I move—

It is an honour and a pleasure to move the second reading of this Bill. An honour because Pretoria is the administrative capital of the Union; a pleasure because I have lived there for the greatest part of my life. It is my home, and I live in Pretoria. The object of the Bill is to change the Transvaal University College into a university. The object, therefore, is to give a higher status to that institution. In political matters we, in the Union, attach great importance to the higher status; we not only do that, but we long for it. There are even some amongst us who long for the highest status of all. I shall not mention the name of that highest status, because that name has recently become unpopular in the very best Nationalist circles. In 1910 the Transvaal University College was established as an institution for higher education, and in 1916 it became a part of the Federal University of South Africa, There were then three universities, Cape Town, Stellenbosch, and the Federal University of South Africa. That Federal University consisted of 6 university colleges, viz., Bloemfontein, Johannesburg, Grahamstown, Pietermaritzburg, Wellington, and Pretoria. Subsequently another was added, viz., Potchefstroom, and in 1921 Johannesburg seceded, and became the University of Witwatersrand. The position to-day, therefore, is that the University of South Africa once more consists of 6 colleges. The Johannesburg College is no longer included, but Potchefstroom has been added, and the number of students is now about 2,000. To get this second reading passed I think I must prove three things. The first is that it is in the interests of the Pretoria institution, the second that the position of that institution justifies it, and the third that the remaining five colleges will not be injured by this alteration. As for the first, that it must be in the interests of the Pretoria institution, I may say that it is not in the interests of the institution to be a member of the Federal University because the federal system is circumlocutory, and does not work well. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr), while he was head of the Johannesburg institution, gave evidence before a select committee which was considering the Bill with reference to the Witwatresrand University. The hon. member then said that the federal system, in view of experts in educational matters, was unsound. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has a deep knowledge of educational matters, and when he talks of things which he thoroughly knows, and about which it is not necessary for him to sit on the fence, then we can safely listen to him. He further says that the federal system was a stumbling block to the development of education. I can say that that is true, because the federal system is very circumlocutory, and works slowly. Take, e.g., the case of examinations; the universities of Cape Town, Stellenbosch and Johannesburg have their own examinations, and the results are published early in September, but the university college of Pretoria only announces the results in February or March, because it belongs to the Federal University of South Africa. Take the case of the student sitting for his examination in November, and who wants to apply for a post in January or February; if he comes from the universities of Stellenbosch or Cape Town, he can say that he has obtained his degree, whilst if he comes from Pretoria he can only say that he hopes to get it. He may therefore suffer great damage. To make any change in the regulations under the federal system sometimes takes one or even two years, because the Senate only meets once in twelve months. The Senate of the University of South Africa consists of 130 members, who come from all parts of the Union; they have to come from Wellington, Grahamstown, Pietermaritzburg, and all the other places, and the expense therefore is very great of course. Then there is another reason why Pretoria wants to secede from the Federal University of South Africa. Pretoria is the only member of that University that has a faculty of agriculture, a faculty in Bantu languages, a faculty in administration, and is also the only one that has a faculty in veterinary science. As for the last mentioned Pretoria is the only one in the whole Union to have a faculty. Therefore if there is any question with regard to that faculty they must wait until the Senate of the whole university meets to decide the matter. I do not say that they do not understand the matter, but they do not have such an interest in it. This is, therefore, a strong argument in favour of separating from the University of South Africa. When the University of Witwatersrand was established the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) pointed out that in Johannesburg they had faculties for medicine, music and architecture, which the other colleges did not have, and yet they had to go to the authorities of the Federal University to decide questions in connection with those faculties, although they did not take great interest in it. The hon. member was practically the only person who gave evidence before that select committee; the other witness was the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) who, however, brought forward no new facts, and who merely concurred with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). It was, therefore, simply on his evidence that Johannesburg got the higher status of a university, and all the arguments in his evidence apply just as much in Pretoria as they did to Johannesburg. Section 3 (4) of Act No. 12 of 1916 which established the University of South Africa, makes provision for special permission being given to any section of that university becoming an independent university as soon as the college is ripe for it. We, in Pretoria, are ripe now for a university. The second proof I have to bring is that the position of Pretoria justifies this change. To prove this the number of students must be looked to as well as the number of faculties, and the professors there with their qualifications as well as the financial position of the institution. When we compare Pretoria with Cape Town and Stellenbosch at the time they became universities, we find the following figures in the report of the select committee where on page 12 a comparison is made between the four universities. We see that in 1916, when Cape Town and Stellenbosch became universities, and in 1921 when Johannesburg did the same, Cape Town had 6 faculties, Stellenbosch 6, Witwatersrand 6, while Pretoria now has 7 faculties. Thus we have more right to a higher status than the others had at that time. We find, moreover, that the staff in Cape Town was 27, in Stellenbosch 38, in Johannesburg 72, while Pretoria now has 144 members of the staff. Even here, therefore, we also have more right than they had. The income of Cape Town was £27,000, that of Stellenbosch £18,000 and that of the Witwatersrand £60,000. Pretoria, however, has an income of £76,000; thus even in that respect we have more right than any other institution that has become a university. We find that the assets in Cape Town were £700,000. It appears that the inhabitants of Cape Town and surroundings are more generous than in other parts of the country. In Stellenbosch they were £100,000, and those of the Witwatersrand amounted to £400,000. The University College in Pretoria has assets amounting to £383,000, but to this must be added a further £150,000, viz., the valuation of the institution at Onderstepoort and that brings the value of the assets to the second highest of all. The number of students in Cape Town in 1916 was 468, in Stellenbosch 336, and in Johannesburg in 1921 it was 800. Pretoria has 918 students. The figures speak for themselves. If the position of those three universities at that time was such that on that account they could get the highest status then it is more than time to-day for Pretoria to get that status as well. Hon. members will possibly say that we already have too many universities in this country with a population of 1½ million. We already have four universities, one of which consists of six colleges. This means that we have nine institutions for higher education for a population of 1½ millions. Hon. members will possibly say that it is not a good thing to have so many universities because it will lower the value of the degrees. I admit that in a country with so small a population it would be better possibly to have one large institution for higher education, but no change can be made now. The nine institutions exist, and this Bill will make no change in the existing position. No new institution is being added, the nine are already there. As has been said, it would perhaps be better to have merely one or two universities, e.g., one in Cape Town and one in Pretoria, or otherwise four, viz., in Cape Town, Pretoria, Johannesburg and Stellenbosch. That would perhaps be the ideal position, but if there is a mistake it was made in 1916. We can change that only by closing down existing institutions, but I want to ask hon. members from Natal whether they will agree to the college at Pietermaritzburg being closed, or whether the Free state members will be agreeable to have the Bloemfontein college closed down? No, just as little as we would allow it in Pretoria. Thus 9 institutions exist and this Bill makes no change. The alteration will actually be an economy, because the figures show that the Pretoria institution contributes £3,500 to the cost of examinations, while Cape Town only contributes £2,500, although to-day there are more students in Cape Town than in Pretoria. As for the value of degrees, everyone will agree that the value depends on the status of the professors of an institution. It is a well known saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; therefore the value of a federal university depends on its weakest institution. As for the University of South Africa I think I offend no one when I say that the Pretoria University College is not that weakest link. Pretoria has, therefore, the full right of getting that highest status; in any case just as much right as Cape Town and Stellenbosch had in 1916, or Johannesburg; in 1921. Then there is the point I have to prove that the other five colleges will suffer no damage. According to the evidence of the Registrar of the University of South Africa, there will be 1,200 students more in the University of South Africa more or less equally divided among the institutions. There will be a saving for the University of South Africa if the University College of Pretoria secedes. There will, therefore, be economy on both sides. This is one of the few separations I know of where there will be no damage on either side. We see that Pretoria now wants to secede from the University of South Africa, but we hear that Bloemfontein also is already talking about it. Others will possibly follow, so that eventually only Wellington and Potchefstroom will remain. The Act lays down that when a college is fit it can get its own charter, and if Bloemfontein can show that it is fit it can also get its higher status. I hope the time will also come for the other colleges, and then we can allow the two stepchildren, Wellington and Potchefstroom, to join up with the existing universities, e.g., Potchefstroom with Pretoria, and Wellington with Stellenbosch, where it actually already belongs. When the university college in Johannesburg wanted to become a university in 1921, they sent a letter to Pretoria, and the Senate in Pretoria replied in a very dignified way, and said they would not stand in the way of Johannesburg if it wanted to separate. Therefore, I request hon. members now not to oppose the Bill.

