I move—

seconded.

I do not think that there is any serious objection on this side of the House to giving the Government these further facilities and more of the time of the House, but I would like to hear from the Prime Minister what additional work we have to expect from the Government. New Bills have been poured in on us continuously and, although a great deal of work has already been disposed of, I hope the Government will moderate its ardour and will not bring much additional work before us. If we want to finish this session in reasonable time, as I hope will be done, we cannot further overload our programme, and I should like to have the assurance of the Prime Minister that no further work of any important character will be started de novo in the House before the end of the session.

I just wish to say shortly that I feel, and I think we all feel, that we ought not to sit longer than is absolutely necessary. Let me add that I hope we shall have completed the work by the end of May. As to the work still to be laid on the Table, we have in the first place Bills in regard to financial matters. As regards other Bills, I do not think any more of particular importance will be introduced. I have three more small Bills of a purely administrative nature. The only matter of a contentious nature still to come before the House will possibly relate to proposals with regard to the Senate for regulating the relations between the two Houses, but even this will not, I believe, involve too much work. I hope therefore that we shall be done by the end of May or the first week in June.

Motion put and agreed to.

Would the Minister give us some indication why it has become necessary to withdraw these forest reserves ?

That is done at the instance of the Forestry Department. They advise my department when they think the reserves are no longer required, or are unsuitable. They report that this is no longer required.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (14) to (46) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (47),

I should like to ask the Minister why it is proposed to delete the words—

This land, may inform the hon. member, is required for school purposes, and we cannot grant it unless this resolution is passed. I cannot find a11 the details here, but we went into it carefully before the committee. This land was originally given to the church by the Government of the Cape, and we cannot use it for school purposes unless we get parliamentary consent. It is merely a formal matter, and the church has consented.

How can that be the explanation ? Does it apply only to one morgen 528 square roods ?

Yes.

That is all right.

Recommendations put and agreed to.

Recommendation (48) put and agreed to.

On par. II,

I should like to hear from the Minister of Lands the reason why these plots were refused to be sold to De Beers Company. They are obeying the laws of this country, and they have a prescriptive right to this land. If any individual had applied for these lands, they would have been granted. I think it is carrying political vendetta too far to refuse the company the purchase of lands for which they have a prescriptive right. Out of courtesy to the Government, they applied and offered to purchase these lands at a fair valuation, but this was refused. The result will be a lawsuit in which the Government is bound to lose, as the law is perfectly plain. Anyhow, I should like to hear from the Minister the reason why this was refused.

I would like to reply to the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) as a member of this committee. There was no idea of any vendetta, and we came to the conclusion, on the first consideration of the case, that the matter was one for further enquiry. When going into the case for the second time, and upon careful consideration, the committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the matter should take its ordinary course rather than that we, as a committee, should take action. Even if a lawsuit should have to be instituted to substantiate the claims of the De Beers Company, we thought that it was the wisest course to allow that to take place, for the sake of all the interests concerned, rather than to interfere as a committee of this House. I assure the hon. member that there was no vendetta, and that I would not lend myself to the pursuit of a vendetta against either an individual or a corporation.

I do not think it is necessary to add anything more. The hon. member explained everything exactly as it is.

Paragraph put and agreed to.

Recommendation in third report put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

Resolutions reported, considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could give the committee any information about the statement he made just now that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to deal with our relations in regard to the Senate. It may have some bearing on the amount we are voting, and I hope the Prime Minister will take this opportunity to give the House some information as to what it is the intention of the Government to do, and the nature of this Bill which he intends to introduce.

As the hon. member knows, there has again arisen, in consequence of the rejection of a certain Bill in the other place, a problem with regard to the position of the Senate which should have been considered I think six or seven years ago. It is something on which the hon. member himself thought at that time, but nothing further came of it and it is now a question whether it should not be done at once. I cannot tell the hon. member anything more about it, but possibly a Bill will be introduced, and possibly not. I only mention it, so that it cannot be said later on that I said nothing about it and that hon. members had not expected it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 3, “House of Assembly ”, £104,280, put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister ”, £31,559.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to statements made some few days ago in the Johannesburg press, that Mr. I. W. Schlesinger is proceeding to Russia for the purpose of opening up negotiations with the Soviet Government in connection with South African trade, and that he was in a position, having had various discussions with members of the Government, to make authoritative proposals to the Soviet Government. It is a matter of extreme importance so far as the trade of this country is concerned, and as these statements have appeared in the press, I think the Prime Minister should say whether Mr. Schlesinger is proceeding to Russia with the authority of the Union Government to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Government, and if so, what the nature of this authority is.

