotiations stand, but these are carried on and initiated by the British Government.

Have you expressed any opinion about it?

No.

I have listened to many speeches in this House to-day and have heard Natal and the Unionists mentioned on many occasions. As a former member of the Unionist party I am proud of the part that the Unionist party played in the history of this country. It served its purpose and the members of the opposite party can call me a Unionist as long as they so desire. They will do me an honour by doing so. I take it the remarks I have heard about Natal in this House were not meant to be complimentary to that province. As a member for Natal I would like to say it is quite out of place for these references to be made in the House concerning the province of Natal. The hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Railways, and the Minister of Native Affairs, have all taken opportunities during the recent debates to make disparaging remarks about Natal.

How dare they?

It was entirely uncalled for, especially when housing questions came up and we heard disparaging remarks with reference to Durban. I was surprised to hear the hon. Minister for Native Affairs speak against Natal—he was born and educated there. I had the honour of going to school with him and I did not think he would so disparage the land of his birth. The hon. the Minister of Finance has done very well out of Natal, and the Minister of Railways too, for the profits on railways in Natal have made up for the loss on a good many other lines in South Africa. I have just been engaged in an election campaign, and have had an opportunity of gauging public opinion, and I can tell the hon. members opposite that one of the greatest desires of the people of Natal is for the cooperation of the two white races of this country. [Laughter.] That is how the spirit of Natal is received in this House by members representing other parts of this country. I say again the greatest desire in Natal is for the friendly co-operation of the two white races in this country.

You are improving.

Although I cannot speak the Afrikaans language—I am making an attempt to learn it—I was gratified with the fair manner in which members on the opposite side of the House addressed the House in English, especially on subjects in which this side of the House is more particularly interested. I would not say that, however, of to-day’s debate.

You belong to the superior race.

I came down here with a mandate towards the co-operation of the two white races, but it seems to me that the hon. members on the opposite side of the House have no desire for it. Let me say as a member for Natal we do not wish to remain in the Union if we are not wanted.

You want to secede?

Is that a threat?

You have a very recent incident in history to go on—the case of the Irish Free State and Ulster. We do not want to be part and parcel of South Africa if we are not wanted. It is only for the members of the other side of the House to tell us that they do not want us to be members of the Union of South Africa and we will be pleased to consider the proposition. [Laughter.] I have no doubt that the Irish Free State laughed just as you are doing, but Natal is nevertheless in the empire and is going to remain in the empire. If you do not want us, tell us so, and Natal will give you her answer.

I have listened attentively to the discussion which has taken place here to-day. I believe the last speaker is one of the friends who said if the poor whites came to the cities they must be placed in compounds. These are the members who now take an interest in the poor white, and say that he must get 10s. a day. The hon. member further threatened—

On a point of order, the hon. member is dealing with the Prime Minister’s vote. Are his remarks relevant to that vote?

The whole policy of the Government is open for discussion under the Prime Minister’s vote.

The hon. member who has to go back as far as 1924, when the Minister of Justice answered him, and he would not accept it, but stuck to what he said, wants to cause trouble. Further, I want to point out that the hon. members for Mowbray (Mr. Close), and Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), have spoken with indignation because there are on this side of the House two Ministers, one for Defence and one for Posts and Telegraphs, who dare declare that they too represent the British section of the people, or rather those of British descent. If hon. members go so far, what hope have we Afrikaans-speaking people of their sympathy, what hope have the people who are in difficulties, and who have been brought into difficulties by their policy? My command of language sometimes is somewhat inadequate, but I would almost like to use the word for which the hon. member has been called to order. What then are the people of Natal, who want to keep the poor whites in compounds—

On a point of order, the hon. member is making incorrect statements about things I am supposed to have said, and I deny them.

I hope that the hon. member will first learn a little more Afrikaans before he comes here to make trouble. He will often yet be beaten by an Afrikander.

On a point of order—

What is the point of order?

I object to what the hon. member says.

Unfortunately the hon. member does not understand enough Afrikaans. He does not understand us and distrusts us and the Afrikaners’ participation in co-operation. Hon. members did indeed come here and on behalf of Natal say that they must promote co-operation, but up to now we have not seen much of it. All this concern for the poor whites was mere hood-winking. The friends who are so concerned about their future had the opportunity of giving those people 3s. 6d. but they did not do it. They had the chance to do something for white labourers but they neglected it. Many of our friends who talk here about the poor farmer have never yet suffered hunger, never defied cold, never yet known how much this little money means for the poor. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also pleaded that these people should be sent back from Port Elizabeth to the country again. In my budget speech I have already stated that these people came there for work and that their children are already in industries and are going to be the future “princes of industries.” The other day we were at the public post office in Port Elizabeth to send off a telegram. We could not get near the large counter of the post office because it was full of Kaffirs who were sending off telegrams and the whole crowd were in the costume of people working with wool. This is what happens at Port Elizabeth. They come from the north by train and are used there to develop industries while our South Africans have to stand and look on, Ex-Minister F. S. Malan at Steynsburg said with regard to the German treaty that it was a slap in the face for England. Here this has been proclaimed again. I asked Mr. F. S. Malan whether he or Mr. Amery should say that this is a slap in the face for England. Has not Minister Amery the right of advancing the interests of England? If he says anything you would kick against it again and I also would challenge such action. Friends opposite want to place England in a position even inferior to Germany, because Germany is represented here but England may not be. If England is content why cannot hon. members be satisfied?