I think that the House has every reason to be thankful to the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) for the full and clear statement he has given of the circumstances that led to the introduction of this Bill. I personally must thank him for the deep study he has made of the evidence I gave nine years ago before the Select Committee. I only regret that he stopped half way; if he had read my whole statement he would not have used the arguments here that, all the reasons I gave in favour of the separation of the Johannesburg University also applied to the case of Pretoria.

For instance?

The financial position. We are concerned here with an important matter. The establishment of a new university is of the greatest importance to any country. It is a thing which needs full enquiry and consideration by the House. We must regard the matter from all sides, and, moreover, an arrangement has been come to with reference to the order paper.

On the motion of Mr. Hofmeyr, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd March.

Since we debated this matter last I have had the opportunity of reading a speech by Mr. Malcolm Irving, the Chairman of the British Manufacturing Association. Since reading this speech I have not the least doubt that the Minister was right when he said that if a request contained in this motion were complied with it would simply mean that we in South Africa would be working for the interests of the British manufacturers, and that the motion practically had nothing to do with the sale of South African produce. The object of the motion is merely to rouse more enthusiasm in South Africa to buy British manufactures. One would imagine from that that there was a prejudice in South Africa against British manufactures, but I do not think there is the slightest grounds for that. If the Minister were to grant this request, a new body would be created not to see to the sale of our produce, for which provision is not made, but to make propaganda from one end of South Africa to the other for the buying of British goods. The work of the body would, e.g., be to persuade the inhabitants in Durban to order no more Union Jacks from Germany, but in England, and such like things.

He cannot leave it alone.

Is it not so? And then the people would have to be taught not to buy American motor-cars, but only British motors. That is the kind of work it would have to do. The Minister has clearly shown that he has sufficient machinery to provide for the marketing of our agricultural produce, and that we do not require further machinery which is proposed. He has shown that we have the economy and markets department, the information bureau of the Board of Trade and Industries, the trade commissioners, etc., They are all engaged in pushing the sale of our produce. Merely to meet the British manufacturers, a new body has now to be established to make propaganda for British goods. I fear that hon. members opposite are not fully acquainted yet with the institution of the Empire Marketing Board. One member after the other has practically laid down the proposition that the Government of Great Britain spends so much money on the Empire Marketing Board that we are obliged to create another body to co-operate with the Empire Marketing Board, and in this way to recoup the Government of Great Britain for its expenditure. Let me point out that there is no obligation like that on us. The Empire Marketing Board was not created so that a new obligation should be put on us, but practically to compensate us, to give a quid pro quo for what the English manufacturers have in our country to-day. It is well-known that England is a free trade country, and they cannot meet the dominions with satisfactory preference, and therefore the idea is, by means of the Empire Marketing Board, to give a sort of recompense for the preference which England gets in the dominions. That is the contributing cause to the establishment of the Empire Marketing Board, but now, on the other hand, it is said that we have the further obligation to spend money in South Africa on another body. The obligation, however, does not exist at all. My objection, however, is not only that we have no obligation, or that such a body is not necessary, but it is especially the impression which the motion must create. Hon. members opposite have tried to create the impression that this Government is inclined to be hostile towards the Empire Marketing Board and to trade with England without their giving any grounds. This is the same kind of propaganda which we have known so long, which we had in connection with the German treaty, etc., and which is always on the go. The impression must be created that our Government is hostile to England and the Marketing Board. What do they base the statement on? The mover of the resolution said the other day that the Government did not appear to want to co-operate with the Empire Marketing Board. What are the grounds for that statement? Has the Government ever shown that it was not prepared to co-operate? Where there was an opportunity the Government did co-operate, as in the cases of the exhibitions at Newcastle, Wembley, Birmingham, the British Fair, etc. We have a representative on the Empire Marketing Board. There is not the least doubt that an attempt is being made by hon. members to create the impression that the Government is inimical to British trade and the Marketing Board. We, on this side, have not the least hostile feeling against sound trade with England, or any part of the British Empire. On the contrary, this Government will gladly do anything to push trade with England, or any part of the British Empire, or any part of the world, but we object to charges being constantly made against us by the opposite side when we try to show that it is necessary to trade with other nations of the world as well. When we do so we are said to be hostile towards England. I do not think the hon. members are showing a service to the Marketing Board. On the contrary, they are representing the Empire Marketing Board as a sort of head of an “Imperial green-eyed monster” that looks enviously at South Africa as the only friend in the world. The charge is again heard that we say “South Africa alone.” Even the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has been so foolish as to repeat it after his predecessors. There is, however, no member on this side who preaches the slogan of "South Africa alone” in trading matters. When we preached "South Africa alone” it was in the sense that we wanted to govern ourselves, and not have other countries poking their noses into our Government. Where we, however, always still say “South Africa first,” oven in trading matters, the other side still say “the Empire first.” Hon. members opposite now represent us as standing for the isolation of South Africa. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) also spoke last year of the narrowness, the backwardness of a large section of the South African people, with a reference particularly to the Nationalists. The pettiness and small-mindedness was that they did not constantly have so great an ideal of the British Empire before their eyes. That was the time when be jumped down off the wall of which we read so much in the “Cape Times.” He then said that he thought so little of the native policy of the Government, and accused us of narrow-mindedness. Who is more small-minded than those who want to drive us between the narrow walls of the British Empire, or those who want to live on a friendly footing, even with other nations outside, and also want to do business with them? Another attempt is being made here to persuade people outside that if we were now to appoint in South Africa such a commission or board to co-operate with the Marketing Board our wool market would improve, and we would not have the danger of further depressions. It is said that our farmers will then no longer get into trouble. In what way will it secure us against depressions? The impression to be made is very clear, viz., that we are disposed to be hostile towards the Empire Marketing Board and Imperial trade and that the farmers therefore cannot sell their wool. Only last week the Bloemfontein newspaper—“The Friend”—and I have never yet seen a newspaper turn about as that paper does, at one moment it is ultra-Nationalist and republican, and the following it is ultra-imperialistic—argued in relation to a few words I had spoken in the North that our good friendship with Germany meant enmity with England, and that that was the reason we were having such a bad time. All this is to create the impression outside on people who are not acquainted with affairs that we are inimical towards England and therefore we are having such a bad time. I should, however, like to know whether England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are having less bad times than we are? I never yet knew that South Africa exercised certain influence on the world market that so much depended on our actions. No, we have to do with nothing else here, but party political propaganda. Apart from propaganda being a despicable thing, this motion is without any value for us, and it is merely intended to support the sort of Imperialistic idea which has recently been preached here, and to which the Leader of the Opposition also recently gave expression when he said that the British Empire must be “a self-contained united British Empire.” The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) also spoke of economic unity.

