Last night after a very short discussion in committee, sub-section (c) was deleted. That provision followed an identical provision in the Transvaal that no male is entitled to be put on the register if, within six months of the framing of such register, he has been in receipt of public relief. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), in addressing the committee, conveyed the impression that that might operate to disqualify very large numbers of farmers and others if the Government came to their rescue in times of special distress. But this provision has always been interpreted narrowly as including only persons who are destitute and helped by the magistrate out of funds voted for poor relief, and it has never been applied, as far as I know, to persons in receipt of old age pensions and those who live in chronic sick institutions. In Rietfontein there are over 100 male patients, and every one is on the voters’ roll, It is bad enough in the case of the Cape Province and Natal to give women the vote on a wider basis than that of men. Here, as if that anomaly is not bad enough, you are now in the case of the two northern provinces, extending the vote to white women on a wider and more liberal basis than you are extending it to white men. This is making of this Act an absolute mockery. I do say if the time comes for recasting our constitution we may have to decide whether this provision has to stay; the point is, it is there in the Act and acting as a disqualification for every adult male who is in receipt of public funds; yet, we shall allow women who are in receipt of such relief to go on the roll; we shall enfranchise women on a more liberal basis than men. That is women’s suffrage gone mad; it is something the women have never asked for, and they will laugh at it. All that they have asked for years has been enfranchisement on the same basis as men. They have never set up a claim to be a superior sex, at any rate, so far as politics are concerned.

Oh, no.

An hon. member says “Oh, no.” I wonder what will be said in other countries when this Act is published. If it is allowed to go through with this amendment they will certainly say, “These people in South Africa must be lunatics.” I am trying to improve the Bill, because I want the Bill passed, and I am doing my best to prevent the legislature from making itself ridiculous. I do beg this House to give this matter serious consideration, and not to accept the amendment which was accepted by the committee last night.

I think that the hon. member is quite wrong, he will agree with me that the chances of a woman earning food for herself and her children are much smaller than the chances of a man earning his food, if necessary, for his wife and children as well. Now the hon. member says that the women will laugh if we tell them such a thing. I can assure the hon. members that the women have much more respect for their sisters than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) apparently has. The question comes down to this whether our women who, e.g., have lost their husbands and are in difficult financial circumstances are to be given the vote, while we give it to all other women who do not have to provide for themselves. When a woman loses her bread winner, and is not in a position of earning the necessary material things, is she then worse than another woman who does not need to earn her own living? If a man is too worthless to earn his bread I still cannot understand the argument that such a man is not worthy of a vote though I do not agree with it. But where it concerns the giving of the vote to the mothers of the country, who have got into difficulties through circumstances, and have the responsibility of providing for themselves, and possibly their children, although we give it to young girls who have absolutely no responsibility, it seems to me the most unjust thing imaginable. The view of the hon. member shows that he never really was serious in his agitation for women’s franchise, that he was never so much concerned about the rights of women, because then he would not want to deprive some of them of that right. I do not know what actually influenced him to work on behalf of women’s franchise, but I say that the woman who is responsible for, and has to provide for, herself and her children, even if it is with the assistance of the magistrate, is not worse than any other woman.

I cannot understand the member who has just sat down. That is an argument which absolutely defeats me. The hon. member represents things as if we were now wanting to say that the woman who gets a grant from public funds is worse than another woman. That is not the argument. We do not say that that woman is worse, but merely less fortunate, but the question is whether it is a sound principle when five people have by their taxes to keep another person to give that person the right to decide how the contributions of those other persons are to be distributed. In my opinion it is a sound principle if a person lives on the State that he should not have the right of deciding on the distribution of those taxes. I am very sorry that we are now getting away from that principle.

As is known I am opposed to women’s franchise, hut the hon. member is surely a democrat?

Yes.

Precisely. I admit frankly that I am not a democrat; I have never claimed to be a democrat, but how then can the hon. member advocate that a section of the women should not have the vote. How does he square that with his democracy? What right have hon. members who are in favour of women’s franchise to deprive a section of it? What is the hon. member going to do? A man in the Transvaal getting a Government grant may not vote, but the woman who does not get it directly may. Her sister, however, who has to provide for herself, and who gets a grant, will, according to the hon. member, not be allowed to vote. The members who are in favour of women’s franchise must go the whole way. If they think it is wrong they must vote against it at the third reading along with us, but if they think it is a good thing they must not go half way. They are not entitled to exclude women merely because they are poor. Moreover it will be a dangerous principle to include the principle the hon. member is advocating in the Bill that if anyone receives grants from public funds, she cannot get on to the voters’ roll. Take, e.g., the case of a widow, at a place where in view of floods the State has to contribute funds to assist the people; they are surely public funds and it is still very doubtful whether the court will not consider that that is a contribution which prevents the woman from voting. All these difficulties show how wrong this measure is, and I still hope that hon. members will vote with us against the third reading.

The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said that he could not understand us. There are very few of us who can understand him. We do not say that those women are worse, they are in an unfortunate position, and he wants to put them in a still more unfortunate one by refusing them the vote. It is a very unsound thing to exclude these unfortunate people, both men and women, from the vote. There is a person in my constituency who cannot work owing to rheumatism; he is poor, not yet old enough to get an old age pension, and receives 10s. from the magistrate. He is a man of sound mind, but is still not allowed to vote. If the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is carried, then the woman will be in the same position. The present position is unfair towards the man, but why for that reason should it now be made unfair towards the women.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) who was not here last night I want to repeat my argument. If in the Free State and the Transvaal we had to live in the unfortunate position in which sections of the Cape Province are in, as a result of the drought, and the unfortunate people are assisted by the State, then we cannot be put on the voters’ roll. Is he in favour of that? He is not, and therefore I can rightly claim his support in this matter. It is one of the defects in the law in connection with male persons which must be put right, and it would have been put right if the S.A. party had not at that time had a majority. We all voted at that time in favour of people who were receiving assistance in this way being allowed to remain on the voters’ roll. The S.A. party represent the rich people, and they know very well that those people will not be removed. But when the poor people are taken off then every Nationalist, of course the hon. member for Albert excluded, will be opposed to it.

I sincerely hope that the House will take no notice of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). It is an extraordinary thing that the opposition is coming wholeheartedly from the South African party. Last night, when it was sought to delete this offending sub-section, officially from a front bencher of the South African party came the request for a division, and I notice that almost, if not wholly, the South African party voted for the retention of this sub-section. The South African party evidently are not in favour of democracy. The South African party, as a whole, are against women as women having the vote, and hon. members who mouth so much about how they have been fighting for women’s franchise all these years are now demonstrating their desire not that women shall have the vote, but that certain women possessing salary or income or property qualifications shall have the vote. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) asked why did not the member who moved this amendment try to have it applied to men. Well, I did, seven years ago; I introduced a Bill into this House to repeal the Letters Patent Act of 1906, Transvaal and O.F.S. Letters Patent 1907. It is a fundamental principle of mine that all adult people should have the vote, and it is extraordinary that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his friends are not supporting that fundamental principle. The fact that they are opposing, taking the unusual course of asking the House in session to go back on its former decision in committee, and reinsert that clause, shows how anxious they are that a property qualification, in effect, shall have precedence over the adult suffrage principle. I would urge, most emphatically, that the House will pay no attention to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. As to the inconsistency of having one law for the men, and another for the women, surely that is not the men’s fault or the women’s fault; it is the fault of Parliament, which should have agreed, and I think all members will agree that Parliament should, on that occasion, have removed that disability, and allow men who have been in receipt of relief from public funds, to get the vote. We are not removing the anomalies for the men, but we are not trying to prevent anomalies with regard to the men being perpetuated as regards the women. But there is an additional reason why women should not be placed under that disability. A man may not be looking for work; but his wife, and possibly his daughters, cannot possibly help the consequences. The women have to remain at home and take everything the gods—or the devils—send them. They cannot help themselves, and because a man falls out of employment due largely to the faults of our economic system—for which again Parliament is responsible—and has to go to a magistrate for relief from public funds, the consequences inevitably recoil upon his wife and daughters, who cannot possibly help themselves. Surely I have a right, on their behalf, to appeal to the honesty, honour and good sense of hon. members not to subject women to disabilities over which they have no control whatever. If you want women to have the vote, for heaven’s sake give women the vote, and do not bar some women because of accidental circumstances due to economic conditions over which they have no control.

I fear the last speaker is making too much of the general principles of democracy. This is not a question of democracy, but an attempt to delete this clause in order to make a reductio ad absurdum of democracy. I do not believe there is a single member who, in his private life, would do what is proposed here, viz., to put his finances under the control of someone who is dependent on him.

What about old age pensions?

They are quite a different thing. The principle of old age pensions is that the old people have a certain amount of right to support. Many of these people, however, who have to be given Government grants are in that position through their own fault. While they are in possession of their full powers they still have to receive assistance from the magistrate. If that is so, they ought not to have the vote, because they have no share in producing the revenue of the country. I argued against the removal of the qualification provision which exists in the Cape because as was shown last night that qualification was introduced on account of the native vote. I, therefore, felt that in that respect a difference could be made between men and women, but this qualification did not arrive in order to make a distinction between whites and natives, but owing to the old basic principles of democracy. I am sorry that hon. members who oppose women’s franchise so strongly now plead that it should be granted as universally as possible. I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. members. I heard one of them saying that the object of these proposals was to make the Bill so ridiculous that the South African party would ultimately vote against it. I hope the House will succeed in putting this clause back into the Bill again.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) made that speech. I am convinced that many hon. members of this House are completely under a misapprehension as to this clause, and this is chiefly due to what has been said by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), that if this sub-clause was left in; if any family, through distress, were employed on relief works, they would be debarred. That is not the case at all. The case of pensioners was raised, and that side of the House was not clear on that point. I emphasize here that pensioners are not in any way affected by this clause, and never can be.

Why did they raise the point?

The hon. member for Benoni made a mis-statement when he said that any man employed on relief works would be disqualified from voting. He has evidently now consulted his books, and I see he has changed his ground this afternoon. He has appealed to us in the sacred name of democracy—

I did not say they would be debarred; I said they might be debarred.

The hon. member then has made very nearly a mis-statement, for his “might” conveyed the meaning of “would“. As far as democracy is concerned, this does not affect the case at all. I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, it will be remembered that there are always a certain number of people who will not work, and are always relying on the state for their existence. I do ask the House not to depart from the sound principle embodied in this sub-clause. The same thing occurred when we discussed old age pensions. The matter was put to the vote, and we agreed that people who claimed a pension, if they have a son, or a relative who could support them, these people should not be exonerated from their responsibility to their parents. The Labour members also urged that there should not be any bar to the old age pension, that no matter whether the person is wealthy or poor—when you reach a certain age you should be eligible for a pension. The hon. member said it is most unusual to raise objection at this stage; but this is one of the processes through which Bills have to go, and thank goodness there are these delays, which give hon. members an opportunity to put on their thinking caps, as the hon. member for Benoni did last night.

I want to make a few remarks. Any person who had made application for relief from public funds, we are told, is not included; and old age pensioners are not included. You are, therefore, left with a very small number of people who, through no fault of their own—through act of God, or drought or some misfortune—happened to have been in receipt of relief, and for that reason they are to be disenfranchised. It seems illogical. This is one of the things which has come down from the past. Why go out of your way to deprive of their vote some poor man or woman, who on account of some misfortune, has to get some sort of relief?

Why make fish of women and flesh of men?

I say that this comes from the sentiments of three or four generations ago. It has no significance; it is not going to alter the electorate by the merest trifle, and why should a woman who finds herself completely destitute, if that happens within six months, be deprived of the vote? It is lacking in generosity and commonsense.

I hope the House will now come to the vote. But still I feel that the whole principle on which the motion to replace the old clause is based is simply this that the poor man who has become so is unfit to vote, is more ignorant, and worse than the other people who have money. I want to express myself most strongly against that Bill. There are poor people who were well off previously, but who to-day are in such circumstances that they are practically driven to beg. They are pursued by misfortune, but they are just as capable of voting as any other person, not only that, if we were to consider ability and capacity as a qualification, then almost just as many people who to-day have the franchise will have to be removed from the roll, as those who receive support. There is another point; there are old people who get help from the state, scores of them have devoted the best years of their life, and their forces to the service of the state; they sacrificed their time to the state and some of them have perhaps sat in the council chambers of the state, but now that they are old they may suddenly not have the vote, and they are unfit to vote. We are concerned here with a movement against the working man’s wife. There are numbers of workmen who are sometimes unemployed. We find hundreds and thousands of them on the Rand, the same position also exists in Pretoria, where the man is not unfit, or too lazy to work, but is unemployed simply because he cannot find any work. During that period his family has to receive assistance, and therefore the franchise on that account must be refused to him. During the winter we find that at many of our schools soup is supplied to the children from public funds, and the state pays an allowance for the purpose. Are the father and the mother then, because soup is given to their children, to be removed from the voters’ roll? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) argued that we must not create more anomalies. But he wants to make a further impossibility in the Cape Province. In the Cape Province a man’s name is not removed from the voters’ roll if he gets support from the state. If the amendment is passed the name of the wife will, however, be removed, but not that of the husband. He wants to put the wife on a different basis to the husband.

What about the qualifications in the Cape Province?

When a person occupies a house worth £75 in the Transvaal, but he earns nothing, and he gets 10s. from the state to live on then he does not get the vote, although he has the full qualifications demanded in the Cape Province. That would not be so in the Cape Province. The amendment will create a further absurdity, and I hope the House will now definitely reject it.

I rise to take part in this discussion merely to clear away possible misconceptions which may arise as the result of the intervention of the Minister of Defence in this debate. He suggested to the House that this provision was a survival of something from the past, and the possibility of its application to this legislation to-day will have the effect of definitely and forever excluding such of our women citizens resident in the various provinces who, through sheer force of unfortunate circumstances, have received some benefit from public funds in consequence of the failure of crops, or of an occasional drought which comes to this country. It is nothing of the sort. The hon. Minister presupposes in his arguments the fact that there is going to be one registration alone, and at the date when that registration is taken if a woman has received relief from public funds naturally under this provision she will be excluded. If she received it within six months prior to registration she would be excluded. The whole object of the people who are supporting this, and of the Prime Minister himself, is that they are out definitely to exclude those who are permanently indigent, who are a permanent charge upon public funds. If, through an occasional drought there are women, who, unfortunately, will be so excluded from the registration, there is the biennial registration where any woman can come on the roll. If a person in the past three or four months prior to the inception of this registration has received funds from a public fund she will be excluded. But if she is not a permanent charge upon a relief fund then she will have her chance of coming on at the next biennial registration.

Why cut her off at all

Hear, hear.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) asks: “Why cut her off at all?” and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs says: “Hear, hear.” One is pleased to see, at any rate, that both wings of the Labour party are, on this occasion, speaking with the same voice. Now, the hon. member for Benoni has made great play of the word “democracy,” and, judging from his remarks, one would assume that he is qualified to speak about democracy, but the fundamental principle upon which he bases his democratic rule was even more jealously guarded in this enactment. To be a citizen is a privilege, and it implies responsibilities as well as obligations. The obligation can never be extracted from an individual who is a permanent charge upon public funds. The hon. member claims, with the free use of the word “democracy,” without taking into account any implication of the word “citizenship,” that it should be applied to women. I am as big a democrat as the hon. member is, and I value the word “citizen” with as much sincerity as the hon. member values the word “democracy.” Citizenship implies obligations as well as privileges. One of the privileges is to be sent, or to send your representative, to a forum such as this. But that privilege must be earned. So that these people who are a permanent charge upon the public funds of this country have no right to determine what shall be the measure of representation in this House. I shall support the Prime Minister in maintaining this provision in the law if I possibly can.