Perhaps the Prime Minister will pardon me for reminding him that any authority he exercises in this country is derived from this House. It is a pity he did not remember that fact when he was making his speeches to-day. We have been dealing with matters of international importance, and it would have been better if the Prime Minister is to retain the confidence of this House to have taken the whole of the House more into his confidence than he did. Anyone listening to the debate must have been struck by the meagre amount of information we have been given.

What do you want?

We want to know what the duties of these ministers plenipotentiary are going to be.

Do you think I am going to teach you for a month?

The Prime Minister is not right in saying it is necessary to detain us for a month.

The course I believe is two years.

That is one of the reasons why we want to know in the first place who the ministers and envoys are to be. We understand it takes quite a long time even in Europe to train men for the diplomatic service and there are greater facilities there. I do not know whether the Minister considers, as he did in the case of another appointment, that any intelligent South African who has a love for his country can fill these duties with satisfaction and discretion. Perhaps it is so, but we would like to know who are going to fill these positions. We know there are a great many expectant Ministers. We should have listened with even deeper interest if we understood that the hon. the member for Wonderboom was speaking with the prestige of an envoy extraordinary elect. Naturally we are very much concerned. The Prime Minister has not forgotten his classical history. He will remember the great Nero wanted to appoint his horse as a consul. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wants to follow that very illustrious example, but naturally it is a matter of concern to the House to know whom he has in mind for these important appointments. We have heard a great deal during this afternoon’s debate disparaging sentiment and endeavouring to put our external affairs on a business footing, but surely the Prime Minister’s argument was that this matter of ministers plenipotentiary is based on sentiment. Certainly we on this side of the House gathered these appointments were necessary to display to the world what the sentiment of South Africa was, based on its status. I believe that is a fair paraphrase of what the Prime Minister tried to say to the House, but we are aware of the difficulty of quoting the Prime Minister in such a manner as to assure his assent. The Prime Minister also indicated that our status was so recent and so important that it was necessary to make this gesture to the world. He will pardon me for reminding him that our present status is exactly ten years and two months old. That status was assured to South Africa and the other dominions by the fact that representatives of those dominions signed the Versailes Treaty as representatives of state in a position to sign independently of any other state.

Instead of ten years say 19.

Let me be quite fair to the Prime Minister. The position was legalized in 1919, the money was paid as it were, but the formal receipt was signed in 1926. Will the Minister claim that he has secured this status not only for South Africa but also for the rest of the dominions of the British empire, Canada, Australia. New Zealand and Newfoundland? Surely if he had achieved these great results for the other dominions, it would be suitably recognized. I have not heard of statues being erected in his honour in Canberra, Ottawa or Washington. I believe there is an effigy of him at Madame Tussauds’ where no doubt his counterpart presentment is unworthy company. Who won that status?

You?

I had a humble part. The Prime Minister is generous enough to admit that some of the Unionists risked their lives for the status of South Africa. Other South Africans were afraid to risk their influence when the safety, honour and welfare of South Africa was threatened. I am one who rejoices at the principles I held as a Unionist. I do wish the Prime Minister would give us an opportunity to explain to his followers that we are not as bad as he and his friends would make out. Will he guarantee one a fair hearing in his constituency. I can assure him he would get a most courteous and attentive hearing in my constituency. It is a pity that the impression should be created, especially on these new young members, that the Unionists are the absolute limit in political life. Our principles were sound. We really did desire and worked for the union of the races, and when opportunity came to put those principles into practice, we took that opportunity. We dissolved our organization and amalgamated with the South African party when it became clear that party had the same views as ours on that particular issue.

Did you surrender your principles too?

No, we did not surrender them.

I would like to be clear about our status. I would like to know if we are still a dominion. Is there still such a thing as a British empire in existence? Must we not now speak of the Union as an independent state? I would like to make a few quotations from the speeches of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). [Quotations read.] Now I ask again: What are we? I would like to be clear on that point. The hon. member for Standerton spoke about British preference. He wants reciprocity. The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) lost his temper. That is wrong. I came here to receive knocks and also to give them. But he gets angry. We shall never have a different spirit among the Opposition unless they learn our language, our history and our customs. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) said that it is a pity that so few English speeches are made from this side of the House, but why do we hear no Afrikaans speeches from the other side? If we heard more then a better understanding would arise. The hon. member for Standerton in 1924 spoke of the necessity of extending the markets for our products but now he criticizes the German trade treaty.