That is a question of the greatest importance. I may say that I do not know Mr. Schlesinger and have never yet seen him, and I know nothing of either direct or indirect negotiations or attempts at negotiations. As for the statement in the newspapers, it is the first I have heard of it and the Government has done nothing in connection with the matter.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister to give us information on two points. The first is in regard to this interesting item which appears now for the first time in his Estimates, namely, “Union Consul for Angola.” It is a matter of some importance and no doubt of interest to the country, and I hope he will make a statement on the matter. I should like also to ask whether he is in a position to give the committee some information as to the negotiations for a new convention with Mozambique. Some months ago a conference was held between the Administration of Mozambique and the Union Government, and the conference seems to have been broken off at a certain point, to be resumed later on, but we have heard nothing further of the matter. The Prime Minister knows this country is deeply interested in this whole question, and we should like to know what the present state of affairs is in regard to these negotiations, and, if the Prime Minister could tell us whether there is any hitch between the Governments, and if so, what it is. I understood from the semi-official statement given to the press at the time that the Government is not negotiating on the same lines as the previous Government followed, and that they were dealing with this question of relations with Mozambique along new lines, but it was not stated what these new lines were ; nor do we know what difficulty has turned up which makes an agreement difficult or impossible at the present time. All we want is that, for the public information, some statement should be made as to what the present position is, and what our Government intend doing to follow up the negotiations which have already begun. I should like the Prime Minister also to make a statement to the House, so far as it is in his power, on some other matters of importance. We have had a number of matters going on in the world which affect us very deeply. I need only refer to the last Geneva conference, where we were represented as a Union, and where matters of great importance were discussed, which have attracted the attention of the whole world, and the upshot of which we have all deeply deplored. I think the country would like to know what the attitude of our Government has been throughout these proceedings ; whether we took any line at all ; what instructions our representative at Geneva had, and how far we contributed or not to the great fiasco that has been a great setback to the League of Nations. I hope the Prime Minister will give us full information. I have not on previous occasions pressed the Government to make a statement on these matters because I know it is difficult when these negotiations are going on and I did not wish to embarrass the Government, but these matters are over now, and we should like to know the part taken by the Government in these matters. The Prime Minister might also give the House some information as to the forthcoming Imperial Conference. We have seen a statement in the press that the Prime Minister, with some of his colleagues, is going to attend the Imperial Conference next October, in London, and we should like to have as full information as the Prime Minister can give now, as to the matters to be discussed there ; if they have been settled, or as to any points which might be raised by the Union Government at this conference. I gathered from a speech made by the Minister of Mines and Industries last night, that it is possible our representatives might raise the question of the international status of the Union at this conference, but I do not know whether that is so, and it has been customary, I think, in the past, for the Prime Minister to give the House and the country fairly full information; as fair and full as it is possible to give, in anticipation, about the line we are going to take, and the standpoint we adopt in regard to this conference. I hope the Prime Minister will make use of a suitable opportunity to make a statement to the House, first as to what points we are going to urge and what lines we are going to take at the conference, and, secondly, as to what subjects are likely to be discussed there that will affect the interests of South Africa. There is one more matter I should like to have some information about. I see from this morning’s paper that a loan is being floated on the London market, with the guarantee of the British Government and under the auspices of the Trade Facilities Committee, and the proceeds of the loan are to be devoted to the completion of the Lobito Bay railway. This matter was brought before the late Government in another form. Some years ago the British Government was approached through the Trade Facilities Committee to provide funds, or to give a guarantee for the provision of funds, for the completion of the Lobito Bay railway. At that time the Government of Rhodesia, which is deeply interested in this matter, appealed to us and pointed out that the whole of the railway system of Rhodesia was bound to be affected by the Lobito Bay railway, and they pointed out to us also—what we know to be a fact—that the completion of the Lobito Bay railway is bound to affect the whole of the transportation system in this part of South Africa. To a large extent it must mean eventually the side-tracking of our railway system in the south and a through route by a new port on the west coast to Europe. The Rhodesian Government appealed to us to support them, and we did. The late Government made very strong representations to the Imperial Government that it should not do such a thing, and should not lend its money, credit and support to the building of a railway which must necessarily come into conflict with the whole of the South African railways. Our railways have been built up largely with British capital, and our railway material—to a vast extent—has come from the United Kingdom, and the same may be said about Rhodesia, anything up to £15,000,000 having been sunk in the railway system in Rhodesia. All that is British capital and the requirements of the railway have always been obtained from Great Britain. It would be a very undesirable and unintelligible state of affairs that after all this capital has been sunk by us in the Union and Rhodesia, the British Government should step in and provide facilities for building a competing railway. At the time the late Government made strong representations to the Imperial Government, with the result that this matter dropped. I saw a statement some months ago by Mr. Robert Williams in which he expressed his obligation to the Prime Minister for the attitude he had taken up in this matter. At that time Mr. Williams had again approached the Trade Facilities Committee, and was again trying to get capital from the British Government in order to build a railway from Lobito Bay to the Katanga copper mines. The country would like to know in view of the result that the British Government has changed its attitude and is actually supplying the capital for the completion of the Lobito Bay railway whether our Government has had anything to do with that change, especially in view of the obligation which Mr. Williams has expressed to our Prime Minister. I think the matter is of very great importance. It is perfectly intelligent and simple that if this Lobito Bay scheme goes through in the next four or five years the position of the railway system in Rhodesia will become very precarious, and the vast trade we have carried on with Rhodesia and Katanga will be side tracked to Lobito Bay. The project in itself may be desirable, but that the British Government should give the capital for cutting us off, so to say, from that great market in the north and to establish a shorter connection with the copper mines, seems to me a very extraordinary action to take. I know they have vetoed the scheme before. [Time limit.]

In connection with the last point, we were asked whether, like the former Government, and especially the former Prime Minister) we were continuing the protest against the construction of that railway from Lobito Bay. Our answer was—

The reason was that in the first place we do not think it would do us any good to adopt a policy by which we will make enemies everywhere, because unquestionably—and I think the hon. member for Standerton will admit it—he has brought considerable enmity upon us by the policy he pursued at that time. I simply left it in the hands of the British Government, and I consider that is the only proper policy we could have followed. If there is any country which has a great interest in the Union it is Great Britain, and I am convinced that if the British Government were to see that we were being injured by the supply of funds for railways, or anything else outside of our boundaries, the British Government would not do it. To that should be added that I have never yet been in favour of a dog in the manger policy. We have to do—I know the hon. member differs from me—with a large undeveloped Africa, and I do not think it is in our interests to do anything whereby the progress of other parts of Africa may be stopped. If it is anything that affects us directly, then it is another matter. I ask— and it is a question in which Great Britain has just as much interest as ourselves—which is better for us, with reference to the development taking place in the territory in question whether it shall be done by British or foreign capital from wheresoever it comes? I think there can be no doubt that if development is to take place in connection with railways or otherwise outside the boundaries of the Union, it will be most desirable for us, as well as for Great Britain, that it should be done with British capital. However, it is a matter which in the first place should be left in the hands of those who will find the money, that is, England. In my opinion, we ought to make no difficulties unless it is clear that we are directly affected in a way that we feel is such to make us ask that the matter should be carefully handled. Now, the Government have not thought it necessary to do that in this case, and we replied that we wanted to make no protest against it. I feel, indeed, that it is a departure from the policy followed by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I want to add that it is possible that, at the time when he took up his attitude and pursued another course, there were reasons which possibly would have forced this Government to follow a different policy to that it is following to-day, but we feel that in existing circumstances it was not worth the trouble of taking up a standpoint based on jealousy if we were going to hinder the development of the country and to act aggressively. The consequence of this was that when we were asked if we were following the same policy as the previous Government, viz., to protest against the railway scheme, we stated that we did not do so. I now come to the new vote on the estimates for a consul for the Union of South Africa in Angola. The hon. member knows that during his regime attempts were made from time to time to get somebody to act there on behalf of the 2,000 to 3,000 subjects of the Union who have been there for a large number of years, and who live in such conditions that they require help from our Government in more ways than one. The same request was repeated to this Government, and we felt that such an official should be appointed. Take, for instance, the fact that the Union subjects in all those years have never been able to get title for their ground. They are helpless, and do not know what to do. Now, one of the duties which that person will have to fulfil will be to give advice and to say what they should do to get title, and he will have to assist them to get certificates that they are Union subjects. They have always remained Union subjects, and have not become Portuguese subjects. Furthermore, there should be somebody to look after education. The people are spread over a large area, and if they are to be saved from complete degeneracy, it is necessary that there should be someone to look after their interests. I think the hon. member also considered this at the time, but it was shortly before he resigned, and nothing was done. We feel that someone must be appointed, and the person we have found is one who has lived there for years, and who knows the conditions well, and the other inhabitants of the land, and which may be of particularly great advantage. He lives in the village of Mombolo. I agree that the amount on the estimates is very small, and it includes travelling expenses, offices expenses, etc.

Did you find the person on the spot ?

Yes. The amount is small, but he must try to make it do as far as possible. The distances he will have to cover will be great, but he can do good work. I now come to the point with regard to the Mozambique convention, mentioned by the right hon. member. Last September, we had a provisional discussion in Delagoa Bay, and the negotiations were to be resumed in Pretoria fourteen days later. The time was fixed for the meeting at Pretoria, when, unfortunately, the strike broke out in Delagoa, with the result that we were informed it would be impossible to resume the negotiations until the strike was over. The strike has only recently ended, and all that time it was impossible to continue the negotiations.