Why not?

I should like the hon. member to tell me whether he thinks that the English market is able to take all the wool produced in the British Empire, more than two-thirds of what is produced in the whole world. I am not even speaking of diamonds and maize. It is true that England plays the part of broker to a great extent, but hon. members opposite so often speak about its being in the interests of the South African producer of getting rid of the middlemen. The people who preach that Imperial trade and Imperial free trade have the old idea that the dominions must continue always delivering raw materials to England, and that England then must have free play to sell the manufactured goods in the dominions. I should like to know what the industrialists in our country think of that. What they think of the view that we must merely deliver the raw material. That idea has lately been very largely preached once more. I see, e.g., in the “Economic Journal” here it is said that it is true that Imperial free trade will have the tendency of making the dominions the sellers of foodstuffs, and raw materials, and to be more dependent on imported manufactured goods. That is the old Imperialistic idea, which is not only an idea of supremacy, but that the overseas dominions, the free and independent dominions, must sell the raw materials cheaply and freely to England so that England can easily compete with other countries of the world, and have a larger market. That is implicit in the motion, and its objective cannot be the selling of the farmer’s produce. The motion will not assist the sale of our produce in the least. We are at the point which the Minister took up the other day that we on our side want to do everything to advance trade with England on a sound footing, but that we also want liberty to develop our trade with other countries of the world. We do not wish to be enclosed withing the British Empire, and to give England a sort of monopoly for the marketing of its produce, while we can only export raw material. I trust that the introducer of the motion will not only realise that the motion means nothing, but that he will even see that it will rather give the people here the impression of the Imperial Marketing Board being merely the monster I have referred to.

I am afraid that the last speaker does not belong to the army of primary producers in South Africa, or he would not be doing what he has been doing, which leads nowhere and serves no good purpose. This country is up against a problem, and it behoves every hon. member to put his shoulder to the wheel and assist. Our economic line is sagging very dangerously, and we should do all we can to tighten it. The primary producer has to-day, as his burning question, markets for his produce. We had recently in the House a measure to deal with a section of our primary producers—the wheat growers—and I hope the measure will help them. I want to put before the House the position of the maize grower. It is becoming a big agricultural undertaking, and one of very great importance to the country, and one good season and market means millions of money in circulation. The production in 1927-’28 was 19,250,000 bags. The country’s requirements are 12,000,000. That is the average amount South Africa uses in the home market, so that 7,250,000 were exported, bringing approximately into the country £3,000,000. The production in 1928-’29 was nearly 1,000,000 less. The crop was 18,500,000 bags, and from June to January we only exported 5,000,000. In January the bottom of the market fell out and export ceased. The position is we have a surplus of 1,500,000 bags on the 1928-’29 crop, and the critical part of this position is that within a few months’ time we will have the new crop. The new crop represents 30 per cent. of a greater area than in 1928-’29. In other words, we had a third more land under cultivation in this season’s crop than during the previous year. Last year’s production was a very normal one, but we have had an abnormally good season this year as far as weather is concerned, and to base this season’s crop upon last season’s yield, we are going to reach in the neighbourhood of 25,000,000 bags, plus the 1928-’29 1,500,000 bags surplus, which will leave ns with from 14,000,000 to 14,500,000 to export. The present position is this. Maize is subject to weevil unless it is properly stored, hence our grain elevators. Our grain elevators have been full since August, and the market price to-day is 7s. 6d. per muid. The cost of production has gone up in the last two years owing to the higher cost of native labour, and the cost of production is 6s. In some districts it may cost less, and in others more, but that is a fair average estimate of the cost. This maize is bearing storage charges which amount to about 1s. I may say that our white flat No. 2 maize is the best of its kind in the world. The Argentine is our great competitor in yellow maize, but in white we stand first. The reason is not far to seek. We have absolutely perfect conditions for the production of maize. The white flat No. 2 maize from the elevators has got to be bagged because the manufacturers of Europe do not favour the transportation of it in bulk. It is such a perfect maize, and it is harvested under such perfect climatic conditions that it is very brittle, and if shipped in bulk its brittleness causes the kernels to break. Therefore it must be bagged. If we take 6s. as the cost of production, then we must allow 10d. for bagging and weighing from the elevators, and 1s. for storage, and the amount comes to 7s. 10d. The cost to the producer being what I have stated, it means a dead loss. That shows how important it is that we should endeavour to get markets. Our greatest competitor is the Argentine. Their crop suffers from climatic conditions, just as in any other country. Their average crop is 80,000,000 bags per annum. If the Argentine crop is a bumper crop this year, then we have got a very thin outlook in regard to the European markets. I think we should endeavour in every way possible to obtain new markets. There is one market which I feel sure that we ought to endeavour to obtain, and that is the Australian market. When we enjoyed that market—

It is the best in the world.

Yes, the prices there were always 1s. 6d. a bag more than in the European market. This market is a phenomenal one as far as South Africa is concerned.

What keeps us out of Australia ?

This Government. We had that market until 1924, and when this Government began to monkey with imperial preferences, and to talk about pulling down the Union Jack, etc., they immediately retaliated by putting a prohibitive tax upon our maize and wattle bark. Let me remind the hon. member of a little bit of history. Until 1922 the Union of South Africa had with Australia a reciprocal tariff arrangement, provided for under a Commonwealth Act, which made provision for preferential rates of duty in our favour. This Act was repealed by the tariff of 1926.

Why?

Because this Government began monkeying with imperial preferences.

Nonsense!

Then what is it?

The king’s head on the stamps.

I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here. On a previous occasion he said it was because of black labour. Is any hon. member on the other side of the House going to tell the House and the country that we only began to produce wattle bark and maize with black labour in 1924? In 1924 the amount of maize we sold to Australia was to the value of £22,257; in 1926 it was £378,490. Let us take wattle bark. In 1924 we sold Australia wattle bark of the value of £20,537, and in 1926 it was over £30,000. Now is the time to recover that Australian market. Perhaps Australia has forgotten the follies of this Government’s youth. We have created good feeling between South Africa and Australia in regard to our wool. They are in the same position as we are with regard to wool. I cannot understand these unseemly interruptions. It is not only that side of the House that has the interests of the primary producers at heart. I have said everyone must co-operate to improve the situation. I am sorry for the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe). We are going to have a bigger quantity of maize for export than ever, and I feel sure we can regain that market if we go the right way about it. I am sorry the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not here. I want to know what his department is doing. They seem to be asleep. The agriculturalists of South Africa look to the department to give them a lead if the home market cannot absorb our produce. Surely the hon. Minister should have had the foresight to see that our home market would never absorb such a bumper crop of potatoes, and those three Government ships could have been filled up with potatoes. Hon. members may laugh, but if they were in the position of the potato-growers they would not laugh. Some unfortunate growers did not trouble to take the potatoes out of the ground, as it meant a loss. Now we see second-grade potatoes selling at 2s. a bag, with the bag costing 1s. Yes, the hon. member for Winburg in his ignorance is laughing over the misfortunes of the agriculturalists of South Africa. Look at his face; I am ashamed of him. He jeers at the position of the agriculturalists in this country to-day. I think the motion is well timed. I think it has been fruitful in useful and constructive criticism of the Government. This is an occasion when the Government get many a good suggestion from this side of the House, and I have given one this afternoon, when I say recover that Australian maize market and wattle bark market. I hope this motion will be received.