I was sorry that this subject is again being debated. So much has been said about unimportant details that it has done harm to the principle at the bottom of the clause. Let me say at once that there is possibly a difference in principle, but the arguments that have been used do not throw much light on the matter. I think it is no more than right that I, as one of those, who voted last night against the amendment to the clause, should explain what our attitude is. It is necessary for the outside world, and especially for the unfortunate people who are dependent on state assistance. Hon. members speak from a sentimental point of view, but if we are going to act in that way, we cannot at all judge the principle involved. I can assure hon. members that I give place to no one in my sympathy for those people, and I may say that I can readily compare the little I have done for the poor people with what any other hon. member has done for them. It is, however, not a matter of sympathy; we are concerned here with a principle which lies at the heart of the question. The matter involved here is the meaning of citizenship. What does citizenship mean? The person who claims full citizenship must at least be independent, how otherwise can he contribute to the maintenance of the state? Hon. members will ask what the position is in connection with old age pensions, but that is a completely different category. They seem to forget that the state has voluntarily made special provision for old age pensions. The position is that my friends who are in favour of rejecting the clause cannot possibly imagine a state which will consist only of dependent persons. They cannot imagine such a state inasmuch as it is in entire opposition with the principle of citizenship. The acknowledgment of citizenship rests on the sound foundation of independence. If the hon. members are in favour of giving anybody the vote, why then do they not also give the vote to children.

On the ground of lack of full wisdom.

There are children who are just as sensible as some people of 30 years. If the hon. members are in favour of giving the vote to all, that is also logical. On this side of the House there are a large number of farmers who are sensible, and many of them have done the same as I have. They have taken the dependent people on to their land, those people do a great deal to improve the land, and they work in order to live, but if it were not that they were living on my farm they would not be able to exist. Hon. members will surely not grant those people equal rights in respect of their farms? In this matter we must not be too sentimental, but we must speak like responsible people, and act like responsible citizens. As we are concerned here with great principles, we must keep our heads cool, and not drag in too much sentiment. As I have said, a farmer will not allow a bywoner to have equal rights with him over his farm. The same principle applies here.

One would have thought that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was venting his spleen for what occurred last night, but I am satisfied that is not the position. I think in 1923, when this was the issue, the South African party voted solidly against giving men that right under similar circumstances. It is rather peculiar and something to be thankful for, that at last, on an important principle, we have a united South African party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout in his intellections, kept on suggesting that the chief difficulty we have is the giving of rights to the women which the men have not got. I want to know whether that is a difficulty or objection. That difficulty is created by the action of the hon. member’s own party which refused to give those privileges to poor men. I suggest to the hon. member he should get away from this pernicious principle that two wrongs make a right. Because there is a wrong in the Act, would you perpetrate another by a provision in the present Bill? The issue is a very simple one. Is the House in favour of adult suffrage or of property qualifications? If it is in favour of adult suffrage, getting relief from the state has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, if you consider financial position, let us consider people are in a certain financial position, because they are unemployed, and that if they are unemployed, the fault lies with the state and not with individuals. There are two classes of unemployed—the idle rich and the idle poor—and if you do not penalize the former, there is no reason why you should penalize the latter.

It seems to me that hon. members who want to retain this clause forget one thing, and that is that there is such a thing as family life in South Africa. If the wife were to be in precisely the same position in the family as the husband, then one could say that the wife receives or does not receive support from the Government as an individual, but such a state of affairs does not exist in family life, because the husband has to support the wife and children, and if he cannot do so in any other way, has to go to the magistrate in order in that way to get something for his wife and children. If he gets food or money it is for his whole family, because they have got food from the same source as the husband, and if that happens, the wife will run the risk of being removed from the voters’ roll. If we get so far that the woman is entirely independent, then the position is different, and one can possibly understand the attitude of hon. members.

Why are you voting in favour of women’s franchise?

Because it is clear to me that woman has so far developed industrially that she has in many cases to stand, and can stand on her own legs owing to our fault, notwithstanding her weakness. It is, however, unjust when a man has to beg for food to take away the vote from the wife for that reason. She is not responsible, but the husband, and we cannot punish her for it. I hope the House will do the sensible thing, and not retain the clause.

When I voted in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) last night, I was very definitely under the impression that it would merely be asking for something on behalf of the women which the men already enjoyed. I made a point of enquiring about it, and I was informed that was the case, and it was in view of that and the strong case put up by the hon. member for Benoni, put on that basis, that induced me so to vote; but in view of having this misconception, I cannot do otherwise than change my vote.

I cannot really understand how hon. members on this side of the House can vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I can understand hon. members opposite, who represent the rich, voting for it. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) said that those people were kept by the state. They live on the state, and therefore they may not have the franchise. Take the case of all the Government officials. There are 70,000 in the service of the state, and about 100,000 on the railways. They also make their living out of the state, and are we going to remove them from the voters’ roll? I take the case of the district adjoining mine. During the drought I went there, and nearly all the people received support from the state; are all those women then to be refused the vote? Such times may come again. No, it would be entirely wrong. I hope that we shall now vote on the matter, and let every man who has a heart for the poor man vote against the exclusion of those people.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) that on an important Bill of this sort there should be no misconception. In the course of this debate, however, a number of misconceptions have arisen, and I rise to attempt, if possible, to remove some of these conceptions. Last night I voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), and this afternoon I intend to adopt the same course, but while I thoroughly agree with the case put forward by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), I do not agree with his reasons. It has been attempted this afternoon to make out that this is a party matter. I can only say that the very fact that you have hon. members opposite hopelessly divided on it, gives the lie to that. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) this afternoon also attempted to give the House the impression that the South African party was voting as one man against the amendment, because the amendment was in favour of the poorest class of the community. But last night, I will remind him, there were three members of the South African party who voted for that amendment. I would like to say at once that this is not a political matter, nor it is one between the rich and the poor. It is not a matter affecting democracy, but it is simply a matter as to whether or not we are going to lay down a qualification, and, if so, whether it is to be on an arbitrary basis. This House has rejected the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), an amendment which would have meant that, as far as the Cape and Natal were concerned, there would have been qualifications. The House has rejected that, and it therefore appears that the House is prepared to pass the Bill without any qualification. If that is the case, I cannot possibly vote for a qualification of this sort. I wish to be consistent in this matter. I intend to vote once again for the proposal of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He and I are poles asunder on the main question of qualifications, for he desires manhood and womanhood suffrage, while I want a qualification basis, but I am not going to vote for a qualification which is purely on an arbitrary basis. All that the women want is what the men have, no more and no less, and we do not want to put them on a more favourable basis than the men. The Prime Minister last night, in explaining away his attitude of seven years ago, said: “I have sinned.” Perhaps he has sinned in other directions in the past, and now he is realizing his mistakes, but I do feel that when he voted for the hon. member for Benoni’s (Mr. Madeley’s) Bill seven years ago, he was not sinning. I shall vote again for the amendment. I would like to repeat that this is not a party matter, and I feel perfectly at liberty to stand up in this House and support the amendment, although the majority on this side of the House may differ from me.

I would be the last to prolong this debate. I feel, however, bound to express my astonishment at the speech made by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe). He said, in the first place, that he had heard a whisper that those who were opposed to women’s franchise intended to support any amendment so that the Bill could be wrecked. I want to challenge him to prove that anyone of us that is opposed to women’s franchise has acted in such an irresponsible way. I am opposed to women’s franchise, but I want to challenge him to say that I, and those who voted on the various amendments last night, acted in an irresponsible way, and gave the least justification for a charge against us of wanting to wreck the measure in that way. The Prime Minister, and no member who was present, can find fault with the way we did our duty here. The hon. member comes and repeats things here that he has heard on the street corners, and rumoured in the lobbies. I strongly object to it, and I deny it emphatically, especially because those rumours have been going about for the last few weeks. It was said that the opponents of women’s franchise would do any irresponsible thing to wreck the measure. I deny it absolutely.

What about the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler)?

That hon. member has his own views, but he would not make himself ridiculous in such a way. Secondly, I am astonished at the speech of the hon. member in this respect that he, as a speaker of Afrikaans, wants to introduce a clause in this Bill which will particularly exclude a number of Afrikaans-speaking people on the countryside from the vote. I know of cases where citizens have done their duty in their young days in the country’s wars; they have been ruined, and are to-day supported by the State. They are men and women who have been educated, but because they get possibly ten shillings a month they may not vote. As a man who sympathizes with his people the hon. member should be the last to support an amendment in that direction. Those people have borne the burden of the day to do their duty to the State in war and in peace, but because in their old age they get assistance from the State the hon. member wants to deny the vote to them. I say this because I know of concrete cases where these people assist us during the elections; they do their best for the party, but when the polling day comes they can assist with the motor-cars in taking people to the poll, but they cannot vote themselves. I am opposed to women’s franchise. But as we are, anyhow, giving women the vote now, we must not make this unsound principle apply to the women. It may happen now that a man’s reason is good enough to vote one year, but the next year because he gets support from the State he is considered unfit to vote. He has, therefore, apparently become less fit for use, and more stupid, so that he is not able to vote. We exclude those people in their old age, although they made great sacrifices for their country, and in their old age still take a great interest in the fortunes of the country. Why should we prevent them doing their duty to the country as they have always done? I further want to ask what the distinction in principle is between a person who receives an old age pension, and one who gets assistance from the State. A person of 64 years, who gets assistance from the State, does not have a vote; the next year when he is 65 and gets the old age pension he is qualified to vote. What is the difference in principle? I am astonished at the statements I have had to listen to here, and I hope the Committee will express itself very clearly that this clause is not to be inserted.

Much that is said in this House is given out to the public by the press, and much is sometimes said giving wrong information to the press. A statement has been made which I think I should correct. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) gets very much publicity in the newspapers. This afternoon he said that this party occupying the Opposition benches now take an opportunity of speaking with one voice against the poor man, or the poor woman. I draw your attention and the attention of the House and the press to the fact that last night 46 members voted for the retention of the sub-section, while 51 voted for the exclusion of it from the Bill. I have examined the 46 names of the members who voted for the inclusion of the sub-section, and no less than nine members on the Government benches, headed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Native Affairs voted for the retention of the clause. Included amongst those nine was the hon. member for “Don’ts,” the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz). The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), unconsciously, I think, made a mistake, and he is not the only member who has made a mistake. If the hon. members who voted under a misapprehension had voted according to their real views last night, the division would have been 49 as against 48. and the sub-section would have remained in the Bill.

It appears that many of our hon. members do not know the poor people, are not acquainted with the conditions of our poor people in the Transvaal. There we have poor people from all parts of the country, people who have been ruined here come to the Transvaal and are they then simply to lose the franchise there? It would be a scandal if the House permitted it. I know of one case of a man who had a large farm in Somerset East, and lost everything because he signed a surety bond. He got into such a position that he had to get Government aid. He and his wife are very enlightened, and I want to enquire whether it is right for the vote to be refused to the wife of that man? Is it fair that it should be withheld from the man? If it is not fair how can we go and make the injustice still greater by also withholding the vote from the wife. I can understand the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) being in favour of it, because he supports qualifications. I can understand the attitude of hon. members opposite, but we, on this side, who are in favour of universal suffrage cannot do such a thing. We, who in the Transvall and especially in Pretoria, come into touch with the poor people, know that there are tens and hundreds who cannot get work, and who possibly got assistance from the State shortly before the registration. If that happened the magistrate can prevent such a man from voting, although he is just as well educated as ourselves, and has just as much interest in the government of the country. I know people who lost everything in the world war—and I bring this to the notice of hon. members opposite who always say they have so much sympathy for those people—but who get assistance from the State. They cannot get work.

They surely get a pension.

No, they only get our assistance. There are numbers of such people. Why should they be excluded.

Why don’t you move an amendment then in respect of men?

That will come. In principle we are in favour of the amendment. I am glad that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is supporting us. He probably also has many poor people in his constituency, but I cannot understand how anyone can favour universal franchise and then want to exclude these wives of the people. Many wives are in difficulties as the result of their husbands’ conduct, who have come down through drink or otherwise. I know of a woman in Pretoria who is very intelligent, but is in the greatest misery as the result of the fact that her husband has gone through everything. Accordingly she is assisted by the State, but must she be deprived of the vote?

They are surely assisted from private funds.

No, they are possibly first assisted by private people, but they eventually come to the magistrate for support. I know the magistrates in the Transvaal give various decisions. I know of cases where a magistrate, because a man during a period of five years has once received assistance from the State refused to give the man the vote, while others have not taken such a drastic view. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) surely knows the position in the church. If anyone is assisted from the poor fnud, it surely does not mean that he is deprived of the right of voting in the congregational meetings, nor can I see the difference between ordinary assistance by the State and old age pensions. What folly it is to lay down that because a person receives 10s. from the State he may not vote. I can understand the action of the Opposition—I do not like to drag in politics here. They are not in favour of universal franchise, but we who are in favour of it cannot do otherwise than support the motion of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley).

Did you say that the position in connection with unemployment is serious? What about the Minister of Labour?

We know the position is serious. I think there must be 500 to 700 people in Johannesburg to-day getting assistance. There are old burghers of the Transvaal who sacrificed everything for the old republic. Are their wives to be deprived of the vote when they are supported by the State? I hope the House will once more approve of this amendment by a majority, because it is a matter of justice and fairness.

I think it necessary to defend the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) who sits next to me a little against the attacks made on him. He merely said that unfortunately according to what he had heard, an attempt was being made by the opponents of the Bill to make the Bill ridiculous. Quite a number of members have attacked him but that in my opinion was not justified. As for the proposal of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I cannot possibly agree with it. I intended voting against any amendment of the Bill, because in principle I am opposed to the Bill, but here an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Benoni, that I do want to support, because the Bill as originally drawn would do such an injustice towards the poor woman who gets no work, not through her own fault, but because she is poor through circumstances over which she has no control, and receives a small sum from the magistrate for support. I can therefore not vote for the retention of sub-Clause (c).

Question put: That paragraph (c) of Clause 2, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the House divided:

I should like to ask for leave to refer to the previous section, to paragraph 4, section 1.

The hon. member may do so in the next sub-section (2).

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment in title having been agreed to, the Bill, as amended, was adopted.

There is an important matter that I want to refer to.

The only question before the House is whether the third reading shall be set down for to-morrow or at a later date. The hon. member may raise his point at the third reading.

Third reading to-morrow.

For the convenience of the committee it might be as well if I again briefly summarize some of the rules and practice which govern debate in committee of supply. I think it is already understood that the main principle which governs debate in committee of supply is relevancy to the items contained in the vote proposed from the Chair. Difficulty, however, has often arisen from the fact that our standing orders adopted in 1922, expressly provide for questions of policy being raised on the vote containing a Minister’s salary, although those questions may be involved in other votes under his administrative control. To avoid the consequent duplication of debates, it was found necessary to confine discussion on questions of policy to the vote containing a Minister’s salary and to confine discussion on other votes to matters of administration only. I think, however, it will be generally admitted that in practice it has not been found possible to separate discussion on administrative details from relevant questions of policy. In addition to allowing questions of policy to be raised on a Minister’s salary, I therefore propose in future to allow such questions to be raised on other votes to which they may be relevant. While giving members greater freedom in debate, I think that with the assistance of the committee, this will have the effect of focussing discussion on the various items of a ministerial department. I should add that questions of policy on the Prime Minister’s vote may range over every Government department, but questions of policy on other Minister’s votes are confined to matters for which they are personally responsible. It should also be remembered that while members; are ordinarily limited to speeches of 10 minutes, two members may each speak for 40 minutes if they each specifically and bona fide challenge a Minister’s salary on some specific question of policy by way of amendment. When a Minister holds more than one portfolio, members who desire to avail themselves of the “40 minutes” rule should move a reduction of the vote which contains a Minister’s salary. If, however, members wish to speak on a question of policy for not more than 10 minutes, they should speak on a vote which would contain a Minister’s salary if he did not hold more than one portfolio, or on a vote containing an item involving the question of policy. Finally, it should be borne in mind that matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee, and that it is irregular to continue the budget debate when the House is in committee.

On Vote 2, “Senate,” £39,688,

We have been asked for suggestions as to how economies might be effected, and I propose on this vote to make a concrete suggestion. Before the 1924 general election—

On which items does the hon. member wish to speak?

I wish to refer to item B. This will really apply to the next vote as well, the House of Assembly Vote No. 3. Right through, before the general election of 1924,. we were told by the Government that is now, that economy was the great need in South Africa. Yet one of the first things they did when they got into power was to increase salaries of members of Parliament and of the Senate.

That matter involves legislation.

Can I not make a suggestion on the reduction of members’ salaries?

No.

This involves the question of legislation, and your ruling is correct. But what happens if Parliament refuses to vote the money? Surely Parliament may always refuse to vote certain monies, and the hon. member can move reductions.