In spite of the fact that no less than four Ministers have tried to explain to us what they really have in mind in appointing ministers plenipotentiary in Europe and America, I have to confess that as a simple man of business, I am still left completely at a loss. We have at present trade commissioners on the Continent and in New York, but under the new proposals of the Government all these representatives of South African trade in these centres will be wiped away. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has pointed out, quite rightly, that ministers plenipotentiary, who, after all, are simply ambassadors of the second rank, cannot interest themselves in the trade of the country to which they are accredited. These ambassadors of second rank are given many rights, they are given ex-territorial rights, exemption from customs duties and other privileges and in return for these they are expected not to interest themselves in the domestic affairs of the country to which they have been sent. As the internal trade of a country is a matter of purely domestic concern, it is quite clear that they would be debarred, as ministers plenipotentiary, from exercising any commercial functions in the markets of Italy, Holland and New York. I notice, from the estimates, that in spite of the fact that these ministers plenipotentiary are so debarred, they have attached to their staffs commercial secretaries who, presumably, are secretaries who know something about commerce. What is the point of placing secretaries who know something about commerce, on the staff, when the envoys exercise no commercial functions. I think that what the Government really has in mind is that the commercial secretaries will look after the trade of our country, in other words they are going to be trade commissioners in disguise. We are evidently going to send trade commissioners to these countries and call them something else, so that presumably the people there will not know what they are. I should like, on behalf of the commercial, industrial and agricultural communities, for all of which I can speak, as I am a member of every one of these sections, to say to the Government that if they are going to spend £30,000 on representation in Europe and America they should spend it in the direction of securing first-rate trade commissioners, rather than of securing third-rate diplomatists. I am only concerned to secure for our ever-growing production new markets in Europe and America. As an agriculturist let me say that if I find my fruit rotting on the trees for want of a market, it will be of very little satisfaction to me and others similarly placed to know that our representative in Rome has direct access to Signor Mussolini, or that the South African flag is flying in the Quirinal.

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Acutt) seems to me a little sensitive, somewhat easily hurt. He and his fellow Natal friends are willing to secede from the Union at once if only we say a word that we no longer want them. He, however, starts from the wrong point, for he imagines that Natal is already part of the Union, but this is a mistake. Natal is not yet in the Union. If one asks someone in Natal where so-and-so is then the answer is: He is not in Natal, but he is in the Union. As soon as Natal comes into the Union then they can talk of seceding. But the hon. member for Umlazi who spoke so much about the co operation of the two races and came and told us that it is the old policy of his party of which he is so proud, the Unionist party to strive for co-operation—I want to ask that member why he or his party did not contradict the papers when the papers—not Nationalist papers and not old South African party papers—a few years ago published nothing but race hatred. I have here an East London paper and when I read what is said here then it is just typical of many things which were said concerning the Nationalist party, especially the Afrikaans-speaking section of that party. It was not contradicted by the South African party. We see here what this paper says about the flag controversy—

Now this is what they say and I ask the hon. member for Umlazi why he does not first go to his own people before he lectures this side about race hatred? I can now very well understand why one of the hon. members opposite, I believe the member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), who rode through his constituency and suddenly came upon a lion was not eaten up. I understand it was known to be a man-eater but the lion with a growl of contempt turned round and walked away. The hon. member for East London (Gen. Byron) said that he would like to know whom we are going to appoint as envoys overseas. I do not know whom we should appoint and I do not intend to prescribe to the Prime Minister but I think that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) might well be sent to Italy. In Italy they have a very good remedy for combative people and when later the hon. member for Illovo comes back perhaps he will trouble the Ministers a little bit less. The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) would perhaps be a good one to send to Holland. He would then have a very good chance to learn Dutch. For America we could take a member who got in with a very small majority, a majority that is disappearing. If we send him to America his whole difficulty would be solved.

It was not my intention to take part in this discussion but after what has been said I shall be neglecting my duty if I remain silent. The hon. member who has just spoken poked fun at me but even though I got in by only one vote none the less my constituents sent me here. What I cannot understand of the hon. members for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer) and for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) is that they say that we on this side of the House have no right to speak about the poor. Let me tell them that I represent many poor people and that I have the right to speak for them. I have not heard one member opposite objecting to the expense of the appointment of envoys but I still remember how a few years ago they kicked up a row over the expense in regard to Morley’s Hotel in London. Now they sit dead silent regarding this expense. It is now proposed to appoint three envoys but eventually there may perhaps be fifty. The public and the poor will not approve of this expense. It may be because I am stupid, but I have not yet been able to find out what these people are going to do overseas and I am sure that if hon. members opposite must give an account of this at a public meeting then they will not be able to say how they can explain it. I am really sorry that the old story of the Unionists and people who cause dissension has been dragged in again.

It is a guilty conscience.

The Prime Minister is the biggest sinner; cannot this strife come to an end?

Are you so ashamed of your politics?

Are the Unionists such a terrible lot of people? I am not ashamed to sit here with a number of votes which I got from them. In Johannesburg we live in peace. In the country a bogey about the Unionists is hung up and although hon. members opposite themselves do not believe it they proclaim it to ignorant people and these people must swallow it. At the last election the Nationalist party had quite a few Unionists as candidates and they were glad to get them. When hon. members talk like that about Unionists then it is only because they are jealous because they cannot get more. The Nationalists also state that there is so much division on this side of the House, but I do not know of it. It is on that side that there was division between the allies of the Prime Minister, the Labour party. It is also flung at our heads that there are only a few Africanders here among the Unionists. I am not ashamed, for they are people who have come here to make a living and they are helping the country forward. I have told my electors that they can be thankful that there are so many Unionists because the Africanders obtain work with the Unionists in the large towns. I am sorry that the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) is not here. He said that 80 to 90 per cent. of the youth are Nationalists; but then they must be sucklings because at the last election it appeared that the South African party obtained 17,000 more votes than the Nationalist party.