I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) and I do not know whether the House had better not treat that speech as the Prime Minister treated the hon. member’s outburst about republicanism. I think that will be the best thing. He said that the market of the Union was better today than it would have been. He said that if the German treaty were not entered into, the price of wool would not have been so high as it is to-day.

I did not say so.

Yes, he did say that we would not have obtained the present prices. Let me tell the hon. member that I sold wool which was sent to Germany when the hon. member was still getting his knowledge of wool by reading in the Bible about the agreement between Laban and Jacob. It seems as if now, to use the words of the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht), he is learning to know the value of the material. The hon. member made a fuss about the motion with regard to the Empire Marketing Board. It will presumably be news to him when I read out something. It is a deep Nationalist outpouring or outburst, whatever they like to call it, which we have had here from the hon. member, and I cannot understand it. What I want to quote is the opinion of a Nationalist, viz., Mr. Pringle, the Nationalist candidate for South Coast for the Provincial Council. He says—

Yes, it is good enough for the South Coast, but things go differently in this House. If the hon. member for Winburg assures me that he has stated the attitude of his party, and that they will vote against this motion, then I will see to it that it is published to-morrow in South Coast, so that the public can see what the position is.

Party politics.

We cannot complain if the hon. member who has just sat down listens with attention, or otherwise, to anything, and does not even understand it. We dare not blame him because it is his lack of intelligence for which he is not responsible. The hon. member cannot teach us anything on this side of the House, because you cannot teach anyone anything if you do not know it yourself. But what does he want to prove now by the quotation of what Mr. Pringle, a Nationalist candidate in Natal, said? What he said there is true. We have a member on the Empire Marketing Board.

What does Winburg say ?

I will make it plain to you what I say, and what this party says, and is already engaged in carrying out. We have a member on the board, we pay him, and what in heaven’s name do hon. members opposite want then? I do not know whether they are all aware of it. [Interruptions.] Let the hon. members come one by one, and I am prepared to answer them one by one. This is not an auction where we can all talk at the same time. I should like to know what hon. members now want the Government to do more. I want to ask them two questions—what more do they want of the Government, and do they themselves know what they want? Let me say this: I also was for a long time a member of the Opposition, but I always knew that I represented a part of the country, and that it was my duty to appreciate that I had a certain amount of responsibility. It seems to me that all hon. members opposite do not yet appreciate that. For the sake of a provincial seat, hon. members want to make out here that we take up a different attitude, and act against the interests of the country, although they realize that it is not true. Here in the House they do not talk of the German treaty, but outside in the constituency of Natal (South Coast) not one of them will neglect to do his best to ascribe the depression existing in the country to the German trade treaty. In this House, where there are people who know, and who can contradict them, they do not dare to do it, and they hadn’t the courage to mention it. They leave it for the ballot-box. Where, however, there are people who can point the facts out to them, and who are acquainted with national affairs, they do not venture upon it, and there we hear nothing of the German trade treaty. Outside in every constituency they have made great use of it, however. Things have already gone so far that they have even shocked their own press, and that is very bad. Even the Cape Argus is shocked, and it says a very great deal when a newspaper like the Cape Argus has to complain that hon. members are now going too far. I ask hon. members opposite to prove to me that this depression and the poor state of the market is due to the German treaty. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) was also careful to refer to the German treaty. He says that it is all due to tampering with the Union Jack. Australia requires our maize, Australia is prepared to pay higher prices for it, because it is better than other maize for its stock.

Why did Australia alter the tariff?

Just imagine, a farmer sees thousands of his sheep dying, but he does not buy maize to feed them, because South Africa tampers with the Union Jack. Can we think of anything more imbecile? It may be good enough for the South African party supporters, but the farmers in Australia will not do it.

There are no South African party farmers in Australia.

Yes, I also got into touch with them after the hon. member over there, and they told me that the change of tariff was due to labour difficulties with which they were troubled in Australia. This all looks very funny, but the supporters of hon. members opposite are inclined to believe it, but let us be honest just for once, or, at any rate, try to be honest, even if it is frightfully hard. I ask hon. members opposite to make the same statements inside the House as they do outside in connection with the reasons for the present depression. Outside they tell their supporters that England and Australia are anxious to have our maize, but they also say that it is due to the German trade treaty that we have no market there. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) in any case quoted figures about the production of maize in our country, and what quantity there would probably be available for export. He never thought of mentioning what would be reaped in the Argentine. He knows as well as we do that the price of maize is dependent on the price of maize in other countries. He also knows very well that England does not care a tuppeny bit where the produce or maize which she buys comes from, provided the quality and the price suit. Will England eat a bad egg because it is laid in its own empire?

She lets our wine in cheaper.

Yes, because it tastes better than bad wine. England will not pay a higher price for worse articles simply because they are produced within the empire. She buys where she can get the best, whether within or without the empire. As long as the produce is good, she will buy where it is cheapest. That is the same principle which she followed in the execution of the meat contract. She gave it to the Argentine.

But the Argentine bought railway material from Great Britain.

But what about the other parts of the empire? Where were the other parts of the empire who buy their material in Great Britain, and who had entered into a treaty with so-called foreign countries? Why do hon. members opposite change their front so much? What is wrong with their case? What is wrong with the country ?

A bad Government.

Yes, that is what that hon. member thinks, but I have not heard of any responsible meeting passing a resolution that this Government should make room for another. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) spoke the other day of the good Government we have had in connection with the wheat position.

I did not.

The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) will also say that we have a good Government in regard to diamonds. Ask the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) about the sugar position. He will say that the Government has acted sensibly, but he will also tell us how stupid some of his friends on the opposite side were.

Where do we send the surplus of our sugar? Not to England.

Yes, and then we still have the German trade treaty. Is there any other grievance that hon. members opposite have? I should be glad to hear it to give them some information.

Yes, but you cannot appreciate the force of our argument.

Unfortunately, we get no arguments from that side. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) said that our flat white mealies were the best mealies in the world, but he fears that we shall have no market for them on account of the German treaty. If England requires those mealies, and can get them, it will buy them, and not worry about the treaty. We readily admit that there is a depression in the country.

But why will Australia not take our mealies ?

Because they are planted by natives. That brings me to the wool position. They also state here that the Government is responsible for the drop in the price of wool, but what is the position? When our wool dropped 30 per cent., the Australian wool had already dropped 40 per cent.

What about New Zealand, and the sending of jam there?

Now questions are coming a bit faster. The hon. member knows it very well. Australia has no treaty abroad like the German trade treaty, and yet the price of our wool is more than equal to that of Australia. The hon. member will also possibly remember that an Australian minister said that if things did not improve in Australia, he would have to consider following South Africa’s example and enter into a treaty abroad to find markets for their produce. Australia, which had never yet tampered with the Union Jack, to follow the example of South Africa!

Australia is going bankrupt.

Yes, without the German treaty. We feel that hon. members opposite need enlightenment, and we would willingly give it. With regard to the meat market, the position is that it is not worse this year than it usually is at this time of the year. It was, in fact, never so good at this time of the year. The market for sheep is a little worse as a result of the drop in wool. This is now attributed to the German treaty.