The hon. member is quite in order to move a reduction of the amount here.

I move—

This is a reduction of two-sevenths of a member’s salary, that is, £200 of an hon. member of the Senate.

I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is in order to move a reduction, because under Act 51 of 1926 it says that the amount of the allowance paid under this section shall be a charge annually to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the provisions of this sub-section shall be deemed to be an appropriation of that amount.

Any amount brought forward in the estimates must be put under each head by the Chair, and every hon. member has the right to move the deletion of the whole of or part of the amount.

I take it the committee is aware of the fact that if Parliament, in its wisdom, refuses to pay the whole, or part of, the salaries referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) they will have an action against the Government.

Is this amount not already appropriated?

The only point that may be of interest is, if this is legalized expenditure, whether it must appear in the estimates? If it appears in the estimates, the estimates are before the House, and the House has the fullest right to reduce any item.

Supposing the hon. member moves a reduction of £200, and the vote is made accordingly, what is the position in relation to the Act of Parliament which provides for the payment of £700 a year to members of Parliament?

I can give no ruling on that.

I want to make it quite clear I fully realize that there are able, patriotic citizens, whose services would be a tremendous loss to the country if they could not go into Parliament, because the salary was too small, and it would be deplorable for any hon. member not to sit in the House because he could not afford to give up part of his salary; therefore, I am in agreement that some salary must be paid to hon. members. The point is simply this: at the moment our people in the country are faced with the depression, as you all know, and many are desperate. We are telling them to economize, and do you not think it would be a good thing if we set them an example?

Return your cheque.

If other hon. members do that, I will do so too. This is not a frivolous thing I am saying. It will amount to a few thousand pounds, but let us make a gesture as Sir Philip Sidney did after the battle of Zutphen by refusing to take a cup of water when he was wounded. It really did not do much good, but it was a gesture that he was prepared to stand by his men, and that he was not prepared to take an advantage if they could not take an advantage. Morale is a very great thing, and my suggestion to the committee is that you should do all you can to keep the morale when you find things are in a bad way. I would, therefore, suggest that for the period of the depression, or at any rate for one year, every one who sits in that House—I will deal with this House later—reduces their salary by two-sevenths. The farmers and the people of the platteland have to do with only one-third of their income, and surely these hon. members should be able to come through with five-sevenths of theirs. Sacrifice is one of the greatest creators of respect, love and regard in the world. In 1912, the Prime Minister forced the issue and left the Cabinet; whether he was right or wrong history will prove, and I am not going into that; but the point is, that he did what he thought was right, and because he was prepared to sacrifice Cabinet rank and salary, he is, to a large extent, where he is today. The same may be said of my chief—time after time he sacrificed himself, and that is why these tens of thousands of people stick to him. “Greater Jove hath no man.” I need not complete the quotation to show what sacrifice means. If we, the supreme body of the Union, are prepared to sacrifice arid forego something, I am sure the people of the country will appreciate it; see that we are really serious and that we want to help. Imagine if one of your employees came to you and your business was not going too well, and he suggested his pay should be reduced by one-third.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 3, “House of Assembly,” £138,425,

I think it would be proper under this to deal with the appointment of members of the Internal Arrangements Committee.

On which item is that?

Under Mr. Speaker’s vote, because Mr. Speaker makes the appointment.

I do not think the hon. member is right to raise this matter at this stage. Mr. Speaker has nothing to do with that. It is only a question of procedure.

Might I submit to you that it is Mr. Speaker who actually reports to the House that he has appointed this committee.

Mr. Speaker is personally not responsible in any way. I cannot allow that question to be discussed under this vote.

I want to put to you, sir, if I do not put it under this vote, I cannot see where else I can do so. I would like to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

There is no vote in the estimates under which that point can be discussed.

Do I understand that in this House we have no means of discussing this appointment?

By way of a motion, the hon. member can bring that before the House.

Then I would ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling. It is very serious to us.

May I perhaps say that it is a matter purely for the House. We have not here to do with administration. It is a matter only for the House—outside the Government. Mr. Speaker is the chairman of that committee, and it consists of him and a few others. The only way the matter can be brought to his notice is by an instruction to that committee asking it to discuss it. If not, I take it the only way would be to do what you do with everything pertaining to the House—by way of a motion.

Would it not be competent to move a motion of Mr. Speaker’s salary? I take it the hon. member is referring to the constitution of the Internal Arrangements Committee, which is appointed by the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, which is appointed by Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wishes to raise any question of the composition of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, is it not in order for him to raise it on this?

Mr. Speaker is not responsible for any action of the committee, of which he is the chairman. He does not appoint the committee for which the hon. member wishes to speak.

Mr. Speaker actually reports to this House that he has appointed so-and-so and so-and-so to the Committee of Standing Rules and Orders. If I am in order, I would move—

The Standing Rules and Orders Committee is the only one of this House Mr. Speaker nominates, and in respect of which his action might be open to criticism. I understand the hon. member is drawing attention not to the Internal Arrangements Committee, but to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee.

Even in that case it must be brought before the House by way of motion.

May I submit that as Mr. Speaker is the person who appoints the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, surely we can move for a reduction of Mr. Speaker’s vote, not as a reflection on him, but to discuss the personnel of that committee, and to suggest that Mr. Speaker, by appointing a certain member on that committee, is prejudicing a certain portion of the House with regard to its business. How can you deal with a question of the standing rules and orders unless by a vote on Mr. Speaker’s salary, in order to refer to the appointment of that committee?

It has been ruled on several occasions that in committee on the estimates no reflection can be made on the Speaker, and any motion to reduce his salary would be a reflection upon him.

The case I wish to put before the House would not be a reflection upon the Speaker. I want to know the actual facts as to what has happened.

We want to get clarity, if we can. The position is that a certain committee is appointed. That committee is a governing committee, and decides what the composition of all other committees shall be. Mr. Speaker tells this House, and it is a fact, that he and he alone appoints that committee. Surely when we are considering the payment of Mr. Speaker’s salary, we have a right to draw Mr. Speaker’s attention to the fact that herein lies a weakness, namely, that Mr. Speaker has overlooked this, that, or the other section. Surely, under those circumstances, it is our right to be able to draw his attention to that fact, and the attention of the committee.

Hon. members are indirectly trying to discuss the question. There are several rulings which bear out the ruling I have already given. One lays it down that it is quite competent—a ruling of Mr. Speaker— for a member of the committee to move for the reason that the salary is, perhaps, too high, but in considering a reduction it can only be done by a substantive motion. That would be regarded as a matter of privilege, and would be brought on without delay. In 1925 there was also a ruling by Mr. Speaker (Mr. Jansen) to the same effect.

May I suggest that I might be in order in discussing the method in which the select committee is set up under “allowances to members”?

It must be by way of motion, and I cannot allow any further discussion on this question.

I want to move—

in order to draw attention to the fact that we are wasting a certain proportion of that £95,200 by reason of the rules of the House being as at present constituted, inasmuch as certain of us are debarred from representation on committees. I feel that we could render valuable assistance to some of those committees if we were allowed to do so.

Again I have to rule that the hon. member is out of order. He is evading the ruling I have given.

I am not getting at the Speaker or the Chairman.

It amounts to the same thing.

I want to draw attention under this heading “allowances and transport” to one or two matters. This heading naturally covers the amenities to members. I totally disagree with the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) with regard to members’ salaries. I have said that £700 is not enough. If you are going to make the magnificent gesture the hon. member has mentioned, you ought to be ready to sacrifice all your income. Otherwise the gesture fails. I wish to draw attention to the marked disability which attaches to members who live away from Cape Town. It is a grave disability. Take the question of telephones. I may say that whilst I was still in office I advocated that there should be some use by members of Parliament of the trunk lines, in order that they may be able to get into communication with their families. Hon. members who live round about Cape Town, if there is any family difficulty, any illness in their family, or anything in the conduct of their business requiring attention they can telephone or be telephoned. They can go and see their families, and they can and do conduct their businesses side by side with performing their duties in the House. But your poor unfortunate members from the north or the east, or any part some distance from the Cape Peninsula, are cut off from all those amenities, are out of touch with their families, very often, and very largely having, in effect, to keep up two homes. They have, additional expenditure, and none of the amenities, and some effort should be made to counter-balance the difficulties they experience. Surely the House might agree to a certain number of calls per week, or make some provision for telephone calls. I urge it upon the attention of the Government, because they have some influence as to the cost of running the House, I say it is a fair claim, because, if you grant what I am asking, you are not even then putting us on the same footing as members around Cape Town. There is the question of transport of motor-cars. I do not want it, but some hon. members do require to use their motor-cars down here. In the ordinary course of their everyday life, when away from Parliament, they are using their motor-cars. They should not be mulcted in a large amount of money to bring their motor-cars by rail. Members down here have their cars, and do not have to pay transport. What I want to establish is the bringing to bear of a more generous outlook on the part of Cape members upon those who come from elsewhere, so that an effort might be made to reduce the disabilities of members from other parts of the Union.

I move—

I have had the sarcasm of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) poured upon me. I am afraid I do not quite agree with the man who finds that because he is getting poor he must spend more, which is apparently the policy of the Labour party. If all our people have got to have less to spend, surely we can be prepared to spend a bit less too. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has, by mistake, twisted my words. He misunderstood me. I think we should be prepared, during this session, to stand with our own people who are having a bad time, and to do without a little ourselves.

I must honestly say that I very much regret the speech made by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). It really was a little cheap.

Thank you.

He used the argument of the man who threw away his cup of water on the battlefield, but that person did not say, “if you throw away your water, I will also throw away mine.” He did it, and set the example. Will the hon. member throw away his cup of water? No, he says that if we sacrifice our salaries he will also do the same. Let him set the example and surrender his salary apart from what we do. It is very cheap to win popularity in that way, and then to go to the countryside and say, “I proposed that the salaries of the members of Parliament should be reduced.” It will be better if the hon. member sets the example. I do not wish to be personal, but there are many hon. members here who are absolutely dependent on their salary, and I ask is £700 per annum too much for an hon. member who sits here as a representative of the people? It is a particularly small salary, especially if we compare it with other countries. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to go overseas, saw how our country in this respect compares unfavourably with other countries. We feel that salary is but a small thing. Motor-cars have been referred to; the position is that at Parliament House provision is not even made for the members who have their motor-cars here: they must go and look for shelter for their cars under a tree if there is a place left. Further they have to transport their cars here, and pay the same price as the general public. One feels that things in this respect are not what they ought to be. I should like to mention what the Minister for Native Affairs, the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels), and I experienced when we were in Australia. When we landed there we were given a free railway pass throughout the whole of Australia. In every town we had free motor transport, and the salaries of members there are £1,000 per annum. The hon. member for Bredasdorp, however, thinks fit to make such a speech here so that he can go and represent in Bredasdorp that he is the man who fought for the reduction of members’ salaries.

You would do such a thing, but not I.

There are hon. members here who need the £700 per annum. If that hon. member does not require it, or if he does not want the £200 which, according to him is overpay, let him give it to his constituency, and I would like to see what his constituency would do with it.

The hon. Minister of Lands, in the budget debate, said that I advocated the reduction of salaries of members of Parliament. I did nothing of the sort. What I advocated was a reduction in the number of members. I think that with the increasing burden placed on members of Parliament, and increasing demands on their time, the present salary paid is not too high, especially when you remember the outside calls and the entertainment which must be provided by members of the House. I do suggest that members of the other House receive far too high a salary. It is a delicate matter on which I do not expect the Government to take any initiative at present. So far as the present motion is concerned, I want to say that the salaries to members are fair and reasonable; they should not be increased or decreased. I listened with interest to the sob stuff earlier this afternoon in the speech of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). While members of this House may be convinced that the allowances paid to us are fair and reasonable, there are very many people outside who think the pay is too high, and look with envy on the salaries and privileges of members of Parliament. What would the country think of providing free conveyance to Cape Town of members’ motor-cars. Surely, if an hon. member can pay for a car and wishes to use it in Cape Town for pleasure, he can pay for his car to be transported. Also, in regard to long distance telephoning to their homes, this is rather carrying things to extremes. We used to be able to use the long distance telephone free, but so much use was made of that privilege that it became a serious burden on this vote, and after full consideration standing rules and orders recommended that that privilege should he withdrawn. If it is right to allow members to communicate with their homes, and a three minutes’ conversation costs £1, we have a right to send a telegram to our wives conveying love and good wishes. Do not let us talk about voting ourselves extra privileges this afternoon; this is the time to keep down expenditure.

I am going to see if I can get twelve members to support me.

If there had been a division on Vote 2, I would have supported it, but in regard to Vote 3, I do not propose to be one of the twelve to rally round the Minister of Finance. I want to remind him that my suggestion was to cut down the number of members. This is a time when we should economize.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister and External Affairs,” £82,278.