How many kaffir votes?

The public were told that the old Saps were all dead but according to the number of voters there are more Saps than Nationalists. In conclusion I wish to emphasize that in the treatment of national affairs we must put aside race hatred and work together to build up South Africa.

I wish to direct a few words to the hon. members from Natal. This afternoon I felt very sorry for the hon. member oh the front bench opposite who rose to say that he is of British birth and cannot follow the Prime Minister. It is a pity that this is the case with so many representatives from Natal. After all we are living in a bilingual country.

Not in Natal.

I thought that Natal like the rest of the Union accepted bilingualism in 1910.

Bilingualism is not necessary there.

It is now admitted that they do not need that language there and do not speak it and if this continues then they will never learn it. I am convinced that they are still filled with the old spirit that a man is educated only if he can speak English. They are still filled with the spirit of 1907 and 1908 when there was an agitation against the Free State Education Act and when they said that they were not going to put up with Dutch being rammed down the throats of their children.

How many of you cannot speak English?

I do not believe that there is a single member on this side of the House who cannot follow everything that Opposition members say and who cannot express themselves in English. As a rule I speak Afrikaans but when I come to Durban then I can make use of English. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Acutt) became impatient this evening because we make charges against Natal. Let me assure hon. members from Natal that there is only one sound policy, namely, that the two races must work together. We accept this and say that this is the only sound foundation upon which we can build, but in the way they are going on we shall never obtain this co-operation. I rose this evening to read for the information of hon. members from Natal a letter which was written by someone who lives in Durban and I read the letter in English. It runs—

H. de C. Louw.

Where did you get that letter?

It appeared in the “African Sun.” Hon. members opposite laugh, but there you have the spirit of the Unionists. Of course what appears in the “African Sun” and “Die Burger” is untrue! This man does not hide his name.

He is secretary of the Nationalist party there.

Then he is a well-known person. I just want to say this one more thing—if this is the spirit of Durban, which is revealed in this letter, then it is no wonder that they do not want to learn Afrikaans, and never will understand it.

Do you believe it?

Yes, I believe it, because I have myself been in Durban and know what kind of spirit prevails there. We must have co-operation between the races and build up the country, but the sooner the Unionist spirit disappears the better for the country.

I do not want to interpret the rules too strictly, but I must remind hon. members that we are discussing the policy of the Government.

I could not help being reminded when listening to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer) of the fable of the fox and the grapes, but with this distinction, that on this occasion it is not a case of the grapes that are sweet, but the fox which is Sauer! It is extraordinary that he should lecture us about racial co-operation. As the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) pointed out, one of the finest evidences of racial co-operation was afforded when the Unionists combined with the South African party. I heard the Prime Minister interject: “Did you surrender your principles?” I hope that he does not imagine that it is a necessary corollary that principles should be sacrificed when two parties coalesce. In the last five years, it is true, certain sacrifices have taken place in the principles of certain political parties, but we on this side of the House can give the assurance that no sacrifice of essential principles has been made so far as we are concerned.

Hear, hear!

It is interesting to hear these interjections, for I have often wondered what the real allegation is against the Unionists. I am a South African, and I have never been out of this country, but I am classed with the Unionists because I belong to the South African party. I have been trying to find out what a Unionist is and what a good South African is. Addressing a meeting in the country the other day, I was told I was not a good South African because, apparently, I was not a member of the Nationalist party! But what makes it so difficult for me to understand that statement is that there is in Cape Town a very good citizen of American birth who refuses to take upon himself South African citizenship, yet, because he is a member of the Nationalist party, he is looked upon as a ware Suid-Afrikaner. I was born in this country, and have as much Dutch as English blood in my veins, but, because I belong to the South African party, I am called an uitlander. It is baffling for us young South Africans who are trying to co-operate and to play our part in the upbuilding of the Union. Personally, I do not see why we should not co-operate, as in every-day life South African party men and Nationalists co-operate. Therefore, I was very disappointed when the question of Unionism was dragged in again so unnecessarily to-night. There is one other point I would like to mention. So far the Prime Minister has failed to enlighten the House why three particular countries were selected to have ministers plenipotentiary sent to them. Surely there are other countries to which it might be advisable, for business reasons, to send these ministers. There is another aspect of the case. Imagine some of the independent states in Europe and South America being affronted that South Africa, having attained its higher status, had failed to send ministers plenipotentiary to them. One hopes that the Prime Minister does not wish to precipitate an international crisis, but again one asks why have only three countries been selected for most-favoured-nation treatment of this description?

