Before that is done, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, as to whether he is going to publish report No. 46 of the Board of Trade and Industries, which was laid on the Table of the House a little time since.

I am afraid the Order has been read. With regard to the point of order raised before the adjournment of the debate on Thursday, there appears to be nothing in our rules or practice to prevent an hon. member from making use of such information as may be at his disposal, even if it be information gained from evidence given before a commission of which he was a member, and not at the disposal of the House. I do not think that any rule but that of good taste can restrain the use of such information.

Perhaps I might now be allowed to put my question to the Minister of Finance. Report No. 46 of the Board of Trade and Industries was laid on the Table some little time since. This report is of great interest in connection with the present debate. It has never been printed yet. There is just one copy which has been circulated in the House, and many hon. members have been unable to see it. I want to ask my hon. friend if he intends to publish it. If he will allow me, I will hand a copy I have here to the press for publication.

I am afraid the hon. member is quite out of order, but, with the permission of the House, he can put this question.

No objection being taken,

I say I have no objection to the publication of the report, I will consult my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines and Industries. I thought it had been published. It was laid on the Table some little time ago, and there can be no objection to its being published in the press.

I have a copy here which I will hand to the press.

I will ask the Minister of Mines and Industries to give a copy to the press.

When the debate was adjourned on Thursday hon. members objected to my making use of the evidence which was given before the commission with reference to the Defence force. It is not necessary to make use of that evidence, because the report of the commission shows clearly enough why the dissatisfaction existed, e.g., on page 18. This report is naturally based on evidence because otherwise hon. members would say that it was forced. I was then showing that great dissatisfaction existed so that the present Government had to appoint a commission to investigate the grievances. On page 1 the commission reports that its appointment was entirely justified because the commission was convinced that serious dissatisfaction existed. I then also said that the greatest dissatisfaction, that existed was the result of the fact that party politics were dragged into the Defence force. People were appointed over other officers who had had military experience in the past, and those appointments were regarded as political appointments.

Jobs for pals.

Yes, but the other pals then became discontented so that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was put out of his seat Pretoria (West), where about one-third of the electors are military persons. The evidence showed that one colonel, twelve lieutenants and six majors were appointed from outside the force. The other members of the Defence force were dissatisfied with this, and discipline in the force was weakened. Let me in this connection say that it is undesirable that a constituency such as that of Pretoria (West) should be represented by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Defence. It ought not to be so, because we find that nearly half the voters are military men. If there is discontent in the force then it is impossible to expect that the Defence force will be a success. It breaks the ambition of the members of the force, and they have every right to be dissatisfied if they see that persons are appointed from outside. There was favouritism. Hon. members will find it in the report and in the evidence. Although it is not proved in the evidence a feeling existed that there was favouritism in the appointments. It is difficult to prove this, but when we sat there as members of the commission we felt that the whole undercurrent in the mentality of the witnesses was that we had again to do with instances of jobs for pals.

Now or previously?

While the previous Government was in power, and the commission was appointed because there was dissatisfaction about the action of the previous Government. The then Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) used the permanent force at Roberts Heights as a political agency. In the course of the evidence a case was brought to our notice where he wrote a letter of thanks to a person at Roberts Heights who was a political agent during the election. This may be seen in the report as well. The commission is of opinion that the members of the permanent force mixed themselves up too much with politics at the previous elections. The hon. member for Standerton made use of the Defence force, and there were about six letters of thanks from other Ministers where they thanked members of the force for political help. It is a great pity that this occurred, because it introduced politics into our Defence force. I do not know how we can again get it out. The present Minister of Defence will have to issue strict orders that officers and men must do no political work. This is an offence that the previous Government committed. Among all their faults this is one of the worst and most regrettable that they dragged politics into the defence of the country. We can never expect our Defence force to be a success if favouritism is shown, and if in consequence great dissatisfaction exists between members of the force. I need not go into this side of the matter further The report of the commission is there, and I hope that hon. members will read it and weigh matters carefully. The appointment of the colonel, lieutenants and majors that I have referred to occurred for political considerations, and the officers appointed were all members of the S.A.P. In no case were the regulations contravened by appointing a person belonging to another party. It is an unsound condition of things, and I hope that the present Minister of Defence will try and put this matter right. I do not know how we shall succeed. Perhaps it will be best to put the blue pencil through the whole thing and to start afresh.

Abolish it.

No there must be a Defence Force, but it must be a force that is worth the money we spend on it. At the moment it is a waste of money; when we see what we spend on it and what we get in return; when we see that there is favouritism and that there is dissatisfaction which must make it clear to us that there will not be proper discipline in the force, and where there is no discipline we cannot expect success. A dissatisfied soldier has never yet meant much. There are many respects in which the previous Government sinned in connection with our Defence Force, and where the Government made the force rotten because it made the people dissatisfied. The consequence was that the witnesses who appeared before us stated that they would accept any other appointment, even at a smaller salary it they could only get it in order to get out of the Defence force. This ought not to be so. And now I come to the Defence force itself and I hope that the hon. Minister will consider my few words. We have a permanent force which consists of: the permanent force, the active citizen force and the police. Over and above these we have the field artillery and the air force. I only wish to mention the field artillery. Up to the present the former Government neglected their duty in this connection. We have three field batteries of four guns each that is twelve guns. I say that it is frightful to think what the consequences may be and how we can continue like that. Of course, I do not include the guns of the Cape Garrison. It is not enough for our requirements. Let us see what the Defence force has cost us. It costs us about £900,000 a year, and that about £800,000 is spent on the permanent force, and what have we in return except the field artillery and the air force? It has occurred in the past that, little use was made of the permanent force when a rising took place in the country. The commission was not entitled to investigate the organization of the Defence force, and I think that a commission should be appointed for this purpose. If we could have done it we should have found many defects. We do not get value for that £800,000. Our permanent force consists of commandants and officers. It seems to me that at Roberts Heights one meets nothing but officers and no men. For this £800,000 out of the £900,000 is spent, while only £72.000 is spent on the active citizen force. This brings me to the last-named force. I think too much money is spent on the permanent force, and the citizen force is neglected. There are 145.000 members of rifle associations and the permanent force numbers altogether only 1,600 members. Compare the money which is spent on it namely. £800,000 against £72.000. And who will have to put things right if trouble arises in the land? It is said that the police are called on first and then the permanent force. It would be ridiculous to rely upon the police and the permanent force when any trouble comes from outside our boundaries. We shall have to use the whole active citizen force. History has taught us that where irregularities occur, such as recently in South-West, that the permanent force remains at Roberts Heights and the citizens in the neighbourhood are called up to put things straight. What will happen to me at the borders of Basutoland if trouble comes? The active citizen force will have to bear the brunt, and the funerals will all be over when the permanent force arrives. The active citizen force will have to bear the brunt while the permanent force is engaged writing letters to each other from one office to another. During the revolt in Johanesburg the permanent force could, of course, have been used. Seeing that we use the citizen force every time, we should spend more money on it and make it more attractive to the members of it. There are only 145,000 members of rifle associations. The previous Government did not trust the citizens of the country and it could consequently not inspire in the citizens any confidence in the Government. It was only after our party advised the people to join the rifle associations that the membership became so large. I wish, however, to say that more should be done to make it attractive for these people to belong to the rifle associations. In the Orange Free State almost half the members and in the Cape Province there are less (sic). The citizens are willing to join, but they demand more facilities in the shape of ammunition, etc. Then I want to come to the training camps. The former Government neglected their duty in this matter also. In 1913 training camps were held throughout the country and never since that time. This year one or two were held again. Our young people have never yet been trained to learn discipline. It is something which we must have and that is why the Government neglected its duty. I repeat that we must train our young men to have discipline, and I allege that it was not done in the past. We cannot teach this enough to them at home and at the school, if we have not regulations that must be obeyed. If we have the regulations, then it can be taught to them in the various districts, so that it will not be necessary for the children to leave their work for the camp. We must, however, have discipline, because that is one of the first requisites. Lack of discipline was my great grievance during the second war of independence. We had good men but what I experienced the first was the lack of discipline. I don’t wish to return to that condition of things, and we must inspire discipline into our people. We now have the system that the citizens can elect their own commandants, and we can issue regulations to bring our young men in their districts under discipline. A great fear exists amongst our people of sending our young men to the camps. They are justified in having that fear. I am not speaking in the air. I have been at the head of such a camp, and I know what the opportunity is for young people going wrong, if the Minister does not see that he has the right man at the head of affairs to keep an eye on the children. It is therefore a serious fear. It will be better if our young people in every district can go to the camps under local commandants. The necessary regulations can be made there and those who do not obey them can be punished. I do not wish to talk much about this matter, because there are other members who want to express their views. As far as I can see it is necessary that investigation should be made as I have said, so that we can see whether more facilities cannot be given to the active citizen force and that politics may be banned from people in the Defence force. They are there for the defence of the country and not for the defence of the Government. In connection with the Budget, I wish to say that I congratulate the Minister of Finance on his Budget. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said that no relief has been brought about by this Budget. I went recently to the Free State and everyone I met was satisfied with the Budget, whether they are members of the South African party or otherwise. The farmers are particularly satisfied, because they feel that we now have a Government who will also look after the farmer. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) does not see any good in the Budget, at any rate the farmer sees it, and we shall have no trouble in making it plain to them.

I am not going to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in his attack. I do not know whether it is an attack on the Defence force or on the late Government, or on me personally. I think the country will understand the speech of the hon. member. I don’t think the country will attach much weight to what the hon. member has said. This country knows who built up the Defence force and who enabled the force to gain an imperishable name, not only in the country but in the world. The country and the world knows who, during all that time, was attacking the Defence force. I think that the Defence force would like to be saved from its friends. I don’t think that the hon. member has done more than illustrate his own capacity to have been a member of the Commission. That is one of the faults I have to find with the Government—that when a matter of great public importance is to be investigated that is the sort of judge they appoint on a Commission. I don’t think a better illustration could have been given of the want of judgment of the Government in appointing Commissions than the hon. member to whom we have just listened. I am not going to pursue this subject now, for it is a very large one. I think it would be taking up too much of my time if I were to deal with the whole question of the Defence force now, but I hope to do so at a later stage. To-day I wish to deal with the budget itself, and with the debate on it. To begin with. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance very heartily on the lucid and able way in which he has dealt with the budget, which was one of great difficulty and importance. As an old Minister of Finance, I know the difficulty of dealing with a vast mass of figures and making them intelligible. I did not have the advantage of listening to the Minister, but I have read his speech, and I wish to congratulate him on the way in which he dealt with the budget, all the more so, as I shall have reason to disagree very strongly with the Minister in his detailed treatment of the finances of the country. We have to bear in mind that we are dealing with two budgets. We are dealing, in the first place, with the results of the last budget of 1924-’25, and we are dealing with the proposals of the Government for the present year. The significant fact is this, that the budget of 1924-’25 was the budget of the old S.A.P. Government. That is the budget which we passed through last August in a special session, when the present Government took over that budget from their predecessors. Parliament had risen in the middle of the financial year, so it was not possible for the new Government to produce its own scheme, and therefore they made themselves responsible for the passing of our proposals. What are the results of that budget? A surplus in the general finances of £800,000. A surplus in the railway budget of almost £1,000,000. There is no getting away from the fact that that was the budget of the S.A.P Government, and I think that to-day the House is in a position to contrast the finances of the fate S.A.P. Government with the finances of the Pact Government. We have both budgets before us, the last budget of the S.A. party and the first budget of the Pact. Let me first deal with the railway budget. Our budget showed a surplus of £960,000, the Pact railway budget, for this year 1925-’26, shows a surplus of £40,000, and that in a year of abounding prosperity. The hon. Minister of Railways has assured us that the prospects are of the brightest. He became almost lyrical in painting the condition of the country and the financial position. But brought to the touchstone of fact we find that we could produce in hard times a surplus of £960,000, and the Pact Government in good times can only produce one of £40,000. There is no getting away from these facts. I know hon. members opposite me feel uncomfortable, but what is worse there is no promise of the remission of railway rates. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) during the years he was there, the darkest years financially in the history of the country, could reduce railway rates by £4,000,000. This year, with all the bright prospects before him, the Minister could not reduce them a penny. A surplus of £40,000! I think it is an outrage that this be the state of affairs that where as in the worst possible times we could remit railway rates on that scale, now in these flourishing times the Minister finds it impossible to make remissions. He did hold out a promise in the dim and distant future to remit rates, but not during this year. If anybody asked me what is the greatest service a Government could render the country from the point of view of development and prosperity I would have no hesitation in saying reduce the railway rates. We are a very big country with very poor natural communications, a huge subcontinent with no natural communications at all. Look at the countries we have to compete with. Take the Argentine, cut through by a huge natural waterway which reduces the expense of transport to a minimum. In South Africa, a very large country, with high and bad gradients, no natural communications at all. And this is a natural handicap, a natural tax that arrests the country in its development. The more we can do away with this handicap which nature has imposed upon us the better service we shall be rendering to the country. We have striking instances of that handicap. Two years ago a woollen factory had to be started at Harrismith, and I remember the directors came to the Government and said it would cost them far more to get the machinery from Durban to Harrismith than to get it from Hamburg to Durban.

Didn’t I reduce the rates on machinery?

I mentioned this as an instance to show that it is not our ocean distances from the great markets which handicaps our development so much as the railway rates. The Government, the other day, refused to come to an agreement with the Union-Castle Company on the question of freight rates. Freight rates are an important consideration in the development of the country. Now we see here that our railway rates are very important, yet the Government supinely folds its arms and fritters away what would have been a real opportunity to render service to the country, and does nothing to remove this natural handicap.

A quarter of a million went to the grain elevator.

When we talk about the development of the country and the remission of railway rates, the hon. Minister sits there with the Durban elevator on the brain. This railway situation has called for entirely different handling from that which it has received from the Pact Government. When I read the speech of the Minister, I said, “Oh, for a Jagger now.” You would have seen, if he had been Minister of Railways now, a remission of railway rates on a large scale instead of what the hon. Minister has done, frittering away the whole surplus and doing nothing for the best cause he could have furthered—the reduction of railway rates. Now let me come to the general budget. There we had a surplus last year, a South African Party surplus of £800,000. That is not all. The hon. Minister had also a nest egg of £3,400.000, the proceeds of the Custodian’s funds. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) pointed out the lines the Opposition took on this question of the Custodian funds. Here you have a sum of money with which the present Government had as much to do as the man in tile moon. It was our policy from 1916 to the end, when the final settlement was made with regard to enemy property, it was our policy and our work which produced this nest egg for the Government of the country.

What did you intend to do with it?

We were leaving it open for the future. We often hear from the other side that we left the country in an awful mess and that it will take years to clear it up. We left it in such a financial mess that our last budget produced a surplus of £800,000, and in addition there was this large sum of about £3,500,000, the whole of the deficits of the past were completely wiped off, everything paid off and the Government left with a nice balance of £2,200,000 to invest in other developments.