I move—

in order to raise a general discussion of the Government’s policy. I shall confine myself to questions of foreign policy; to our external affairs, because we have had a full discussion in the Budget on internal affairs, but little was said on external relations, to which some discussion should be devoted in this House. I think the Committee will agree with me that it is important for us, not only in this Committee but in the country generally, to have a discussion of these very important relations which we are conducting in the world at large. It has been reported in the press that the Prime Minister is going to pay a visit to Geneva at the next session of the conference, and may I say here with how much pleasure I have heard that. It will be the first time that a Prime Minister from this country has attended that assembly. I have not had the opportunity myself of doing so in the troublous times we were passing through when I was at the head of affairs, but I think we are all pleased that the Prime Minister is taking this opportunity to show his face at Geneva, and to show the interest which South Africa is taking in the peace which has been established. South Africa, in past years, has contributed much to the activities mainly responsible for the peace movement in the world, and it is fitting and proper that the Prime Minister should show his face there, and he will have our normal support in regard to this movement. It would be very useful if we could have a discussion of the League of Nations and questions dealing with World peace in this House, not only for our own information and education, but also for the education of the country. There is a good deal of importance in the movement. The Government has, in the last 12 months, taken part in a lot of work of first class importance. Our Government, for instance, has taken an important part in the movement towards the signing of the optional clause. We have been one of the states to ratify the convention for the optional clause. I think it would be most useful and educative of public opinion in this country if we have a debate here occasionally which will concentrate attention on these matters. I hope the Prime Minister will make use of this opportunity to give us such information as may be in his power, which I am sure will be very much apreciated by the country at large, and also by members here. From Geneva, the Prime Minister will pass on to the Imperial Conference, which is again sitting this year, and I think the Committee will appreciate it if the Prime Minister will make a statement in regard to that conference, as to the work that it will do and the part that South Africa will take; in fact for any information which will give enlightenment to us on these matters. We know, of course, that the main work of the Imperial Conference will be the consideration of that report on constitutional relations, which is the subject-matter of a motion here before the House, and which it would not Be proper for me to discuss now. We know that it will, perhaps, be the main task of the conference to consider that report. But I am sure there is other work before the Imperial Conference, and I do not know whether the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to inform the House, before Parliament is prorogued, to tell us what the policy of the Government is going to Be, and he may think it proper to give enlightenment to the Committee here to-day. There is another matter which is certain to come up in connection with the Imperial Conference. We have been told that an economic conference is to be held at the same time. I believe that this economic conference may be the means of doing quite important service to South Africa. We are passing, in most of the countries and states of our commonwealth, through difficult times. Certainly Great Britain is passing through some of the most difficult times in her history. We now know that in Australia conditions are much worse than in South Africa, and I know as a fact from my recent visit to Canada, some of the questions which trouble us here in South Africa, the price of primary products, concern Canada too. It is, therefore, a matter of very great interest, and it is a great opportunity that just at this time, when the Imperial Conference is meeting and the Economic Conference, to some extent to consider the economic position in the empire. I think that a great deal of good work can be done. I feel sure that through proper arrangements, marketing arrangements, and arrangements for quicker trade, it will be possible for this country to find larger markets for its primary products in Great Britain than it has found hitherto. I hope, I am sure, that every advantage will be taken of this opportunity in order to further our interests in this regard. I wish to refer to several matters. In the first place, I wish to mention the beef industry. There is no doubt that as things have been developing in the last two years, a great market for our beef is developing in Great Britain. I think that we should make use of that opportunity. South Africa will remain, owing to its conditions, its somewhat arid conditions, very largely a cattle country—a sheep country and a pastoral country. We, therefore, will have to look out more than we have done in the past for outlets for our beef and meat, and for our pastoral products. Now it so happens that, within the last few years, a very great change in that regard has taken place in Great Britain. At one time there was an over-production of beef in the world. Up to a few years ago that was the universal position. The United States of America was a great producer and exported beef to Great Britain on a colossal scale. Since the war, and mostly since 1925, during the last five years, a complete change has taken place. The United States has ceased more and more to be a cattle country. Another use has been made of its soil. It has become largely an agricultural country; the number of stock has decreased very largely, and the United States has been calling upon other countries on a large scale to supply its requirements. So far from being an exporting country, it has largely become an importing country. To-day, the United States is absorbing all the surplus beef of Canada. It is absorbing the surplus beef of New Zealand, and I believe also of Australia, to a large extent. It is now developing on a great scale a source of supply in the Argentine. According to American law, it is not possible to import raw meat or cattle from South America to the United States. Supplies, therefore, have to come in the form of tinned and canned beef, but from the Argentine today the United States of America is importing tinned and canned beef on a really colossal scale. The result of all this is to-day, that there is rapidly growing up a scarcity of beef in the world. The process that there was and has been until recently on the British market is easing off very largely. The Argentine is still the main supply of beef to England. But, as I say, America is becoming a great competitor with Great Britain in this Argentine trade. I can see that, within a short number of years, with the present trend of things, there will be a great demand for beef, and for South African beef in the English market. I think a great deal can be done to help the South African farmer there. It is not a matter that can be done in a month or a year, but you can start a policy, which in the course of years will pan out to the benefit of the South African farmer. I hope that advantage will be taken of this economic conference, which meets in a few months in London, to start a process and to take such steps as will in due course lead to a great market developing in Great Britain for the beef of this country. There is no doubt that we shall have to take steps here. We shall have to grade up our cattle, get rid of our scrub cattle, and improve the quality of our beef. That can be done. In the plight in which the farmers are and have been for some years in this regard, I think they will he prepared to go very far indeed. But, of course, channels of trade will have to be opened and the Government can help very considerably there. I think it was a very wrong step that was taken four or five years ago by the Government when they suddenly got rid of that bounty which their predecessors had given for the export of beef. It was only a small bounty, and we thought it would lead, in the end, to a considerable development of our meat export. The Government in their wisdom saw fit to drop that bounty and the result has been that there has been practically no export for the last five or six years of the beef of this country. Next door, Australia, acting more wisely, adopted our policy and gave that bonus for the export of beef, and we all know there has been quite a considerable export of beef from Rhodesia growing up on the British market. I am not saying this to find fault with the Government. I am trying to emphasize the great opportunity which we shall have and that will come our way in the near future. I hope it will be possible for the Government to help in the matter. I see a great deal in reciprocity of trade between Great Britain and ourselves. It is, and remains, the greatest market for our primary products. I think it ought to be possible to make a reciprocal arrangement by which Great Britain, instead of taking on a large scale the beef of the Argentine, will look more and more to empire development, and the sister states of the commonwealth, and help them on the principle that they again will prove helpful in finding markets for British goods. Take the matter of the motor industry. There is no doubt, if we could give some preference as we gave some years ago, I think in future we could give again to the British motor industry a preference on condition that a very substantial preference was given to our beef in South Africa and other parts of the empire. I think we may make a very great contribution in that way towards the developments of our internal resources. I have felt, and I have said before and I repeat it to-day, I have felt sorry that the Government tied itself up with the German treaty in regard to this question of preference. The German treaty has had no other effect on this country. It has practically not come into practice at all. It has remained very largely a dead-letter, and we have not had any trade arrangements that I am aware of. It has tied our hands in this matter of preference, and it has made it more difficult for us to make reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain, to stimulate this great market which will come our way, and is there for us to make use of. I hope in future when we come to make other trade treaties we shall not follow the precedent of the German treaty and not tie ourselves in regard to this matter of preference. Rather, I hope, the Government will follow the precedent that they themselves have set up in the Mozambique treaty, which reserves the question of preference, and leaves us a free hand to make with Great Britain such preferential arrangements as we like in the empire. I think preferential arrangements can be made. I have mentioned the case of beef, but there are many other things. Our main difficulty in reference to the development of reciprocal trade in the past has been the trade policy of Great Britain. I am fully aware of that. That has been the main difficulty. But there are many indications that, in the near future, the policy in Great Britain will very likely be revised, and there will be a greater willingness [Interjection by Minister of Finance.] I hope that the Government will not be deterred by the action of any particular government, Mr. Snowden’s views, of course, I know. He has given expression to them. I know as a fact that there is a very wide spread feeling in Great Britain that what is called empire trade should be developed. To my mind, it will remain our best external market outside of the African continent, and, in the long run, it is our true and natural market. Outside of the African continent it has been our best market, and the English market will continue to be our best market. When we can, through trade preference, or imperial preference as it was called, make some arrangement to stimulate our markets, and find markets for our producers here, as in the case of beef, I hope it will be done. Take another case. Take wine. We succeeded at the conference of 1923 in getting a substantial preference for our wine. That preference has led to a fair export of wine from this country. To my mind we ought to develop that policy in regard to wine even further. The wine industry has been going forward in this country for the last four or five years by leaps and bounds. In fact, I am getting nervous and apprehensive as to what the consequences will be in the next five years. In this country people are not drinking more. It is hopeless to look to the natives in the north as an outlet for the wines of the Cape. The Minister of Justice may think so. I see He has been promising the people at the Paarl and at Wellington that he will find markets for their products in the north.

I left it to the House to decide.

The hon. Minister is not a mere private individual. When he appears at the Paarl or at Wellington he speaks with authority, and when he says: “I am speaking in my individual capacity, and in my own person,” people do not understand him. They think, somehow, it is the voice of the Government. To my mind, it is hopeless for our wine farmers to expect much relief, and far-reaching relief, from that quarter. They will find that the political and moral and ethical difficulties are such that there will be no prospect in that direction. Great. Britain is a great consumer of wines, the importation of which from the continent is on a colossal scale, and she has already started to give us this substantial preference. I do not see why it should not be increased, and why the wine districts of the Western Province should not find a growing outlet for their produce. In the first part of the nineteenth century, we exported sweet wine on a large scale to Great Britain, but treaties with Portugal and France suddenly cut off this trade, in the middle of the century. Now, however, a new spirit is abroad, and there is a feeling that empire trade should be developed. I hope the Prime Minister and his co-delegates will go to the Economic Conference with a keen desire to create openings for our produce in the country which, on the whole, is most favourable to the buying of our products. I could mention other items such as dried fruit, which should find a market on a large scale, not only in Great Britain, but in other parts of the empire like Canada, under a system of imperial preference; and I hope no theoretical differences will stand in the way of the Prime Minister agreeing to a policy which will mean a very great deal for the development of South Africa. We should do something to focus public attention on the necessity for developing markets at a time when everybody is thinking where we shall find an outlet for our produce. If a wise policy is adopted at the imperial conference next September, doors may be opened which may provide a great relief to our primary producers. Let me pass on to another matter—our foreign representation. It has been said here that this side of the House is unfavourable to South Africa upholding her dignity before the world, and being properly represented in other countries. That sort of charge is made in the give and take of party battle, but it has no substance in it.

I am glad to hear that, but I have heard a different tale.

There is no other tale. We have never opposed our representation abroad so far as our means and circumstances allowed, but we must bear in mind that our circumstances are limited. During my trip abroad, I was able to see what was done by our representatives in London and the United States, and the fact was brought home to me that if we want to do justice to our foreign representation, we shall have to limit it, as it is going to be a very expensive thing. The provision which is made for our representation in the countries I visited will, in the end, prove to be far from sufficient. If members were to see on what scale other Governments are represented in foreign countries, and how much money is spent, they would come to the conclusion that it is inevitable that we shall have to spend more and to pay our representatives more if they are to uphold the dignity of South Africa in a worthy manner. I say this as a word of warning—-nothing could be worse from the point of view of South Africa’s dignity than to send men to foreign capitals there to live in a small and mean way. The comparison under those circumstances with other countries would be so odious and so against the interests of South Africa that it would be far better to send no representatives at all. But if you send men, let them be equals among equals and not bywoners among the representatives of the nations. But this foreign representation is going to be costly. On the present estimates, the sum of £60,000 is down for foreign representation, inclusive of the League of Nations, and that does not include the High Commissioner’s office in London—

Nor our representation in Kenya.

I mention this figure not as a matter of criticism, but to show that we shall have to go slow and be very careful in deciding in which countries we are going to be represented, and we shall have to limit the number. It is not necessary for us to be represented in every corner of the world, or even at the court of every great power, but the dignity of South Africa does require that where we are represented, it should be in an adequate and a worthy manner. We shall have to be careful. There may be pressure on the Government to extend representation to other countries, and no doubt you could justify that on theoretical grounds, but in our case, theoretical considerations are severely limited by our practical power, and I hope we shall go very slow. There is one other matter. Can the Prime Minister give us any information about the Angola farmers in South-West Africa? One hears all sorts of conflicting reports, and from time to time, you see communications in the press which seem to paint an alarming picture of the situation of these men from Angola. We are peculiarly responsible for this matter, because it is Union policy and Union money that are involved. We cannot say that it is a matter for South-West Africa entirely, and we have supplied, I believe, £500,000 in order to bring these settlers back from Angola. It is right that we should know how the enterprise is going on, and whether the complaints that these people are destitute and are still kept alive by doles, and that their cattle have died, and that their sheep are dying, are true. We should know what is going on. I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to-day to tell us and the country what the position is. I do not want at this stage to raise any other matters, but I should be very glad if the Prime Minister will enlighten us so far as it is in his power to do so, on these matters, which I have raised in no contentious spirit at all, but are matters of great public interest, on which the committee should have the information.