Perhaps we can now return to the business of the country again. I would like to ask of the Prime Minister if he can tell us something in regard to Swaziland. I at once appreciate that this is a matter of high policy, but for the last five years we have been directing attention to it. The whole of the Transvaal bordering on Swaziland has for the last nineteen years been cherishing the hope that Swaziland will become a part of the Union, and I would be glad if the Prime Minister can give us information as to whether he has any hope of this prospect. There is a great difference between the position of Swaziland and the other two protectorates, Bechuanaland and Basutoland. Swaziland was much more a part of and nearer to the Transvaal than the other two territories. The people in the eastern districts have great difficulties, and at the time of the establishment of Union we were busy with the matter, and there was a discussion to bring Swaziland into the Union, but only because we had larger matters to deal with we could not put it through. The leader of the Opposition in the Transvaal (Sir George Farrar) said in connection with the position of Swaziland that two-thirds of the land was owned by whites, that the whites had considerable rights, and expressed the opinion that the white population would increase considerably in the near future. He Game to the conclusion that Swaziland should be incorporated with the Union. I have learned also that some years ago there were insurmountable difficulties. I do not know if I need to point out to the Minister certain difficulties and hindrances which we feel on the eastern border. There is, e.g., the restriction on the removal of cattle. Swaziland falls under a different control, and a large number of the farmers in Eastern Transvaal have their winter grazing in Swaziland. Those farmers can by no means make the same use of winter grazing as those who have it in the Transvaal. One of the hindrances is the restrictions regarding east coast fever. I think that the Minister of Finance has himself appreciated the difficulties. I certainly do not think that Swaziland should be treated on the same footing as Rhodesia in so far as the importation of cattle is concerned. That is one of the difficulties. We also know, however, that the Swaziland Government has taken steps to make the Transvaal farmers who bring their sheep to Swaziland for winter pay income tax in Swaziland, because they maintain that the farmers obtain a part of their income in Swaziland. We say it is not so, but theoretically it is, perhaps, correct. Last year the Minister of Finance decided not to let farmers pay income tax twice, but, unfortunately, it is unavoidable that farmers must fill in two income tax forms. We know the trouble of filling in one form, and now they have to fill in still another form for the Swaziland Government. There is trouble also about labour. The land owners in the Transvaal who also have land in Swaziland have given up trying to get labour from the lowveld, and many of the farmers are selling their land in Swaziland. I don’t know if the Prime Minister is interested, but another difficulty is that the poor candidates in the border districts have an almost insuperable difficulty in getting voters from Swaziland to the polling booth. They cannot vote by post because they are outside the Union. If it came to a vote the decidedly large majority of the inhabitants of Eastern Transvaal would be in favour of Swaziland joining up. I would be glad if the Prime Minister could make a statement.

Before I reply to that, I want to say something in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I hope he will not take it amiss if I reply to his question why he is not a good South African that I saw no reason why he was not until he came to the end of his speech. He used to be a Unionist, but, according to his speech, I did not doubt but that he was a good Afrikaner until he spoke with such disparagement about South Africa that I had to conclude that my first impression was wrong. I am still looking for the Briton who will befoul and bring contempt on Great Britain as the hon. member did on South Africa. If I were to say about the British empire or Great Britain what the hon. member said about South Africa, there would be no end to the indignation on the other side. In the few words the hon. member said, he showed so much contempt for South Africa that I cannot believe that there is much love for South Africa in his heart. With regard to Swaziland, negotiations have been in progress for two years to secure its incorporation in the Union, and they were made, inter alia, at the request of the white inhabitants of Swaziland. I made the necessary representations to the British Government to see whether it could be done. At that time the British Government met the objections which the white inhabitants of Swaziland had against being included in the Union, and then they again changed front, with the result that the British Government hesitated to take the step. Let me say that there doubtless was another important reason—perhaps the most important one involved. Namely, the spirit which we have frequently seen in the past and which, I regret to say, will probably be observed in the future as well, namely, that there are certain people in England who think that the interests of the natives are not safe in the hands of anyone in Africa. It is these same people who were opposed to Europeans having the rights of Europeans in other African territories. There is no doubt that the influence which these people can exercize in elections, and which they are exercising by their representations to the British Government, have contributed to make the British Government reply that for the present they would prefer the matter to stand over. One thing is, however, certain, I think, viz., that in the long run, as far as Swaziland and Bechuanaland are concerned, we cannot go on as at present. They may continue for a few years more, but even at the commencement of Union everyone saw that those territories ought to be included in the Union. I have not the least doubt that we cannot go on indefinitely as at present, because it will undoubtedly lead to differences with regard to native policy. Then, further, matters cannot continue as at present without discriminations being made. There is already discrimination as in the case of stock imported into the Union from Bechuanaland. Influence is already being exercized to go further in this direction; these are all matters which will lead to the existence of a state of affairs which will not be in the interests of South Africa. I, therefore, hope during the term of this Government to again approach the British Government to secure the incorporation of Swaziland in the Union.

And Bechuanaland?

I was just coming to that. As regards Bechuanaland, as well as Basutoland, we have nothing to gain by it. It will cause us more expense than anything else, and the Europeans have nothing to gain by it, but for the reasons given by me, I think we cannot go on as at present. Let me say, in justice to the British Government, that there were no signs, nor are there, of any objection in principle. It was more of a practical nature provisionally, but I hope the time will come that Bechuanaland also will be handed over to us. Of course a small portion will go to Rhodesia, and I stated frankly to Mr. Amery during his visit to South Africa that we made no claim to that area, because we thought that it belonged to Rhodesia. Rhodesia, too, and its inhabitants, feel that their interest will be better served if that part is included in Rhodesia.

Just another point. I do not know whether the Minister quite understood me. I was thinking of the difference between the way in which the incorporation of Swaziland and Bechuanaland can take place. Provision is made for the former if the white inhabitants of the country want it.