To pay off deficits.

That from the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee! We wiped off the deficits and left you a clear balance of £2,200,000 to rejoice the heart of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. All the deficits which have been accumulating for the last three or four years have been wiped out, and there is left a clear balance of over £2,000,000

Hopelessly wrong.

That is the last South African party budget. We now come to the first Pact budget, and what is the story there? A deficit of £187,000! What a fall was there, £187,000! This deficit after the Minister has budgeted for an increased revenue from existing sources of £482,000. If expenditure had remained on the old scale and no new taxation had been put upon this country, there would, under the Minister’s budget, have been a surplus of £1,200,000. But it is not there—£800,000 on last year, plus this £482,000. This enormous potential surplus has become a deficit. How is all this accounted for? There has been some remission of taxation. The penny post is going to be introduced—next year.

Are you against that?

Very good; we all rejoice. Why postpone this great boon until next year? Besides that the tobacco tax has been taken away. Heavy taxation in every direction on rich and poor alike has been imposed, but the tobacco tax has been taken off.

You promised that.

I made no such promise. I regret this step that the Government have taken. The Government have done the country no service, nor have they done the tobacco industry a service by this thoughtless act of theirs in remitting, and without any reservation, the tobacco tax. The attitude which we took up when in office was that the tobacco tax was pressing unduly and wrongly on the small producer and that it should be remitted in regard to the small producer. That is all that was really necessary. No further action was justified. I had looked upon this tobacco tax as really an instrument with which to help the tobacco industry. We have a striking instance in the history of this country where an excise on brandy has been the main instrument in the building up of a decent brandy industry. If the proposal were made to-day to the wine and brandy industry, whether they would let this excise go, they would be unanimous in saying, “No, it is our sheet-anchor, our best regulator; without this tax the flood gates would be opened and we would be back again to the old dop brandy business of years ago.” That is a very striking instance of how a tax helps to regulate an industry and build it up. I had looked upon the tobacco tax as a means of stabilizing and improving the industry. The Government have given it up; they have given it up because some Ministers, the Minister of Lands amongst others, promised that it would go. I am sure the Minister of Finance must have been sorry to drop a tax of this kind. The Minister of Lands represents a district which is largely interested in this tobacco industry, and he will find that the remission of this tax, so far from helping his constituents, will have just the opposite effect. I am afraid that one of the incidental results will be to break down that very fine co-operative society, which has been built up in the Rustenburg district. I know the cooperative societies did not want the remission of this tax. They only wanted an alteration and they wanted its incidence to be taken off the poor man. The Minister by this thoughtless promise has done the country an injustice, but he has also done his own industry and his own district a very great injustice. I think there should have been in a case like this more courage on the part of the Government, and more vision and more understanding of the needs of the country. But promises have to be carried out, some favour had no doubt to be curried with certain sections of the public, who do not always understand their own interests. Then we come to what has caused the greatest difference to the Budget of the Minister, and that is this very large additional sum of £823,000 which he has to pay to the provincial councils. That is not all. The Minister has also undertaken to take over from the provincial councils the financial responsibility for technical education, which, I believe, entails a further burden of about £160,000. You can take it that the Government is giving an additional subsidy this year to the provinces of a round million pounds. I wish to say here that I support what has fallen from my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and say that the settlement which has been come to by the Minister is, in my opinion, from every point of view, a disastrous one. Here a vast additional subsidy is given to the provinces and practically no quid pro quo. For years the late Government was maintaining this great struggle of trying to limit the taxing powers of the provincial councils and limit the taxation of the provinces. We were imbued with the very strong feeling that there was nothing worse in our whole financial system in South Africa than this system of double taxation on the people through the Central Government and through the provinces. I believe that is the universal feeling throughout South Africa. For years, amid much obloquy and criticism, we have been keeping up this struggle with the provinces in order to limit their taxing powers. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance went to Durban. It was not a case of “I went, I saw, I conquered.” This is a case where he went under at once. He gives them every additional subsidy that they could possibly ask, and, instead of insisting, as a quid pro quo from them, on the revocation of these powers of double taxation, he simply surrenders, and the result is that in future the provinces may tax the same sources of revenue that my hon. friend is taxing—pool tax, capitation tax, employers’ tax, income tax, and so forth. I am not sure that the hon. member has not done the provincial councils an even greater disservice. The people will not stand this double taxation, and if this kind of thing continues people will not stand the provincial system much longer. The flood gates have now been opened by the Minister—double income tax and other double taxes. The result now is that people will continue under this double system of taxation and in the end they will come down with a heavy hand on the provinces, and in the two bigger provinces there will be a great volume of opinion growing as it is already existing, in favour of the abolition of these councils. If in the two bigger provinces these councils were to come into danger in future it will be very largely due to this thoughtless and disastrous arrangement which the Minister made at Durban. This is the outstanding fact, that even in a year of abounding prosperity, when more than ever this country was entitled to look forward to a great surplus and to a great remission of taxation, we find that our Government are forced to impose fresh taxes on the people. There is fresh taxation—no decrease, but an increase of taxation in many directions. The Minister has announced this additional taxation through the customs of £400,000, and that taxation is going to hit every part of the people of this country. Everyone is going to pay. The rich man is going to pay; the poor man is going to pay more, in proportion of this resources. I think that is the most lamentable feature of this Budget. We, in the very bad times through which we have been going, did our best to avoid this taxation. Even last year we had the temptation before us of readjusting our customs system, and of getting through the customs some additional revenue in order to balance, but our Government, after very carefully considering the question, said: “No, although it might look very pretty and very beautiful to come with a surplus before the House, we will be doing the country no service in that way; far better no increased taxation, far better leave the customs alone and not impose fresh taxes,” and the result is that even in those years we could manage to get along without imposing these taxes and bringing about any change in our customs. This year, when there is a complete turn of the tide, when we are making for fair weather, and when the revenue is going up by leaps and bounds, we find the Government has to resort to this most objectionable form of taxation; the Government has to tax things absolutely necessary to the poor just as much as they are taxing the rich in this country. I have said before that to my mind this is going to be a very expensive Government, When we see what is happening in times of prosperity we should like to know what is going to happen when things will not be so prosperous. You will find heavier and heavier taxation year after year placed on the country. The people of this country are beginning to find what a Pact Government means, and what Pact finance means. To my mind the worst feature of this budget is the muddle which it has made of the preference question. The preference policy is the old policy of this country; we have followed it ever since Union, and for twenty years it has been the settled policy of South Africa; and now for the first time this Government proposes to reduce this policy to a shadow. The preference of £950,000, the hon. Minister has stated, is going to be reduced to £350,000. The preference relating to 250 groups or heads of articles is going to be reduced under the Government’s proposals to 22. This is happening after all these years of settled policy, when, as a result of our policy, a great measure of reciprocity is in sight; when we have a Government in power in Great Britain which is prepared to meet us half way, and to take steps through its fiscal system for the development of the dominions. This is a very difficult and a very delicate subject, and I am very much afraid that our kindergarten of the Board of Trade has not given the necessary consideration or brought to bear the necessary knowledge on this most important subject. Let me repeat some of the considerations bearing upon the question. In the first place, Great Britain is our great free market; it is the only market in the world to-day where we can freely send our produce. Everywhere else we meet with a tariff wall. Seventy per cent. or eighty per cent. of our produce goes to that free market; not only that, but so far as the fiscal policy of Great Britain allows, she gives us a preference. Since 1918 we have been enjoying a sensible prefer ence, which I hope is now going to assume much larger proportions. That is the most important aspect of the whole matter. Here is a country traditionally our friend, traditionally our market, the country which leaves an open door to us; and we are going to change our settled policy—a policy which we have pursued for the last twenty years. All the finance that has gone into the development of this country has come from Great Britain, from which we have favoured terms. Any loans are by law trustee securities. Let any foreign Government, say Japan, try to borrow money in the English market and you will see that she cannot, in any way, get the terms extended to us. Another point of great importance is this: Our debts are paid there. Practically all the foreign debt in this country to-day is owed to Great Britain. We pay that debt through the produce which we export from this country. It is all very well to say that we should build up our markets in other countries. We must do that, of course, because the expanding production in this country requires increasing outlets. Let us bear this in mind, however, that the opening of markets in other countries will not help us to pay this huge debt which we owe to Great Britain, and which we do pay through the bulk of our produce. It is well known all over the world that the best thing for a country is to trade with those countries where its debts are placed. Here we have our whole policy which has been built up on this basis and understanding, and now a change has to take place. Let me say this: One can compare the treatment we get, say, from Great Britain, and the treatment we get from the United States of America. I do not want to say anything against the United States, nor is it necessary, but we are discussing large questions of public policy which affect the interests of this country very vitally. We find in the United States that we are up against a big tariff wall, which will not fall like the walls of Jericho, simply because the hon. Minister is shouting for that fall. That high tariff policy is the settled policy of the United States, a policy which will remain despite any bargaining on our part. Let us go further and see on specific occasions what treatment was meted out by Great Britain and by the United States. Take our fruit. Great Britain is the great market for our fruit. All this great expansion of our viticulture and horticulture has found an outlet in Great Britain. Can we send it to the United States? The one is a free market; the other a closed door. Some years back we were in great difficulties with our wool; we could not sell it. We were reduced to such straits that we had to ask the British Government to help. I refer to three or four years ago. Our farmers were at their wit’s end, and they appealed to the Government, and we, in turn, appealed to the British Government, with the result that our wool crop was taken over and sold in Great Britain, through the intermediation of the Government, at good prices; and some time later a large sum of money, about £100,000, was sent to us for division as surplus profit. There had been very big drop in the wool market, but the British Government were not influenced by that, with the result that our farmers got tip top prices for their wool, and a big sum divided as surplus profit. The United States, at that time, was imposing an additional tax on our wool, I believe 6d. in the £. One of the reasons we had to appeal to the British Government was just this taxation.

No. It was because you had closed your markets to other powers.

At that time England was sending out wool on a very large scale.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Take hides. Can we send them to the United States? The new tariff, as I see it, is mostly in favour of the United States. We are saying goodbye to the old tried friends of many years, and the kindergarten is taking on new friends. We would be very foolish if, without the gravest deliberation, and the greatest attention, we abandoned old policies which have seen us through so far. What is this new policy? It is this: That in future we should have a maximum tariff. That tariff, I imagine, will be the general tariff of the country. In special cases, after bargaining with other countries, there will be a special minimum tariff. How many countries will get the minimum tariff? I do not know. It is open to other countries outside the British Empire.

And the British Empire as well, if they bargain for it.

I am very glad to see the hon. Minister has changed his mind since his speech. In his speech he said there was this minimum tariff to bargain with countries outside the British Empire. That is the position, that in future we shall have a maximum tariff on which Great Britain will get a preference, a preference in respect of 22 articles instead of the 250 articles or heads on which she has been getting preference so far. The hon. Minister has just told us that it is possible for the countries inside the British Empire also to come in for this special bargaining and get a minimum tariff. We know it is not possible for Great Britain, whatever may be the position of other members of the British Empire. Such countries as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all have their tariffs. They are protectionist countries, and it will be possible for them to make remissions in our favour, and to come in for the minimum tariff. That is not the position in Great Britain, which is a free-trade country. She has nothing to bargain with. What she has she has given us freely, and where there has been a tax on luxuries, she has remitted part of that tax in our favour and has promised to do so still more in the future. We discussed this question of remissions at the Imperial Conference two years ago, and the British Government made it clear that there was no case of bargaining at all; that we could do what we liked, and arrange our tariff policy as we liked; but she was going to give us—if she could carry it through Parliament—certain remissions on existing taxes. The result is that Great Britain, unlike other countries with high tariff walls and having something to reduce on their existing tariffs, has nothing, and if the tariff proposals of the Government stand, she will be in the position that she has nothing further to look forward to except the 22 articles on which there is a remission from the maximum tariff. Other countries have a much wider door open to them. They may, by special arrangements with this country, have a minimum tariff for a much larger list of articles—95 heads—and the result may well be that if the policy of the Government remains what it is to-day, some other country, Italy, for instance, which is a high tariff country, may have a minimum tariff with this country and have much better terms and be on a better footing than Great Britain to compete for the trade of this country. Unless the Government changes its policy, that is the indisputable result that is going to follow from this tariff. I do not think that is fair. Does Great Britain deserve such treatment? In such a case there will be no equality, but worse. Great Britain will not be treated merely on the footing of the most favoured nation, but on a worse footing. I cannot imagine any Government in this country, after all our experience of the past, and after these very close financial relations and trade relations which tie us with Great Britain, any Government in this country coming forward and saying: “Great Britain shall be treated as an outsider and strictly worse than other outsiders.” I should have thought that impossible. Great Britain, when she enters into commercial treaties, is accustomed to get most favoured nation treatment. The whole world—except South Africa—is only too anxious to have most favoured nation relations with Great Britain. Only the other day the British Government entered into a commercial treaty with Germany for most favoured nation treatment. She can get that from anybody. Here in South Africa it is different. And what is more, the British Government, whenever she has made a commercial treaty with any foreign country, has always, so far as I am aware, put in a special article, to say that any dominion that wants the same advantages can get them.

Hear, hear.