Is the price of cattle better?

Yes, decidedly better. I lad to send cattle to the market quicker than what I wanted to do, and I got better prices than I usually get this time of the year.

What are you going to do with the surplus ?

I have no surplus. If it is maize that goes to England, then she will certainly not worry about the German contract. We shall try to sell inside and outside of the empire just as England does. We will buy and sell where it is most profitable to us. I do not know whether I can give any further information. I am prepared to do so with the utmost willingness.

I do not propose to traverse the ground already covered by previous speakers. The mover of the motion has made out a very strong case which members on the Government benches have failed to answer. The seconder of the motion said it was necessary that a change of heart should take place if we hoped to regain our markets overseas. I quite agree with that, for there has been too much tinkering with imperial preference, especially of late years, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has ascribed the placing of an embargo on our maize by Australia to that fact. It is certainly extraordinary that the imposition of that embargo should have synchronized with the Union’s tinkering with imperial preference. A further instance which lends colour to his contention is that New Zealand, with which we were developing a very satisfactory export trade in maize, jams and dried fruit, has placed an embargo on those products at a time which synchronized with our tinkering with the imperial preference. The Minister of Agriculture may laugh, but if these embargoes are not due to our attitude towards imperial preference, it is remarkable that notwithstanding the fact that we have been trading with New Zealand and Australia for 40 years, both these countries have placed embargoes on our export.

The Australian embargo is directed against kaffir-grown maize.

We have been exporting to Australia maize produced by native labour for many years before 1925, and it was only when we commenced tinkering with imperial preference that it occurred to Australia it could do without our maize. I am afraid that argument does not quite fit the circumstances of the case, and I do say Australia and New Zealand are not going to tell us, point blank, that their reason for placing an embargo on our exports is our attitude towards imperial preference.

The hon. member must confine his remarks to the subject matter of the motion now under discussion.

[Inaudible.]

I do think our attitude in the past is responsible, to some extent, for the present position in regard to wool. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) said that a change of heart was necessary, with which I agree entirely. Our attitude, in this country, is not such as to encourage our sister dominions to deal with us sympathetically in trade matters. While talking about a change of heart. I see it is coming about, for Mr. Pringle, the Nationalist candidate for Natal Coast, says, in his manifesto—

I want to ask hon. members on the other side, has any hon. member there at any time particularly during the last general election, ever expressed himself in favour of co-operation with the Empire Marketing Board? Not one. The change of heart is due to the fact—

Do you welcome it?

Yes.

What is your grievance ?

My grievance is that this has been hatched out only in order to win votes in the Natal Coast election. It lacks sincerity, and there is nothing genuine about it. I want to say a word or two to the Minister of Mines and Industries in connection with his speech in this debate. He said: “We should have to extend this session indefinitely if I were to enumerate what we have done in connection with the Empire Marketing Board …” I waited to hear him tell us what he had done, but in vain, and the Minister concluded his speech without giving us one instance of the Government’s co-operation with the board. I will not say he tried to camouflage the position, because I was indicted before a select committee for using that word, but he tried to explain away the Government’s lack of interest by saving we have a representative on that hoard. The gentleman who is supposed to be our representative on the board, is ex officio a member because he occupies the position of trades commissioner in London. His connection with the board is merely a side line, and he may attend meetings or not as he pleases.

What about the other members; are they full-time men ?

They are doing it for the love of the empire. They give all the time that is required to the board.

And Mr. Dimond?

I do not know; has he no duties as trades commissioner? Is he able to perform his duties as such and represent South Africa efficiently on the board? It shows the board is a secondary consideration. I have never heard an hon. member get up on the other side and say; “We appreciate what England is doing for us by establishing this board to develop markets for our produce.” I have never heard a word of thanks and appreciation expressed on that side. As far as I can see, this act of generosity has not been recognized or appreciated in the way it should. As a matter of fact, the board’s good intentions and good work have been flouted by hon. members opposite.

What have they done to frustrate them ?

Sat on the stoep.

That is the attitude the Minister takes up. England may give £1,000,000 to assist us to stimulate the sale of our products in England, and so long as you abstain from attempting to frustrate her efforts and good intentions you are jolly good fellows. I am afraid this change of heart, which this manifesto of Mr. Pringle indicates, is not manifested on that side of the House. I support this motion.

You say Mr. Pringle is not sincere?

Do you endorse what he says ?

Certainly.

Well then will you vote for the motion.

I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and I want to ask him whether it is true that the maize farmers of Queensland objected to the importation of our maize because it was grown with black labour. I also want to ask my hon. friend whether he is prepared to allow Australia to send wheat in free, and for us to export our maize free to Australia? When the agricultural union at the instance of the Free State decided to hold an inter-imperial Conference, they immediately saw that they must be very careful regarding the fiscal policy of the various governments, so that they did not meddle with that. We cannot permit the wheat of Australia to come in free, and we cannot interfere with the fiscal policy of Australia, if she will not admit our maize. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) is not here because he told the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) that he had already exported wool to Germany when the hon. member for Winburg did not know at all what wool was. I am glad that he exported wool to Germany so early, but it is strange that recently at Vryheid he said something to farmers who were speaking about the economic depression, which does not tally with what he has said here to-day. He said that when the wool market dropped the Minister of Agriculture referred to England, and that the reply was merely two words, viz., “try Germany.” I think that we must label the hon. member as “the try England” member. The hon. members charge us with pettiness, but their attitude is more than petty. The leader of the Opposition in the Senate also told such stories about the German treaty during the Cradock election. The editor of the Midland News then sent a cable to Mr. Hoolings and asked him whether the German treaty was the cause of the drop in the price of wool inasmuch as the Bradford wool buyers no longer wanted to buy South African wool, and the reply can be found in the Midland News., viz.—

That is the answer from one of the biggest wool experts in England. I have here as well the report of Mr. A. W. Dalton, British trade commissioner in Australia. He says—

He attributes the high price we had to foreign competition especially European competition. How can hon. members find fault with the Government for seeking markets in Germany? Here we find that owing to foreign competition—the trade commissioner of England in Australia says so—the prices of wool have risen. How can hon. members further say that Australia is against us because we seek trade outside the British empire, when Australia itself experiences the benefits of trade outside the empire? The hon. members speak of a change of heart. I hope there will be a change of heart on the other side, and that they will no longer be so petty as merely to look within the British empire. We also appreciate the trade within the British empire, and want to do nothing to lose it, or to injure it, but we still feel that if we can only market 49 per cent. of what we have to export, then no one will object to our looking elsewhere in order to get rid of the balance. England, herself, has made a treaty with Germany. She has entered into a treaty for five years, and England said that we should actually try to restore peace, and that they were also entering into the German treaty on behalf of the dominions. I also just want to point out to my hon. friends that there is a very great danger if we are merely to remain within the enclosure of the British empire. We see that big combines are being formed. The one big combine is the American combine, and opposed to it has arisen a European combine. Lord Melchett pointed it out the other day. A party is easily established in England to put a third combination in opposition to them to create the combine of the British empire as a third counter-balance. I want to ask my hon. friends over there what it will look like if the farmers, e.g., can no longer get their phosphates from Holland at the low prices, but have to pay £5,000 more. Are we then to have another war owing to the form of the combines? We must see to it that every possible channel is explored to get good prices for our produce. The other day the hon. member for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke about a man in England who would not buy our oranges because we had our own national flag, and the hon. member was prepared to give the name of the man who had experienced that they would not buy our oranges. I just want to point out that Lord Selborne, the first Governor-General of the Union, in a recent speech said what they in England were only too glad to buy our fruit, but wanted to pay by exchange of trade, and that they did not have the cash to pay with. Lord Selborne is not afraid of those stories. He looks at things from the proper point of view. I think it is necessary to develop as many markets as we possibly can get. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) specially warned us the other day in connection with the Quota Bill not to offend all those countries who were not mentioned in the schedule inasmuch as we needed their markets, but here are his friends who say that we are losing the whole market because we made the German treaty.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I merely want to point out that the arguments of the hon. members opposite conflict with each other.