Let me say at once that I am thankful for what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said this afternoon. I do not believe there is anything that I could object to at all. I am glad that the suggestion was made that we might possibly give a little more attention in future to our external relations. In the past we have, unfortunately, not done it all. Now and then it was discussed a little, and something special debated, but it was exceptional, and there was good reason for it, because it was practically the position that whenever this Government spoke in connection with foreign relations, it was sufficient to elicit criticism of an unpleasant kind. We are now in a different position, and it not only gives us the right of undertaking and debating foreign affairs, but it is also our duty to do so, and therefore I hope that this House and the people will give as much attention as possible to the matter, so as to become acquainted with it. The hon. member for Standerton asked me to take the House into my confidence with reference to our relations abroad. In the first place, I want to point out that in so far as my department is concerned, the amounts appearing on these estimates only partially refer to what we usually call external relations, i.e., relations of a political or diplomatic kind. Under the head of “ Prime Minister and external affairs," trade relations, and such like things appear. Hon. members must therefore bear it well in mind that under this vote we have to do with matters of a twofold kind. I say this here because it must be borne in mind when I, more or less, lay before the House what I can tell it in connection with external affairs. In the first place, we must not forget that we have only recently established our embassies abroad. Hitherto we have only had the High Commissioner in London, who stands on a somewhat different basis, but who, nevertheless, is also regarded as a person in a similar position to the ambassadors in other countries. With regard to the other three, Holland, America and Italy, our ambassadors only landed there a few months ago, and have been engaged in occupying their posts. So far as my information goes, I may say that everything is very satisfactory in all respects. Now I want to say that each one of the three has been instructed that he is to act in the closest coperation with the British representation there. I am glad to be able to say, that in this respect there is not the slightest complaint, and, according to my information, the co-operation is particularly good. As hon. members know, one of the chief considerations in the appointment of these ambassadors was to facilitate and assist the operation connected with the offices of the trades commissioners. In this connection I must say again that there is every reason to be satisfied with the results, because it appears on all sides that the establishment of the embassies in the various places has been very advantageous as a matter of fact to the trade relations which formerly existed and still exist. I must immediately add that we must not attach too much value to all this up to the present. We have hardly commenced, and everything is practically in its infancy, but from what I am informed, I feel that it will have a good effect, and the appointment will ultimately be of particular benefit to us. The hon. member for Standerton referred to my going to Geneva. I may add that the Minister of Finance intends to accompany me there. We know how, through the mediation of the hon. member for Standerton, we have stood in the closest connection with the League of Nations. We know what rôle he has played in this connection. Unfortunately, none of us have yet been there from South Africa as a Minister. I believe the hon. member for Standerton has not been there since 1919. In the meantime it has been notified that it would be appreciated if South Africa would indicate its interest and moral support by sending a Minister there. We have to go to the imperial conference, and inasmuch as the session of the assembly in Geneva shortly precedes the imperial conference, I consider it a very favourable opportunity for going there. In that way we will show, as we have indicated from the beginning, that we are real supporters of the great institution. In my opinion the League of Nations deserves much more support to-day after the signing of the Kellogg treaty than ever before. In my opinion, any objections that might have been felt against the League of Nations have been removed by the new treaty which America has now also entered into. I wish to say that, according to my conviction, there now is every chance of the two institutions working, and being of great use in the preservation of general peace. So far in respect to this question. The hon. member further spoke about the imperial conference, and asked if I could give any information with regard to work to be done there. Unfortunately, I cannot say much because, as the hon. member knows, the programme is usually drawn up after full consideration, and that has not yet been done. We only know, up to the present, that the conference will be coupled, or let me rather say, as the hon. member has described it, that the conference will consist of two conferences, the imperial and the economic divisions. The imperial conference will, therefore, as in 1926, and I assume also before that, be divided into two sections of which the economic section is of great importance. In this case the economic section will be of so much more importance, firstly, on account of the declared policy of the present British Government, and the consequences which that declared policy will have if effect were given to it. This is the policy of which notice was given a year ago. And hon. members know it is actually Canada that has insisted on the economic side playing a particularly important rôle this year, because its interests will be seriously affected, if effect is given to the declared policy. Thus it will, therefore, be the economic side which will be given the greatest importance. With regard to the other side it relates more to defence and inter-imperial relations, and, in my opinion, it will be less important than in 1926, because what is now taking place will be more or less the consideration as to how far effect shall, and can be, given to what was decided in 1926. In other words, it will be more confined to the report of the constitutional committee which has also been laid on the Table here, and will be debated one of these days. The hon. member for Standerton, the leader of the Opposition, has referred to some matters to which attention ought particularly to be given. I can assure the hon. member that he need have no fear that we will not give all possible attention to any possibility of extending our markets with Great Britain. The attitude this Government has always adopted hitherto is that we want the most favourable market all over the world, that we can get for our South African produce. We, therefore, want to remain on the most friendly footing with every, and each, nation, but it is a fact, and it has never been denied by us, and we will not deny it either, that when all is said and done the closest connection should always be sought with the country which is our greatest consumer, viz., Great Britain. We, therefore, do not only desire, but are more than desirous, to secure our markets with Great Britain and the other dominions. Great Britain cannot, however, take all we produce, and we must, therefore, to a great extent, look for a market outside Great Britain and the dominions, and it is chiefly for that reason that we thought that we ought also to have representations by means of embassies in other parts of the world. What we cannot forget in South Africa is it is always a danger to put all your eggs in one basket, as the proverb has it. And this also applies to our trade with Great Britain. It is a great danger to be merely dependent on her, or even to be dependent in such a way that with an alteration in her policy we may find that we are saddled with a quantity of our primary products. That this is a great danger immediately appears, as I have said, from what the results will be, as is felt in Canada, and will also be felt by us if the British Government decide to abolish or curtail the existing preference tariff. Hon. members see that if that happens it will be very disastrous for Canada and also ourselves, because there can be no doubt that we have a market in Great Britain to-day which is of such a kind that it can only be surrendered with the greatest injury to certain branches of our farming in South Africa. The hon. member for Standerton said this afternoon that we must try to get on a footing with England of “give and take”; that we must get a quid pro quo. That is exactly the attitude the Government has always taken up. To-day it is more and more appearing how necessary it is for us not to be dependent on favour, because we must never forget that so long as we are dependent entirely on favour, so long we will have much greater uncertainty about what we are to expect on a change of Government in other countries. It has so clearly been seen recently. What we knew then, and what we built on was the policy of the Conservative party. Unfortunately, before and after the change of Government that was placed in danger, and Canada and we do not know where we are. Uncertainty arose about what the policy would be in Great Britain. Since the time we came into office the Minister of Finance has said that we ought not to stand on this footing, but on a firm footing, on the footing of an agreement, of the quid pro quo that the hon. member for Standerton has practically suggested here this afternoon. We shall then have the position that we shall at least be on a firm basis for a number of years. Then no Government can simply blot out the agreement because they will know that they are also getting something for what they have given. I mention it here because I feel almost certain that it is a point of view from which the next imperial conference will seek a solution of the difficult economic problems we have to deal with. The leader of the Opposition also referred to the question of the export of wine and beef, and as to how necessary it was for us to find a market for those articles. As if there was, according to him, likely to be a very great opportunity in future of getting a market for those articles in Great Britain. I hope we shall succeed in that. If we can get that market we shall be only too thankful. The policy of this Government has never been to get something for nothing. We are ready to give Great Britain everything and even more than what she is entitled to on the basis of £ for £. We have never yet stood on that basis, but what we really want is that it shall never be said of us that we had received without giving anything back, or that we had given more than what was fair to the public of South Africa. This is not a matter for theoretical conjecture, but a question of hard facts with regard to the fortune or misfortune of the population. My hon. friend also spoke of our overseas representatives, and he said that we ought to go slowly. I am very glad to hear from him that he and his party are not opposed to the appointment of overseas representatives. I must, however, say, to my regret, that criticism has been made from time to time from the opposite side which had to be objected to by anyone who had any feeling for the honour and prestige of our country. I attribute this to the fact that many members of the Opposition look on our overseas representation as something unnecessary, and not only that, but as something which ought not to exist. They look upon it rather as an insult to Great Britain, or a kind of institution only to satisfy the feelings of hostility towards England. No, I say we are a free country, we became a free country after we had for years and years been a subordinate part of the British Empire, and it does not befit us to conduct ourselves now as if we were nothing else, and wanted to be nothing else. It may satisfy the English-speaking member, or the person of English descent, but I should like to say to those persons that they must put themselves in the position of the Dutch-speaking people, and especially in the position of those who were subjects of the old republic. They, and I, did not fight for three years for nothing, and for all the time after that work for the bringing about of South Africa’s freedom. If we are to continue to behave as a subject country, then it was unnecessary for us to make all those sacrifices. I cannot feel happy unless we not only have our freedom, but also conduct ourselves as a free country, and a free people. That is our feeling. It cannot be otherwise. It is the only thing which can satisfy us, and it is from that point of view that our English-speaking South African must regard the matter. I think it is very selfish of them whenever they meet us over this matter to tell us that they are quite satisfied. The question ought not to be whether they are satisfied, but how things ought to be to satisfy all South Africans. As for the appointment of overseas representatives, I felt, and we on this side of the House felt, that it was an absolute necessity for the Union to have overseas representatives, and for two reasons. Firstly, that it is the only proof which can satisfy the sentiment that we ought to behave as an independent country, secondly, that we felt that South Africa was called upon to look after its interests abroad itself. To expect our interests to be looked after by the representatives of Great Britain, or of another country, was simply to expect us to be satisfied with a subordinate position. For those reasons we feel that we ought to have ambassadors in other countries. As for the number, I feel the same as the hon. the leader of the Opposition has said here that he feels. If we are to have the ambassadors, then we must have them on a basis of which we need not feel ashamed.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) emphasised that we should see in regard to the establishment of embassies that we did not go beyond our carrying capacity, and that we should, at the same time, see that our ambassadors were properly paid so that we need not take a second place to other countries. I entirely share his views in this matter, and I can assure him that it is something which the Government has always given the greatest attention to. As for the number of embassies, I may say that I think no one will allege that the number is too great, but I am convinced that we shall certainly not be able to keep at that number. It is very clear to me that if we want properly to maintain the interests of South Africa we shall have to make a few more appointments, and in any case I think two. I want at once to add that there is no immediate intention of taking this step for the reason that I think that before we go any further we ought, first, to see that the three new embassies are in proper working order, and that we ought first to be in a position to take advantage of our experiences in connection with them. The three embassies which have now been established have practically followed the lines of the trade commissioners. They have practically gone in the footsteps of the trade commissioners. I want to add to this that I think that during the next five years we shall have to appoint a few other ambassadors I have referred to. Now I wish to point out that with regard to the embassies, and their work, if it were only a matter of their services in general, we could leave it to the people that Great Britain has in the various countries. Let me here say that we all know that there are possibly no other set of public servants in any country who in capacity and devotion to their task excel those of Great Britain. Anyone who has had anything to do with it knows the capability of those men. How precise they are in everything referring to their duty, and how carefully they do their work. Their services have always been at the disposal of the Union as well as of all the other dominions, and I wish, on behalf of the Union of South Africa, now to express our thanks for the services that were at our disposal. We would have been able to avail ourselves further of them, and if it was only a matter of those general services, we could possibly leave it there, but it is very clear to me that however competent and however devoted the officials of that quality or nature may be, we can never expect the British ambassadors to have that knowledge of South Africa which is often necessary in order to render great service to us. For this reason also we have found that it is necessary to have the service of our own ambassadors. Apart from what I have already mentioned this afternoon, viz., that it does not befit us as an independent country any longer to simply rely on the services of other countries, services which are paid for by other countries, there is therefore a great need for the appointment of the ambassadors. As regards the method of paying the officials and the amount I want once more to tell the hon. member for Standerton that we carefully went into what was paid by other European countries, and I think that when we compare the allowances, etc., with those of other countries, we have made adequate provision. Of course it will be less than countries like England, France, and Germany, but it is not necessary that they should be on equality with those. It would, in my opinion, be extravagance for which the Government could be called to account by the population of our country. The work of our ambassadors, and their responsibility, the expenditure unavoidably connected with the posts, is of course not comparable with that of a country like England. Our ambassadors, therefore, ought certainly to be satisfied with smaller pay, but we hope that we shall not remain behind other countries. We are, of course, feeling our way. It is very easy to pay large salaries, and grant allowances, but it is difficult when once they have been granted to revert, and pay less. If it should appear that anything further is required in some direction or other, then we shall be prepared to do the needful, but I do not think that one of our ambassadors is entitled to complain to-day that he is not sufficiently in a position to look the ambassadors of other countries in the face. If we go carefully into this, we find that our embassies come out on the average at £6,000. This is almost the same amount as is spent on the High Commissioner’s office in London, and I do not think it can be said that the salary and allowances the High Commissioner draws are inadequate to enable him properly to fill his post. I mention this because I think that the post of the High Commissioner is a good test to compare the others with. I admit that there are countries that are more expensive than London. If I mistake not America is one of them, but America is just one of the countries where we have provided more than the average. My hon. friend has asked me to give a little information to-night about the Angola farmers. As we all know the Administrator of South-West Africa, Mr. Werth, was here recently. I asked him then to tell me what had become of the people, how much had been done for them, and what there was in the complaint which we saw in the newspapers and to which my hon. friend, I suppose, was referring when he said that the treatment of the people was being complained about. I may say that the Administrator told me in the most emphatic way that he felt very happy about the position of the Angola farmers in South West, and that he not only felt happy, but that he was also glad that those people were the most deserving settlers. I wish that that could be said of us all in the various provinces of the Union, viz., that those people still possess full confidence in themselves, and have not shown the least inclination of running to the Government as soon as they have a little trouble. I think this is one of the best proofs that they will be a success. As for the complaint mentioned in the newspapers, he said that it was due to a person who, for certain reasons, was making mischief, but as soon as it became known among the Angola farmers, they met and resolved to assure the administration that there was no truth in it, and that they were all satisfied. I may add that there was another favourable factor to make them more satisfied. This was the fact that although a pretty severe drought had prevailed throughout South West Africa, and I am not certain whether it does not now prevail in some parts, Providence provided good rains in the parts where they were established. They were, as the Administrator said, practically in an oasis, and he assured me that hardly anybody required any more assistance. Here and there was still an individual who needed a little help, but on the whole it was not necessary, and they were very well satisfied with the results of their farming. We can all be glad of it, because, as the hon. member said, we are responsible. May I just say a few words to-night, or rather make almost a request of hon. members, especially the leaders of the Opposition, but practically of everybody. We have just started taking our position as a young nation, and assuming responsibility for ourselves; we can now no longer when anything goes wrong with our foreign relations attribute it to anyone other than ourselves. As I have said, we have only just created the means by which we can get into the necessary relationship with other nations. There is no doubt that the duty now rests on us which has always rested on a free people, viz., that we should endeavour to be on as good a footing as possible with other nations. If we look after ourselves in the future, then it seems to me that we, as a people, will also feel that we are occupying a very responsible position, and that any word uttered by an hon. member in this House can do more harm than hundreds of speeches made outside it, and which deal with friendly relations with foreign countries. There was a time when in this connection we were very irresponsible, because we always thought that other people were looking after our interests, and providing for our needs, and that we could talk a little freely, and could use words which might give offence abroad. There is no doubt that words have been used in this House which no responsible person would ever have used in the British Parliament. Why not? Because in the British Parliament the members follow the fixed practice of the code of the House of Commons, and when they refer to foreign nations, and to the relations with other nations they are always most careful and punctilious. I think that this is a rule which we ought to follow as a fixed rule in this House, and that hon. members will take care that we are not brought into a more unpleasant position with foreign countries than we ought to be owing to wrong words employed here. I therefore want to appeal to hon. members not to lose sight of this in the future. I want here to refer to something else. When we look at the questions which from time to time are put in the House I must say that it is clear that members do not always appreciate what depends on the words that are here employed, or of the questions that are here asked. I only want these things to be properly remembered by us. As for myself, I want to say that I will be prepared to give the leader of the Opposition any information about external affairs, as he himself knows, there are things which cannot always be made public, but which a man in the responsible position he occupies ought to know. I assure him that I shall always be prepared to give him information about external affairs. At the same time I may tell him that I think we ought to follow the practice of the British Parliament, viz., that when it is a question of external relations of our relations with great Britain, the dominions, and foreign countries then I shall be very glad if he will tell me beforehand what he would like to know. The information that he asked for this afternoon was not of an extraordinary nature, and I was able to give it at once. I think, however, that this practice should be established from the start. I think that I have now answered all the points on which information was asked.

I am sure that hon. members have listened with very great pleasure to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and to the statement made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated that he recognizes as much as anyone the importance of the League of Nations. There are many who have been inclined to doubt the value of the League, but I think it must be recognized that the league, if adequately supported, is calculated to become a very potent instrument in the promotion of peace and good-will. The Prime Minister has told us that he will attend the next session of the league. I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister will be present at the next session of the league, because I would like to draw his attention to a matter which is likely to come up there. Our relationship with the league is two-fold. We hold a mandate with regard to South West Africa, and are, thus, answerable to the league for our administration there, but we are also a member of the league and as such, are responsible for the control and administration of other mandates which are given out. At the next session of the league it is most likely that one of the questions that will be discussed will be the question of the Palestine mandate, and having regard to the fact that the Union as a member of the league together with the other members, responsible for that mandate, and also that the present Government several years ago showed great sympathy with the objects of the mandate, when they issued a letter to Mr. Sokolow, and also the sympathy shown by the Government with the Jewish people in connection with the recent disturbances in, Palestine, I hope that when the question of Palestine will be discussed at the league the Prime Minister will show the desire on the part of the Union that that mandate should be carried out in letter and in spirit. In doing this we shall not weaken but rather strengthen the hands of the British Government. Another aspect of the league is this. If we are to carry out our ideals of a higher status, it is important that we should be adequately represented in the courts of Europe, but it is much more important that we should be adequately represented at the League of Nations. I think the Government should be congratulated on having a permanent representative on the league, but I believe the Government could do better than it has done. I do not propose to criticize the official occupying the position, but I feel that, with all respect to him and the South African party, the Government could do better than to send as its representative a third-rate South African party organizer, and would do a great deal of good if it would take into consideration the question of being represented on the league by a person occupying a distinguished position. Although we have very many differences, especially in regard to internal policy—and I am glad that we have got to the stage in this House when members give each other credit for honesty of purpose—I feel that the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) has probably got to the stage when he would be much more useful to South Africa outside of this House than in the House. He has shown that he has the ear of the world to a greater extent than the ear of this House, and I feel that the Government might take into consideration the question as to the appointment of the right hon. gentle man as the permanent representative of South Africa at the League of Nations. Let me assure the right hon. gentleman that I am not making this suggestion because I want to get rid of him, but because I believe that in such a position he would serve South African interests, and the cause of peace, and enhance the status of which we hear so much. I hope the discussion as to who is responsible for the higher status has come to an end. I have no hesitation in saying that our present position has been brought about by the hon. the Prime Minister. Until 1926 we had our higher status, but it was based on the British idea of evolution, and it was vague and unwritten. Our status, as a result of the efforts of the Prime Minister, has been reduced to a fixed and written constitution. I realize that there are people who think that that written constitution would put a limit to an extended intimacy in our relationship with Great Britain; on the other hand there are some who feel that this written constitution has strengthened the ties between us and the other members of the commonwealth and will put a limit to the further development of higher status, so far as South Africa is concerned. But I believe that in this definite written constitution we have allayed in this country all the constitutional controversies of the past. Yesterday the Minister of Finance told the House that apart from details there is no clear cut cleavage on economic questions between the two main parties, and today, in spite of a few petty differences on details, the Prime Minister has shown us that on constitutional issues the main parties are in agreement, and I believe this will bring about much sooner than hon. members think the ideal of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) with which many of us sympathize for the reorientation of parties base, on principles and not on artificial differences.

I should like to say a few words in connection with our external representation. Personally, I am really glad that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his party have stated that they will approve the appointment of the ambassadors abroad. If I understood him aright, he said so. I accept it, and am very glad about it, but I do not think that the hon. member can get away with it so easily as to say that he never made any objection, and always took up the same attitude. We know that often, even in the near past when the appointment of ambassadors was raised, we had strong attacks from the other side. It was said that the Government was wasting unnecessary money, and doing a thing which was unjustifiable, and I think that we ought to thoroughly understand what our position in this connection is. We, on this side, strongly objected to things which were said about our representatives abroad by hon. members opposite. We remember that in connection with the appointment of Mr. Eric Louw in the United States a tremendous attack was made in the House shortly after his appointment. It was said that it was unnecessary, that he was not the right person, etc.

Let me quote what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said after he had visited the office of Mr. Louw in New York. He said that after his visit to America he was quite convinced that the Union ought to have a direct representative in, America, and that he was convinced that Advocate Louw was doing good work, and that he, on his return to South Africa, would tell his colleagues that the less they bothered Mr. Louw the better he could fulfil his difficult task in the United States. The hon. member, however, never fulfilled the promise; he never even said when personal attacks were being made that his colleagues ought to stop doing so. The hon. member for Standerton has now approved of the matter, but that was not his attitude in the past. Only last year he attacked it in this House.

I want to point out to the hon. member that I do not want to have a second reading speech on the estimates. We are now chiefly concerned with the policy of the Prime Minister, and I cannot allow a debate to go on from both sides about the policy, and for it to develop into another budget debate.

May I with all deference say that if hon. members opposite are entitled to attack the policy of the Government on certain points, members on this side surely have the right to speak on the matter, and to defend the policy.

A reply can be made on what has been said, but not on what has not been said.

Can we then discuss nothing unless hon. members opposite have first referred to it? Can we not answer them?

Yes, so far as attacks are concerned.

Then we are very much handicapped. I would like to say a few words on the subject in view of the attitude of the party opposite now and in the past. Do you not permit me to do so?