It has always been open to us to get the most favoured nation treatment which she has bargained for herself. She has not adopted a “dog-in-the-manger” policy, but on the contrary has always tried to get for the other members of the British Empire what she has asked for herself. But we have a Government to-day which says: “Oh, no; we will give the most favoured nation tariff to the nations that bargain with us, but Great Britain, who is debarred from bargaining with us, will be in this invidious—I will even say ignominious position of being treated worse than other countries outside the British Empire in the financial relations of South Africa,” Of course, it is unfair to Great Britain, but the unfairness is mostly to us. I cannot conceive any Government in this country coming forward with a policy like this and asking the people to acquiesce in it. I am not going to argue the matter from the point of view of sentiment at all, but naturally, in this matter, even the sentimental aspect is important. After all, Great Britain is the mother-country of half the people in this country, and any wise Government will always bear that in mind. But I go much further and say that Great Britain is economically the mother-country of the whole of South Africa. Every penny that has gone into our development she has put into it. To-day she is in straits; to-day she is having the hardest economic struggle in her life, with economic tariffs all over the world; she is suffering from exhaustion after the war, and she is striving hard in an endeavour to pay her debts and maintain her financial honour in the world, and when she is in these straits we in South Africa, after enjoying all these advantages from her for a century, are turning on her and saying that she shall be treated not only as a stranger, but worse than other strangers. That is not the policy which I hope will be carried by any Government in this country, however powerful it may be and no matter how large its majority may be. The other dominions have not followed such a policy. Let us look at this same situation as it is envisaged by other dominions. They all have tariffs—I cannot say all, but certainly several of them have the same system of maximum tariffs and intermediate tariffs and Empire preference. Canada has that; Australia has it; that is the three line system. But they have laid down that the preference to Great Britain shall always be better than the best terms given to any other country. It seems to me that it is the natural policy for us, if we are not to be guided by the kindergarten, to follow here in South Africa. I do not disagree with the policy of the Government in arranging a tariff on different bases and saying that certain countries that treat us badly—that erect high-tariff walls against us—will meet with a maximum tariff in South Africa also, and others that favour us and help to develop and provide markets for us, shall have from us an intermediate or a minimum tariff. But let it be always understood, as a matter beyond all argument, that those of our own household will be treated better; especially Great Britain, who has borne this burden in connection with our development and who still carries the vast burdens of the British Empire—more than all the other members together. Let it be understood that our economic relations to her shall not in any case be comparable to other countries. That is the direction in which I should like our policy to go. Let the Government stick to the policy of maximum and minimum tariffs if they like—I think there is much to be said for it—but let the preference to Great Britain be on a different footing, and let the preference be such that it will be better even than the minimum tariff given to any other country that bargains with us specially. I appeal very strongly on this matter, not on grounds of sentiment, but on the grounds of ordinary economic policy, but it seems to me that in these days when the wars of the world are being carried on by tariffs, we should tie up Great Britain with ourselves as much as we can. She offers the great free market which we still have. I do not think that the Government would have attempted this policy if they had thought that there was any danger from Great Britain, but it is simply because of the magnanimous policy of Great Britain, and because they think that she, as usual, will acquiesce in whatever we do, that we can allow ourselves these pranks which the present Government are indulging in. I do hope the Government will mend its ways and revise this policy. If they do not, I will say this: That as far as the party for whom I am speaking is concerned, we shall not acquiesce in any policy which places Great Britain behind any other country, and when our day of power comes, we shall reverse their policy and see that Great Britain is treated by South Africa as she should be. Further opportunity will be given to go into the details of the tariff proposals later on, but I think very little wisdom or skill has been shown in the detailed working-out of this tariff. The list of preferences, in my opinion, is far too restricted. We find the preference dropped on subjects where there is the keenest competition between the British market and foreign markets, and retained again on matters on which it is not wanted at all, and the market is all with Great Britain. I hope before this session comes to an end that we shall be able to supply from this side of the House—if the Government goes on with her tariff proposals—sufficient criticism and light for these to be reshaped. These are my criticisms of the Budget. In the first place, there has been taxation when there should have been rather remission of taxation. At a time like this I think it is really an outrage to ask this House to tax the people further. When we see on whom they will press we have the strongest reason to protest. And in the second place, we find fault with the preference proposals of the Government because they are not in consonance either with the dignity or true interests of the country, and they embody a policy which we abhor; as it is not just and fair to the interests of South Africa. Under the circumstances I would like to move i the following amendment—

seconded.

When I listened to the speech of the right hon. member who has just spoken, I thought of that pillar of the straitest sect of the pharisees of free trade the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and wondered if he agreed with the principle the right hon. gentleman enunciated that Great Britain was giving us a free market simply by reason of her magnanimity. The right hon. gentleman took the line, which I particularly wish to protest against, that it is our duty to enable Great Britain to benefit by the dominions.

It is to our interests I said.

That is going back, in another form and in a new setting, to the principle which has been disastrous to the growth of the empire in the past. The idea is derived from the days when the overseas possessions of the Crown were Crown colonies, and were looked upon mainly from the point of view of Great Britain as being a pecuniary benefit to the people of Great Britain. The hon. member for East London (the Rev. Mr. Rider) will remember that that was precisely the view held in Great Britain in the eighteenth century and by a sufficient number of fanatics to involve the loss of the American colonies. Really, I thought that was indisputable.

That is ancient history.

The hon. member does not adopt it.

Nor does the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

It is exactly the same idea in a different setting. That idea dominated thought on these matters from the beginning of maritime expansion of the sixteenth century. The idea that overseas dominions were of pecuniary value led up to the idea of keeping them for pecuniary profit by economic considerations that resulted in the first loss and breakdown of the empire. Fate evidently had its intention that we should be given a new chance, and the British commonwealth is built up on a totally different basis, and not on the ideal of being of pecuniary benefit to the mother country, but that it is built up of free nations which have entire fiscal and every other freedom to manage their own affairs. I am aware that the conception of the right hon. member for Standerton of the status of the dominions differs in to from that of myself. It would not be parliamentary to ask the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) not to play the fool, but it is almost impossible to discuss serious subjects in the presence of the right hon. member without him displaying his utter lack of decorum and giving way to these flippant interruptions.

The hon. Minister must moderate his language.

With the profoundest respect, I think there is nothing unparliamentary in what I have said.

I understood the hon. Minister to use the word “despicable.”

I did not use the word despicable at all. The right hon. member cannot avoid these flippant interruptions. We look upon the commonwealth from the point of view of the freedom of each dominion to develop its own territory and to arrange its own affairs—fiscal and otherwise—on the lines which they believe to be beneficial to their people. The right hon. gentleman in the latter part of his speech seemed to me rather to give way, perhaps out of deference to hon. members opposite, and so he laid the main stress on the point that, although there is no legal compulsion, there is an immense moral compulsion—a moral constraint to divert our fiscal policy from those lines which would be most beneficial to the people of this dominion and to make them comport more for the benefit of the people and trade of the mother country. I put forward my view and the view of the Government—in this matter I speak entirely the views of the Government—

In this matter?

When one is giving utterance to ideas and views which have been developing for many years, I take it one is at perfect liberty to give those views in the full confidence that your colleagues agree.

Why this matter?

Is it possible to ask the hon. member not to be silly?

Hon. members should not interrupt by asking questions.

I was saying that in this matter, and in any matter where the commonwealth is concerned, there are distinctly two views. There is the view which seems to measure the importance of the commonwealth and the importance of any particular dominion to the commonwealth by the figures indicating the volume of trade, which are taken as showing the value of a dominion to the mother country, and so on. There is the other view, which I hold, that the value of a dominion is measured by the strength and manhood and the multitude of the manhood of the people of any particular dominion. From that point of view every dominion is fully justified in doing its duty to the commonwealth by adopting that fiscal policy on which its prosperity depends and which is best calculated to promote the prosperity of that dominion, and not to subordinate that to ideas which, in their ultimate analysis, as the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) shows, were mainly indicated by some imaginary, compelling, moral obligation to the central portion of the empire or to any other dominion. I will take another aspect of the case, and here I have been continually at loggerheads with hon. members opposite, They say that it is by these trade relations that you are going to keep the commonwealth together. It is only the same thing in another form which brought about the dismemberment of the eighteenth century—this endeavour to constrain trade relations into particular channels, which was so dangerous then, and is dangerous to-day. Instead of leading to harmony it will lead to discord. What has Great Britain herself said on the subject? Major Ormsby Gore did not express any particular disapproval of this Budget, and the British Government and people are not in a particular state of frenzy about anything happening out here. Hon. members over there say you must direct all your trade into one particular channel—

No.

Yes you do—and benefit the mother country. When you make imperial and commonwealth relations depend on money considerations of that sort you are preparing the way for bitter quarrels, instead of harmony and peaceful development. We had an instance a year or two ago when the late Prime Minister so far forgot himself as to make a petulant protest against the decision of the people of Great Britain to place a Government in power which would not carry out the proposals of the Imperial Economic Conference. That is not the way to promote harmonious commonwealth relations. Hon. members opposite want to try and focus public attention on their own particular view, that you must, so to speak, guide the channels of trade particularly towards Great Britain, and representing any arrangement we make in the interests of the people of South Africa as indicating unfriendliness to Great Britain. That we entirely deny, and we say there is no harm in making our fiscal arrangements so as to promote the prosperity of the people of this country. I would like to deal with some of the arguments used by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who said the United Kingdom lets our products in free. Of course she does, but she lets everybody else’s in free too. Does she do that out of regard for the rest of the world? Does she let our goods in free out of consideration for our welfare or the welfare of her own people? Great Britain has adopted the principle of free trade because that suits her interests better than any other.

Are you going to give a better preference to foreign countries than to Great Britain?

If it is for the purpose of promoting the interests of the people that would be no more unfriendly to Great Britain than if Italy, for instance, were to give Great Britain better terms than she grants to the people of the dominions. The people of Great Britain have adopted the principle of free trade; they adopted it believing—and history seems to show rightly believing—that it was in the interests of the people of Great Britain to do so. Other countries and other dominions have refused to follow their lead. Other dominions have adopted a principle of tariffs, not only for revenue purposes, but for protective purposes and for the development of their own resources. In these fiscal matters we should be just as free to consider the interests of our own people as the Government of Great Britain is. It is not a display of unfriendliness whatever tariff arrangements you make with Great Britain or any other country. We do ask hon. members, who are not all of British extraction and descent, not to pay too much attention to the statements which hon. members and their press will make, that by taking a course calculated to further the interests of South Africa, we are doing something against the interests of Great Britain. We shall be doing more in the future to strengthen the commonwealth if, instead of one and a half million Europeans we have three, five or ten millions, than by all your tariffs. That is the way we are working. We are not going to be led away by pretended sentiment, or moral compulsions or obligations, which are not centred in this century, but are the relics of an old and discredited century.

Why does England give us preference?

Because it suits her trade to give us preference. What does she give us preference in?

Wines.

Does that not suit her better? I am going to deal with some other points of the right hon. member. He sneered at my hon. friend’s arrangement of the new basis of subsidies in the provinces. He said you have taxed the Union taxpayer to the tune of £1,000,000 and have made no arrangements to repudiate their ordinary sources of taxation. He gave my hon. friend no credit whatever for the great advance he has made in the method of that subsidy. The old £ for £ principle has been discredited, and the new one is on the automatic basis of the number of children requiring to be educated. When he talks about this extra taxation, well, what is taken off the Union taxpayer is so much less placed on the provincial taxpayer, and if the provinces wish to go on taxing, themselves, does the right hon. gentleman wish to abolish provincial councils? I think he does. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, says that the old principle of £ for £ having been abolished and having been given a subsidy on the basis of children who have to be educated, he is leaving it to the provinces to raise the extra amount. That is going to place the provincial system on a sounder basis than it has been yet. In a moment of foolishness the right hon. member said—

Oh, for a Jagger to manage these railways. If the people of the country had thought differently in June last, and had placed the hon. gentleman on these benches, would he have said then—

If I remember rightly, the hon. gentleman’s political and economic principles which he enunciated to regain the confidence of the electorate, were so repugnant to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that even in the death throes of the Government he found these proposals so repugnant to his own principles that he resigned, and then the right hon. gentleman comes here and says, when he saw these figures—

How thankful we ought to be for the sake of the right hon. gentleman that the country and the House are spared the spectacle of the suffering of the right hon. member who, if he were Prime Minister, would now be saying: “Oh for a Jagger”—for a Jagger who had resigned because he disagreed with his policy. It would be interesting to know which part of his principles he would have thrown over. Would it be the part of not having a Jagger, or would the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) have put his principles in his pocket? We know the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would not have gone back on his principles, and we know that the little bits of bait which were thrown out to catch the electorate would have been put on one side, and the right hon. gentleman would have had his friend Jagger back. He said the South African party railway budget had a balance of £800,000, and that the Minister of Railways comes along with £40,000 balance, and that he fritters away the £800,000 in nothing at all; that having got the £800,000, he should have given it to the reduction of railway rates. That is what my right hon. friend said: That it had been frittered away and had hot been given to the reduction of railway rates. What is the position? The pre-Union pension fund had a deficit of nearly £2,000,000, and the super annuation fund of 1912 had a deficit of £1,900,000. Were we to carry those deficits along and not worry about them? No, our “Jagger” who manages the railways knew that if he had gone on giving reduction in railway rates, he would have had to pile up the deficits, but being a sensible man, he paid off a quarter of a million pounds. He has put another quarter of a million to the superannuation fund, and the redemption of loans which were also piling up.

Will that come in for new construction and new development?

The hon. member does not credit me with as much sense as he usually does to make that answer. Does he think that because we borrow more money to go on with fresh construction, therefore the quarter-million taken from revenue for redemption is not for redemption at all? Then there is a quarter of a million of increased interest on increased borrowing, and so, if you take £750,000 from £800,000, you are not far off £40,000, are you? My hon. friend is also bringing in an Act dealing with the railway service and is providing better benefits for the men who run the railways. When the country realizes this budget they will not say—

They will be satisfied they are in a good condition. I am now going to deal with a matter which has cropped up in the debate; it was mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), in respect of defence matters. In the opinion of the hon. member who leads the Opposition outside this House, and in the opinion of a section of the South African press, there has been a great desire to try and mislead the public on this question, and an attempt to throw suspicion as to the motives behind every ordinary routine thing done in an effort to bring about a better state of affairs in the defence force of the country. It is admitted on every side that even if things were as good as they might be, they ought to be made a good deal better. I am glad this thing has been introduced in this debate; I was waiting for it. I thought it might come up under the Appropriation Bill, so I am going to deal with some of the matters stated outside this House and in the press, and also with a good deal that has been insinuated. We have three general divisions of our defence organization—the permanent force, the active citizen force, and the defence rifle association—the burgher force. I am going to deal with the last because that is the part touched on by the hon. member. What are our burgher forces? A reserve of quickly “mobilizable” man-power. The organization in times of peace is of the loosest, but in times of emergency it is an active force. There was a widespread complaint which came from a great many quarters, stronger in one quarter than in others in the country, that men in the party now in power were looked upon as men who should have as little share as possible in the officering of that loose organization. Unlike some of the criticism I see in the press, I want to be fair. When we cast our minds over the history of the last 10 or 12 years, to some extent, up to five or six years ago, that was a natural tendency, and something which was the result of historical happenings. But that monopoly had been going on a good deal too long and was a source of dissatisfaction to large sections of the country population. There were urgent representations also that officers used their influence as part of the political party machinery. To some extent this follows, but it was not likely to be restrained by the excessive squeamishness on the part of my right hon. friend and those associated with him. Then again, in the whole of the argument, it appeared to be assumed that the holding of an office was an appointment for life, and that there was no age limit. In one district the commandant, a gentleman who had rendered very excellent services indeed to the rifle association in his district, was well on in the sixties, and completely unfitted to stand the strain of field work for perhaps more than two or three days. That was all wrong. Last session I told the House that I proposed to institute an age limit of 55, and make the tenure of this office five years, with the possibility of reappointment. It is obvious that your officer should not be beyond an age which would fit them to be of service in the field when called upon. They should also, within reason, be acceptable to those who, under emergencies, serve under their command. This I have tried to do. Regulations were issued and I arranged that in each commando there should be meetings of rifle associations, and I should have forwarded to me not less than three nominations with their order of popular preference, and I made it perfectly clear that those were not elections, but that the responsibility rested still with me and with the Government for the appointments. It was perhaps a little bit idealistic on my part, but I hoped that there would be more response to my appeal to leave party politics out of these nominations than has actually been the case. I am afraid that politics is a disease that we suffer from in every relation of life in this country. As far as I am concerned, I have done my best by public statements and so forth, to ask those in the country, as far as possible, to leave party politics out of these matters.