I will not tax Mr. Speaker’s patience by wandering off the issue like the last speaker (Mr. Bekker), but it ill-becomes the Minister to ask us what the Empire Marketing Board has done. He knows that even better than we do. He asked the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) whether they gave all their time to it. I may be wrong—

You are wrong.

It appeared to me that a note was struck of “well, what are the other men doing?” The Minister, speaking of the trade commissioner’s representative, asked what the other members are doing to a greater extent than the South African representative. Are you not satisfied with ins work? I am not saying anything whatever against our representative. If he is helping then I am delighted to hear it. I am conscious that members on that side of the House have been deeply stirred by this motion, but I cannot understand what all the feeling is about, I think those of us who have listened carefully will admit that the beginning of the heated argument emanated from the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe). But let us look at the motion as it stands. It is quite clear. It only asks the Minister to do something to assist the Empire Marketing Board from this end. Well, the hon. Minister knows from his own experience—although I understand that was gained from the legal side —that a business man has to go from point to point to find out where he can secure a market. Now the Minister admits that the Empire Marketing Board is doing good work, so let us sympathize, its members are all doing good work. If any hon. member votes against this motion, including the Minister of Agriculture, —I want him to take note of this—then I will say they are not friends of our primary producers. If they do not follow this up, they are lazy in mind. Whatever you can do to help the primary producer ought to be done. I think the motion is a good one. I hope, if it is carried, the Empire Marketing Board may be the means of recovering our Australian maize market. I do not view this question politically—I do not understand politics.

That is why you have been sent here.

Oh, your politics are different from mine. I also could work up this racial heat if I wanted to, but I think it is foolish. I have been informed that according to Dr. Earle Page the loss of the Australian market for our maize was on account of their people feeling so sore over our tampering with imperial affairs.

That is not true and you know it.

It is true. I was his guest; you were not there.

I have made a statement on reliable information and if the hon. member for Oudtshoorn questions it let him say so, but I think he should withdraw his remark when he rises to speak.

I think the hon. member should withdraw the words now. He has in effect, accused the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) of telling the House a deliberate falsehood.

I did not wish to convey that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

Order, order. Will the hon. member withdraw?

Yes Mr. Speaker, if you order me to withdraw the words I do so.

I do not say that I am right in my interpretation of the Minister’s remark, but it does seem that the Minister is not happy—that he is not satisfied—that the Empire Marketing Board is really doing us good. There appears to be something in his mind that makes him have an antagonistic feeling towards it. That is what I am so sorry about. If in anything of this sort we can get a helping hand from people from anywhere, we should welcome it Even if the Germans will give us a helping hand in the matter, we should welcome it, and more particularly should we welcome it when it comes to the empire.

Politics.

I merely mention this, and I am not talking politics. I would ask the hon. member to listen to what I have to say, and then he can decide if it is politics. I wrote to a friend of mine in London after the German treaty had been signed, and I asked him if he could tell me if the signing of the treaty had had any effect on the buyers in London of our stuff. He replied that it had had no effect whatever. Later on, he came out to this country, and I again asked him the question if it still had no effect. He replied “No, I am afraid I cannot say that now.” [Interruption.] You see how quiet and complacent members on the other side of the House were when I told them that that treaty had had no effect on the buying of our products, but when I followed it up and it does not suit their purpose, they make a noise about it. That is not fair. If hon. members treat me fairly, I shall treat them fairly. My friend when he came out here said, “I am not quite sure that the position is the same to-day. Things have changed. I visited a big manufactory where they had been buying Argentine goods. I was rather astonished to find it, and I asked him about the position and said, You should be buying empire goods and pushing them’”. Let us follow that point up in a thing of this sort. The German treaty did not make any difference to me, so far as my business was concerned. But among the population of England, Scotland and Ireland, there is a growing feeling in their minds that they do not like it. It may be forgotten in six months’ time, or in the end they may act as Australia did. It is the little things that make the trouble, and we must guard against that. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. X. J. van der Merwe) talk about the “green-eyed monster”. If we did not have that green-eyed monster to look after us, we should be in a sorry plight. We have been told that Great Britain only buys in our market because it suits her to do so. I would point out, however, that it also suits us. She takes our wines, and gives us a preference.

And we give her a preference.

Do you give her a preference on the things that matter?

Of course,

She takes our fruits and gives us a preference.

And £1,000,000 a year in advertising our goods.

Yes, £1,000,000 in advertising our goods in addition to the preference, and yet our friends over there talk as they do.

It is not for love of us.

It may not be out of love for us that she does this, but it is out of love for the empire and we are part of the empire. We spring from British stock. Then why not show a friendly feeling and ask the Government to accept this in a non-party spirit? Let us explore this thing, and have a year’s trial and try to do something with it. If we cannot do anything with it, at all events, we shall then have done our best.

As a primary producer, I will welcome any measure proposed in the House to relieve the farmers, the most hardworking section of the population, in this difficult time. If I gathered the view from the speeches of hon. members opposite on this motion that the intention was to assist the primary producer, then I would heartily support their motion, but I listened here this afternoon to all the speeches opposite and concluded that the motion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), who is not a producer but is known as a strong party political leader, was put on the paper for nothing but political reasons.

You are wrong.

The hon. member says that I am wrong, but the hon. member for Illovo and all the other hon. members of this House who have spoken know just as well as we do that the great solution of the problem of proper prices for our produce is not to be found in co-operation with the British Marketing Board, but that we have our great difficulty in our own country. Hon. members know that I, as a wheat farmer, get 16s. or 17s. for it, then the miller makes 6s. to 7s. profit when he buys it, and on the flour he makes another 6s. to 7s. profit. The result accordingly is that the price of bread remains the same notwithstanding the low price of wheat, but hon. members do not speak of that, but only of co-operation with the marketing board. Hon. members know that a farmer hardly gets l½d. a lb. for his wethers, but if you want to buy a good piece of meat in Cape Town you have to pay 1s. to 1s. 3d. a lb. Hon. members do not refer to these facts, but they merely try with this motion to create the impression that this Government is hostile to the British Marketing Board. The Government of the Union is therefore asked to co-operate, but they keep silent about the Government having a representative on that board. I ask them how we can co-operate better? Hon. members opposite suggested no way because they only want to suggest to the House and the public that we do not get better prices for our produce because the Government does not stand by the marketing board, and will not co-operate with it. I want, however, to ask hon. members to repeat the charges which they make all over the countryside, viz., that the German treaty is the cause of the farmers getting such bad prices for their wool, while Australia is getting good prices. That is what they have been preaching far and wide on the countryside. I ask any of the hon. members, and I ask the leader of the Opposition, Gen. Smuts, to repeat that charge here. If that is the cause then the Opposition is neglecting its duty. Then it is the duty of the Opposition to introduce a motion calling upon the Government to immediately denounce the treaty with Germany, but they do not do so. They prefer to suggest by this motion that the Government is hostile to the marketing board, and that on that account we can get no market for our produce. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) had to get up here to say that New Zealand had increased its preference tariff on South African produce just because we had tampered with imperial preference. Why does not the hon. member bring facts in support of his statement? He knows that he can find the Hansard of that Parliament here; why does he not quote the speeches of the Minister who proposed those alterations to prove that his statements are right? But the hon. member does not do so, he merely makes loose statements and wild charges, just like the wild charges that they tell ignorant people on the countryside. But it is only the ignorant people who believe them, because I can assure the hon. member that the Nationalists are not so ignorant, they do not believe those statements at all. This side of the House represents the producers, while that side chiefly represents shopkeepers and big business men, but when they want to do something for the producer, when they want to table a motion for the Government to enquire into the steps to assure the producer of a proper price for his produce, then I will heartily support it, but I cannot support this motion which has merely been introduced for political purposes.