Was there any other difficulty ?

Nothing. As I have already said, we only made provisional arrangements. I know nothing as regards “a new tendency.” The negotiations were of the most friendly nature, and we all intended to continue them until a satisfactory solution was found. As regards this, the hon. member cherished the same hope. He can understand that the problems are the same, and that they must be solved some way or other, but I can say nothing further. So far, we have merely had an exchange of ideas, and the matter rests there to-day. I think a change of High Commissioner is going to take place, and I expect as soon as that occurs we shall recommence negotiations. I now come to the Geneva conference. As to this, I can say that we regret most deeply what took place at Geneva. I think it was one of the severest blows the League of Nations has yet received. At the same time, I must honestly say that, with all those who cherish the hope that the League of Nations will be a success, I think that the blow received is not a mortal one, and that the League of Nations will outlive it, but I feel strongly with those who say that if Geneva is to become a place where people are going to form groups and to make the one group stronger than the other, and where one is to overtrump the other, then I must say I do not believe the League of Nations will answer its purpose. We cannot do otherwise than regret what happened, but the attitude we adopted from the first day was simply that the great question was the admission of Germany to the League of Nations and to the Council of the League, that every other question should be and remain subordinate to that, and that nothing else ought to be done which would prevent Germany becoming a member of the League of Nations and of obtaining a place on the Council. I do not want to go into it further, but will say that in this respect our attitude agreed in every respect with what the representatives of the British empire in Geneva wanted to do, and we were of the same opinion as to the action to be taken. What happened is well known. I can only express the hope that when they meet again in September, and further consider the matter, success will be achieved where now there has been failure. Then the hon. member asked what points would be dealt with at the imperial conference. He will understand that the agenda has not yet been prepared. So far, only a few general points have been suggested for consideration, but nothing has yet been definitely settled. As he knows, the attitude with regard to the Locarno treaty and the confirmation of that treaty will be discussed. He knows what attitude I have taken up, viz., that I think it would be wrong for me to say now what ought to be done. Another point mentioned by the hon. member is the international status of the Union.

That point was mentioned in a speech last night by the Minister of Mines and Industries, and it was that caused me to refer to it.

I can only say this that that status, or let me rather say, the relationship between the dominions and Great Britain is undoubtedly a point—it is a matter which consists of various points—which will come up for discussion. There is no doubt about it. I do not know about what exactly the hon. member wants a statement, but if there is anything he wants I say that, as regards my feeling, or that of the Government, I shall be prepared before the session ends to make a statement, which, if necessary, can be discussed in this House. But I must say this that I believe the hon. member knows the attitude I have always adopted and I maintain it, that we possess to-day a completely independent international status, in other words, that we have full liberty, or to put it in his own words, we are just as free as England itself. That is, of course, nothing else but saying, as he formerly said, that we have an equal status. With regard to that, I think no difference exists. The difference, however, between the hon. member and myself, a difference which has always existed, is with regard to what is meant by the complete independent international status which we possess. My standpoint always was that our position is exactly as that of England, and that even as regards secession we stand where England stands.

What more do you want ?

That question is right and pertinent. Theoretically, we are equal, but we all know that we have still a lot to obtain, and the hon. member for Standerton knows that he himself was continuously engaged in acquiring the right to exercise rights which we are entitled to demand at any time. Everyone knows that there are many rights we do not exercise, some of which I think we ought to exercise, and others which, in ray opinion, it would not be wise to take over, and to exercise except circuitously, if I may say so, through the agency of the machinery Great Britain itself possesses. We can appoint ambassadors, but I think everyone will acknowledge that it would be foolish for us to appoint ambassadors everywhere. At the same time, I do not believe anyone will deny that, if there were places here and there, where it would be desirable to have our own embassies, we possess the authority to create them. Therefore, it is not a question any more about obtaining the higher status. We have it, and I think the only difference between me and the opposite side is that they have always proceeded from the standpoint that we should acquiesce. We know how difficult we found it to get a trade commissioner appointed on the Continent. The previous Government was much less disposed to make the appointment.

It was only a question of money.

I do not say why. It is a question of progress, and we shall certainly, if we want to show ourselvs worthy of our independent international status, want to take more and more upon us from time to time. I hope we shall never take more upon us than we can undertake at the time, but according as we are able, I think it is right towards ourselves, and I think it is fair to England, that where England to-day does things for us we ought to do them for ourselves and bear the burden. One of the first things to be dealt with at the Imperial Conference is how we shall hold the consultation which was agreed to in 1923 and how make it more practical and more effective. I shall not now say what line we should adopt with regard to this, but I am convinced that we must now look facts in the face once and for all, and be frank, not only mutually, but towards the rest of the world, and the rest of the world must be informed that we are all independent, and that we all insist that we shall be treated as entirely independent peoples. I am convinced that the difficulties that are now always arising, that there were in the matter of the Dawes conference, and now again in connection with the conference about which the hon. member for Standerton has expressed himself with so much indignation, will then, to a great extent, disappear. What is the condition to-day ? I want to ask the hon. member if I am not right. According to the agreement of 1923 the representatives of all the dominions ought to be present at the Imperial Conference to deliberate, etc., but you often feel somehow that there is something which blocks the way, and that is, that there is a feeling of fear on the side of the dominions. I think the hon. member has also felt this, and the fear has arisen from nothing else than because the dominions had decided to give up nothing of the status they had obtained and the rights they had won as independent international States, and they feared to do something by which the status they possessed would be compromised. The consequence is suspicion. That is how I regard the matter from without. The result is that there was dissatisfaction with regard to Lausanne with the Dawes conference and again now. Everything is due to suspicion, and I ask myself—why ? And then I come to the difference between the hon. member and myself. He has always taken up the attitude—I may be wrong, but that is what I feel—that everything has been conceded up to a certain point, and then a halt. He always says we do not possess the right of secession. Let me tell my hon. friend that the most fatal thing he ever did was to take up that attitude.

In connection with secession ?