Why did you always pass over the one on the other side?

I have not. I think hon. members must be thinking of two years ago. I am not going to be bulldozed out of going along the line which I consider the best one, and that is when the names are before me, to select the person who, among those names, will be most likely, among the people under his command, to be served with willingness and whose command will be best for the district and for the organization. I claim exactly the same right to exercise my judgment in these matters as was exercised by my predecessor. I will be judged by the event, by the organization, by the degree to which we are able to eliminate the idea that officership in any of these organizations is simply for the purpose of promoting the interests of political parties, and using them at election times for electioneering purposes. In one case there were four nominations submitted to me, and, after consideration and enquiry—and I made up my mind to take the best advice I could—I came to the conclusion that not one of those four would be suitable as commandant in that district, and I nominated a person from outside. As far as I know, that person, unfortunately, was a member of the other party.

Why unfortunately?

Unfortunately for your argument. There were some seven or eight cases in which the majority was not taken, and in those cases there were, in my opinion, quite good and sufficient reasons for the action I took.

South African party men in every instance.

I beg your pardon. If it was the preceding commandant, it was probably an South African party man, because they were nearly all South African party men before. There was one man who wrote a letter to me saying that, having no confidence in the Government, he desired to be relieved of his command, and he resigned. Then he came forward as one of the candidates for nomination, expecting the Government, in which he had expressed absolutely no confidence, calmly to reappoint him as commandant.

Did they elect him?

These are nominations, not elections. He had the highest number of votes on the nominations, but I was certainly not going to appoint him. I come now to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He said that a certain gentleman was appointed in the Johannesburg area, who had a majority of votes and that I should not have appointed him. He said that I had no business to appoint him, because that man had been convicted of participation in the Rand revolt.

Attacking the police.

This country possibly might have been well advised to adopt any such general principle as that some thirty odd years ago or more, but I put it to myself quite seriously, before making that appointment, what attitude should I take, and I made up my mind that I was going to treat the Rand revolt in the way in which other events had been treated in this country. We should have had a very different state of affairs in this country if Sir Starr Jameson had been looked upon as a person entirely unfitted to occupy the very high position that he occupied in South Africa after the raid. To come to a later period, there was the Minister of Mines in the late administration, Mr. Hull, Sir George Farrar, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick—these men were all sentenced to heavy fines for high treason.

But this man glories in it to-day.

You cannot revolt without putting up a fight.

He glories in it now.

I don’t remember that any of these people have expressed particular regret for what happened.

Jameson’s life undoubtedly was a sacrifice to repair the damage that he aid in the raid.

I am not going into that. I think it is rather a picturesque way of putting it. I am merely saying this—and I will stand before this House and the country and say so—that I have made up my mind that so far as these transactions of 1922 were concerned we hold, and we have always held, that the allowing of things to come to that state of affairs was as much due to hon. members opposite as it was to anyone else. Just as we have decided to wipe off the slate the rebellion, the raid, the reform business and all the other things, so we are going to wipe this off the slate also. I do not pretend that the views I take are the views that hon. members over there would take; but we have been placed in power in this country by those who do not agree with the views of hon. members opposite, and we are going to give effect to the views we hold, views which enjoy the confidence of the greater proportion of people in this country. I want to come now to the active citizen forces. They also have been the subject of insinuation and of pretence that there is some ulterior motive. I can remember in the case of the Durban Light Infantry it was insinuated by hon. members opposite that the retirement of Col. Molyneux was actuated by the fact that the Durban Light Infantry was sent to quell the Rand revolt. It is an absolute falsehood. I assert that there is not a single word of truth in that insinuation, and that the fact of the Durban Light Infantry being sent for that purpose had nothing whatever to do with the retirement of Col. Molyneux.

That is untrue.

Such an insinuation is an absolute falsehood. Does not the member believe me?

I believe Col. Molyneux.

Did he say that it had?

Yes.

If he says Col. Molyneux has said it, I am afraid the hon. member has misunderstood him, as he had not the faintest ground for asserting that the relinquishment of this command was connected either directly or indirectly with the Rand revolt.

Had that anything to do with Major Ford?

I am perfectly prepared to give the hon. member all the facts about that. As far as Major Ford is concerned, I found that the officer who had been second in command had been passed over and Major Ford put in, and it was represented to me that this was a point of great injustice to that other officer. I sent for the files and found that this other officer joined as a private in 1902 or 1903, rose step by step through every rank until he was second in command. During the war he went on active service at once, and was on active service throughout the war; whereas the other officer, with the exception of a few months in 1905 or 1906, had done nothing whatever in connection with soldiering or the volunteering movement until 1918, when he joined as a subaltern and was shoved up, finally over this officer’s head to command the regiment. It did not appeal to me as right that such a thing should occur. One was qualified according to the regulations, the other was not qualified, although he had ample time to qualify. Under the circumstances I considered it was my duty to reverse the decision and place the other officer in command. If it had been any other officer who had had nothing to do with the revolt operations, I should have felt that there must be the very strongest reasons before promoting him to the command of the regiment.

Is he fit to command it?

I say there is nothing to indicate that he is not fit to command the regiment, and in exercising my judgment I thought it right, in spite of opinions expressed to the contrary, that that officer should have the chance at all events of proving whether he was or was not qualified.

Why did you retire Molyneux?

It shows you how ridiculous these allegations can be. Many proposals in connection with organization are put up to me from the department. That was not a matter of my personal initiative at all. It was simply that my attention was called to the fact that there was this regulation, that an officer should hold a command for four years. In the war “upset” it had been a good deal disregarded and there were a number of officers whose period of office exceeded four years, and it was considered advisable that we should make a start with getting things into the regular way, and when it was put before me I agreed. I was going down to Durban and felt I would like to see Colonel Molyneux and ascertain from him whether it would upset the regiment and whether the second in command was an officer whom he thought would carry on the regiment well. I was going out of my way, as an act of courtesy, largely because Colonel Molyneux was an officer with whom I had served on two campaigns, and nothing astonished me more than the fuss made by the press about Colonel Molyneux and the insinuation of vindictiveness to the Durban Light Infantry. I have already denied it. To turn out a man who was in command at the Rand revolt, and put in a man who was second in command during the same operation, seems absurd. It is not often I have to make acknowledgments of appreciation of the South African party press, but I wish to make acknowledgment to the “Cape Times.” The “Cape Times” telegraphed to me for the facts, which I sent, and after the publication of the information, the whole press agitation died down.

Colonel Lauth was not in the Rand revolt; he was on sick leave.

Are you sure of that?

I am perfectly certain of it.

I was under the impression that he was.

You based an argument on it.

I assumed that, as second in command, he would be there.

You assume too much.

If hon. members are kind enough to disbelieve—

I accept your word.

Another question was that of Col. Wood Gush. According to one newspapers, this was another piece of gross discourtesy to a valuable officer. The matter appeared in every newspaper, and no one was more annoyed than Col. Wood Gush himself. He asked for permission to submit a statement and submitted a statement expressing astonishment at the agitation in connection with his relinquishing of the command; stating that there was nothing more subversive of discipline and that he had definitely decided to retire. There was no grievance on the part of any officer so far as the Kimberley regiment was concerned, and no attempt to make a fuss in the press about that. That officer, who is a son of the hon. member there, is much too good a soldier to do that, and he knows the regulations are best to be observed and not allowed to grow into a dead letter. The regulation is that the command shall last for four years.

What is the age?

It is not a question of age, but of period of command. Hon. members must know that if you leave one man in command for an indefinite time it discourages men who are in subordinate rank. Now I want to deal with the permanent forces. I did not bring this matter forward before as my right hon. friend was not in the House. It has been stated that I was disorganizing the defence force. There has been more than one insinuation. The right hon. member stated this afternoon that my appointment of that commission showed the way in which the Government thought first, of politics and then of the matter in hand and was governed largely by party political motives. If ever there has been anyone who has brought party political consideration into the forces it has been the right hon. gentleman opposite and his friends. The commission showed that during and after the war there were a number of officers brought in from outside over the heads of serving members, which naturally blocks the legitimate ambition of those who entered the forces as a career, and there is no legitimate defence for that having been done. Heaps of us went to the front and, having served, went back to our own ordinary avocations. Our temporary service did not constitute a claim to be included in the permanent forces, and that, and cognate actions, have had a great influence in bringing about the general contentment of the forces. The right hon. gentleman speaks about political influences. I say that the right hon. gentleman himself is to blame. Men of the Defence force are forbidden by regulation to take an active part in politics. The regulation reads as follows—

The whole spirit of the regulation is to say to the serving member: “You have got a vote; but you must keep clear of other political activities.” And here you have the Prime Minister of the country disregarding these regulations which have been framed for the benefit of the forces of his own Government, and getting men to canvass for him inside the forces, in his own constituency at Roberts Heights. On the 26th April, 1920, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) wrote to a serving sergeant-major in the permanent forces at Roberts Heights.

That is a private letter.

Oh, yes; but does the hon. member object to my reading the letter?

Not in the least.

The letter expresses hearty thanks to the sergeant for his efforts on behalf of the right hon. gentleman during the election. The translation reads—

My point is that here you have a regulation based upon the necessity to try and prevent members of your defence force taking an active part in political controversy, and thereby impairing discipline and introducing relations and considerations which should not enter in, and the Prime Minister of the country—the man above all others who should have the greatest regard for not interfering—enlists the aid of serving members of the forces in that garrison as political agents to canvass for him.

Simply a letter of thanks.

Does he deny that these letter were thanks for electioneering services?

The letter speaks for itself.

Does he think it right to place himself under a political obligation to serving members of the forces? The matter can bear no argument, and there can be no defence. In his position he may say: “They have votes,” but rather than descend to asking men to violate the regulations, let him go to some other constituency and fight the battle out there. I confess I cannot agree with the attitude and sense of duty of the right hon. member. It has been alleged that the right hon. gentleman suddenly became the owner, on the eve of the election, of thirty or forty motor-cars and ceased to be the owner after the election. The fact has never been denied. The House passes legislation forbidding the use of taxi-cabs in parliamentary elections for the express purpose of preventing money unduly exerting influence on elections. The Prime Minister—the head of the Government—thinks no wrong as a lawyer in being one of the first to evade the spirit of the law. I think that is wrong, just in the same way as this proceeding betokened by that letter which helped to bring politics in the defence force. And the less said on the opposite side on the question the better it will be for the country and the better it will suit the dignity of hon. members opposite. I will only say again, although the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) may think it a scandal and disgrace, that, although the two men referred to, who were certainly participants in the revolt, that I should not look upon participation in the revolt as an entire bar to their filling the post of officers. His view is not my view, nor the view of the vast bulk of the people who sent us to Parliament to represent them. If they had done something disgraceful not in connection therewith it would have been another matter. When that name was first brought before me, it was passed in the usual way, and then I had a police report to the effect that this gentleman besides his martial law conviction had been sentenced for fraud.

I have not suggested that.

When I heard that I at once issued orders to cancel the appointment, but luckily I mentioned the matter to a mutual friend who said there must be a mistake. I telegraphed to delay the cancellation, and on re-investigation it was found that the person sentenced for fraud was a gentleman of the same name and the same initials, but not the same person. As to participation in the revolt, the best thing is to wipe it off. I am not going to take the view that a man who has taken part in a revolt is unfitted to have any hand in our irregular forces—the loose organization which we call the Defence Rifle Associations. In regard to that matter we disagree. Let me add a few sentences. I have received letters and representations asking me what I am going to do about those officers referred to in the report who were appointed from outside to commissions in the Permanent Force. Let me say this: As far as I am concerned, I don’t care which way any officer votes at an election. They are officers of the defence force, and the only thing I care about is that every officer shall do his duty, and so long as they do that loyally and efficiently that is all I desire. The only thing that, concerns me is the loyal and efficient observance of their duty.

The hon. Minister has torn a very fine passion to tatters, but in meeting an attack made in a perfectly fair manner by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), he went out of his way to be abusive to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and to drag up instances without affording any opportunity of an explanation being given, and to use letters addressed to members of the defence force, apparently circular letters in regard to help as to the extent of which we are entirely in the dark. He has done so to bring shame upon the right hon. member for Standerton. I think the Minister of Defence has revolted the sense of the House.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

The Minister has done something which has shocked the sense of the country by the way in which he has referred to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). There is one other matter in connection with the Defence Department I wish to refer to, and that is the alarm which I am sure the public will feel at the policy enunciated by the Minister of Defence in regard to the appointment made in the Defence force of people who took part in the 1922 revolt. He has announced to the House that he has resolved to appoint officers irrespective of whatever part they took in that revolt. There is a large number of people who are not devoted to any particular political party, and they will be extremely concerned to know that a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that no matter what crime may be committed in connection with that or any other revolt, that will be no bar to the appointment of the offender to a post in the Defence force. That is all I wish to say about the Defence force. I want to refer particularly to the attitude of the hon. member in regard to the preference question, a matter which is very materially important to a vast number of people in the country, and is very dear to a large number of people. We know how the hon. member treated those who regard the matter from the point of view of sentiment, and that must have shocked a great many people. He sneered at trade as being a binding power in the commonwealth, and poured contempt on sentiment as a binding power, and spoke in a sneering way of the English fiscal policy being based on their own selfish requirements.

And is it not so? Is Great Britain’s free trade policy based on anything else?

I am only taking the actual words he used, and nothing else. I come now to the more serious portion of the speech, and that was an imaginary argument which he attributed to this side of the House, on what he called—

He set up a picture of responsible members on this side of the House following one another in a cloud of amazing Imperialism, which he described as the old discredited principle of treating the colonies and dominions as concerns to be used for the pecuniary profit of England. He wondered if the American rebellion was not a lesson to us. Really, if at this time of day we have to learn that kind of lesson about constitutional law it is really a wonderful thing that we should be sitting in this House at all. Since the American revolution there has not been a responsible politician throughout the Empire who has advocated such a policy, and in setting it up the Minister used an argument which was fictitious and which had never been used by responsible people on this side of the House, in Parliament, on the platform, or anywhere else. How can he invent a thing like that in order to meet the lofty arguments and speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), He attributed to him and to us motives and views he and we have never dreamed of holding. The hon. member really struck me, at the moment he spoke, as having somewhat hastily perused the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. A more wonderful report was never presented to this House. It starts off with stating that—

That is what the Minister told us. Did he get it from this report? Has the hon. member refreshed his memory on the question of the Imperial preference by reading the reports of the various Imperial conferences? Has he read the report of the 1887 conference, or the 1907 conference, to take two of the outstanding conferences at which the constitutional aspect was discussed? If he has he would know, from those conferences, that one thing which was not insisted upon as a matter of argument, but which was treated as a matter of course and was proclaimed and stated over and over again as a leading axiom on the subject, that the dominions have, as the United Kingdom has, absolute power and control over their fiscal policies. If this is admitted on all sides, how is it consistent with the hon. Minister’s suggestion that we, on this side of the House, hold the views which he attributes to us.