No.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to the vote of the representative at Geneva. I think that, generally, it will be agreed that the appointment of a representative at Geneva is a wise move. I think that everyone will recognize that it is essential to have continuity in representation at the League of Nations and particularly in that section which deals with the labour office. I notice that the total of this vote is shown at £19,900. That is the total for the League of Nations. On page 130, included under the Labour vote, there is a sum of £1,800 for the representation sent by the Labour office to Geneva each year. It seems to me, that now we have a special vote for Geneva, the amount of £1,800 under the Labour Department should be brought under the Prime Minister’s own vote. The amount of £1,800 is in payment of the representation sent each year, which includes two Government delegates. With permanent representation at Geneva, I should like to know if it is the intention of the Government to use, as far as possible, the services of our representatives there, or if it is intended to send two additional representatives each year to represent the Labour section, or will there be a saving effected by sending only one representative to Geneva? I think everyone will agree that you must be particularly careful in the personnel of the representation sent to these various conferences. Personally, I believe that the prestige of the country depends very greatly indeed on the representatives that you send to these different conferences. I well remember some two or three years ago that it was expressed to me that South Africa stood very high indeed at the conferences at Geneva, owing to the personality of the representatives that have been sent there during past years. There is just one thing that I would like to mention. It seems to me that, whilst we are somewhat jealous, perhaps, of our prestige, we must make it fairly easy for the representative we send there to uphold the dignity of his country. I notice, for instance, in the auditor-general’s report last year that, for the previous year, only about half the amount spent that was voted by Parliament for that conference. Included in that amount was a sum of £14, which was expended in entertaining delegates from other countries. I think that everyone agrees that such a sum is absurd. I do not think it is fair to the officials, and I do not say that they are tied down to such small amounts, but I think it should be made perfectly clear that on that matter officials should be enabled to carry out that part of their duty in a manner consistent with the dignity of South Africa. The difficulties of representatives at Geneva is constantly raised and the question of their entertainment allowance is rather an essential factor in this matter. I intended raising the question of our oversea representatives, but as the Prime Minister to-night has given a clear indication or the policy of the Government in that respect, and although many of us wondered why representatives had not been sent to France or Germany where our trade is so great, in view of the Prime Minister’s statement that he is going into the whole question I shall not pursue that subject any further.

I under stand that the hon. member raised the point of the position which exists under the Labour vote of sending representatives to Geneva, and asked why that is not transferred to the Prime Minister’s vote under the League of Nations. The hon. gentleman probably knows that it is one of those controversial points which is continually debated in the Public Accounts Committee, as to where you should find a resting place for this sort of expenditure, whether it should be debited to the votes dealing with the subject or the object of expenditure. Right through these estimates the hon. member will be able to point out different things of this nature. Where these representatives nave to be sent in terms of the covenant of the League of Nations dealing with the international labour office, that properly falls under the Native Department. Our accredited representative does not deal with these matters at all. He has to study what goes on at Geneva and inform the Government from time to time. He does not represent the special delegates sent by the Labour Department dealing with international problems. He is not a delegate, he is an official. In regard to the question of allowances to officers, the hon. member might raise that on the Labour vote when my hon. colleague will deal with it. These allowances are fixed by the Public Service Commission. We have followed the practice adopted by other countries and England. It is a difficult matter to lay down what are the proper allowances, but I think the hon. member, if he wants to raise it, can do so more conveniently under the labour vote.

The Prime Minister has dealt with a very vital subject in a very encouraging manner, and I feel sure that no words from this side of the House will be allowed to fall which will arouse his fears. We are glad to hear that he thinks favourably of anything that has for its object the encouragement of our trade with Great Britain, but I gathered that the only doubt he had was as to the best method of encouraging that trade; whether by treaties, tariff agreements, or separate agreements. There is a great deal to be said for a definite agreement for a definite period, in view of the fact that disturbing elements may arise during a change of Government in Great Britain. That very point is disturbing the minds of a great many people in the British dominions to-day as to what is going to happen in the immediate future. The only point which creates a doubt in my mind is as to what we have to offer in order to get into an improved position in our trade with Great Britain. If the Prime Minister would favour us with his opinion, for instance, as to how far our hands are tied by the German trade treaty it would be of great value. The Prime Minister may be able to tell us whether we are still free to enter into trade agreements with other countries, for if we are not absolutely free we may have to fight our way into the British markets by quite a different process. As has been explained by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), a unique position has arisen in the world—there is in fact at the moment, a world shortage of beef, and the United States, for the first time for the last 50 years, finds herself without sufficient beef within her own borders to satisfy her own requirements, and consequently, she has not only consumed the whole surplus supply of beef in Canada, but gone to Australia and to New Zealand for further supplies. Great Britain is the greatest consumer of beef in the world, and the world scarcity has had such a serious effect that England has had to reduce her cattle population by 300,000 in the last two years to cope with their own requirements, so that the price of beef has increased in that country by 19½ percent. England, in fact, does not know how she is going to feed herself. This offers us a magnificent opportunity, and at least it will assist the farmers of South Africa to turn the corner. If, however, our hands are tied by foreign treaties, we must take some other means to get into the British market, and we must do so quickly. One cannot exaggerate the depression which has fallen on the land in South Africa; the income of the farmers has decreased by from £20,000,000 to £25,000,000, the loss on wool alone being close on £7,000,000. A reversion to the bounty system to-day would be too slow, although it would have saved us in the past, but I can point out a way by which we can get into the market almost immediately and, if adopted, in less than six months the position of the cattle market would be altered entirely. The proposal is this. The difficulty of getting into the English market is one of freight. The lowest freight is about £10 10s. per head for cattle on the hoof, and even at that figure the shippers tell us that they cannot come out, but they are prepared to deal on that basis. Taking the English prices, and taking the freight at £10 10s. per head, that is just £2 more than we can afford to pay. Here is an opportunity for the Government to come to the assistance of the farmer, and if the Government will stand the difference to the extent of, say, 30s. a head, so far as transport is concerned, the trade will be able to carry on on its own in a few months. There is in this country a superabundance of beef, unfortunately not all of the requisite quality, but with breeding and selection much can be done, and the world’s market is crying out for beef, and the only difficulty in our supply is really one of freightage; it is to be hoped that the Government will not turn a deaf ear to this appeal.

We are all agreed about the desirability of finding markets for all Union products. The question of our prospects in connection with the export of beef has been discussed. I do not want to minimize the desirability of getting a market, but I think there is a good deal of misapprehension about the prospect of South Africa exporting beef in large quantities. The hon. member has pointed out that you want selected animals for export, but, unfortunately, most of our cattle are unfit for the market the hon. member has been referring to. Our market for our beef in the Union is very much better than any market we could have for it overseas. The little export beef trade that exists to-day is from South-West Africa and Rhodesia, where land is very much cheaper, and where they can afford to rear animals at a very much lower figure than we can. I have never been very enthusiastic about the prospects of South Africa so far as the export of beef is concerned. I know, of course, that as a result of changing conditions overseas a world shortage of beef has been coming gradually. If that is so, it is to be welcomed. If we have beef to sell, I hope we shall do so, but I do not relish the prospect that that can be done only on a bounty. I do not know whether hon. members are seriously advocating now that we should subsidize our agriculturists by bounties. Of course, Australia has been doing it, but we are being continually referred to the unsound economic conditions there, where bounties have led to that unsatisfactory condition. Huge sums are being paid out annually for bounties. I view rather with alarm the new policy which is now being advocated that we should start here by subsidizing by way of bounties.

You are doing it in the Dairy Bill now.

Yes, but there the farmers have agreed to finance that scheme themselves, which is quite sound, and something very different from what I understand the hon. member is advocating—that the general taxpayer should come forward and subsidize all these products. The hon. member wanted to know if we can, by discussion with Great Britain and the dominions, agree that various tariff concessions should be given to encourage reciprocal empire trade, whether we would be able to give concessions in return for concessions given to us, and whether our hands are not tied through the German treaty. On several occasions I have stated the policy of the Government on this matter in very clear terms. At present, under our tariff legislation, we give certain tariff concessions to Great Britain, and she gives certain tariff concessions to us. The policy of imperial preference is in existence. I have repeatedly said that South Africa would not be prepared to receive those benefits without giving anything in return; if our trade grows, South Africa has always been prepared to revise her list of tariff concessions. When the German treaty was entered into, we said that made no difference to our policy. That treaty was entered into for a comparatively short time, after which it could be revised and terminated, if necessary, if any attempt was made to tie our hands in dealing with this question I have already mentioned. I also stated at the time that the Government was convinced that the position would not, and could not, arise for the period for which the treaty was originally entered into. The position today is, we can take steps if we want to carry out our policy to give further concessions, because our trade is expanding, or because we have got additional benefits, and the German treaty will not stand in our way. That has always been, and is, the policy of the Government. The legislation provides that, if we give any concessions to any country, we give them automatically to Great Britain.

Not vice versa?

What does the hon. member mean by that?

If any concession is given to Great Britain, it must automatically be given to Germany.

If the treaty remains, and is not revised. I thought everybody understood that. If we want to extend any concession, or give new concessions, the hon. member need not be afraid the Government will not be able to carry out the policy to which it has been definitely committed in the past.

This is a very important matter, which I hope the Minister will not dismiss lightly. If a chain of treaties is to be set up, with the same application to these countries as is contained in the treaty with Germany, then we shall have a chain of agreements which we cannot break when we go to the Imperial Conference. The Prime Minister has said we have entered into the discussion of oversea relations this year in a much better spirit than we had in the past because we have got rid of the differences in outlook with which we previously approached our overseas relationship. I think that is a very valuable step forward: that we have got nearer to each other in overseas matters. What we are concerned about at the moment, however, is the fact that we are tied up by the German agreement. If, during the next two or three months the Prime Minister discusses with the other Prime Ministers of the empire any reciprocal trade arrangements with Great Britain or the other dominions, he is going to be in this difficult position—how can he grant Great Britain any preference if that preference is accorded to its competitor in our market? What possible advantage can Great Britain obtain from any preference which is automatically extended to her trade rival? The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) referred to the possibility of our granting a preference to British motor-cars, which Germany also makes. Suppose we extend preference to the motor-cars of Great Britain; that preference is automatically extended to Germany, and what benefit is that to Great Britain? She is left on precisely the same footing as a foreign country. That is the whole case against the German treaty. We here are receiving preferences from Great Britain to-day which are in excess of those we are according to her. I think the value of our preference from Great Britain is greater than that which we are giving. The simple adjustment of this excess on a quid pro quo basis by giving further preference to Great Britain is prevented by the simple fact that any increased preference we give to Great Britain is automatically given to Germany. The Minister says that the treaty is for a short period, and perhaps the Minister means that when he concludes the new arrangement with Great Britain, at the Imperial Conference, he will take steps to denounce the German treaty. But that cannot be done in a moment, and the German treaty does operate as a barrier to negotiation. The Prime Minister has said that Great Britain does not buy and cannot buy all that we produce, and we should not “keep all our eggs in one basket,” but Great Britain can buy a considerable amount more of what we produce than she buys to-day, and it is quite possible, with the new feeling existing in Great Britain, for us to set up infinitely more favourable and more extensive markets than we have there to-day. It is because we fear that a chain of treaties may interfere with our market in Great Britain that we wish to draw the attention of the Government to this matter. We see certain statements in the press that a treaty is about to be entered into with France, and possibly with other countries. Are those treaties going to contain the same clause regarding preferences accorded to Great Britain, which the German treaty contains? I seriously warn the Government that they are striking at the root of imperial preference, and there is no doubt that this departure will have a bad effect upon our market in Great Britain. The Prime Minister referred to Ml. Snowden’s effort to do away with imperial preference. Mr. Snowden is a free trader, but all the Labour party in Great Britain are not free traders, and I think we can do much more to strengthen the principle of imperial preference by preventing any repetition of the German treaty than by anything else.

I believe that hon. members opposite are suffering with a certain complex, the British complex. We heard how they objected to our overseas Ministers, but if I understand the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) correctly, he stated this afternoon that that party on the opposite side has never yet objected to the Government’s policy in connection with those Ministers. I must differ from him because if I mistake not various members on that side criticize that policy of the Government, and one of them on the front benches called our overseas Ministers “flunkeys”. I would like also to quote something which will probably be very interesting to hon. members opposite. They asked what we were giving in return for the money spent on external representation. They want to see £. s. d., and I am now going to give them certain figures from which they can see what we get back. In Italy since 1925 we have had a trade representative, and I assume that the figures I have got are correct. In 1924 our exports to Italy were £258,513, we then had no representative there, but in 1925 when we did have a representative, the exports amounted to £969,571, and in 1928 they had mounted to £1,341,975. That is the amount which is yearly paid for our produce. Further, we have an important contract for the supply of meat to the Italian Army. If my information is correct that valuable contract runs for a number of years. We now learn from the hon. member for Standerton that they have no objection to our concluding treaties, but that they only object to the contents, and the way in which the treaties are concluded. This is the first time that we learn from the Opposition that they have no objection to treaties with, and representations in foreign countries. It is a real concession, and I hope that in future they will support that policy, because, as an hon. member has said, they had blinkers on in the past, and it looks as if they were only thinking of England. They acted as if they were agents for England. When in 1926 the Prime Minister announced his intention with regard to the Imperial Conference, it was stated that we were coming into conflict with all that was British.

The hon. member must confine himself to debating the vote.

I only want to say that we are very thankful to the Prime Minister for the position he has created. It is not true that we do not want to trade with Great Britain, but then England must also trade with us. The Prime Minister turned a lot of Nationalists into friends of England through the resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1926. I am glad that my hon. friends opposite are now prepared to assist us, and that there has been a change in their attitude in connection with the treaties we want to conclude. Let them, therefore, no longer make our provision ridiculous by talking contemptuously of our Ministers abroad.

I agree with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that the declaration made this afternoon by the Prime Minister which was somewhat faintly echoed by the Minister of Finance, as to the desirability of developing trade with Great Britain, is a very welcome one. In view of the efforts made by members on this side of the House, to obtain a declaration on this point, with the idea of an endeavour being made to foster our trade, the declaration is very welcome indeed.

This is not the first time I have stated what I have stated now.

I want to draw attention to what the hon. the Minister said in the past, and to the marked contrast between what he said to-day and what he said in 1925. Everything that we can possibly do to extend a spirit of goodwill to those to whom we desire to send our products will make for the greater prosperity of the people of South Africa. The Minister of Finance interrupted me just now. What did the Minister of Finance do in 1925 when he arbitrarily cut down the list of articles upon which there was a preference, until it was restricted to some 22? So far from endeavouring to do that in a manner which showed consideration for our foreign trade, he failed to consult the British authorities. He did not endeavour to make any agreement with them whatever, or to consult them as to how the alteration in our tariff might best be made in our own interests. He arbitrarily brought in the Act restricting the list of articles upon which preference was to be given, and left us to discover some three years later that he did not consult the Imperial Government. I hope that arbitrary spirit will be one that we shall no longer have to complain of. We would welcome a spirit of goodwill which would find practical expression in the markets with which our exporters have to deal. Assurances in this House are not sufficient. We welcome them no doubt, but something far more is required. Instead of breeding a spirit of goodwill in those markets, the policy of the Government has created a feeling of resentment, and the German treaty has brought about a restriction on the markets, whether the hon. gentleman intended it or not. In commerce the action of the Government in the last few years has brought about the impression that they are opposed to extension of our relations with Great Britain. A good deal of attention has been focussed on South Africa lately owing to the visit of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and that is to be followed up this year by the visit of the Prime Minister accompanied by the Minister of Finance. Here is an opportunity when public attention is directed towards South Africa to make it clear that we welcome the extension of this trade. I suggest that in July or August of this year, they should send a delegation to Great Britain composed of what I may call the business interests of South Africa to endeavour to create a spirit of goodwill and to enquire how far we can reciprocally develop our markets with Great Britain. A delegation might be composed of twelve persons, representing farmers, industrialists and commerce. Before they left they might invite the Federation of Industries and of Chambers of Commerce to co-operate with them and find out how far there is a prospect of developing our trade. I should be interested to know how far that suggestion is welcomed by commercial men in this House. Such a delegation would concentrate publicity on our desire in South Africa —a desire shared by the Government and supported by industrial, commercial and agricultural interests in the country—to develop our trade. Our farmers are suffering so much from depression and would welcome any endeavour to improve the major markets where they hope to sell their products. I ask the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé), does he object to the British Sovereign when he wants to sell his goods? I say that the paramount consideration is the development of our trade overseas.

In 1925, I re cast the tariff policy of this Government. We laid down a clear policy which is still the policy of this Government. We take full responsibility for cutting down these preferences to which the hon. gentleman objects. We felt that it was in the interests of the country, and, as the right hon. member for Standerton pointed out at the conference in 1923, how can these preferences work to the detriment of South Africa? They must be on a reciprocal basis. The policy of the British Government has been consistently to decline to discuss agreements with the dominions. What the dominions have done has been also on a voluntary basis. If we want to extend trade so far as it can be done by tariffs, it will have to be done by agreement. The hon. member complains that when I introduced the tariff in 1925, I did not consult the British government. That is based on information contained in a letter which was purloined and published in the press of this country. It created a sensation at the time. I think it was the hon. gentleman who raised the question in the House and I gave him the full facts, but he did not follow the matter up. Why did he not follow it up at the time and why does he raise it now? In 1923, the then Minister of Finance at the Imperial Conference, when a question came up of recasting preferences, let the British Government know the various articles to which they would like preferences extended. The British Government said they could not commit themselves to a list. I gave the hon. member these facts. In selecting our lists, we included, I think, everyone of these items given to us.