That is just what we thought of.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, “Treasury,” £44,374,

I want to ask the Minister a question with regard to depreciation allowed on farming machinery for income tax returns. What is happening to-day is that all sorts of rates are being allowed, sometimes 20 per cent. In my own case it is 15 per cent., and in the case of some other farms 10 per cent. There seems no rhyme nor reason about it. 10 per cent. is altogether too low for farming machinery. The average farming machinery in this country does not last ten years nor anything like it. I think the depreciation should be from 15 to 17½ per cent. as a standard for farmers’ machinery. In many cases farmers are not allowed a rebate. Perhaps the Minister will go into it, because the position to-day is unsatisfactory.

Well, the hon. member knows that the principle of our Income Tax Act in regard to this question is that reasonable depreciation is allowed, and it depends on the kind of your machinery. In some cases 10 per cent. would be adequate, and in many cases it would not be. Each case is treated on its merits. Whether it would be possible to facilitate the administration of the Act, and it would be of advantage to farmers to have the depreciation fixed, is a matter I will go into. Of course we do not want to worry farmers more than necessary.

I would like, if I might, to turn to the question of customs duties on foodstuffs and building materials. The Minister gave a list of reductions he had made, but the fact remains that the 1925 tariff has brought in more revenue than the Minister anticipated, and it has done so every year; in fact, has exceeded the Minister’s anticipation by nearly one million a year. What I did suggest was that he should return some of this additional money he gets to the taxpayer, and more particularly to the poorer class of taxpayer. The Minister says that his policy is that the board should be careful not to impose additional burdens on the mining and agricultural industries. We all agree with that policy. What I suggest, and what I suggested before, is that the Minister has forgotten the consumer. I quite agree that he has looked after the mining industry within certain limits, and that he has looked after the agricultural industry, but I say that in the reductions which he makes, he entirely forgets the poor classes of consumers. Those are the persons I now ask him to consider. I ask him during the recess to consider these persons, because I do not anticipate that he will do more this session, but I do anticipate that if he gets a customs revenue larger than he has budgeted for that he should tackle some of the items which I mentioned. I purposely omitted to mention in my list any commodity which was protected for industrial purposes, with one exception, and that was the case of cotton blankets. I do not suggest that the Minister should take off the whole of the duty on cotton blankets. That duty now averages over 50 per cent. In some instances it exceeds 100 per cent., but on the whole it averages well over 50 per cent. I suggest that on the poor man’s blankets he should be content, and the industry should be content, with a 25 per cent. protection. The cotton blanket industry can only be established by the importation of the materials required for that business. It is not going to affect the woollen blanket industry, because the people who buy the cotton blanket cannot afford to pay for a woollen blanket. The Minister in his speech referred to representatives of the commercial houses. I quite agree that there are pettifogging traders, just as there are pettifogging attorneys.

The hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate in the same session.

All right, I won’t refer to the Minister’s speech. The commercial members are the men in this House who see the working of the customs duties every day of their lives, and see the effect of the customs duties. Therefore it is only natural that they should be the people who deal with the subject, and the Minister should not look for any other reason than the simple fact that the commercial members understand the subject. That is why they talk about it. The Minister talks about the duties being passed on when he grants a reduction, but he started off with the proposition that he has given reductions already, and that the poorer classes have benefited by them. The Minister cannot have it both ways. It is quite clear that if the previous reductions which he gave have gone to the poorer classes, there is no reason why future remissions of taxation should not also go to the poorer classes. It is perfectly clear that if a merchant can hold on to a halfpenny a pound on coffee, it would also be quite possible for him to raise the price of coffee a halfpenny without any reduction.

The hon. member is replying to a speech delivered in a previous debate, which is not allowed under the rules.

Cannot I deal with the policy?

The hon. member can deal with the policy, but cannot reply to a speech made in a previous debate of this session.

I ask the Minister to deal with cotton blankets, and to deal with building materials and such articles as stoves, on which he gets 20 per cent. and builders’ ironmongery on which he gets 20 per cent. It is quite reasonable for us to ask that these remissions of duty should take place, because there is no doubt whatever that they have caused a great deal of hardship, and that they have brought in a great deal more money than the Minister anticipated. I do not ask him to give up anything that he anticipates, but only unanticipated revenue.

The hon. member has again been offensive and personal, but I shall reply to his remarks. The hon. member talks about the receipt of more revenue than was budgeted for. That was due to the fact that more goods were imported. It has nothing to do with the tariff being higher.

You received more revenue.

Because there were more importations. Cotton blankets are taxed in accordance with the Government’s policy in order to encourage the use of the woollen blanket. The effect of these duties has been that not only have our woollen blanket factories expanded, but cotton blanket factories have been started here, bigger factories are going to be started, and the native is able to get a good cotton blanket in this country at a reasonable price. Let me tell the hon. member, take your Basutoland native, why does he wear woollen blankets as a rule? I will turn to the question raised by the hon. member with regard to customs duties. I tried to explain to the House when we reduced the duties in 1927-’28, and again this year; three years running I have been surrendering customs revenue. When I decided to make these reductions we tried to give the benefit to the people who deserved it most in order to reduce the cost of living. We selected items where we thought it would be possible for the merchant to pass on a duty. Tea was one of the items. We took off 2d. a pound, and this was passed on, and I said I hoped it would be possible for the merchants to pass on other reductions. I may mention coffee, paraffin, rice. These are items it would be impossible for the merchants to pass on. It would go into the pocket of the merchants, although we shall continue to give a reduction of customs duty, it is rather difficult now to achieve that object, namely, not to interfere with existing industry, and to make a reduction in such a manner as it would be possible. There are still certain articles where we shall be able to make reductions on those lines. We have not exhausted the list altogether. We have made such reductions as we think the country can afford. I think the income tax reductions which have been made, have benefited a great number of people.