Then why make all this fuss about it?

Because we are going to deal with points that the hon. member has not touched upon. The first point I wish to make is that the hon. member has practically quoted that mis-statement on constitutional law and history, which is the very opening sentence of this Board of Trade and Industries report. That opening sentence is the keynote of the whole report. As you read the report page by page you see more dearly that it is a studied biassed attack on Imperial preference. The whole of the report does not give one single argument in favour of such preference. It talks about preference being one-sided. I don’t think any report in the House has ever been so one-sided from beginning to end. It starts off with a sneer that the origin of preference was based upon the mercantilist policy. A schoolboy knows that what was called in the report the mercantilist aspect of preference was dropped after the American revolution. If you take other passages of the report, you will find it is stated that is the origin of preference. After referring, in a special way, to Lord Milner, it says that after attempts had been made to form a customs union, an inter-Colonial Conference was held at Bloemfontein in 1903. It says—

Despite the fact that the whole of South Africa was against it, that preference was carried; why, it never could become of any value until it was incorporated in an Act of Parliament, and after it was so incorporated, as it was in the Parliament of South Africa, nobody had the right to say that that principle was a principle which South Africa was definitely against. What right had they to say that? What was clearly the foundation of British preference was the outcome of the conferences of 1884, 1887 and 1902 and others, where the principle was thrashed out and adopted, and accepted time after time by the free premiers of free peoples and by their free Parliaments, and the only question left was: What was to he the extent of it? But the principle was as it had to he accepted thereafter by all the states in the empire. In 1903 that inter-colonial conference accepted the principle for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Governments of the provinces to accept it. It was so accepted by the four legislatures. The hon. Minister of Finance says two of them were Crown colonies. I am quite content to rely on the fact that the Cape and Natal alone did it. How did we come to adopt preference? In the very way that the Minister says we ought to adopt it—that is through our own free choice, in our Parliamentary institutions, by the votes of the majority of the country.

If we want in our own free choice to drop it, why not?

I shall be glad to answer the Minister.

Do you object to our exercising our freedom?

I do not object to your exercising your freedom at all; we are here to do that. I wish to say that you are exercising your freedom wrongly, and in a way that is unjust both to ourselves and to the empire. In the Cape we exercised our free choice in 1903 and 1906.

By a casting vote.

It is perfectly immaterial whether it was by a casting vote or not; it was carried by the Parliament of this country. The Minister of Finance has said that two of the provinces were under Crown Colony Government at that time. Will the hon. member tell me what attempt was made at the time of the convention to take away this preference? There was then a free choice by the free people of this country. Will he tell me why in 1914, in our Union Customs Act, we expressly set out this principle of preference? The hon. member has forgotten the convention and the 1914 Act. We, who are advocating this principle to-day, are advocating a principle which has been tested and accepted for fifteen years. I contend that preference is sound, the preference which has been adopted by this country for so many years, because it is absolutely an expression of our own principle of “South Africa first.” We claim that we have exercised and do exercise the entire freedom which that principle implies. But when we are dealing with South Africa first, and with the point that we have to look at the interests of South Africa first, we say that trade is one of the bonds which unite the Empire, and that it is to the interest of South Africa that the bonds of empire should be kept together. We say that we are looking to the interests of South Africa first and all the time, because the interests of South Africa and the Empire are in that respect identical. I would like hon. members opposite to read the report of the Colonial Conference in 1887, and see what was said by Sir Samuel Griffiths at page 462. Our complaint is that we believe that under these tariff proposals coming forward the subjects of the empire will not have an equal chance with the men from elsewhere. Sir Samuel Griffiths said—

The very next speaker at the 1887 conference was Mr. Jan Hofmeyr and I would particularly call the attention of the Minister of Defence, who has sneered at us for the attitude we are now taking up, to the remarks which Mr. Hofmeyr made as reported at page 463—

He went on to say—

Those of us who are pressing for this preference are following directly in the footsteps of the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr. He took the true view of the imperial constitutional aspect of imperial necessities and the imperial value of imperial trade. We have been followers of Mr. Hofmeyr in principle and in essence. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House have treated us as Imperialists of the old vicious kind who were out to bleed the country. When one reads the words of Mr. Hofmeyr one realizes how futile, how childish, how puerile that attack is.

What corpse are you digging up now?

Mr. Hofmeyr said that the British Empire was spread all over the globe. His proposals were precisely for the purpose of maintaining the union of the empire and of keeping it together by that bond of trade which the Minister of Defence has been sneering at. This was the line that Mr. Hofmeyr consistently took and the line which was adopted by every Prime Minister at the conference in 1887. You will find that throughout the whole of these conferences that has been the basic principle upon which they have approved of imperial preference. Every Prime Minister has taken the point that in each State we are masters in our own house as far as fiscal duties are concerned, and that we have the right to do as we choose in that respect; but everyone has said that from the point of view of practical politics the principle of imperial preference is a sound one. Of course, each would speak for his own country, but I am only pointing out that at every one of these conferences the universal opinion of all representatives of the empire was that this was so. When people depart from that principle the question is whether they are wise, whether they are sound and whether they get good results. It is on that basis we are arguing the matter. I should like to refer to the opinion of another distinguished man on the subject. He, like Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, could not be accused of being a sham imperialist, The picture presented by the Minister of Defence has been a rather remarkable one, because no man who has read, even with the faintest intelligence, the reports of these conferences can have come away with any such impression about these Prime Ministers. I would ask the House to consider for a few moments what was said by Sir Wilfred Laurier at the 1907 Imperial Conference. He said—

I support imperial preference because it is in the interests of our kith and kin and of the people of South Africa that commercial unity throughout the empire should be stimulated. The new tariff and the principles on which it would be worked are going to be the worst blow at commercial unity and therefore in the end at ourselves, that could possibly be delivered. On page 409 Sir Wilfred Laurier said this—

All this has been the fruit of practical experience from the mouths of great statesmen, who could not be accused of the kind of thing that the Minister of Defence has been trying to foist upon us this afternoon. They are weighty proof of the value of the adoption of the principle. Primarily, the whole thing should be the adoption of the principle or otherwise of our own free will, considering the matter first on the basis of the principle being of value to us. It is true that there arc many of us who regard the matter also from the point of view of sentiment; I am one of them. My parents came out to this country 70 or 80 years ago. I have never been out of it; I was born here. I have the feeling of sentiment and affection for the land from which my parents came as much as anyone else, but I also have my feelings as a South African, and I claim to be as good a South African as anyone else. I find it perfectly possible to reconcile these two things. Sympathetic treatment to England will be of the greatest value to us in securing material assistance. The question of preference stands by itself. The right of preference has been maintained throughout the whole of this country for close on a quarter of a century, without any attempt to demand a return from the other side. There has always been the hope that Great Britain might be able to mould her fiscal system so as to provide benefit for those who are giving a preference, but there has never been any bargaining on the part of those who gave it. Take the last Imperial Conference. At the last conference in 1923 the chairman, speaking of the principles underlying preference, and quoting what Mr. Bruce had said (page 174), remarked—

Mr. Graham, the representative of Canada, after saying that so far as the proposals by the British Government are concerned Canada’s representatives do not criticize them, added—

Then on page 207 he again says that Canada gave the preference in her own interest as well as what she conceived to be the interest of the rest of the empire. The fact is that to-day, after 25 years of experience of imperial preference, Canadian and other representatives are again able to come forward at a gathering of free representatives of the peoples of the empire to show the absolute fact that the preference given has been a great benefit to them, and the benefit in every case is the prospect, to a large extent, of increased trade. We have the same thing from Mr. Bruce of Australia on page 219. He said that we have to condition our development to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. He said our attitude is that we believe our future lies inside the empire, and we want to promote the well-being of the empire, believing that if we do that, while we are helping the empire we are also going to help ourselves to an even greater extent. I am quoting this to show the expression of free opinion and experience of those who are most competent to judge, and who all agree. Mr. Massey’s opinion is on page 225. He said that the outlook was good, but that they did not forget that Britain was their market. He said that if anything went wrong with the British market and the purchasing power of the British people, New Zealand was going to be affected, and even looking at it from that point of duty—and that was a selfish point of view—he admitted that it was their duty to help in lifting the depression. These extracts are the opinion of practical people. At the same conference the principle of preference was maintained absolutely. It has been pointed out that at that conference Mr. Burton suggested that there might be a revision of the tariff, and I think the Minister also relied upon that in his speech. No doubt Mr. Burton suggested that there would be a revision, but he added that it was for the purpose of making the preference more effective, a revision so that Great Britain might maintain her market here after preference was taken away from those lines in which she did not need to maintain her already strong position.

Where do you want to make it less one-sided?

Who said that?

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

If you are giving a benefit to a person for a particular object and the benefit is not needed by that person, than that preference is a one-sided gift entirely. But where you are giving the benefit for the purpose of carrying out the principle on which it is based, I say nothing the right hon. member has ever stated in the House here has led the House to think it is one-sided or unfair, or anything of that sort. All he wanted was to make it more effective. Does the hon. Minister suggest that the hon. member for Standerton was thereby criticizing the whole preference.

Yes.

He was going to see that England got more real benefit out of it than she did. What was under discussion at the conference was the giving of extra preferences on objects which are very badly needed in this country. The report of the Board of Trade alleges that the preference which was to be given by Great Britain after that conference to South Africa was of no value at all. I would like to know what the farmers of this country think of such a contention. Has the Minister considered the extent to which high quality British goods are to be handicapped by the removal of the preference? The British manufacturer buys the best raw material, manufactures the best article, and pays high wages. Consequently, his goods are sold at a higher price than those obtained for lower grade articles, and consequently it is only by virtue of the preference that in a large number of cases the British manufacturer has a chance of competing with the products of his foreign competitor. Has the Minister considered one special point. If he gives the benefit of the minimum tariff to one particular foreign nation, what is the position under the treaties by which South Africa is bound to give the most-favoured-nation treatment? Has he considered the extent to which our power of bargaining is altered by the fact that there will be a number of nations who can then claim to come in to whom we shall be bound to accord the most favoured-nation treatment? I hope the House will accept the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and that in committee the Minister will accept a number of suggestions in the matter of preference. While we are looking at preference from the South African point of view, first we should also regard it from the imperial standpoint, because empire problems are our problems. Will the Minister tell his followers how much we are indebted to the mother country for all sorts of things? For instance, how much our trade has benefitted by the gratuitous services of British consular and other trade officials in different parts of the world. I trust the House will accept the position that in fighting as we do for this particular preference, we are fighting for South Africa first. I trust that the Government will accept the principle that in every bargain it may make the position must still remain that preference is given to all parts of the dominions, and that foreign nations will not come in on an equal or a better footing. I am sure the Minister was influenced by the report of the Board of Trade. But that report will be used in the country for purposes very different from that contemplated by the Minister himself, and differences will be created which will involve the gravest danger to the country. If the principle of preference is abrogated, we shall show ingratitude, and it will be very difficult for us to face other people with any self-respect.

I have been about ten years in this House, and never have I heard such a lame criticism of the budget as this year. It is clear to me that the Opposition are speaking against their better judgment and conscience, but it is no wonder. Never yet during the ten years has there been a budget which actually showed a surplus and where the taxation had been decreased on such a large scale. How different it is to what the South African party foretold during the election campaign! Then we heard that the Nationalist Government would inspire no confidence abroad, that no capital would come into the country, that industries would retrogress and that mines would receive a shock. What do we find? In the case of the first loan which the National Government raised, the necessary subscriptions were made thrice over, that capital comes in on a larger scale than ever before, that factories are fast increasing in number, that the gold mines during the last twelve months have produced more than ever before and that we may expect a production for the current year from the diamond mines to the value of 10½ millions sterling. What is the criticism of the Opposition? Objection has been taken to the lessening of the preferences granted to England. It would mean a loss to England of £350,000 and to South Africa a benefit to a like amount. But was not “South Africa first” our slogan?” The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) mentions that “Onze Jan” suggested the preference, but he forgets to add that “Onze Jan” expected reciprocity. “Onze Jan” thought of the great benefits that our raisins, dried fruits and other produce would have in England if they were privileged above such products from foreign countries. For 20 years we have waited in vain for that reciprocity. The hon. member for Standerton says that now at last we have that reciprocity in view. This we have been hearing for many years. We have waited long enough for nothing. We are compelled to look after our own interests. The new taxes on imported ham and blankets will help us much. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), has opposed it very strongly, but he is a free trader; and in passing I should like to know whether in his attack on the protection measures he represents the South African party. Last year during the elections the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stated that his Government also followed an industrial policy, thus he was also in favour of protection. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) resigned as a member of the Cabinet. Has the hon. member for Standerton, now that he has only about ten of the old ex-Saps still behind him in the House also become a follower of the free trade policy of the Unionists? It looks very like it, judging by the fact that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was the leader of the Opposition criticism. Except that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) declared vaguely that he still follows the policy of the hon. member for Standerton, no one on that side of the House has yet repudiated the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

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

I Pointed out this afternoon that what Jan Hofmeyr offered to England was not a present but a reciprocal agreement, which was not agreed to. It is a slap in the face for England—as the hon. member for Standerton says—when we reduce the preference then it must also have been a slap in our face when reciprocity was refused, but we regard it just as little in that light, as England does. They regard the reduced preference as negligible. It makes a difference to their revenue of at most a farthing in the £, and the loss is not suffered by the Government but by the manufacturers. It is clear to me that the attack of the Opposition on the Government on that point is merely with the object of stirring up the English people in the country against the Nationalist party. It is the old racial politics again. They wanted to make the Kaffirs believe that we wish to make war against everything native, and the hon. member for Standerton allows himself to-day to be used as a tool to follow that policy for purposes of party politics. Just think of it, when such a highly placed Afrikander cares so little for his people. He has also together with his friends represented to the Asiatics and the coloured people that the Nationalist Government was their enemy. Now he is stirring up the English. He wants to sacrifice his people to be able to get into power again. It is a scandal.

The hon. member may not apply the word “scandal” to other hon. members.

I will then say it is a tragedy. The racial policy dated back many years. Jan. Hofmeyr was accused of race hatred when he established the farmers’ protection association. The English electors must be made frightened of the Afrikanders. I hope that the Minister of Finance will not allow himself to be frightened by such tactics. When our Government years ago increased the import duty on matches there was also an outcry, but the consequence was that a large match factory arose at Rosebank which to-day gives many hands work. Matches also are cheaper to-day than before the imposition of that tax. Such consequences also resulted from the increased duties on cigarettes, soap and other articles. Another objection which the Opposition make against the Budget is that it gives no relief to the poor taxpayer. Does not the abolition of the medicine tax which produced £100,000 per year give relief to the poor man? Does not the abolition of the leaf tobacco tax which brought in £200,000 bring relief to the most struggling class of the farming population? In 1921 the tobacco crop of the Union was 16,000,000 lbs. In 1922 it was 12,000,000 lbs., and in 1923 only 8,000,000 lbs. What does this show?