Two years before.

We asked at that time what articles they were. The British Government would not commit themselves; they would not tell us which British manufactures should be favoured. The British Government would not commit themselves. It was only as a result of semi-official discussions that an agreement was arrived at, but finally the decision had to be made by us. If we consulted them officially to-day, the result would be the same.

The spirit and the desire is not there.

It would be if we knew they were prepared to consult with us. We have laid down a policy that the tariff preference had to be cut down to a figure which I can say was not material at all, when we made the selection from the list which was semi-officially supplied to us at the time.

That argument of hon. members opposite that they are glad to learn that this Government is out to extend our trade with England, and when we find that they at the same time challenge the conclusion of treaties with foreign states, shows that they are thinking only of England, when they speak of the extension of our external trade. They must admit as the Prime Minister has said here this afternoon that Great Britain is not able to buy only our produce. Not only that, but it is injurious to a country to carry on trade with a particular country. It would be an unsound state of affairs if the farmers of South Africa had to take up the attitude that they must only deliver their produce to Great Britain. The Prime Minister mentioned the danger of how injurious a change of Government in that country might then be for the producers of South Africa. Can hon. members opposite not appreciate then how harmful it will be to South Africa if we are dependent on only one country, and circumstances arise there such as change of policy with the result that we can no longer market our produce there on a large scale? We, on this side of the House, have always taken up the attitude that Great Britain is our best market. None of us are hostile towards the English market, but it certainly is in the interests of South Africa to also extend its trade to other countries. A trade treaty has been concluded with Germany because we consider it necessary to conclude certain trade relations with her. Perhaps we have not yet had the results, thereof. They may come later. A trade treaty with France was referred to, and it is quite possible that such a treaty may be beneficial. If we had had it what benefits might we not possibly already have had from it. A few months ago we sold 3,0000,000 lbs. of tobacco to the French Government. If there had been a trade treaty we might possibly have sold more and at a better price. This, however, shows how beneficial it is to create trade relations with other countries. When we come to the appointment of Plenipotentiary Ministers overseas, then I want to point out that their appointment puts us in a better position of entering into trade relations with those countries, than if we merely have trade representatives there. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is beginning to realize this now that he has travelled in Canada and America, because we find that he sang quite a different tune there to what he did in South Africa. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) did the same when he was in America. When they get to those countries they realize that this Government took a right step in appointing ambassadors overseas. I think we are all convinced that it is in the interests of South Africa to increase our trade, not only in Great Britain, but in every part of the world where trade development is possible for us. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) wanted to make us believe that the Government had abandoned a sound principle, viz., the payment of export bonuses on beef. I want to ask the direct question of him whether he approves of the principle of export bonuses on agricultural produce, and whether he wants to restrict them merely to beef. I know that the hon. member cannot reply to this. When he spoke here this afternoon he merely wanted to give the impression to the public that his Government wanted to take steps at that time to save the meat market, and that the present Government is not doing so. The fact, however, is that the steps which his Government took had very little effect while the steps taken by this Government to protect the cattle farmers against the export of cattle from Rhodesia immediately had a good effect, and benefitted our cattle farmers. But I should like to know whether the hon. member is going to accept the principle of export bonuses on agricultural produce. If he does so I want to tell him that it will not stop at meat. The tobacco farmers will then come, and they will be able to make out a better case than the cattle farmers. The wine farmers will come, and they also can make out a strong case, because the tobacco farmers paid £1,000,000 in taxation, and the wine farmers also a large amount in excise. Those farmers will, therefore, have a greater claim on an export bonus. If we adopt the principle, then we will have to go in for it. The hon. member for Standerton will be the last to express an opinion on the subject, nor do I want to give my own opinion on it. The Minister of Finance said that Australia had done so, but what was the result there? If we want to take the step in South Africa, I shall, as a farmer who is concerned in one of the products involved, accept it. But I do not know whether it is a sound system for the country as a whole to create the hope that we are going to do such a thing. We hear all day about economy, but then we find that hon. members opposite introduce a motion of this kind, and they will not take the responsibility of saying whether the broad principle ought to be accepted. I am glad to learn from the hon. member for Standerton that we must not make bywoners of our representatives abroad. We do not want them to be bywoners, nor do we want that the people of South Africa should be bywoners. We have our title deeds in our pockets. The people of South Africa must show that they are an independent people by appointing their Plenipotentiary Ministers to sit down at the same table with representatives of other countries abroad as independent men and not as bywoners. I think that that word is very well chosen, that our people are no longer bywoners, but an independent people who will make history, and of whom posterity will be proud.

I think this discussion should remove any misapprehension which existed in the past, and lay many ghosts which have troubled our politics for some time past. I hope that no apple of discord will be thrown into this harmonious discussion such as we have seen some indications of in the speeches of some hon. members who have spoken lately. I can assure the hon. member who spoke last, and the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) that in regard to our South African markets and our South African production we are not suffering from a British complex. We are only too pleased to see the markets of South Africa extended in every part of the globe. In Germany, France, Holland, and anywhere where we can find a market, he will find help from members on this side of the House to get those markets. [Interruption.] We have no objection to South Africa making treaties with other countries, not the least. We welcome the opportunity that we have got and the power that we have to enter into agreements and treaties with other parts, France, Holland or any other country, where it is to our advantage to make an agreement or treaty. We welcome the opportunity to make that treaty.

Why did you object before?

What we objected to in regard to the German treaty is that it was clear to us that it does put a block in the way of our obtaining preferential treatment in the British empire.

Exclusively.

No, we have had in the past that preferential market in Great Britain which has been of the greatest profit to South Africa. We want to see it extended, and it can be extended, and all we have said is that when you make treaties with other powers, that do not give us the preference we receive from Great Britain, do not block the way to our obtaining extended preferences. We welcome the statement by the Minister of Finance that if there is a possibility of that preferential market being extended, the provisions of the German trade treaty will not be allowed to stand in the way; and, subject to that statement, we welcome treaties with other powers as well, but do not cut us out of the markets we already have. We are not anxious to confine our trade to Great Britain.

Why didn’t you say, so long before?

We have always said so. It is only your election propaganda that has blinded your eyes to this thing. I said so when the German trade treaty was being discussed.

You may have said so, but others on your side have not.

If I and others said anything inconsistent with that, now that we have got on the right lines, let us bury these differences, and I am sure the discussion to-night will help us forward. We want to see the markets for our produce extended as far as we possibly can. I hope to-night’s discussion will clear away the old misunderstandings.

I should like also to express my satisfaction at the attitude which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has taken up this afternoon with regard to our representation abroad. I was only very sorry that the hon. member for Barberton (Col. Reitz) was not present. I hope that the hon. member for Standerton, when the opportunity offers, will explain in the same way to the hon. member for Barberton as he explained to us this afternoon with regard to his attitude. Then the hon. member for Barberton possibly will no longer talk about “glorified flunkeys.”

The hon. member cannot now go into that.

I submit to the ruling, but must say that I am sorry that we cannot revert to the attitude the hon. member for Standerton took up this afternoon. I hope, however, that the hon. member for Barberton will not again, with reference to our ambassadors—

The hon. member cannot discuss it.

With regard to our foreign trade, I did not intend to take part in the debate, were it not for the fact that the hon. member for Standerton spoke about preference in relation to our meat export, and I fear said something which might possibly mislead our farmers, and create a false hope among them. He said that it might be possible if we gave a preference to British motor-cars that England by way of reciprocity would give a preference to our meat which we were to export to England. It is quite plain to me that if this is said the meat farmers, and the cattle farmers, in the country will come under an entirely wrong impression, and for the reason that it is quite clear to me that England cannot in the remotest way think of giving a preference on meat from any of the dominions, for the simple reason that England has to import meat for its population and that no English Government will ever undertake to tax the food of the people. It is an idle hope to think that that will happen. I want, in this connection, to deal also with a few of our other most important articles of export, such as wool and maize. What is the wool position? Australia and we are the two countries which supply England with wool. What preference can we get from England— not the least. England cannot give us any more preference than to Australia, our only competitor. If, therefore, we are to get a market for the wool that England cannot buy from us, then we must look for it in other countries—in France and Germany. The present price of wool clearly shows that we need the markets. However valuable preference in the English market would be for us, it is still clear that England is not able to give us a preference on wool. As for maize, our great competitor outside of eastern Europe is the Argentine. The price of maize is particularly low at present, but is there the least chance of England giving us the preference on maize? There is not the least chance that England will tax the Argentine maize to give a preference to South Africa. Maize is, moreover, required for other purposes to feed the English stock, and the stock once more are food for the nation, and there is not the least chance of the English Government putting an import duty on Argentine maize. I want to warn hon. members on the other side not to create any false prospects. We cannot get any preference in England on our most important agricultural produce. We must not forget that England is more particularly a country of merchants and manufacturers. The merchants buy and sell at a profit. England also is one of the greatest industrial countries in the world, and there again the manufacturers have to buy the raw material, manufacture them, and sell the manufactured article at a profit. We can, therefore, not expect England to give us a greater preference than one of the other dominions that export the same produce as we do. A preference can, of course, be given on articles of luxury, but it is impossible in the case of our most important agricultural produce. If England were to erect a tariff wall, its whole position as an importer and manufacturer would be ruined. Hon. members must, therefore, not expect that we shall get the English market practically as a reserve, If we want to develop in agricultural matters, we must create markets abroad, and therefore we must live on the most friendly footing with the outside world. We must develop the English market, our best market, as much as possible, but, in addition, enter into trade relations with the whole world, and in that way, and that way alone, can we hope to get the absolutely necessary foreign markets for South African produce.

We cannot help feeling what a glorious opportunity the Prime Minister will have at the imperial conference with regard to an increase of inter-imperial trade. Perhaps what is wanted more than anything else is, as was expressed by the Prime Minister this afternoon, goodwill. This and co-operation will probably be a greater factor in forwarding our interests in the British market than anything else. I can appreciate it is not only the Government in Great Britain, but you should reach the man in the street. I have visited that country fairly frequently, and do know that many of our wines and fruit have not found their way right through the country. I have gone to various parts of Great Britain where they have never heard of South African products or fruit, and I make the suggestion that there is room for immense development in that direction. The hon. member who has just sat down conveyed that Great Britain is a shop-keeping and industrial country, could not buy our wool and produce, and give us preference on these. The retort to that is, if Great Britain cannot do it, who else can? There is no preference from other sources to cultivate an extension of trade, but Great Britain will give us a greater extension than other countries. There is a good deal of sentiment in regard to the matter, in certain parts of the House, which I will admit. It will lead us to say, let us have as many British-manufactured goods as it is possible to have, and send to Great Britain as much of our produce as we possibly can. Up to Act 36 of 1925 being passed, we were giving Great Britain a considerable amount of preference. I agree with the Minister of Finance that the present basis is perfectly sound, and I am sure it will be better for the Government and this country if at the imperial conference the way opens for an extension of our markets, and there is a greater market for our produce, and it would be a pity if anything in the way of an agreement, entered into in the past, should stand in the way. I was glad to hear from the Minister of Finance a practical expression of opinion that that treaty would not stand in the way of such an extension. My opinion as to the future of this country is that it is unquestionably within the British commonwealth of nations. It may be a personal view; the closer the relations we can get between those nations and the more inter-trading we shall have, the better for South Africa. I would like to deal with it from that point of view; the stronger the tie you can have, and the more, we can get a return for our South African produce, the better it will be for all concerned. Not so long ago one of our best authorities on trade, Sir Robert Horne, said that Great Britain could not compete in her own dominions without preference, and he gave sound reasons for that; her wages were higher and hours probably shorter than those of other countries; the expenses of Great Britain were so great that she could not compete. If there is no difficulty in the way of extending preference, I believe that extension will be very much to the advantage of the whole of the people, and of great advantage unquestionably to our producers. Of course, Great Britain is one of the greatest markets of the world. I am delighted at the attitude of the principal speakers in the debate, and I feel the discussion will be of great benefit.

I want to congratulate the last speaker on the honesty of his statement; he has at least admitted that on this matter of preference it is not purely a matter of business, and it is one in which sentiment plays a large part. I quite believe that, and I can quite appreciate the sentiment in this regard. I do not want to say anything to disturb the atmosphere of brotherliness which has been displayed this afternoon. We will understand each other, and many of the difficulties that existed in the past seem to be gradually disappearing. We have had it from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and others, that they also realize the necessity for South Africa having markets elsewhere, and not only inside the British empire. We have not heard very much of that in this House, nor have we heard much of that outside, but still we are glad to hear that admission. I know that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) took up that same attitude at the imperial conference in 1923, I think it was. He has admitted that preference must be revised in order to enable us to barter with other countries on a quid pro quo basis. I think hon. members will admit that unless we have our preference on a quid pro quo basis, it will be very difficult for us to develop markets elsewhere, and Great Britain is not able to consume all our products. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said that their chief objection to this German treaty was that, if we were to give any new preferences to Great Britain, Germany would, ipso facto, receive most favoured nation treatment with regard to those new preferences, and that in consequence those preferences would not be of great benefit to Great Britain. It really means that if we are to extend new preferences to Great Britain, we shall have to extend like preferences to Germany, and Great Britain will have to compete in the South African market with Germany, which is her chief competitor in certain lines. The point I want to make is this: that, even if we give Germany preference in regard to certain articles, we are not doing Great Britan a greater injustice than she is doing to South Africa even under the preference we have at the present moment. It is not true preference we are getting from Britain. We are getting preference on wine, dried fruit, and a few other articles, but, at the same time, that preference is given to other dominions which are our chief competitors. The same imperial preference is also given to Australia and Canada, which also competes in our dried fruit market. My point is that we are not getting true preference, exclusive preference of the type hon. members want us to give Great Britain. I am sure that hon. members will admit that this is a point they have not put forward or looked into as they should have done. The point that we have been fighting for all along is that we have to extend our markets elsewhere. Great Britain will not be able to consume all our products. She is not able to consume all the wool produced in the British empire. It means that we have to try to be on a friendly footing also with other countries. The goodwill of Germany and France means a great deal to South Africa. I can quite understand the sentiment on the other side, which probably is not felt so strongly on this side, but when we look at this matter as a purely business matter, we must admit that we have got to have this quid pro quo basis. Our main trouble is that members on the other side leave us under the impression that, in order to be friendly to Great Britain, we have got to be enemies of other countries.

I would like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member who has just spoken. He says that the value of the preference we are getting from Great Britain is not so great as what we are giving her, because Great Britain affords the same preference to the other parts of the empire who are in competition with us. That is not the case. Let us take one article as an example, and one that I know something about. Take sugar. Sugar has much in common with other commodities which the empire produces and sends to Great Britain. The empire supplies less than a quarter of the sugar which goes into Great Britain, and it gives a preference of £4 per ton. The amount produced in the empire is less than Great Britain consumes, and Great Britain pays that amount of the preference on all empire sugar. That preference is given for the purpose of stimulating empire production, and there is a big leeway to make up before the empire provides sufficient for British needs. I want to show the hon. member what it means to South Africa in the cast of sugar alone. In 1923 the sugar production of South Africa was about 150,000 tons. It is 300,000 tons to-day, and it is largely owing to the fact that we are able to get a preference in the English market of £4 a ton that we have increased our production. The sugar industry had been led to believe that there would be an increase in that preference, and this belief led to great expansion. What applies to sugar applies to many other things. Great Britain can take practically the whole of the products produced in the empire, and pay a preference on them and still have room in her markets for more. Let us take wool. Great Britain takes more wool from foreign countries than that which we sell to foreign countries. Has it ever occurred to hon. members opposite that the empire produces the whole of the fine wool of the world, and that Australia and South Africa have the command of the whole of the wool market if they will co-operate in the sale of their wool? If they co-operate in its sale they can command almost any price they like for wool. By using the preferential advantage we have in our own British markets, we can do a great deal for our producers. We cannot sell all our products to Great Britain, such as our coal and minerals, but there are things that we can sell to Great Britain. Take mealies. How is it that we still allow a state of affairs to continue under which Great Britain purchased practically three-quarters of her mealie supply from the Argentine instead of from South Africa? Why cannot we arrange things better than that? Cannot common sense business men in the Governments of the two countries get together and say: “We will purchase your goods, if you will purchase ours." What we have been complaining about is that the Government will not take a business-like view of these questions. It is the old foolish suspicion that these business matters are mixed up with political questions of dominance which has been a bug-bear that all of us ought to try to kill. I think the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) adopted a tone which we can all admire, and which shows a better spirit than any I have heard him use before in this House. If we approach the question with an open mind, which is now apparent, we shall advance the country’s interests more than by any other means.