I would like to refer to the question of ex-service men’s pensions. In the course of a discussion of the matter a fortnight ago the Minister made a reply which I will not comment on, but I refer to it because it leads up to a request I am going to make. I do not understand from the Minister’s reply that the door is entirely closed against the possibility of relieving the disabilities of service men. I understand that one of the considerations in his mind is the question of the cost. I am convinced that the cost of putting into effect the reforms urged by the two organizations, the B.E.S.L. and Die Bond van Oudstrijders is not as great as seems to be feared. These organizations would be glad to satisfy the Minister and the House as to the question of the cost of this reform. They are, however, in this difficulty that the information which is necessary in order to enable them to form an estimate of the cost is in the hands of the Pensions Department, and I would ask if the Minister would give the officials of that department authority to give the information asked for, so that the cost of the reforms may be worked out. I shall be glad if the Minister will facilitate the efforts of these two organizations to clear up that aspect of the problem. The cost of carrying into effect these reforms will be a diminishing cost. They will not be a permanent burden on the finances of the country. The reduction in the cost of ex-service men’s pensions and so on amounts to £144,500 in one year. I realize that part of that sum may be transferred to another vote. But there is at least a very substantial reduction. I would like to refer to a point mentioned by an hon. member opposite which showed that there was a misconception among some people as to the nature of the reforms. It was said by the hon. member that these reforms were proposed in the interests of those men who went overseas during the great war at so much per day. That is not true. There are some in dire straits today as a result of the Boer war; men who fought on the British side and also men who fought among the republican forces. I want to make this quite clear that we are not pleading the cause merely of those who took part in the last war, but also for those who fought on both sides of the Boer war. Many widows of men who fell on the republican side are obliged at the present day to exist on pensions of £65 per annum, because they cannot prove their husbands’ pre-war earnings. I hope the Minister will be able to give us the information we are asking for. I had intended to ask for a return, but found difficulty in framing the heads of a return which would supply the desired information, and I hope he will help us in that respect.

Hon. members opposite praised the Government on its treatment of the Provincial Councils, but I think they do not know much about the Cape Province, otherwise they would not tell so many yarns. I want to say something briefly about the treatment of the Cape Province with reference to the grants for school children. Hon. members know that at the Durban Conference of 1925, the Cape Province was granted £14 11s. 11d. for every child, the Transvaal £16 7s. 6d., the Free State £16 2s. 7d., and Natal £16 7s. 6d. I should like to learn from the Minister why the Cape Province gets less than the other provinces. We are entitled to £255,000 more per annum than what we get. Education, owing to the sparse population in the Cape Province, costs about 15 per cent. more than in the other provinces. We must also remember that the Cape has borne the burden for years of training teachers for the Union. The Minister has given no sound reason for treating the Cape so badly. Does the Minister think the cost of living is higher in the other provinces than in the Cape? I have taken out the cost of living throughout the country, and it is more or less the same. Take, e.g., sugar, it is cheaper in Natal than in the Cape. Then again rice, paraffin, flour, refined flour are cheaper in the Cape, as other articles are cheaper in the Free State than in Natal. Leaving out houses, the cost of living here is not less than in the other provinces. If we look at the official figures on the cost of living in the large cities of the Union and we look at 1910, 1914 and 1918—

The hon. member cannot discuss new legislation in relation to the cost of living.

We should like to know why the Cape Province is treated in that way. I just want to quote the official figures. We find that if we take 1,000 as the basis that the cost of living in the Cape Province is 321 points; this is higher than in the Free State, where it is only 284 points. I am here only speaking of the cost of food. In Port Elizabeth it is 379 points, which is higher than the Witwatersrand, 315 points.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the subsidy is fixed by law and that the hon. member is not entitled to advocate an increase in it.

But I would like to know why the Cape Province gets less than the other provinces?

The Act says so, and so I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the matter.

I would like to know why the 40,000 children on the countryside in the Free State should get a larger grant than the 100,000 similar children in the Cape Province. The cost of living in Bloemhof is no higher than in any similar village in the Cape. I say that we have a real grievance, and I want to know from the Minister why the Cape Province should suffer in this way. Then another point. I do not want to go back to 1910, 1913 and 1917, but in connection with the Durban Conference, I want to remind the Minister that the Transvaal gets £400,000 every year from pass fees, and that the Free State and Natal get £75,000 every year which comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, including those of the Cape Province. The Cape Province loses the grants on local authorities and native councils. The expenditure on them is £660,000 a year, and the Cape therefore loses £330,000 a year.

The hon. member is again advocating fresh legislation, and I cannot permit it. He may ask a question.

I should like to know the reply of the Minister about it.