Wild fire was the cause.

Not in 1922. Is the hon. member for Stellenbosch not in favour of the abolition of the tobacco tax?

Yes, I am.

But then he differs from his leader. His leader has to-day regretted the abolition of the tobacco tax. He said that it should have remained just like the excise tax on brandy. But did not the hon. member for Standerton also say during the elections that the tobacco tax should be removed?

Yes, he did.

Then did he not mean what he said? I hope the tobacco farmers will notice the words he used to-day. It seems now that he was not intending in spite of his election promises to take off the tax. Coming to the estate tax I ask is it not for the benefit of the smaller testators that the tax shall commence at £7,500 in place of £100,000? The hon. member for Standerton also objected that the Government has advanced almost a million pounds extra to the provincial councils. He says that the people must not be taxed twice. What would have happened if the Government had not advanced the money? The Cape Provincial Council with its Sap majority would have gone on with the poll tax of £1 on adult male whites and coloured people and £1 10s. on unmarried men with the house duty of 5s. per £100. together with a special tax on teachers and education.

There were no such proposals.

That shows how stupid my friend is. The proposals were duly incorporated in the public ordinance, and if the Nationalists had not won the Parliamentary election, those proposals would have gone through. Fortunately the new Prime Minister could meet the administrator. Was that not a relief? Is the abolition of the turn-over tax not a relief either? The right hon. member Standerton is against more taxation on the part of the provincial councils. Then he should surely be satisfied that such taxation is made unnecessary this year by the Minister of Finance. The Government pays £160,000 for technical education, £200,000 for boring for water and for settlement of poor people and £500,000 for the reparation of public roads which have been washed away by storm. Has that money been badly invested? The hon. members for Newlands, Bezuidenhout, Cape Town (Central) and Caledon have all objected to the large amount which is being expended on education. In 1923, thanks to the Burton policy, £92,000 was saved in the Cape Province on education, and what was the result? While the increase of pupils the previous ten years was on the average 500,000 per year, it dropped in that year to 124,000. And it exclusively affected schools in the country side. Does the hon. member for Caledon, who is so concerned about the expenditure on education want to exclude farm schools? Another objection by members of the Opposition was the policy of the Minister of Finance in instituting the dumping duty on flour and wheat. Is it a bad policy on the part of the Australian Government to protect their wheat farmers by keeping the price of wheat high enough to further wheat farming there? If they can do that why should not we? Must we allow them to export wheat and flour to South Africa at prices lower than those prevailing in Australia? Then we would very soon kill the wheat farmers here. In that way thousands and tens of thousands of people would be robbed of their means of existence. The Government should not be entitled at all to suspend dumping duties. They tried once to do so, and it made not the least difference to the price of bread, although it injured the farmers. In place of suspending the dumping duties they should rather double the ordinary import duties, as the Board of Trade and Industries recommended some years ago. But let that pass. The Minister of Finance deserves every credit for his work. I would, however, like to suggest certain things. I think he could safely increase the import duty in whisky from 37s. 6d. to 40s. per gallon. England demands 72s. on our brandy. The importer of whisky makes more than 100 per cent. profit on its sale. I also think the import duty on diamonds might be increased by 2½ per cent. to insure the erection of diamond cutting factories here. And then I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior if he is going to put money on the estimates for a standard dictionary in Afrikaans?

That appears on the supplementary estimates.

I am glad to hear that. Well, I hope I have done something by my speech to indicate the hollowness of the arguments of the Opposition.

I listened with some interest this afternoon to the speech of the Minister of Defence and Labour, because his attitude on this question was one with which the public would be glad to be acquainted, representing, as he does, not only his own party, but as he indicated the Government. He came out as a whole-hearted and unequivocal supporter of the principle underlying the tariff proposals, namely, that alter having substantially reduced the preference we have given to the United Kingdom in the past, he is prepared, in the future to support this so-called “bargaining process,” a process which we are to understand will leave the United Kingdom and each of the dominions exactly on the same footing as any foreign country, and will give to them, unless they can give us a quid pro quo, advantages less than those which we may offer to foreign powers. That was rather a remarkable declaration, abandoning as it does a principle which has been a feature of the government of all the self-governing governments of the Empire. It stands forth as the first occasion on which a labour leader in the dominions has taken a stand antagonistic in effect to British preference. I am not stating his position incorrectly. It is a clear endorsement of the position adopted by the Minister for Finance: its genesis is to be found in the report of the Board of Trade on which the tariff embodied in the Budget is based. It was rather a pity that before the debate commenced hon. members were not given an opportunity of reading this report by the Board. It is known as Report No. 46, and it is only within the last few days that hon. members on this side of the House have had an opportunity of reading it. It is not altogether a surprise that the report should he known only to a few members, considering the demand which, by some coincidence hon. members on the other side have made upon it. Precisely what the Minister has said and what his colleague has endorsed is to be found on page 14 of the report, which reads as follows—

The report goes on to recommend that in view of the board’s close connection with industrial, commercial and tariff matters, it is desirable that all commercial or customs negotiations be conducted by the Government in consultation with the Board of Trade and Industries. The statement I have read is based on the assumption that we are at liberty in this dominion to frame a tariff policy which would enable us to enter on this bargaining process with any foreign nation. In fact, in the draft Bill, which has been framed and annexed to Report No. 51 by the Board of Trades and Industries there is to be found, without any reservation in favour of the United Kingdom, power given to the Governor-General, after due negotiation, to grant preferential tariffs on goods imported within the Union to any country willing to grant reciprocal facilities to the Union. There can be no doubt that this is the policy which underlies this tariff proposal of the Minister, which otherwise restricts preference to the United Kingdom and the British Dominions to the particular items set out on the Schedule to his tariff with power, so far as foreign countries are concerned, to bargain for tariff privileges so that the United Kingdom and British Dominions, if they are not prepared to take the same course, will be left out in the cold.

It does not necessarily follow.

It must inevitably follow. The Minister emphasized that point when he embarked upon an elaborate statement of this new tariff policy. It is impossible for him to go behind the Bill I have referred to, which makes the point entirely clear. Is it constitutionally possible. I would like to endeavour to make the point that this Board has entirely failed, in the midst of the multifarious duties which it has undertaken, to introduce sufficient knowledge of the constitutional position as regards the Dominions and overseas possessions of the Empire and that report No. 46 is based on an entire misconception of our position when it recommends the Government to embark on this particular policy. I hope thereby to strengthen the views expressed on the amendment before the House that before we consider it any further this Budget should go back for revision or amendment in this and other respects. If we come to consider the constitutional position I would go with the hon. Minister of Labour when he said at one stage that the policy of the United Kingdom was to regard the Colonies as mere producers of raw materials which were to be sent to the home country and therefrom exported in the form of manufactured goods. I agree with him in saying that the policy, as originally laid down prior to and again in 1843 was one which made it clear to all Colonies, as they then were, that tariff policy was an Imperial concern and must be uniform, and that the Colonies in framing their policies must have regard to Imperial interests. I would like to give a quotation which illustrates the application of this constitutional principle. Adderley on “Colonial Policy,” p. 58, says—

This principle was laid down in a despatch by Lord Derby to all the Colonies in 1843 and remained the basis of tariff policy until 1895, when it was repeated in a despatch to which I shall refer presently. Between 1843 and 1895 and, indeed, up to the present time it is curious that the only exception there has ever been to this rule occurred in our own country. In 1889 the Government of the then Cape Colony entered into an agreement expressed in the form of, and sanctioned by, an Act of Parliament and endorsed again by Cape Act No. 3 of 1895 whereby it gave to the Orange Free State, as it then was, rates of duties which differentiated against goods of the United Kingdom. That is exactly the present policy adumbrated by the Minister of Finance. I make him a present of this instance) if he wishes to have it before him), because it is the only precedent in existence for the tariff policy he now proposes to adopt. It was, as a matter of fact, sanctioned by the Imperial Government after reservation, but not without a struggle between the Foreign and Colonial Offices, the former of which contended that it infringed England’s most-favoured-nation treaties.

I hope we have travelled a bit since then.

I want to show the hon. member that we have not travelled as far as the Minister wishes us to go. The Colonial Office adopted the view point of the late Government, but the Foreign Office claimed that to sanction the Act was to infringe the national rights of the foreign nations entitled by treaty to the same rights as England on Cape markets. In 1895 this question came up again for detailed consideration at the hands of Lord Ripon (the then Secretary of State for the Colonies) who published a dispatch described by Professor Barriedale Keith, who is a high authority on these questions as a rule still in force throughout the Empire. The necessity for observing these principles is a matter of fact referred to in the instructions to Colonial Governors (though not to the Governor-General of the Union), requiring them to reserve Bills contrary thereto for the assent of His Majesty the King. The principles laid down in Lord Ripon’s despatch of 1895, reiterated in 1907 and still in force, were as follows—

1. (1) No foreign power can be offered tariff concessions which are not at the same time extended to all other powers entitled in the dominion to the most favoured nation treatment.
2. (2) His Majesty’s Government regard it as essential that any tariff concessions conceded by a dominion to a foreign power should be extended to the United Kingdom and to the rest of His Majesty’s dominions.
3. (3) His Majesty’s Government cannot agree to a colony asking from foreign powers, concessions hostile to the interest of other parts of the Empire.

This despatch holds good to-day, subject to the extension of powers resulting from the deliberations of the 1923 Imperial Conference. I would commend this to the attention of the hon. Minister and would ask him why it was that the Board of Trade and Industries, charged with the duty of framing so important a report, calculated to change the character of our economic policy, made no reference whatever thereto. Can it be possible that they have overlooked the point? I wish to draw his attention to this particular passage—

What then becomes of this “bargaining process”? What about the quid pro quo? It is essential under this rule that many arrangements so made the same preference accorded to any foreign power must be given to the United Kingdom. I shall deal presently with the Minister’s point that a change in our status has in some way affected this constitutional principle. In 1907, in the negotiations between Canada and France for a commercial treaty, the Secretary of State for the Colonies required that the despatch be acted upon, and it was acted upon. (S.A. Parliamentary papers, Vol. 71, 1910-’11, part ii.). The next stage, taking the matter chronologically, occurs in 1917 when at the Imperial Conference a resolution was passed in general terms making it clear that the general principle of our “family rights” (this being a development of Empire preference that had in the interim slowly developed) was accepted as still being in force. That resolution was as follows—

Coming then to the point raised by the interpretation I have referred to of the change worked by and acquisition of Dominion status, in 1921 after the doctrine of that status had certainly reached the summit of its development, Canada desired to negotiate an amended treaty with France as to which in point of fact a debate occurred in the Canadian House of Commons on the necessity on the part of the Canadian Government observing this particular rule and after debate it was decided to proceed with the negotiations, paying due regard to the principles of the despatch, and making it a condition that the benefits acquired would be extended to the rest of the Empire. If we take the matter as referred to in the latest work issued by Professor Keith it is made perfectly clear that no change has occurred as far as this particular principle is concerned. It is important also to notice in the amendment of this commercial treaty in 1922 full regard was again paid to the principle laid down by Lord Ripon. Indeed, it is essential so to do, if the Empire is to remain in unity. That is, after all, the underlying principle. Why is it impossible for us to negotiate and make treaties of this kind with a foreign power? Because we should be assuming an international status which we don’t possess.

The monkey on the pole.

If it were not so, then a Dominion asserting such a right is taking to itself a position that it has ceased to be a member of the British commonwealth. It is impossible to allow any particular dominion to interfere with the tariff policy laid down in treaties between the United Kingdom and foreign powers without leading to endless complications and difficulties. There was one further important step taken in dealing with the international position of the Dominions which I will refer to which will meet the point just taken by the hon. member for Lady-brand. It was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) the other day, but I think the question is of sufficient importance to justify me in referring to it again. If treaties of this kind are made they require the grant of full powers from the Government of the United Kingdom, to enable any plenipotentiary to negotiate at all. Clearly agreements made by virtue of this “bargaining process” would be treaties. What was laid down at the Imperial Conference of 1923 with reference to the negotiation signature and ratification of treaties? Dealing with the negotiation of treaties Resolution 1 (a) says—

Coming to the signature of the treaties it was resolved—

I come now to the point of the effect of these resolutions. I would like the Minister of Finance to say whether he repudiates the binding effect as a matter of constitutional practice of these resolutions so far as this Dominion is concerned, and whether he recognizes them as governing his conduct in initiating any negotiation preparatory to a treaty with a foreign power.

Are you attributing to the Imperial Conference legislative powers for the Empire?

No. But does the hon. Minister wish to suggest that there is some better or higher right in this regard than what is defined here?

It did not bind Ramsay Macdonald when he was Prime Minister.

In what respect?

In respect of the preference resolution.

We are not now dealing with the repudiation by the Labour Government of recommendations made at the Economic Conference. Those were expressly stated to depend for their effectiveness upon the sanction of the Imperial Parliament, whereas I am quoting the resolutions of the Imperial Conference as a reasoned expression of the constitutional practice relating to the conclusion of treaties, being indeed an advance on the doctrine laid down in the 1895 despatch. I am endeavouring to fix on the Minister for Labour responsibility for the declaration he made this afternoon when he said unequivocally, in effect, that in approving the proposals of the Minister of Finance he jettisoned this constitutional principle which every government throughout the Empire has heretofore always recognized.

It is not a constitutional principle. The imperial conference has no legislative powers.

If these resolutions do not define our extended right as a matter of constitutional practice to make treaties from what then do we derive our right? My hon. friend over there wants to hark back to 1909, for he refers to the Act of Union; but he will find if he taken his stand on that, that this Parliament can legislate only in and for the Union, and at that date possessed nothing of what we now usually describe as “Dominion higher status.” I would ask the Minister whether he claims that the resolutions of the imperial conference are not binding upon him as an expression of the constitutional practice in this respect to-day? If I am correct, as I believe I am, it is quite clear that if a treaty is negotiated with Italy (being the foreign power so often referred to in this debate), which would have the effect of operating to the detriment of the trade of the United Kingdom, the British Government and of the Dominions, must be consulted before that treaty can be signed, and their assent thereto secured if tested in the general imperial interest. Does the Minister think that in the circumstances the other governments of the Empire would be agreeable to put themselves vis-a-vis South Africa in a worse position than Italy? Moreover the grant of full powers which are necessary before such a treaty can be signed can alone be obtained from the British Government. The authorities show how in the last event the British Government still retain control by virtue of its exclusive powers under international law, in the interests of the Empire as a whole, of the right to negotiate foreign treaties. An examination of these authorities brings me to the conclusion that no treaty discriminating against the United Kingdom or a Dominion in favour of a foreign power can be negotiated without the consent of the United Kingdom and the Dominion concerned. And if this be so, I should like to know from the Government whether they abide by these principles; I should like to know what is meant by this particular policy of the Minister of Finance. What then becomes of this “two-line” tariff, and what value must we attach to the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries in other respects if they have failed to appreciate this very important principle? It means—if I am right—that the Minister must acknowledge that the so-called power to bargain with foreign powers for differential tariffs simply does not exist. After perusing the report one comes to the conclusion that the task set to the board was far too great for its present capacity. When the Minister gets up and asks the country to change its economic policy we want I suggest something stronger than a mere unfortified expression of views of this kind, embodied in a report (which has not yet been disclosed to the country as a whole), and which, I feel, will of itself when made freely known, demonstrate that in the change it recommends in our long-standing policy of imperial preference it is ill-considered, ill-framed, and ill-advised.