Yes, because he must acknowledge that if we do not possess that right, it would be foolishness in me to say: “We are free, and are on an equal footing with England.” My hon. friend must acknowledge that if England were to say tomorrow: “I want to have nothing more to do with you, be off,” it can do so. That means nothing but secession. If we want to remain friends with the British empire, or whatever it may be called, then we ought—and everybody must feel this—to be honest with each other and hide nothing. But that is where I differ from the hon. member for Standerton. I take up the attitude that we are as free as England itself, and we, just as England, have every right to secede if we are stupid or wise enough to do so. If we take up that attitude it is no longer necessary, and the dominions will then no longer feel that it is necessary, to be afraid, to fear doing something at the conference by which they will lose something, because the whole position amounts to this: That we are free peoples as regards each other, and what we undertake and what we agree to is as between mutually free peoples. There is the Crown. That exists as the will of the people in that position. In everything that is decided, one can indicate the point of contact, and it can be said: “There is the point of contact in the agreement which has been entered into between us,” and the people of South Africa, Canada and Australia can see whether we have sacrificed anything or not. The principle laid down by the hon. member, however, and the policy followed by him, is that everything is based on inference, and in that way all the suspicion we have has arisen. That is the result of the proposition that liberty and privileges are inferred, and are taken away tacitly by some Act or another, instead of people knowing precisely what the actual relations are. We must precisely state what the relations are, and if that is once done, I feel that we shall stand in a sounder position, and will act more correctly towards each other as regards a good mutual under standing. We shall stand on an entirely different footing to what we have done in the past. Let me put it a little differently. Where the hon. member and I differ is that he cannot get free in his policy from a kind of super-authority, something that has authority over all, and an authority holding everybody by the throat, something like a super-authority and a super-State. I think that what I mean appears clearly in the speech which the hon. the leader of the Opposition made on the 11th of November last. When I read that speech, I at once said to myself: “There you have clearly the difference between the policy of my hon. friend and that of us Nationalists.” He emphasizes that there is a super-authority whether acknowledged by legislation or only something which has been accepted by the Imperial Conference. He starts from the point that there is an authoritative body which can bind all. That is just where I, as a Nationalist, and we as Nationalists, differ from the hon. member. We say there is only one authority which rests with the people, and that is the will of the people, and that authority only lasts as long as the will of the people does, whilst the doctrine of the hon. member means that there is a super-authority. Let me give him all honour for the way he acted with reference to the federal idea, but with reference to the empire, he practically admits a super-authority above everything, the same idea which he rejected on the establishment of the League of Nations. There my hon. friend is not consistent. At the establishment of the League of Nations he was one of the great fighters against the idea of a league with sovereign powers in relation to the others. Therefore, I cannot understand how he defends his attitude with reference to the empire. He has always identified himself with the view, and this appears again in his speech of 11th November, that if there is no such authority we will fly apart from each other. I feel that if we do not wish to fly apart we must give up the idea of a super-authority. It is clear to me that both here and in the other dominions there is a strong feeling that it is the people who decide about freedom and independence, and that if they were to submit themselves to an authority placed over them from with-out, then it would have to be their own free will, and I feel convinced that the sooner we take up that point of view the better. I will advocate this and stand up for it with all my might. In the first place we must mutually understand, clearly and well, that we are equal, not in words, but in deeds, and in the second place we must clearly make it known to foreign powers that each one of us is a power just as certain as any other foreign power, and if we do that I say we shall have another spirit with reference to the community of nations which is to-day known as the commonwealth. Then we have laid down a certain basis for the continuance of the community of nations to stand by each other for the good of us all, and in the best interests of the world about us. I have possibly detained the House a little long—

Go on, we should like to hear what the difference between the Nationalists and us is.

Now, as far as I know, the whole fundamental difference has always been the difference which has existed for years, that the standpoint of the hon. member for Standerton is that we should accept any empire, while I warn against it as I have always done—I cannot do it sufficiently—that I should consider the empire a good thing as long as it was a good thing for South Africa, in other words, that I take no pleasure in an empire in which I am a subordinate part standing under authority, and that all the authority which there is over us is there by the will of the people, and so long only as it is the will of the people. As for the other points,. I must say the agenda has not yet been prepared, and that it will be a few months before it is finally settled.

I thought that the Prime Minister would not be able to give us full information, but I am glad to hear from him that if more points are raised, and the full agenda is settled before Parliament is prorogued, he will inform the House, and we may have an opportunity of discussing these points. It was not in the least my intention to raise a discussion this afternoon on the high constitutional position or the status of South Africa. I was asking this question from the Prime Minister—whether he was going to raise the question of our international status at the next conference, because of the speech of the Minister of Mines and Industries last night, in which he adumbrated that that was going to be done, and I wanted to know what was the truth I do not think it serves any purpose to go into this academic discussion—because it is purely academic. The Prime Minister says we are agreed on the status of South Africa, but differ on one point—that I will not agree to the right of secession. He said later on that I was under the impression that there must be some super-authority.

Of which the other is a consequence.

With regard to the second point, let me say, I have no such idea. My idea of the Commonwealth is an organization or a combination of equal states, and nobody superior. The Prime Minister will find, when he comes to the conference next October, that that is the attitude of the British Prime Minister, and of the rest.

Hear, hear.

There is no super-state: no super-authority. It is a meeting of equals under one sovereign, and they meet and discuss matters of common concern. This is not the time to discuss secession—it is a high constitutional question.

It was a question of the evolution of practical equality.

The Minister is still in the process of evolution. I see from his attitude last night, that he looks forward to the time when we shall have the right to appoint our own consuls. I see the Prime Minister has anticipated him. I do not think we need bother about this theoretical question. The Prime Minister will find, when he comes to the conference, that he is on common ground with the rest of his colleagues there. Nobody recognizes a superior ; there is no superior ; it is a meeting of equals, and that in the position I have always taken up, whatever the Prime Minister may have gathered from what I have said. That may be due to the way I have of expressing myself, or to his way of understanding me. I listened with a great deal of regret to what the Prime Minister stated with regard to Lobito Bay. I am really very sorry, because here is a case where the Prime Minister has not acted in the interests of South Africa. I agree that we should not adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy, and where a great work of civilization is to be done, we should not be small-minded in the south. But this matter does touch us very closely. The Prime Minister knows that the trade of Katanga goes very largely through South Africa. He will find that the copper from the Katanga mines goes through Port Elizabeth. The whole Rhodesian railway system is largely founded on this, and they appealed to me three of four years ago, when this question cropped up, to support them and I supported them with all the backing I could give them, with the result that this embargo was placed on the use of British capital for the building of this railway. We are deeply interested in this and this is where, if ever, I would have applied the formula of “South Africa first,” not in a selfish sense, but because there is a tremendous amount at stake. The Union should be a radiating centre towards the north. So far as it is possible, from our point of view, we want the influence of the Union to penetrate northwards, and I thought we had closed a door for some time at any rate. But the Prime Minister has opened a door and a great deal will come through that door yet. I do not think he has served our interests properly in the attitude he has taken up. I am sure Rhodesia will suffer a great deal and I have always taken up the attitude that we should support Rhodesia as a small sister State on our border, and that she should look at us as a stronger brother. Rhodesia is looking at it in that light. The other day when she wanted to borrow money, she came to the Union, and I am very glad we helped them with money.

The Government co-operated.