The first reason is because it is the law and the reasons were given when Parliament passed the Act. I will give them shortly, but if the hon. member is not satisfied I would advise him to consult with his leader, who gave the same reasons during the election. They are shortly, that the Durban Conference made an agreement which is based on the actual needs of the various provinces in connection with the services they have to perform under the Constitution. It is quite impossible to introduce absolute uniformity. When the financial relations were settled in 1913 and subsequently and ultimately at the Durban Conference the basis was the needs of the various provinces. The last Government appointed a commission to report on the cost of education in the various provinces. The grants were ultimately based on the report more or less with the distinction that in the Cape Province a higher grant was given for the first 30,000 children, a grant higher than what was proposed. As a proof that the compromise was fair to the Cape Province, I may mention the fact that of the £1,000,000 extra I paid, £500,000 or more went to the Cape Province. The Cape Province was faced with a heavy deficit and the levying of taxation, but that has now been unnecessary for the last five years. The Cape taxpayer is the only one in the fortunate position of not having to pay a heavy provincial tax which the other provinces levy.

We have other taxes.

I have heard that so often before, but the Cape Province taxed itself for services which the other provinces do not have.

In reply to the request made to me by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) I would be only too pleased to give the organizations any reasonable information they may require to present their case next session.

I would like to ask the Minister to reduce the customs duties on road making machinery. Up to now we have been using mules and wagons, but the traffic has increased to such an extent that we must adopt mechanical transport to maintain our roads and the Government is benefiting to a very great extent. When we have good roads, the Minister of Railways and Harbours puts his motor lorries and buses on them without giving us a contribution.

The hon. member is also advocating legislation or a change of legislation. I cannot allow it. The hon. member can ask a question in connection with the matter.

Can I ask the Minister why he cannot give us a reduction of these customs duties?

I also have to point out that the grants to the Cape Province for education are less than in the other provinces. I agree with other hon. members on both sides of the House that we, as representatives of the Cape Province, feel it very much, and considerable pressure was put on members during the election to advocate it here. Can the Minister not consider the question of making the grants uniform. I know the whole history of the Webster Commission, but I want to urge—

The hon. member is advocating legislation. I cannot and will not permit it. Hon. members must keep within bounds.

Then I should like the Minister to favourably consider the amendment of the Act as soon as possible to put the Cape Province on an equal footing.

A few years ago the Government gave £500,000 and of that the Cape got £150,000, the Transvaal £150,000 and the Orange Free State and Natal £100,000 each. On the basis of square miles in the Cape it worked out at 10s., in the Transvaal £1, in the Free State £2, and in Natal £2 17s. If worked out on a European population basis out of the £160,000 allocated in the Cape, the Cape got 4s. 3d. per head, the Transvaal 5s., the Free State 9s. 3d. and Natal 12s. 6d. Why I rose to address the House is because I think the money should be more equally divided than it was last time. I think the Minister should treat the Cape Colony on the same basis as the other provinces.

I would like to refer to the answer given by the Minister to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I think it would be unfortunate if the Minister was to be under the impression that the demand for the reduction of customs duties came only from those engaged in commerce. The demand is widespread, and as a simple consumer, I wish to press the same point upon the Minister’s attention. May I ask his attention to the possibility when he is arranging the customs duties with the view of raising revenue, of confining the taxable articles to the smallest category possible. It is surely a proper canon of taxation that you should raise your revenue from the most convenient source, the cheapest source, and the one that will cause the least possible difficulty and inconvenience to those from whom the tax is raised. If you raise your revenue from taxing a small number of articles, you eliminate intermediate costs, without diminishing a single fraction of the revenue which comes into the Treasury. Therefore, leaving the whole question of protection on one side, your revenue will be raised from a small number of articles, and you will have a reduction in the cost of living not only by the amount of the duty remitted on those articles, but also by the remission of the total amount of extra cost which is imposed by the profit of the intermediaries through whose hands these articles pass. I press that on the attention of the Minister.

I am much indebted to the hon. member for the assistance he has given me. I shall bear it in mind when I am framing my next estimate. The art of taxation consists of plucking the greatest amount of feathers with the least amount of squealing. I do not think we can pursue the subject further and prolong the discussion.

May I point out where in plucking the feathers there was also some squeal. I would like to refer to the people who come to this country with the intention of returning within six months. They have a good deal of trouble in getting their money back which they have deposited with the customs. I knew a lady who had a lot of money to pay on a violin, and as she stayed more than six months, she had a great deal of trouble in getting the money back.

That was an act of grace.

People have to declare cameras, violins and other belongings with a promise that if they go back within six months the amount will be refunded. I say, let the visitors come and bring their belongings with them. We are protecting no local industries, for we do not make cameras and violins.

I hope the Minister of Finance is in an amiable frame of mind. I would like to refer to a deputation which met him in Queenstown in connection with the high quitrents prevailing in the Gaikaland area, in the districts of Cathcart, Stutterheim and Komgha. When I tell the House that these people are paying at the rate of an approximate average of £5 10s. per hundred morgen, 1s. a morgen quitrent per annum—

Whether the Minister of Finance will be pleased to reconsider his decision—

The hon. member cannot discuss the question.

Will the Minister remit the transfer duties on lower priced property?

That point cannot be discussed as it would involve legislation.

Transfer duties are provincial revenue, and therefore do not come under my control. In any case I do not think they affect the question of housing at all.

Vote put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee to-morrow.