The Opposition has been taking recourse to methods of despair. We have witnessed a very curious thing, both inside and outside this House. There have been some very strange attempts to revivify, to bring back to life, the party which represents the Opposition. We have to take all these different happenings as part of one whole. First of all, we have the leader of the Opposition going about the country in the manner of a Professor Coué, preaching a doctrine to restore to health the sick man of political parties in South Africa, repeating the same old rhyme—

until some papers supporting the Opposition actually believe the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The “Cape Times” at the time of the Klerksdorp election actually believed a miracle had been done, and published that the Nationalist majority had been brought down by 725. It was only the next day that the “Cape Times” realized that a miracle had not been wrought after all; and then in some obscure corner of the paper we find they were sadly disappointed that after all the Nationalist majority had been increased. When this method of restoring to health that old South African party did not succeed, we find them taking recourse to other methods, the old method of poisonous drugs. It was the same method they used on the occasion of a previous election; the only thing they did was to change the label somewhat. It was the same drug they used when the cry of “vote British” was heard in South Africa; only now we hear it is a slap in the face to Great Britain and that it is an anti-British budget, and such like things. Not only are they trying to poison the minds of South Africa—this is an important point, and it is our only opportunity of informing the British public in South Africa—but what is being done towards the British population is also being done towards the native population in connection with this Budget. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) applies a speech to the British section one day, and the next day he uses the same speech for the native section. These are the drugs that are being used now with the hope of working up some sort of delirium or coma, and to gain some ascendency again for that party, which as the Opposition, has become, to a large extent, moribund. Is there any justification for administering these poisonous drugs to the mind of the people of South Africa, any justification beyond the attempt to restore some health, some power, to the party which is in Opposition? Is it really for the benefit of South Africa that this should be done—I must make this point, even at the risk of being sneered at by the “Cape Times” and others, even at the risk of being called one of the “kindergarten.” I must emphasize these points, because we have to emphasize the same thing again and again to be heard at all through the press we have to fight in this country. I look at them from an ordinary commonsense point of view. I am not going to pose as an expert in this matter, but as a backbencher I am trying to look at it from the point of view of the ordinary man. I am trying to ask myself, “Is there any justification for all these poisonous drugs that are being administered, due to the facts we have before us in this Budget?” After listening to the hon. gentleman on the opposite side I find that very little criticism has been levelled at the basic considerations of this Budget that have been expressed very clearly by the Minister of Finance. I also find that in report No. 51 on the revision of the customs tariffs, page 2, we have a statement of these basic considerations on which this policy is framed. There we are told that the basic principles are—

1. (a) The dependence of the Union Government under present conditions on the customs tariff as its principal source of revenue;
2. (b) the protection of industries which have already been established and have been found to be capable of further expansion with increased tariff assistance, and the encouragement of new industries which are likely to be established with a moderate measure of tariff assistance;
3. (c) the free admission, on importation, of those raw or semi-manufactured materials, not produced within the Union, which are required for industrial purposes and do not involve the surrender of considerable revenue;
4. (d) the due consideration of the interests of the primary industries, farming and mining, whose costs of production must be kept as low as possible, and the interests of the consumer, who must be protected against an undue rise in the cost of living, as a result of which protection to manufacturing industries must be administered with caution, moderation and discrimination;
5. (e) the creation of a wider field of employment for civilized labour, tariff assistance to industries being partly conditional on good labour conditions and on the understanding that, wherever possible, a larger proportion of civilized labour will be employed;
6. (f) the use of a tariff as an instrument for negotiation not only with Great Britain and the British dominions and colonies, but also with countries outside the British Empire.

These. I think, will be considered the basic considerations of this budget, and as far as I have understood the position, in their opposition to the budget they have levelled their attacks against this last point, namely. Imperial preference, and it is therefore very necessary that we should look at this whole problem from all points of view, so as to convince ourselves that, after all, we are acting for the benefit of South Africa and that there is no truth in the assertion that we are here simply acting against Great Britain with a sort of anti-British feeling, for which I know there is absolutely no foundation. And in this one exception we are told we are giving Great Britain a “smack in the face”; that this is a “friendly gesture with a knobkerrie.” Let us look at the facts of the case and let us insist on the public looking into the facts of the case. I feel it will be necessary to reiterate this again and again. It was stated that you “cannot have it both ways,” that either this tariff will be in favour of the consumer or the producer. I quite agree that in some cases you can have it both ways. To a certain extent this Imperial preference will be a benefit to the consumer as well as to the producer, but not in a large number of cases. We must clearly distinguish those cases where the British manufacturer has the full control of the South African market, and also those cases where the British manufacturer will be able to compete with the foreign manufacturer in South Africa, but has to get a certain amount of prejudice removed. Well, in that case he will need a certain amount of this preference, and that will probably be split up between the producer, the consumer and the manufacturer, but there are a large number of cases where the British manufacturer is able to compete with the foreign manufacturer simply because he is receiving this 3 per cent. rebate, and if he had not been receiving this he would not have been able to compete in South Africa. The consumer would have received those articles at exactly the same prices, so that the 3 per cent. rebate is giving a bounty to the British producer; an indirect bounty for which we are not getting a quid pro quo.

Does the consumer benefit?

I will come to that later. But there are a great many cases where we are giving this indirect bounty to the British manufacturer and the consumer in South Africa is not gaining anything by it. We are still giving Great Britain a preference on 22 heads—not 22 articles as has been mentioned in several papers—under which some 200 or 300 articles come, and if you look closely into those 22 heads you will see that we have given the cream of the tariff to Great Britain, and this is what they call a “friendly gesture with a knobkerrie,” and a “smack in the face.” As a matter of fact, foreign countries are still looking upon this preference which we are giving to Great Britain as a smack in the face” to the foreign countries of Europe. It is as well that we should reiterate the statement in the press by Mr. Pienaar, the South African Trades’ Commissioner. These are his words—

I think these words are worth looking into. It has been remarked by a member on the other side, in regard to the preference given to Great Britain—which I think I have a right to call an indirect bounty—“But do we get anything in return?” Let us face this question squarely and let us look at it from all sides. We have heard it stated over and over again that you get free trade in return, and the newspapers have been supporting the Opposition in that attitude against this Budget. I think it was the “Cape Times” that a few days ago devoted a whole article to this; that we are getting free trade in return and therefore we are doing an injustice to England. It was trying to influence the man in the street by saying “Surely it is very clear that we have to do with an anti-British policy when you are not prepared to give to Great Britain the same preference as you give to Germany or Italy, when Great Britain is prepared to allow our stuff to go in free while Germany is making us pay 15 per cent, and only giving us 5 percent. preference.” A great many people will say, “After all the ‘Cape Times’ is right.” The papers, however, have not been stating the full truth, and have not pointed out that in spite of the fact that although we may be paying a duty of 15 per cent. in Italy or Germany, the 5 per cent, rebate may be of far more value to us than the free trade we get from Great Britain.

I wish to call attention to the fact that we have no quorum.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

There is not very much in this free trade for South Africa. Imperial preference, again, would be of great value to us but for the fact that a large number of these commodities which come from the other Dominions obtain the same preference, so that we don’t gain much more by this preference than by the ordinary free trade of England. Indeed, this preference is in some way detrimental to us; for instance, it encourages the export of sugar from South Africa to Great Britain to such an extent that our own jam industry is harmed. Admitting that we get a certain return for Imperial preference we have to face the fact that we have not received a present of more than £210,000. although we had been giving Great Britain a preference which has reached £1,200,000 in one year. Some members of the Opposition, and the press, knowing that these arguments do not carry much weight, say, “What we get in return is the protection of the British fleet.” I don’t want to say anything disparaging of the British fleet. I know it does mean something for the peace of the world, but if we look facts in the face can we really say that we are getting more protection from the British fleet than many foreign countries are securing? After all, Great Britain is only protecting her own trade and our merchandise is carried in British ships, and she will afford that protection. After all, we don’t get much more protection from the British fleet than any other foreign nation does. It is a matter of sentiment which has been brought in, and it has been simply distorting the facts and trying to mislead the public. In these commercial matters Great Britain does not show the same sentiment that we are asked to display. Not very long ago an order was placed in Hamburg by a British firm for five motor ships, despite the fact that there had been so much unemployment in shipbuilding yards in Great Britain. Yet we are expected to show more sentiment towards England than she receives from her own people. This evening we have heard a new argument from the hon. member for the Gardens (Mr. Coulter), who has been trying to emphasize the fact that we belong to a family and have really only to listen to what the head of the family says as to our doings in regard to international matters. This is rather different talk from what we used to hear at the time of the Versailles conference, when we were told that we were one of the free nations of the British Commonwealth who signed the peace treaty of their own accord. Now, however, we are told that we have not the power to make our own agreements with foreign nations. I think at last we are going to have a real test whether there is any truth in this talk of the high status of the dominion. We have been frightened by the opposite side saying that America may retaliate. We may not be able to negotiate with America on this basis of tariff, but it will help us in European States, if not in America. I think America has more business instinct than to offer reprisals to South Africa when the balance of trade is in her favour. We imported from America last year or the year before £8,000,000 worth of goods, whilst we exported to America goods to the value of barely £2,000,000, so that we have more power for reprisals than America. Looking the facts of this budget in the face, I think the hon. members opposite will admit that all this talk about “Cost you more budget” is throwing dust in the eyes of the public. I have been listening to find out exactly where it will cost the public more. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) spoke with authority on this matter and mentioned one case, bacon, which he said would cost you more in South Africa. I have been told the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is a big importer of bacon himself.

You are absolutely wrong. I breed pigs, I don’t mind telling you that

I believe there is not so much truth in the statement beyond the fact that the Imperial Cold Storage do not appear to be playing the game. For that our budget makes provision. The Minister of Finance knew very well that there are people in South Africa who might take advantage of high prices to put up their prices, and if you refer to Report No. 51, you will see it is stated what measures can be taken immediately if that happens. We have Section 9.

I have read it.

Well. I hope the papers will continue to write articles which will state it clearly to the public that the Government has reserved that power to compel them to keep prices on a level which is justifiable. For the information of those who need it, I must insist on reading these few lines. We are told that in a number of cases the minimum rates are being made a good deal lower than the maximum rates. These minimum rates are not to be used for negotiation with other countries, except with the consent of the Board. So long as industries play the game the higher rate is the one. I believe there is some truth in the talk of the “Cost you more budget,” but it will cost more to the man who can afford to pay. That is the grievance. We have increased duties on motor cars that cost more than £400. I realize that motor cars are a business necessity, putting it liberally to the extent of about 50 per cent. of the trade. Twenty-five per cent. may be put down as pleasure and utility without necessity and another 25 per cent. will be mere “swank.” If we look at the matter we find that the duty will be more on the “swanks” and the luxuries. We are told it will hit Great Britain, because cars from Great Britain cost a little more than £400. Great Britain may learn a few lessons from America and France. Great Britain comes and says to us: “We have certain goods you want, and you must give us a certain preference if you want to take them.” Other countries come to us and say, “What would you like, what do you need, and we will regulate our supplies according to your demands.” There is one other point raised against the budget—against the duties imposed. This is a sin of omission brought against the Government—the dumping duties. I would remind the hon. member that his Government is responsible for the dumping duty on wheat and flour, and the Act which has made the dumping duty in South Africa, is like an anomaly. Last year, we were collecting dumping duties in South Africa, when there was a world shortage of wheat. We were collecting them, I believe, at the time of shipping, and not at the time of purchase, but I will leave that, it is a matter for the experts. I know for a fact that the price of bread at present is actually a good bit lower than it was some time ago, and I know for a fact that a good many bakers have not been playing the game, and that the price of bread has come down after the Board of Trade have made the public acquainted with the facts. We have heard that this is a no-economy budget. I have been waiting for hon. members on the opposite side to put their fingers on those points where we are really extravagant, and I have listened in vain. I have heard it called an extravagant budget, and that we are placing more taxation on the taxpayer of South Africa in spite of the fact that we have flourishing times, but let hon. members put their finger on the spot and say, “There you are extravagant.” Do they call it extravagance where you want to supply the needs of superannuation funds that they have allowed to run bankrupt? There is one case where they said we were extravagant, and that is the case of the subsidy which has been given to the provincial councils. I think the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) dealt with that very effectively the other night. I have had personal experience in educational matters in at least one province, and I know that we have not been squandering money on education, as stated again and again in this House. I know for a fact that we have been stinted again and again, and that there are a large number of children in this country who have not the privileges of education simply because the previous Government have been trying to strangle education, and by that means to strangle the provincial councils and get rid of them. If the extravagance on our side is only for the benefit of the education of the South African child, I think there is not much for us to worry about. I think I can, in conclusion, congratulate our Minister of Finance on this budget, which, in effect, I have no doubt, will mean industrial development for South Africa, which will develop our world markets, which will mean cheaper living for us in South Africa, which will mean greater purchasing power also for the worker in South Africa, and which I consider to be a most consistent application of the Nationalist doctrine of “South Africa first.”