Yes, that gave me great pleasure and I think is the spirit in which we should act, but I do not think the Prime Minister has acted in that spirit in regard to this Lobito Bay affair. I think a great mistake has been made there, and we are going to suffer and Rhodesia is going to suffer deeply, and when Rhodesia becomes a part of the Union, which it no doubt will in the course of time, we shall have to take over that railway system burdened with this difficulty which the Prime Minister has placed on it. I think the Prime Minister has acted precipitately and thoughtlessly in this matter, because there was much at stake with us and now we find the British Government taking a line directly in conflict with the material interests both of the Union and of Rhodesia. However, the harm has been done and cannot be undone now. I do not wish the Prime Minister to think that we are opposed to this consul for Angola, or this small sum of £500. I should have been glad if I had been in a position to make the move myself. There was some difficulty always about the status of the Boer people in Angola and I hope the Prime Minister will be able to straighten that out. It may be that he will have to consult with the British Government over this question in London when he is there. These people left the old Transvaal Republic before the first British annexation in 1877 and it has always been a difficulty where to locate them. They have never been Portuguese subjects and never Been British subjects, and I hope the Prime Minister when in London will smooth that out. I should like our Government to speak for our people because I know their difficulties and troubles and if we can give them help I think we should do whatever we can in that direction.

The question has been put by an hon. member opposite what the difference is between the leaders of the South African and the Nationalist parties. I think it is clear from the speech of the Prime Minister that the great difference is that between words and actions. I am astonished to gather from the words of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the right of secession is a purely academic question to him and not of any practical importance.

I said that I did not want to take the opportunity to-day to discuss that great question. It would take us days to go thoroughly into it. From the point of view of the questions we are now discussing here it is academic, but I think it is a question of vital importance.

I beg pardon if I have wrongly understood the hon. member. I should like to remind him of the words Mr. W. T. Stead used in 1906 with reference to this question—as to how far the right of secession should be regarded as academic. The hon. member will also have seen them, but it will not be amiss to remind him of them. In his well-known book “Best and Worst of Empires,” Mr. Stead says—

This is of great importance to us, not that we shall want to say immediately that we are going to bring about separation, but that we know that we have that right. I only wanted to say a few words with regard to what the Prime Minister said about the League of Nations. I see that the amount contributed to the expenses of the League of Nations has been reduced by £10,000. I do not know how that is. We are anxious for the Prime Minister to tell us what he thinks of the League of Nations. The ideal for which the League stands lies deeply at the hearts of everybody, but I am afraid that the people are becoming more and more afraid—even those who had the highest ideals—that the League is becoming a kind of Tower of Babel with the object of avoiding a second flood. It seems now as if that institution is going to be shipwrecked in the confusion which has arisen as a result of international selfishness and intrigue. The question has arisen amongst some of us whether it is worth while for us, as one of the smaller nations, to spend that money. I was struck in 1922, when the question of increasing the number of the non-permanent members on the Council of the League was discussed, and the representative of Holland stood alone against forty-four representatives. The Dutch representative in Geneva, Mr. Struycken, expressed the fear—

I see that this fear is repeated in nearly every European magazine that I can get hold of, because the fear exists that the League of Nations is becoming a machine in the hands of the great nations of Europe, to carry out intrigues against each other, and that the smaller nations have no protection and are used by the larger with the object of exploiting them. It is worth our while to consider whether the League is the instrument we expected, and aimed at, and to see whether the aim cannot be reached in another way.

I am not going to follow the last speaker in discussing the question of secession, which is scarcely a live issue to-day. It seems to me the position is that if South Africa wants to secede, there is nothing to prevent her. But she does not want to secede. I prefer coming to subjects of more practical importance to South Africa. I was very sorry to hear the Prime Minister’s statement about the Lobito Bay railway. It seems a somewhat curious application of the doctrine of “South Africa first.” I think the Prime Minister did South Africa a grave dis-service in the action he took. I was up in Katanga recently, and went to have a look at the Lobito Bay railway, and I was astonished at the volume of trade. Half of the total output of copper goes down to Port Elizabeth. Practically every second bale you see at Elizabethville is marked for a Union port. I was at the railhead of the Lobito Bay railway, and I was struck by the partisan attitude of the engineers, surveydrs and others working on that railway. They said Gen. Hertzog was a very fine fellow, and when I asked why, they said they were not able to build this railway because the last Prime Minister realized it would do harm to the Union, but that the present Prime Minister had put it through. The line would not have been built for the next ten or fifteen years, at any rate. For many years Belgium has thought of building a railway to the mouth of the Congo, but has not succeeded ; how much less could Robert Williams and Company have done so, but for the assistance rendered by the Prime Minister. I am very pleased to see the item in regard to the consul of Angola, but I think £500 is quite inadequate, because the consul will have important matters to attend to, and will have to travel a great deal, and the only way he can travel is by motor-car. I would put it to the Prime Minister, however, that there is just as much justification for putting a consul at Elizabethville. If we are to have a Trades Commissioner in New York, there is infinitely more justification for a similar official in Katanga, because there is a very valuable market opening there. A considerable amount of bad blood has been raised in the Elizabethville press recently, owing to some speech, I believe, of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). I think it is unjustified, and that the Katanga press attached far too much importance to what the hon. member said, but I think that if members of Parliament, instead of talking about Katanga and Angola, would try to get some of the trade of these two places, they would be doing their country a better service. With regard to the Angola Boers, I came in personal contact with a great number of them. The Prime Minister should send a small commission to find out exactly what they want. They are a magnificent type—the real old hardy pioneer type, but they are not happy in Angola. I am not blaming the Portuguese for this, for they have been extremely patient. The present generation of Boers in Angola are still refusing—and I admire them for it—to become Portuguese subjects, and say they are citizens of the Union ; their hearts are in South Africa with us. Last December I saw the conditions under which they are living. They have no future in Angola—their future lies in the Union. A delegation could see whether it is not possible to get them back into the Union, either in the Transvaal or South-West Africa, where they would be much happier and have an assured future. Their children are growing up without any education. South-east of Windhoek there is a territory on which they could be placed. The great need is to stop the nomadic life they are living. I understand that about 90 per cent, of them wish to come into the Union, and as I understand there are about 1,400 male adults, it means that they number about 5,000 or 6,000 people altogether. They could not bring their cattle with them, as there is lung sickness amongst them, but arrangements might be made for them to sell their cattle in Angola. I hope the Prime Minister will give the matter his attention, and see whether it is not possible to save these people.

I was very glad to see the excellent spirit which prevailed when the Prime Minister made his able statement. I am glad to see that we can speak of secession without arousing any bad feeling. The leader of the Opposition referred to what I said last night. I simply spoke personally, and I did not say that the matters I discussed would be raised at the imperial conference. I did not even say that they should be raised. I simply indicated what could be raised ; but I fully appreciate that these matters will have to be dealt with in instalments. You cannot expect to take practical steps in one and the same “go” to solve them all. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition did me an injustice by saying that I had said, in my Koffiehuis speech last night, that I was looking forward to the day when we should be able to appoint our own consuls, and he instanced this very case of our consul for Angola. I said nothing of the kind. The question I did raise was one of many instances, and I agree that it was perhaps a subsidiary one, but I gave several instances. What I said was that in the appointment of foreign consuls to act in the Union, the exequatur by his Majesty was recommended by the Foreign Office without any consultation with the Union Government.

Surely you are misled.

Assuming I was wrong, the principle I contend for is correct, but if I was right, the matter should be rectified.