I think we are satisfied from what the Minister of Finance has said as to the methods he would use; if I understand him he means that when the German treaty comes to an end he would then go to Germany and say: “We do not want to be hampered by this clause, and we would like to make certain arrangements with the British empire,” and I take it that the view of the hon. the Minister of Finance is that Germany would see the reasonableness of that proposal, and we should have a free hand to deal with the matter. That is satisfactory so far, but the Minister did not deal with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) with regard to certain negotiations which have been going on with another country with regard to a treaty. What we want to know is that that restricting clause shall not be in any future treaty. If the Minister now enters into a two-year treaty with another country, he will then be bound for two years. What we want is an assurance that yon will not put such a clause into either of these treaties which he has under consideration. I think the Minister’s reply was “Wait and see.” That would be alright, but the position the Government has taken up is that this House has nothing to do with these treaties, and that Parliament would have nothing to say before they are finally ratified. It is only right that the Minister should assure this House that he will not bind himself. I doubt whether Germany expected this concession. It is purely a domestic matter within the bounds of the British commonwealth. Germany had no right to expect that arrangements would be made burdening the domestic policy of the commonwealth itself. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) said that this question had been approached from a sentimental point of view. I approach it from a practical business point of view. Many of our exports are to countries to which we have rendered considerable service in regard to our imports— countries which take little from us. Take America. We arranged our tariff so that their cars should come in at a lower rate than British cars, The price of a car at which the tariff rate goes up is one which just catches the British car and misses the American car. What does America take from us? A considerable quantity of minerals, which they are short of and bound to take. If we prohibited every motor-car from America they would have to take our minerals. Germany is on a different basis. Great Britain takes a great many things from us that nobody else in the world would take. What hope have we of disposing of our fruit to any other market than the British market? The whole trade would go to the wall without the British market. What results did fruit producers have from sending fruit to the continent of Europe? It has been disastrous. I am delighted with the attitude of the Minister of Finance, but I say look upon it from a business point of view. We hope that when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance come back from the imperial conference they will have something concrete which will give hope to the producers of the country.

With leave of the committee, amendment withdrawn.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, “Treasury”, £44,000,

I should like to refer to one or two matters on this vote. First of all I would like to refer to the pension funds.

Pensions come under Vote No. 7.

I am speaking of policy. Would you rather that I left it over until we reach the other vote?

Yes. I ruled this afternoon that I would allow discussion on each vote.

Before we pass Vote 5, I should like to ask the Minister a question dealing with a matter of policy on which I should like a reply. I should like to know what his policy is with regard to the question of social insurance which was recently under consideration. Hon. members will remember that some years, I think four years, ago, the Minister appointed a commission in connection with old age pensions, and national insurance. That commission made three reports, the first report dealt with old age pensions, and that has already been dealt with, the second dealt with insurance against sickness, and the third with unemployment insurance. In connection with the two last mentioned reports, nothing has been done, as yet. With regard to unemployment insurance the commission took up a rather indefinite attitude. The commission said that it was a matter on which the Government should decide whether the time was ripe for a scheme of unemployment insurance in the present circumstances of South Africa, even on the limited scale indicated in the report. I would like the Minister to make a statement in connection with this matter, because it is in the interests of the country to know what decision the Government has come to. The second report of the commission deals with insurance against sickness, and in this connection the commission made more definite recommendations. I should also like to know what the policy of the Government in connection with that is. It may possibly be said that this is not the time to start on a new scheme like this, but I want to point out that a scheme like that here recommended in connection with insurance against sickness will, so far as the Government is concerned, mean practically no expenditure, and can even be carried out without state expenditure. And even if the Government do not now want to go into it, it is desirable that preparatory steps should be taken for the future, especially in view of the optimistic expectations that the Minister has about the future. It is certainly not the wish that these reports should Be pigeon-holed, but that a statement should be made on the subject; therefore, I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister to say what his and the Government’s policy is.

I am not prepared to say that we are going to carry out these reports. The hon. member will appreciate why not. In the first place, he is not quite right in saying that the carrying out of the one report will not involve the state in higher expenditure. We started with old age pensions a year ago, when the Government took heavy obligations on itself. We do not yet know what the total burden will be. That was the great step in the direction of social reform, and I think that we ought now to wait a little before possibly we go further. I have read the reports, and I must say that they deserve the consideration of the Government, and of the country, but we have not yet decided that we can carry out those reports as yet, and I cannot even say that we will introduce legislation next year to give effect to them.

I would like to point out to the Minister that the scheme in connection with insurance against sickness is based on the system of contributions by employers and employees.

And also by the state.

Only in connection with administrative costs.

But it will be a big amount.

Yes, but on that point the commission did not take up a definite attitude, and it will not be impossible to work out a scheme by which the administrative costs will also be borne by the insurance funds.

The hon. member will see that invalidity pensions will first have to be gone into. I will not say that we will never do anything in the direction he suggests, but this is not the time immediately to tackle that matter.

I should like to refer to the question of the Guardians Fund. I noticed in the last auditor-general’s report that there was a surplus of interest on the orphans’ fund of £81,000, which went into the consolidated revenue fund. The hon. Minister will recollect that he was persuaded to raise the interest on the orphans’ and guardian fund from four per cent, to four and a half per cent. At that stage, he refused to give interest on unused balances, that is, he refused to give compound interest. The result is, if an orphan has an income of £50 per year, and only draws £25 of it per year, the state takes the other £25. They earn interest on the other £25 and do not pay the orphan one penny for the use of that money. I think that is very unfair. The auditor-general pointed out that in 1928-’29, the surplus interest for the year was £81,000. I would like the Minister again to ask the officials to look into the matter, and rectify what is a palpable injustice. I understand that the Minister referred the matter to the masters of the supreme court, and there was a difference of opinion amongst them. I think they were fairly divided, but apparently one of them would not give way simply because he considered the change would involve a great deal of additional work. I suggest that the full interest should be paid on the deposits, and that would mean enough money over to pay for the cost of working the fund. I do not feel we are justified in taking £81,000 a year in surplus interest. All I ask the Minister to do is to refer the subject once again to the masters, pointing out that the House is not satisfied and asking them to give to each participant his or her full interest on the money standing to their credit; that is to say, if the participants do not spend the whole of their accrued interest in one year, they are in subsequent years entitled to the interest on those amounts, as well as the interest on the capital sum. I do not understand how we can do anything else. The principle I suggest is carried out in the post office, which pays compound interest on savings bank deposits. Yet, in the case of the orphans’ fund, we take their money, let it earn interest, and hand that over to the state. It is entirely unfair.

I am thankful that the Minister says that the Government have not yet lost sight of the matter of national insurance against sickness, although the Minister does not want to take action now, or within a short time, on the report.

The hon. member cannot now recommend or discuss legislation in this connection. I can only allow a question in this connection.

I just want to ask the Minister whether inasmuch as a great deal more enquiry is necessary, he does not think that for the few years that we will have to wait before the matter is tackled, it will he desirable to institute the fullest enquiry on the matter so that when the time comes all the data will be available?

This is an old and a very difficult question; I thought I met most of the difficulties when I raised the interest on the orphans’ deposits. I do not think it is quite fair to say that we make a profit of £81,000, for most of that has to be paid away to meet administrative and various other charges. You cannot cut these things too finely, and there are many difficulties. The matter was submitted some years ago to the masters of the supreme court. Very serious difficulties were pointed out, and the Treasury sent a minute on the subject to the Public Accounts Committee, with which I thought the committee were satisfied. At any rate, I do not think the committee were prepared to push the matter any further. I have given a very material concession, which was not enjoyed formerly by the orphans, by raising the interest to what we have done.

*The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) will know that we are still busy with this matter. We have had discussions with the doctors, but there are many difficulties which we must examine before we take definite steps.

I do not want to pursue this question needlessly, but what I would ask the Minister is will he get a report from the masters and lay it on the table of this House?

Yes.

Because I remember the report made to the Public Accounts Committee, and as I read it, the only reason of the principal objector was that it was too much trouble, which does not seem to be a reason for not doing our duty. If the report is laid on the table we shall be able to judge what the position is. I think the Minister of Finance himself feels there is some injustice. When he says there must be something set off for the work, I agree with him, but I say it is not £80,000. From my knowledge of the Public Accounts Committee they are not at all satisfied.

Vote, put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt,” £5,023,000,

On the question of loans, I understand there have been two attempts at floating them within eighteen months. There was a local loan £4,500,000 at 4½ per cent. As a matter of fact, the Minister is paying almost 5 per cent, for his money, and the position is he had a failure, and we do not gain very much by it. When we come to the 5 per cent, recent overseas loan, the Minister had another failure. I quite agree, and I am in entire accord with the Minister, that that failure had nothing to do with the credit of South Africa, which is excellent and is as good as, or better than, that of any other dominion. What I do suggest is that the Minister, in both cases, was very badly advised; in the first case, that the percentage rate should be 4½ per cent., and in the second case, a mistake was made in the time of issue. I do not blame the Minister personally, but he was badly advised in going to the London market at the time he did. That market was very much upset owing to various happenings—trouble in America, and other matters of that kind, and the result was he could not have gone into that market at a worse time. Despite the standing of our credit, we came out of it very badly. It is very unfortunate to have had that failure in the money market; however we can explain it, it is still a black mark—floating a loan that was not taken up by the public. The Minister knows that it makes a difference to our credit if our loans get a reputation of being easily placed on the market. There is one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is that the auditor-general calls attention to the very profuse way in which the Minister gives commission to various bodies and various individuals when he floats a loan. It seems to me that when a person pays full price for Government stock it is unwise because he can get it at at least a quarter per cent. less. I suggest that the number of persons to whom commissions may be given should be curtailed.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member when he says that this loan was ill-timed. The money conditions were bad, but it is curious that a few days afterwards they were very good. Let me tell the hon. member that on the London market you must take your turn. There are dozens of loans all the time on the market, and they have to be worked off, and we must take our turn. Naturally you put off borrowing as long as possible. We could have gone earlier, and we should have but we recognized that the conditions were adverse. Let us see what the London people think about our loan. I see from my mail an article in the Financial News of the 4th of March. And this is what it says : “South Africa is deservedly popular among dominion borrowers, and her wide economic possibilities are generally appreciated on this side. The market has a decided predilection for those countries whose visits to London are well timed and not unduly frequent.” They were dealing with the application, with this particular issue. Our subscriptions had just been issued, and we were advised that this was an opportune time. It was thought that it was a favourable opportunity because it was expected that the bank rate would go down.

Yet, if you had waited a week you would have done much better.

We are very well satisfied with the result of the loan. We should probably have had a better subscription, if we had issued the loan at half per cent, less, but it would have cost the country £100,000. Until it was known that the loan would go to a premium, the sympathy was with the poor underwriters. What are you paying the underwriters for if they are not prepared to take it up?

Did they not off-load at a considerable profit?

Before the news came out that the loan was at a premium, I was blamed for not giving sufficiently attractive terms. You cannot have it both ways. The criticism was that the loan was a failure because it was not attractive to your investors. That won’t go down.

Vote put and agreed to,

On Vote 7, “Pensions,” £3,573,540.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance with regard to the compensation allowance for loss of office of £259,000. That seems a large figure. If this is some special reorganization going on in the service, or a retrenchment in some particular year, one could understand it, but it seems to go on every year. Last year, it was £268,000. We pay for compensation for loss of office, but still the staff goes on increasing; we are paying this very large amount for reorganization and retrenchment and loss of office, and we do not get reduced service.

I can only assure the hon. member that it is quite normal. This year we have got a reduction of £9,000.

Why is it necessary?

This happens all the time because officers are retired—

£250,000 a year for a luxury.

How much of that sum is due to the retirement of officers at the age of 55, and how much is due to retirements in the Department of Justice?

I will have the information taken out for the hon. member.

[Inaudible.]

That is for the past period. It is not in one year.

The Minister answered the question that I put on the order paper, the very question that the member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) has asked. During 1928-’29, 80 officers were retired at the age of 55 years. These were pre-Union officers, and these entailed an annual pension of £23,357. I think that practically every year since I have been in Parliament there has been an amount of nearly £250,000 for this particular vote. This gives rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction. The Minister in his reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) suggested that it was ordinary retrenchment, but it is compensation for loss of office due to re-organization. This, I emphasize, is causing quite a lot of dissatisfaction in the service. I should like to know when the Minister intends to put a stop to this reorganization.

I can assure the hon. member that this is what takes place normally, and which took place during the time his party was in power. From time to time in a huge service you get this sort of thing where it is necessary to allow a man to go. This year there has been a very big reduction.

Has that £9,000 been transferred to the ordinary pensions fund vote?

Under this particular head you have a reduction.

I should like to refer to the question of the deficits in the civil service pension funds. On an actuarial calculation on the basis of 4½ per cent, interest the deficiency on these pension funds now amounts to £2,746,000. The Minister now makes, and has made, provision for several years past of £160,000 a year I think it is. I would point out, that that means it will take 18 years to provide for this deficiency, and I do suggest, from past experience, the deficiencies will grow. We are not really meeting this very grave liability. Now, when we come to the reasons for this deficiency, as far as I can see, there have not been any actuarial mistakes. The cause lies with this House.

With the members.

Generally speaking, we are the people who make the faults, and the result is that the actuarial position of the funds get upset, and we do not, in the years that we have had these increased benefits, make provision on our revenue votes for the alteration made. I do not suggest for a minute that it is the fault of this Government. It has been the fault of all Governments, so far as I can see. We must face the music. That is my trouble, we are not facing the music, and we are not making the provision that we ought to. I am sorry the Minister did not make greater provision to liquidate this very serious position from his past surpluses. We are always doing things to upset the balance of these funds. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture present, for he will remember about three years ago starting a bureau of national information. We wasted £100,000 over that experiment.

A mere book entry.

A whole department of the post office was told off to deal with it, and the result was practically nil, so very wisely the Minister dropped it, but I only want to deal with the matter from the pension point of view. We took a postmaster whose salary was £440 a year, and put him in charge of this new department on the salary scale of £600 to £700 a year. The scheme lasted for about two years, and, at the end of that time, the experiment stopped, and the man in charge was told to get back to his job. Naturally, he said: “I am finished with £400 a year jobs; I want an appointment carrying a salary not less than that attached to the position I am leaving.” The Government could not give him a post on the £600 to £700 a year basis, and so he was pensioned. He was 42 years of age, and was given a pension of £200 a year. That man, I suppose, has an expectation of life of at least 25 years, and so in the aggregate this country is presenting him with, roughly, £5,000. This is the sort of thing which upsets our pension fund. I suggest that £160,000 a year is not sufficient to liquidate the liability. For 18 years more our successors will have to pay for our faults. I attribute the fault entirely to the House, and not to the actuaries. The difficulty is also partly due to the unusual circumstances of the last 15 or 20 years, and to the alterations in the scales which were made during the war period. Owing to the increase in the cost of living, increments were made in salaries, and we are now faced with a deficit of £2,750,000. If the Minister gets his anticipated surplus, he should consider utilizing some of it as an additional reserve for the pension fund.

Will the Minister please give particulars as to how the sum of £20,000 is spent? Who are the persons, other than those prescribed in Section 1 (d) of Act No. 22 of 1928, who receive this sum?

We originally laid it down in the old age pension Act that every recipient must be a British subject. A number of aliens who lived here for 30 or 40 years without being naturalized, therefore, did not come under the operation of the Act.

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.