I am indeed pleased to see the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) in his place. Last Thursday the hon. member, shall I say sneeringly or indiscreetly, referred to the personnel of this side of the House as comprising traders and mining magnates. If the hon. member would take the trouble to go through the list he would find that 50 per cent. of them are farmers. Fortunately or unfortunately, they bear the name of a Gilson or an Anderson, but they are farmers, and the unfortunate part of it is that there are only about half-a-dozen business men. The fault I have to find with the personnel of this House is that there are too few business men here. If we had more business men I feel convinced that the Government of the country would be carried out more expeditiously, and certainly more economically. I think we have also too few farmers. If I look at the opposite side I do not find that predominance that one would expect from the country in having actual farmers. The hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), the Administrator—designate—appears to infer that it is perhaps infra dig, to be a trader or a mining magnate. If that is his opinion, I fear that the business men may expect to get little from him when he assumes that important post of Administrator of the Cape. As business men we are extremely proud of our Jaggers, our Macintoshes, and I was going to say our Fouries, because I believe the hon. member for Somerset, though I would not put it so low as to describe him as a trader, is a merchant. We are proud of them, these gentlemen who have materially assisted to build up the industries of this country. There is no disguising the fact that the interests of the farmers are very much akin to those of the trader and merchant; they cannot do without one another. I therefore contend that the remarks of the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Fourie) are somewhat uncalled for. I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for having to a great extent adopted the principle of the Baxter Commission, such as the principle of getting rid of the subsidy to provincial councils, and that in future the subsidy in respect of education will be based on the number of pupils in the schools. These are excellent principles. Dealing with the provincial councils, there is no question that the provinces, particularly the Cape and the Transvaal, have been most extravagant. The Minister is encouraging them to be more extravagant, by his proposal that the Government should collect some of the taxes and hand them over to the provincial councils. Why do we not collect all the taxes and introduce a system whereby the provincial councils should submit an estimate which would bind them down to a certain expenditure. If this was done it would at least mean that we should have uniformity of taxation, and as business men we are craving for that uniformity, and at the same time it would be a source of greater economy. In regard to the employees’ tax we should try and encourage our employers, and if we impose such a tax as that proposed we are certainly not going to make more employment for the unemployed. The business man seeks ways and means of making ends meet, and if he finds he can do with ten men instead of 15 he will certainly do so, and thus more unemployment will be created. So far as the proposal to give provincial councils powers in regard to income tax, I maintain that this is a wrong principle. In regard to general dealers’ licenses, the Government intends to reduce it down to £2 for every £1,000 average stock and proposes that the maximum should be £100. This is an excellent proposal instead of turnover tax, but why not include in the exemption such produce as wool and skins? These kinds of produce are only dealt with in exchange for custom, and bears no profit, and we should encourage the merchant by exemption of produce in the average stock. Another thing that really perplexes me is how the Minister is going to determine the average stock. Some merchants turn over their stock twice a year, and I believe that is the average.

In the Free State it has been the practice—

I would like to be acquainted with that. A successful business man would always endeavour to have his stock as low as possible at stocktaking, whenever that took place, and if you are going to take it during stocktaking, you are not going to get (he average stock. As business men, we say that there should be uniform trading licences throughout the country. I would like to see the provincial councils abolished to-morrow and I would assist in so doing—with all due respect to the members from Natal and other friends in this House. I believe if a referendum could be taken in the Cape to-morrow the people would decide to get rid of them.

Oh!

The hon. member for Riversdale is always inclined to interject. I wish to tell him that if I wanted advice on growing pumpkins I would ask him for his advice; but in business matters I prefer to follow my own past experience. In regard to those august and extravagant bodies, the provincial councils, I am inclined to think that the feeling in the Transvaal is also against them. I believe Natal and the Free State hold different views; but I think we should get rid of those bodies. We have handed over a legacy to our friends opposite, as explained by the late Prime Minister to-day, of something like £300,000.

Camouflage!

And what we and the country expected was a reduction of taxation.

Who taxed the people?

You would have thought anyone taxing the people, who had got £800,000. would have endeavoured to reduce the taxation. I really do not see any signs of the economy which we were all looking for, and I do trust we may look forward to it at no distant date. I find that in this House there is too much legislation. If we had less of that and more economy it would be better for us in this country. I regard the tariff with its maximum and minimum and suspended duties as highly complicated, and as a business man I foresee extreme difficulty in the Government carrying out these complicated tariffs. Take the question of suspended duties. It is proposed that the Minister himself shall have the right to impose these suspended duties. I think that is giving him very wide powers. I think the question of the suspension of duties should be settled by Parliament. Personally I am a moderate protectionist, and I don’t believe in going the whole hog as has been done in many instances, in the Budget. At all times, however, I am prepared to assist my friends opposite in a fair protectionist policy. The question of cotton blankets has been raised. The cheap cotton blanket is made of the refuse. It is proposed to increase the duty on these cheap catton blankets from 100 per cent. to 300 per cent., according to the weight. On whom is the extra cost to be thrown? On the native and the poor white man who cannot buy a better article. I am afraid the poor kafirs will have to go back to the figleaf. As a protectionist I could understand if you were levying an extra duty on woollen blankets to protect our woollen factories, but we have no cotton factories here, and if we had, I do not think that we could produce these cheap cotton blankets. Then there is an increase of between forty to fifty per cent. on stationery such as children’s exercise books. Protect local industries by all means, but don’t throw money indiscriminately into their pockets. The general trend of the speech of the Minister of Finance was too optimistic. We have scarcely emerged from the wood and yet the Minister says “I see a glorious time before us.” The prospect, however, is not really so glorious as it looks. The position of the wool market is as serious as it has ever been, and we have practically a reduction of forty per cent. The ostrich feather industry is practically a matter of the past, and the only bright hope I see is the exportation of mealies. Can the Minister of Railways and Harbours tell us the result of his negotiations re the taking over of the New Cape Central Railways?

You are rather too previous.

I have just come back from my constituency, and my friends who were opposed to me, appear to have information that it is a foregone conclusion the railway has been taken over, and before long we are going to have the South African Railways. I hope they are correct. I hope the hon. Minister of Railways will be able to give us particulars about it. We have had from the Minister of Finance a lecture on thrift. I can speak for myself, and I think I speak for the whole House, when I say that we subscribe entirely to the appeal he has made in regard to thrift. But I would commend that policy to the provincial councils and to the Government.

I want to say a few words. To tell the truth, I did not know that I would be speaking now, but yet I would not like to lose the opportunity. I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). He has packed up his handbag and gone home. That is the custom with hon. members opposite who have the most to say here, and then pack up their papers and strut off home. Well, I do not hope that this has become the custom on the other side of the House to only just keep the quorum there. We are tired of it. We condemn it the more in members opposite when the budget is under discussion. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) accused me of not being in favour of protection. I am in favour of it as long as the protection does not ruin the poor man. I am entirely in favour of protection which does not go too far, but I am opposed to giving the power to the Government to levy taxes on goods such as cheap cotton blankets, and in connection with the accusation of the hon. member for Piquetberg, I just want to say this, that I have grown more cotton than the whole of the Cape Province put together, and I am still planting cotton. If he will come and visit me he will see for himself. But I just want to say that I do not speak for myself. I represent the country in general. I do not represent myself, I stand here for the interests of my district and for the interests of the poor man as well. And what do I find? I am much disappointed with the scheme of taxation of the hon. Minister of Finance. The taxes press especially on the poor man.

Which taxes?

Those on cheap blankets. But the hon. member does not grow cotton in his district, therefore he is not concerned therewith.

What does the hon. member for Stellenbosch know—

My hon. friend has this afternoon heard about pumpkins, and he still goes on. But I do not wish to repeat what has been said before me. I am not one of those who repeats the figures from the newspapers of the previous day. But regarding the taxation I think the Minister of Finance should in the first place have taxed those face powders and the rouge which is rubbed on the face. During the last election I heard a lot from my opponents that I was going to oppose certain taxation. Naturally my hon. friend for Piquetberg was one of the chief of them. They spoke, i.e., of the dumping duty and the hon. member for Piquetberg has again spoken about it this afternoon. I did not wish to interrupt him too much this afternoon but Mr. Speaker you have given me the opportunity to do it a few times. The hon. member spoke about the dumping duty on wheat, but he forgot that we require all kinds of necessaries for the growing of wheat for the manuring of the ground. The friends were only busy catching votes when they were talking about the phosphates industry and its protection. The hon. member forgets the £400,000 to the same society that first enjoyed protecting rights—

What about the £400,000?

The hon. member knows nothing about it. But then there is another thing and that is the whisky duty. That was nearly pushed down my throat. I can give hon. members the assurance that I appreciate a glass of whisky now and then, but when I drink-whisky then I must pay for it, and I had to pay bitterly for it during the election. Yes, most certainly during the recent election I said that we should not come so suddenly to the Government with the suggestion of a raised duty on whisky. I do not see why the duty on whisky cannot be just as high here as in its land of origin. I expected that we should hear much about whisky, but we have heard almost nothing about it. But the making of a tax equal to that of the country of origin would encroach upon the revenue of the Government and this would almost be impossible. That was my answer to the questions which were asked me in that connection but I am in favour of an increase of the tax. As to wine the hon. member for Piquetberg has said nothing about it. I only heard him speak about the tobacco tax. Tobacco is a luxury. I am myself a tobacco farmer and I have made more profit from it than the friends on the opposite side who want to interrupt me. It is my stand-by because when wine was low in price I made my living from tobacco. Now I find that the tax has only been taken off tobacco of the lowest grade. On the fine tobacco from Rustenburg and the Western Province it will remain at 6d. plus 22½d. stamp duty. That will make hon. members opposite think a little. It is higher than any tax on any other tobacco. We have heard very little grumbling from Rustenburg so far, but it will come later. Later on they will murmur. On cigars there is no duty. Why not? The rich man smokes cigars. I have never yet seen a poor man smoking cigars. But there is not a penny duty on cigars, but cigarettes, which the poor man smokes—he smokes Flags and other kinds a little bit higher up—are taxed with 22½d. and 6d., total 28½d. per lb. Then I come to another point. I am thinking of one particular article and it is window glass. I do not know of an industry for making that glass in this country. We have factories in the country that make bottles and such things and there I am entirely in favour of the protection of the industry. But window panes, as far as I know, are not made in this country. I shall be glad if anyone can correct me. But why are such great powers given to the provincial councils? The provincial councils have such power of taxation that it is becoming impossible for the farmer to pay the taxes. I pay more than £60 per year to the provincial council and divisional council and then my hon. friends from the Free State scream if they have to pay 30s. in taxes. I think education is a national matter. Education should be paid for from the Union treasury. Take the Cape Province. You have hundreds, almost thousands, of students coming from all parts of the land, from the Transvaal, from the Free State and even from Natal. And I have never yet seen a student pay for his education what it actually costs. Of course he brings a certain amount of money into the province but that does not detract from the fact that education is a Union matter and should be paid for out of the Union treasury. If we, as far as the Cape Province is concerned, heard to-morrow morning that the provincial councils were abolished, totally abolished, as the Englishman says, “lock, stock and barrel,” then we should be glad. We do not need them. We have our divisional councils and our municipalities and they are doing first-class work. If we had a committee of three men then the thing could be quite well administered. Three men on the committee and then some experts on the different divisional councils could look after education extraordinarily well. It will be much better even than under the existing system and be ten times cheaper. I know that my hon. friends from the Free State and Natal do not agree with me on this point. Then I come to the preference tariff and I disagree with the Government in that connection entirely. They are going to alter the preferences. I have not studied the matter.

It will be a good thing if the hon. member first did so.

I am not a learned man. I am speaking as a farmer and not as an advocate. The great thing is that we are on the point of getting preferences from England for the big things, that is tobacco, wine and dried fruit, those three things are of the greatest importance. I have fought for them in the past. In 1914 I forced the former chairman of committees to introduce it into the House against his will, and he got all the liberal newspapers on his track. Oh yes, I forced him in 1914 in England to do it. He came to me and said—

but I stood to my guns, I insisted that preference should be given to all dominions above any other country in Europe whatsoever. We must have preference for wine, tobacco and dried fruit, and possibly we shall get it now, because Great Britain has a very big heart, but now we are going to give her a slap in the face. Now I come to another matter. It concerns the hon. Minister of Agriculture just as much as the Minister of Finance. The hon. Minister of Agriculture is not here. The point is that in the western province we badly need an entomologist. The only man we had was Mr. Malley. He is an excellent man, but he was required for the extermination of locusts, and we have lost him. Then there remains Mr. Pattey at Elsenburg, but he is so busy with his students and his lectures that he has his hands quite full. We require a man for the work or otherwise a woman. Yes, one finds women who can do good work as botanists, and are just as clever as men. But as soon as we have somebody who becomes well acquainted with the district and the fruit industry then he goes away to other parts. We must keep the people. They must not go away because they do not get an increase in salary. I do not grudge them the salary if they earn it. We require someone who investigates the fruit diseases. We must, e.g., find out whether the insects which attack the peaches can be fought by spraying, and whether when the trees are sprayed it might not have a deleterious effect on the blossoms. I hope that the hon. member will inform us in committee that in this respect we will be assisted. As for the wine industry we have at the moment Mr. van Niekerk, he is a very clever man, and is at Elsenburg. He is the only man we have. We have the Wine and Spirits Control Act, which must be carried out, but how can a man administer that from here nearly up to the Limpopo, where you have to do with the lot of rogues, who throughout the whole country manufacture an adulterated class of wine. That is why all the liquor laws are necessary. If the pure product is made and drunk there will be much less drunkenness. Another point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Public Health is in connection with the sanatorium at Nelspoort. I do not think that Parliament does enough for hospitals generally, but particularly with regard to Nelspoort. Nelspoort has a staff which I believe need not take a back seat to any other in the world judging from the reports that I have received. Does the hon. Minister of Public Health who, unfortunately, is not in his place, know that in the coldest month in the karoo, viz., August, there was not enough coal at Nelspoort to provide the invalids with a warm bath? I hope this will be investigated. I heard it. I shall be only too pleased if I am wrong. The doctor went and had a truck of coal taken off a train for which he got a dressing down. And as to the provision of vegetables and fruit the position is most unhappy. What did Mr. Garlick intend when he made £25,000 available on condition that the public should contribute £25,000, and the Government a further £50,000? Certainly not to bring about such a condition of things as we have to-day. There is only accommodation for the rich and for the very poor, but for the middle class man there is no room. The rich pay 12s. 6d. per day and find accommodation, and the very poor come into the sanatorium, and his divisional council or municipality is responsible for the cost, but the middle class man who cannot pay 12s. 6d. per day and is ashamed to go to the municipality to obtain maintenance in the sanatorium has no opportunity of getting into the institution. I hope the hon. Minister of Health will make provision to meet these people.

I think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance can be very well pleased with his budget. I have not listened to all the speeches in this House, and I think I have been rather fortunate from what I have heard and read, but as far as those speeches are concerned to which I have listened, I must say that from the criticisms which hon. members have brought out, especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), if before I had not quite full confidence in the correctness of the policy followed by the Minister of Finance, I have after those speeches. I do not think anybody listening to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) could really help feeling all the time that he was like a barrister who has to deal with a bad case, which he knows is going against him, but he has to speak as it were ex officio. As to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton—well. I must say I thought before he had finished we would be hearing in this House again “Rule Britannia.” I just want to say this to-night, that if hon. members really want to do a service to the connection of which they are so proud, and which they are so prone to bring out in this House, and especially on the platforms, then I think they ought to set about it in quite a different way when they want the country to believe that this preference is not what we should have in South Africa, because I feel very certain of this, that if they want to injure that connection then go and try to establish it on the basis of dominance from any quarter.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.