I do not want to make a long speech, because I hope the Minister will accept the hon. member’s motion, but I have, of course, a small amendment. I take it that hon. members opposite quite agree with me that we must find markets for our produce. I agree with them that the object is not to benefit England, and we know that they specially aim at the interests of South Africa. In order, however, to enable us to obtain all possible markets, I just want to move a small amendment, and I hope and expect that the hon. member will accept it. It is—

Now it includes the whole world, and I am certain that hon. members opposite will have no objection to our looking for markets for our produce throughout the world

seconded.

I feel that wrong conclusions may possibly be drawn from this debate, or that statements may be misunderstood; and therefore, I want shortly to state what took place. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has tried to bring the House and the country under the idea that because we did certain things with reference to British preference, Australia became so frightened that they would no longer buy South African maize. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) supported him in this. Let me just say that if the hon. member were to speak about steam ploughs then we might understand it, but when he speaks about meal and maize he is quite wrong. I will, however, prove that he is wrong. He mentioned the report of the answer that Minister Crawford gave to a question in the Australian Senate with reference to the repeal of the preference on our maize—

Members opposite are trying to persuade the country that it is the action of this Government that has damaged trade. From the quotation I have made here that Australia wants a market for its own maize, and she therefore raised the objection in connection with black labour. The whole matter has nothing to do with the German trade treaty. Hon. members opposite are simply trying to exploit the German treaty for political purposes. They forget that England entered into a similar treaty in the same words with Germany five years before we did.

No.

Well, there you have it. Hon. members opposite do not know that it exists. We have practically followed that treaty literally.

Did Great Britain not reserve the preference?

What preference do you mean. No, those hon. members have brought nothing before the country, and if they do not try to twist things, then it is clear that their politics are quite bankrupt. The general election showed that the country has no confidence in that party, it also showed that the public had full confidence in this side of the House. I hope the Opposition will now be honest enough to say clearly to the country that the German treaty had nothing to do with the oppression. They are too cowardly to talk about it in this House, but in the country they spread all kinds of rumours. Now let me come to the motion, it seems to me very much as if hon. members opposite do not know what the Empire Marketing Board is. If they knew it they would not have introduced the motion, or else to create a body to co-operate with the marketing board. The chief work of the marketing board is research work. Is there co-operation in that respect between the marketing board and the Union ?

It is an Empire Marketing Board.

I have no objection to calling it so, if it will satisfy my imperialistic friends. Do hon. members opposite know that the Empire Marketing Board gives the sum of £11,000 annually to Onderstepoort? This amount has been promised for five years, so that it will amount to £55,000. Further, the Empire Marketing Board has given £10,000 for extension of the building, and where can there be a better proof of co-operation? They come here and make a big noise about a matter they know nothing about. If there were no co-operation, would the Empire Marketing Board have given this amount? There is the best co-operation between the Union and the board in connection with research work. The second occupation of the Empire Marketing Board is advertising. The board is not a committee to go and look for markets here and there. It merely advertises, and the Railway Department co-operates with it. The third duty of the board is the granting of bonuses, and in this also the Union co-operates. Hon. members opposite also complain that we have no representative on the board. Are they then dissatisfied at Mr. Dimond being our representative on the board? By whom was he appointed? What sin has he committed that he is no longer a good man? Hon. members now remain quiet. They now see that they tried to begin a political campaign here, and they have to sound the retreat. They sit here and make a poor show like a lot of sheep without a leader, and they do not know where they have to go to. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) spoke so much nonsense here about the so-called tampering of the Union Jack. They will have to say better things than that to create an impression on the country. The German trade treaty did actually make our wool market worse. We are, as a matter of fact, selling our wool to Germany. If France and Germany had not bought it, we could have been in a very difficult position. They, of course, buy it because they need it, and not from love of us. England also buys it because she needs it. She certainly did not come and buy it from us against her own interests. Does she give us the benefit to go and buy things from love where it is against our interests to do so? England did not give its meat contract to South Africa but to the Argentine, because she could get her meat cheaper from there. Why then should we also not buy in the cheapest market? Now hon. members opposite are looking down their noses. I hope to test their honesty by the amendment which has been proposed. I hope they will support it. It has been said that no member of the Government has ever said anything in favour of the Empire Marketing Board. Before the election, at the opening of the agricultural union congress in Durban, I made a very clear statement as to how we were cooperating with the Empire Marketing Board. I discussed the matter from beginning to end, and yet hon. members say that we have said nothing about it. Do they then expect us to stand at the street corners and blazon forth praises of the Empire Marketing Board. No, hon. members think that they can make a little political capital in view of the approaching Provincial Council elections. They are wrong. The country will take no notice of this matter because it appears that there is no ground for the charges that have been made. I hope the mover will accept the amendment.

We have had a very interesting discussion, but I am very sorry that it engendered so much heat and political feeling, because I am perfectly certain this motion was never introduced with a political motive. I assert that. Hon. members opposite see a political motive in everything that is done, and cannot see that the business of the country needs economic thinking separated from political motives and influence. Just to show how little we regard this motion from the political aspect, I am going to accept the amendment, because it is perfectly obvious that if the board which is to be established is to co-operate with any other similar association in the world, they will have to be created elsewhere. They do not exist, and outside of the Empire Marketing Board there will be no association to co-operate with. We therefore accept the amendment, not perhaps in the spirit in which it is offered, but to prove our bona fides. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe), whenever he approaches any subject connected with the British empire, sees red. His disordered imagination sees an imperial ghost behind every bush. There is no imperial ghost behind this, but we have been considering this matter solely from the point of view of our primary producers. It is not a subtle, dark design of imperial domination, but a sound business proposition we are putting before the House and asking hon. members to accept for the benefit of the farmers of South Africa. The Minister of Mines and Industries made a speech in which he refused to accept this motion, as it was written on the Order Paper, in, I think, a very childish manner. He added nothing of interest to the debate. He seemed to have an extraordinary misapprehension of the whole position. For instance, he started off by telling us that all we were concerned about was to confine our trade to the empire, which not a soul had suggested. Then he went on to state that the Government had given Great Britain preference on 22 articles and dropped preference off about six. I suppose that is the sort of nonsense he has been retailing all over the country. Did the Minister not know that what actually happened was that the Government, in 1925, reduced the imperial preference which South Africa afforded to Great Britain from £860,000 to £300,000? And yet the Minister endeavours to make the House believe that the Government had benefitted Great Britain. Does the Minister know that this year alone, we have exported 127,264 tons of sugar to Great Britain, which has given South Africa a preference of about half a million. What is the position regarding the preference now? On whose side is the balance to-day? Sugar alone accounts for a greater preference than we give to Great Britain. A good deal of that sugar has gone out of South Africa in order to allow dumped foreign sugar to come in. Nevertheless, South Africa has benefitted.