But it is not a fact.

My information is that it is a fact.

I assure you that is not so.

My point is that the exequatur should be issued by his Majesty on the recommendation of the Union Government, and on the recommendation of nobody else. Surely we agree on that—whether it is being done does not touch the principle, but it is as a fact not being done.

It is being done now.

The attitude of the Union Government with regard to the Lobito Bay railway was one of non-interference, or one of non-protest, because we look upon it as of paramount importance that we shall live on a friendly footing with our neighbours. A protest by us would, under the circumstances, have been rightly regarded by Belgium as an unfriendly act.

Certainly not.

We did not want to follow the example of previous Governments. There might have been special circumstances at that time, but in the circumstances in which we were when we decided to refrain from protesting, we felt that those circumstances demanded that we should not protest, as we thought a protest would be regarded as an unfriendly act by our neighbours, and it seems to me to be more important that we shall be on a friendly footing with our neighbours than that we should attempt by a protest to put off things which in any case would come to pass. The fact that the British Government has consented to give the money shows what their attitude is. Any criticism implies criticism also against the British Government, but we must assume that they came to the conclusion that it was right to lend the money. On the merits of the case, the loan was presumably justified.

Did you get any communication from the Rhodesian Government—did they ask for your assistance ?

Yes, later on.

I do not see what that has to do with the principle of “South Africa first,” but, in applying that principle, we have to bear in mind our relationship with our neighbours. The utterance of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) was referred to by an hon. member opposite. Naturally, that utterance was not made on behalf of the Government, and was not authorized by the Government. It caused a considerable flutter in the dovecotes. I noticed it when I was in Europe, but the leader of the Opposition was guilty of a similar indiscretion some time ago in Rhodesia.

No.

In view of that, there was all the more reason why we should be careful in protesting against the extension of a railway from the copper fields to Lobito Bay. The people in Belgium are most sensitive on this point of the right hon. member’s indiscretion, although I agree there is no real cause for it. I was up in the Katanga a few years ago, and I can assure the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) that they have not forgotten his utterance, nor have their apprehensions on that score entirely disappeared. The attitude of the Government in regard to the Lobito Bay railway was wise, and was the only one we could adopt under the circumstances. I am very glad to see the spirit that prevails with regard to the important statement the Prime Minister made this afternoon on our imperial relations.

I do not think the Minister is exactly right in regard to the position of the Belgian Government on railway construction. I do not think that Government would have taken any umbrage if we had used our influence with the Imperial Government and asked them not to make the loan. The Congo people are constructing their own railway.

I know that.

The Minister seems to have departed from the doctrine of “South Africa first,” and he seems to have forgotten what the old Book says, that—

That is a very much older authority than “South Africa first.” The Prime Minister has stated that he believes in a commonwealth of nations of equal status—" equal partnership,” I think, was the term he used. If you have got an equal partnership of nations, surely where a question arose as to whether it would be advisable in the interests of one of the partners that a certain thing should be done, the first thing that the partner concerned should do would be to say to the other partner—

My hon. friend must have had a communication from the Imperial Government. Why did he have that communication? The previous administration of my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) had pointed out in an entirely proper and friendly manner to the Imperial Government that the Union of South Africa did not consider that this was a right and proper case for a loan for the construction of a railway in a foreign territory which might take away some of the trade of the railways of the Union. My hon. friend must have read that correspondence, and he must have realized that the Imperial Government gave a great deal of consideration to it, and that in connection with that correspondence this railway had remained in abeyance, and I believe the reply was that if they wanted to build this railway, they would have to raise their own capital, or get it from some other source ; but it was not a fair case in which the Imperial Government should be asked to guarantee the interest on that loan.

I did not ask them for that.

Surely my hon. friend, in his responsible position, before he dealt with this question, read the whole of the previous correspondence which had passed between the Government of the Union and the Imperial Government, and he must have seen that in the strongest manner possible the late Prime Minister of the Union pointed out how injurious an attitude of that sort would be to the huge amount of money that the Union had invested in its railways and to the large amount of money that our sister State of Rhodesia had invested in hers. Surely, on the assumption of its being the duty of the Government first to provide for its own household, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet should have done everything possible to protect the interests of the Union which had been committed to his charge. Has my hon. friend seen a railway map of Africa and realized where the dividing point comes in, and that when this line is made right through the Katanga, it will tap a large amount of legitimate traffic that now comes not alone to the railways of Rhodesia, but, through the railways of Rhodesia, to the railways of the Union of South Africa? Surely it was his duty to point out that this line would essentially interfere with the interests of the railways of this country. I do not see what other attitude he could possibly have taken up, unless it were owing to prejudice against the actions of the previous Government and because such a course was recommended by my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts), the Prime Minister thought it was incumbent upon him to take a diametrically opposite course.

Surely that is an exaggerated statement. Surely it is not a fair statement.

Surely the intelligence of the Prime Minister must have shown him that it was essentially in the interests of this country that we should do everything we could to see that no indirect influences were brought to bear to assist in that line being constructed.

You want to indicate that the late Government had done a certain thing, and that we wanted to do the opposite.

I say that is the only possible explanation one can imagine. Does my hon. friend deny that when this line is constructed and linked up with the Katanga it will be of serious consequence to the Union of South Africa, and that it will tap the trade that already goes over the railways of South Africa ?

It would in any case do so in the ordinary course.

I acknowledge it, but, without the guarantee from the Imperial Government, it would have been years before Mr. Robert Williams would have been able to get the capital to construct that line. [Time limit.]

This question first arose when I was in charge of the administration in Rhodesia. At that time neither the Rhodesian Government, nor, I think, the Colonial Office in London even, had been consulted in this matter by the parties who have the disposal of this trade facilities fund, and it was more or less by accident, I believe, that it came out that it was proposed to give the imperial guarantee to a loan for the purpose of building this railway. My right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) was made aware of this, and he took steps, as has been stated this afternoon, to get the British Government to see that this course which it was proposed to follow would be damaging to British interests. It would be damaging, in the first place, to. Rhodesian interests, and, looking ahead, to Union interests also. That protest was effective, and the action of my right hon. friend and his Government was at that time very much appreciated by the people of Rhodesia. Then the change of Government took place, and the people who were constructing this railway returned to the charge, and the Rhodesian Government, according to my knowledge, made a protest against the proposed action, and I believe they invited the Prime Minister to join in their protest. The Prime Minister found himself unable to do so, and we have been told by my hon. friend opposite just now that the reason why this attitude was taken up was because of the susceptibilities of the Belgians in the matter. That, I think, shows quite a misconception of what took place, because the greater part of this proposed line does not run through Belgian territory at all, it runs through Portuguese territory, and this money which is now being guaranteed by the British Government, so far as I am aware, is going to be used purely and simply to construct a line in Portuguese territory. It is not going to be used to build a line in the Congo territory, because under their arrangements with the people who are promoting the railway, the Congo Government are under an obligation to build that section of the line from the frontier to the Katanga themselves. In point of fact, the Belgians are building their own line due north-west, which, again, will compete with this proposed line. When my hon. friend opposite says the action of the Government was due to a regard for the susceptibilities of the Belgians, I cannot understand that at all. If he had said a regard for the susceptibilities of the Portuguese, I could have understood that better, although I should have thought, however friendly our relations were with the Portuguese, this Government would have been more concerned to cultivate friendly relations with Rhodesia. Even supposing that for all time Rhodesia and the Union remained separate, there is no doubt whatever, as time goes on, there must be more traffic and more trade between Rhodesia and the Union, because one knows it must happen—the time must come—when the connection between the railways of the northern Transvaal and southern Rhodesia will be made. At the present time, quite an appreciable amount of traffic goes from Port Elizabeth up to the Katanga. It is perfectly certain that the whole of that is going to be lost when this line is made. It is a matter of great importance to Rhodesia, because the interest of the railways and of the State are identically the same, and the result must be that they are going to have greater difficulty in keeping their rates down. In a country of vast spaces and small population, it is of vital importance that rates should be kept down as low as possible, having regard to the legitimate rewards of the railway company. I think it is unfortunate that the Government did not see their way to back up the protest made by the Rhodesian Government. It may be, of course, that the railway would have been made anyhow—it probably would, at some time or other—but at any rate the completion of it would have been deferred for some considerable time, and it seems to me unnecessary on the part of this Government to assist in the acceleration of the completion of this line, to the detriment of the Rhodesian system, and ultimately of the Union system. My hon. friend says the British Government were also to blame to some extent. I think they were. I think hon. members opposite are more to blame, for this reason, that the British Government at any rate had a direct object, because it was a condition that the whole plant for the railways was to come from England ; but my hon. friends opposite have no direct interest in it at all. So far as their own pecuniary and trade interests are concerned, the construction of this railway is bound to damage them, Rhodesia in the immediate future, and the Union in the ultimate future. Therefore, while admitting the British Government are to blame too, I think my hon. friends are to blame more.

I was struck by the last argument of the hon. gentleman. Apparently the British Government want it for the very good reason that it would stimulate British industry, and we are to blame because we have not resisted it. I join issue with the hon. members opposite on the whole basis of their attitude. I deny that it is in the interests of the Union to prevent the-internal development of the country. Very much the same thing was said, that it was going to ruin the prospects of the Cape ports, when the Delagoa Bay line was built. Has it?

It does not improve them.

Would the hon. member like us to revert to the old system ? The whole of the attitude of hon. members opposite against the construction of this railway is founded upon a narrow idea. “Look after ourselves in the most narrow way, is their plan, without any consideration for the future, and make bad friends of every one around you, but do not help the development of the hinterland.”

Bad friends with whom ?

With the owners of the Katanga—with Lobito Bay. Is not this railway going to help the development of the Katanga, the development of all that rich territory, and with the development of that territory will not opportunities of trade increase between us and these territories ? There are great possibilities in the development of inland Africa, for developing the trade of the Union, and the industries of the Union. Surely it is not good policy on our part to prevent any measures being taken to accelerate that development. There was precisely the same thing called out about the building of the Delagoa Bay line. Has that, on the whole, been bad ? The right hon. member says the whole of the Rhodesian system depends upon the Katanga, and also the Union railway system. The whole of the Rhodesian main lines— I am talking of southern Rhodesia—were built years before Katanga was known.

You are wrong there.

I know I am historically correct. I remember, several years after the Boer war, the discovery of Katanga. It is talking in the veriest caricature to say that the development of our railways depends upon Katanga.

Who said so ?

The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) certainly said the whole of the Rhodesian system depended upon that Katanga traffic. I do not say the right hon. gentleman often says such foolish things, but sometimes he does— when he calls a book entry of £4,300,000 “savings on his part.” This afternoon he distinctly gave the House to understand that the whole structure and the whole of their prosperity depended upon the Katanga railway.

I did not go as far as that.

How far did the right hon. gentleman go?

The Katanga trade for the Rhodesia railways makes all the difference between whether these railways will pay or they will not pay.

This enterprise of the Rhodesia railways was embarked upon long before Katanga was heard of.

Why did they go north ?

Because that was Mr. Rhodes’ idea—the Cape to Cairo line.

Were they paying?

The development of Southern Rhodesia depended very largely upon the building of those railways. It would have been very much better for Southern Rhodesia, according to arguments now used by the Opposition, if we had objected to the Beira railway, and we had all the traffic carried through the ports of the Union ? The whole of the objection of hon. members is based on a narrow, short-sighted view, the antithesis of the attitude the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) takes up towards trade matters and free trade. It is the adoption of the narrowest, selfish, unneighhourly and visionless attitude.

“ South Africa last” is your motto now.

My hon. friend the Minister of Defence, as usual, exaggerated a good bit, The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) never said that the prosperity of the South African Railways depended upon Katanga, But a lot of stuff comes down, especially copper ore, to Algoa Bay for shipment. If my hon. friend is so indifferent to that, it is not business. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he consulted the Railway Department before he took that step ?

Yes.

To say that we lack vision, it is just the opposite. It is the Government who lack vision as to the ultimate development of South Africa. What you have done is to bring in, quite gratuitously, another competitor.

Why did you build the Beira railway ?

We did not build it. Why did you bring another competitor into the competitive area? You will have part of your trade cut off. As a matter of fact, the Belgians are to-day building a line right up to Mtadi at the mouth of the Congo. We are under no obligation to assist the Portuguese in the province of Angola. There can be no question about the damage to the Rhodesian Railways. As far back as 1906, when Mr. Beit was still living, I discussed this matter with him, and he said that the line from Sinoia should be extended to join the main line at the Kafue to the Congo. He foresaw himself the enormous and very serious damage the making of this line to the west was going to do to the Rhodesian Railways. They carry a lot of traffic all the way down from Elizabethville via Bulawayo, to Beira. It would be the difference between a fairly paying line and probably making it non-paying altogether. The fact that the lines were constructed before Katanga was developed is a different story. You have to take the facts as they are to-day. As these figures (the report of the general manager of railways) show, we are doing a decent business with Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia, and even with the Belgian Congo, and I think we have lost that with the last two areas.

Are those the import figures ?

They simply give the total. I do not think the Government have considered the interests of the Union properly in this case.

After what I have heard this afternoon I am more convinced than ever that we took the right step. It shows that there is a difference in policy. As I said at the beginning I stand on an entirely different footing to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Let us see what the complaint actually is. Is it that we have done the Union harm ? Among the arguments used the chief one was that we have placed Rhodesia in the position of its railways not being able to pay properly. The great argument is that we are robbing, or will rob, Rhodesia of the possibility of running its railways at a profit, that in the first place we did harm because we were going to damage Rhodesia. That is the main argument. So be it, but now I ask: Is there a possibility of that railway not being built? The question, is not whether a railway is being built, but who is finding the capital. We are not finding the capital, it comes from London, and as we understood this afternoon, is being found with the support of the British Government. Now the British Government have just as much interest in the welfare of Rhodesia and its railways as we have. When the British Government does that, with what right do we say it should be prevented ?