Was my statement wrong?

Yes, your statement is completely at fault. The sheet anchor of the Minister’s argument, as it has been the sheet anchor of the Minister of Agriculture, is our wool. The Minister has pulled a great deal of wool over the eyes of the electors in the past, but he ought not to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of members. Let me put this to the Minister. He says that Great Britain cannot buy all our wool. It is not true.

Prove it.

I will Great Britain imports from foreign countries 21 per cent. of its total wool purchases, and that 21 per cent. more than covers the 60 per cent. of our wool which goes to other countries, so Great Britain could easily buy all our wool. The price of wool can be dictated by those who own the bulk of it. The empire owns a very large part of the total wool of the world, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa together, if they were to co-operate with the rest of the empire could stabilize the price of wool. They could dictate the price and our wool producers could be better oft. So much for the argument about wool. Let us take maize. The whole of our export is only one-tenth of the total requirements of Great Britain, Can the Minister not see that there is an enormous field which could be cultivated for the benefit of the maize farmers, and for a better price, if he would co-operate with the Empire Marketing Board in endeavouring to achieve some measure of stability for our products? Can he not see that an arrangement could easily be come to through the Empire Marketing Board to obtain a better price than we are obtaining to-day? There is a strong movement in Government circles in Great Britain to make the Empire Marketing Board more effective in the actual marketing of products, and our cooperation would help this movement, enormously. Take meat. The Minister has been complaining about meat. Does the Minister realize that 432,000 tons of chilled meat, besides a large quantity of frozen beef, goes from the Argentine to. Great Britain each year? If you were working hand in glove with the Empire Marketing Board, would it be impossible to arrange that Great Britain purchased some of its meat requirements from us? Take tobacco. We get an imperial preference of one-fourth of the whole of the duty in Great, Britain, which is 8s, 10d. per lb.—2s. 2½d. per lb. on our tobacco in Great Britain Why don’t they buy our tobacco?

On account of the ring.

Why don’t you break down that ring? It is because you are afraid of entering into co-operation with the Empire Marketing Board.

Why don’t they buy Rhodesian tobacco?

They are buying Rhodesian tobacco. The Minister of Agriculture in Rhodesia, finding the Rhodesian tobacco farmers in great straits, personally went to Great Britain, got into touch with the Empire Marketing Board, and secured a market for 5,000,000 lbs. of their tobacco, and now Rhodesian tobacco is selling extensively in Britain. The British people are acquiring a taste for Rhodesian tobacco, and the demand is increasing all the time. Why are we not doing that? Great Britain buys £14,000,000 worth of tobacco annually, and only about £3,500,000 worth from the empire. Take oranges. Only 24 per cent. of the oranges consumed in Great Britain come from the empire. There are enormous opportunities for our oranges. Yet we allow ourselves to be ousted by foreign production for lack of the goodwill to reciprocate. The consuming markets of Great Britain are dominated by foreign products. We could alter that to our advantage if we would seize the opportunity which is thrust into our hands and make the best of it. I want to show that this motion has not sprung in a night out of the head of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). It has been long in incubation. It was considered by the primary producers years ago. It is the result of a feeling which is becoming more widespread throughout the country, as well as in Great Britain itself, that we are not pulling our weight in the marketing of our products. On October 30th last there was a South African Agricultural Union congress held in Cape Town at which this matter was thoroughly discussed. The Agricultural Union adopted unanimously this resolution, which was introduced by a representative of the Free State—

Now it will be seen that the Agricultural Union proposed that an inter-dominion conference should be held next year to consider these matters, and the organizing secretary of the Orange Free State Agricultural Union, Mr. G. A. Kolbe, who, I understand, is a Nationalist, said—

A preliminary draft of the aims of such a cooperative association was drawn up soon after this meeting, and it has been taken out by Mr. Allen, who is touring Australia as one of the South African farmers’ representatives. This draft has been sent out for the consideration of the Australian farmers and the Canadian and British farmers who are on the delegation. The aims of the conference are set out to be as follows—

In this connection Mr. Kolbe pointed out that—

We want the Government to do a little more than support this principle of co-operation We want to create a board to consist of 14 members on the same lines as the Empire Marketing Board. It will be, in fact, a South African branch of the Empire Marketing Board, consisting of 14 members. The standing of the Empire Marketing Board may be judged by its members and our South African board should be of equal status. In England the board consists of: The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Scotland, the Controller-General of the Department of Overseas Trade. All these and representatives from each of the dominions form the Empire Marketing Board. Two of the 14 members, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) suggests, should be members of the Cabinet as in Great Britain. By having two members of the Cabinet as members of this board, the Government will be in complete touch with all its activities. It is thought, too, that three of its members should be drawn, one each from Government departments. Une would be the Chief of the Department of Agricultural Economics, another the Chairman of the Board of Trade, another, the third, the Head of the customs department; there would be six members representing the primary producers of South Africa; one representing the perishable products board, another the citrus and deciduous fruit growers, a third the pastoral industries, a fourth cereals, maize, etc., a fifth sugar, and the sixth meat exports: of the three remaining members—one should represent finance, one distribution, and one transportation. With a board of this nature, good work could be done. Its duty would be to carry on precisely similar work in South Africa to that of the Empire Marketing Board in Great Britain. The Empire Marketing Board was not created for the purpose of selling manufactured goods from England to the dominions, as has been stated, but for the purpose of selling empire goods in Great Britain. Its functions may be judged from the last report of the Empire Marketing Board which reads as follows—

Naturally reciprocity is expected from the dominions; how could you expect otherwise? Hitherto the Empire Marketing Board has very largely concentrated on the cultivation in England of the will to purchase our products; to have some influence on the business of marketing without interfering with the established channels of trade, and it is with a similar object that a board is so necessary in South Africa. The primary object of the board is to market our products more efficiently and more cheaply whilst obtaining the best possible price for the producer, giving him some confidence in the future of his products. I have already told the House how this board will serve to forward the resolution which was proposed by the South African Agricultural Union. Now, it is very clear to anyone who has followed the remarks I have made, that the South African Agricultural Union anticipated, in a far better manner than the Government, the depression coming over this country. It anticipated the necessity for taking cooperative action with the rest of the commonwealth in 1926. That movement has crystallised into the present motion designed to afford the necessary assistance in a practical way. The motion before the House is to rectify the omission of the Government in not taking notice of the resolution passed by the agricultural conference. It asks Parliament and the Government to do effectively what the Agricultural Union, without Government backing, must do very ineffectively indeed. If the Government will accept this motion and thereby give a magnificent gesture of co-operation towards Great Britain and the other dominions, there is no doubt that similar boards will be established throughout the empire: and the result must undoubtedly be the restoration of confidence among the primary producers of South Africa and the assurance that the development of the Union can go on with the certainty that the products which are sown and reaped will find a profitable and preferential market in the other parts of the empire.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.:

announced that the committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Dr. Stals from service on the Select Committee on Asiatics in Transvaal and appointed Mr. Swart in his stead.