Rhodesia is protesting and asks our help.

Then it is clear that Rhodesia cannot convince the British Government. If Rhodesia cannot do so how can it expect to induce us to convince the British Government ? That seems to me the clear argument. I will not believe that the British Government would do it if it were convinced that it was injuring the interests of Rhodesia. Now we are expected to go and put a spoke in the wheel of our neighbours in a matter that does not concern us. I will not say that it will cause hostility, but it will certainly cause bad feeling as regards our friendship with our neighbours. The Portuguese Government have much interest in it as well as the Belgian Government.

Angola has its own railway.

So far as the railway goes through Portuguese territory, the Portuguese are interested in it. Let me tell the hon. member that he does not know how badly he causes the Portuguese Government to think of us by his speeches.

Which speeches?

The speeches in which the hon. member stated that we should develop towards the north. We all remember those speeches. The hon. member may, however, not have meant it. What they object to is that he said money should not be lent for that purpose. If we were in the position of Portugal, we should have felt just the same and have said it was not a friend who spoke in that way. I do not see why we should do something by which we should break the good friendship of our close neighbours. It has undoubtedly had that result as far as Portugal is concerned. Take another point to which I referred. I am not one of those who holds the view that the less central Africa is developed the better it will be for us. Why should we object if a railway is built which is in the first place intended to develop the hinterland of the Union, even if outside the Union, unless we have good ground for thinking that the development will injure us ? The only ground the Union has was based on the following: You can do harm to the revenue of our railways. It was pointed out that by allowing the railway we should reduce the revenue of our railways. Well, that is a very shortsighted policy Our development in agricultural matters is tremendous. Take the development in fruit culture and cattle breeding, especially fruit culture. Then we also have industrial development. If there is one thing we must try for it is the market of Africa for our produce. Central Africa is clearly our natural market. It will be better for us, even if it is over the boundary, if Katanga is developed, because it is in the interests of our agricultural and other industries. Shall we in that way reduce or increase our railway transport ? What happens to-day ? I am told that we send our trucks there, and they sometimes remain away three months, and if I mistake not, the Minister of Railways will say that our railway administration does not attach much importance to that railway. We can consider the distance. The more that area is developed, the better it will be for our country. Now I say it is sound policy that unless there is good ground for protecting ourselves, we should not do anything to create bad feeling. What my predecessor did caused harm. There is no doubt of that. When, as in this case, there is added the fact that our railways are not dependent on what they will get from Katanga, and further that no one can prevent that railway, then there is no reason for taking action. The railway was being constructed. It might have been delayed for two or three years, but that is all that could have been done. It would have been built, because construction was going on. No one can stop it. If we take action and cause bad feeling, the railway will anyway be completed in two or three years and then we shall be left with the consequences of our action. It is a shortsighted policy because it is confined to the interior of the Union, and secondly it is only for a limited period, of at most four or five years.

They tried many years to get the money and could not.

My hon. friend is of course forgetting that the great war is scarcely ended. During that time there was scarcity of money, but that condition will not continue. My hon. friend knows that conditions have already changed, and the time had to come when they would get the money. Therefore I say no, don’t by a shortsighted policy put our country in a position to cause bad feeling to our neighbours.

Hon. members of the South African party have often been accused of shortsightedness regarding the interests of the country, but I think this is the first time that we have found them shortsighted with regard to their own interests, or rather those of their nearest friends. I refer to the interests of the mining magnates. As the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) pointed out, a large portion of this railway goes through Portuguese territory. It is true that the hon. member for Standerton tried to make it clear that it made no difference whatever to the Portuguese Government whether the line went through their territory or not. I think, however, that anybody, who has the least knowledge of the effects of the railway, will know that that is not the case. The Portuguese in Angola have the greatest interest in the line going through their territory. What astonished me is that hon.members there cannot understand that our attitude towards Angola is intimately connected with our attitude towards Portuguese East Africa. If anything happens to make our attitude hostile, the mining magnates, the friends of the South African party, will be the first people to feel the effect of it. The hon. member for Standerton was concerned to-day about the question of the negotiations about Delagoa Bay. He could not get enough information as to how the conference there had ended. Did the hon. member consider the effect of the action he recommends, especially as the Minister said that the railway is not the least danger to us? The farmers of our country will feel the effects to a certain extent, because they are affected by the negotiations with Portuguese East Africa. The commercial classes will also feel it, but most of all, it will be felt by the mining magnates. As a proof how their interests are bound up with Portuguese East Africa, we have only to think about the agitation to import natives into the Union from north of the twentieth degree of latitude. I am convinced that if the Government had acted as the hon. member would like to see, his friends, the mining magnates, would have been the first to pluck the bitter fruit. The hon. member for South Peninsula is terribly concerned about the position of Rhodesia, and he is, of course, a man who has had close relations with Rhodesia. Does he not know that the only cattle market northern Rhodesia has to-day is through Katanga ? If we are going to assist Rhodesia to fall out with the Belgian Congo would it not follow that the market which it still has to-day for its cattle will disappear ? The hon. member knows, or ought to know, that cattle are not exported to the south, and that the only market is in the north. As he is concerned about Rhodesia, he wants us to protest, which will cause enmity between Rhodesia and its northern neighbours. The spirit exhibited by so many members of the Opposition is a very unfortunate one. I am astonished to see the hon. member for Standerton, who is a supporter of the League of Nations and of goodwill between nations, is so anxious for us to follow that policy. I emphasize that there is not the least danger to South Africa in the building of that line. The hon. member disapproves of the attitude of the Government in saying that it will not concern itself with the matter, and will not go and look for trouble.

I do not think we need trouble to reply to the very far-fetched arguments of the last speaker, who was really talking rubbish.

That is what you always talk.

He spoke without any personal knowledge on the subject at all. There never was any question of creating antagonism towards the Portuguese Government. TheLobito Bay project has been in existence since 1867, but it is the extension to the Kantaga that we are talking about, and that goes through waterless, uninhabited sourveld so far as Portuguese territory is concerned. I now want to get back to what the Prime Minister has said. He was mistaken in saying that the line would have been built in any event. I am convinced that it would not have been built except with the approval and sanction of the Prime Minister of the Union. It is going to have a very serious effect on South Africa, for it is going to put out of court any hope of building the Walfish Bay railway. No one will ever put any capital into the construction of the Walfisch Bay line now that the Lobito Bay railway is to be built. It may be asked how it would help the South African Railways to build a railway to Walfisch Bay. The latter would, at any rate, have served to develop South African territory, provided traffic from Walfisch Bay, and would have developed the Kalahari and South-West Africa. The fact that the Walfisch Bay line has been put out of court is going to have serious repercussions in the future. I was up in the Katanga recently, and I was struck with the new civilization of the Latin type that is being built up there. We are going to be cut off from central Africa, not only commercially, but socially. Up to now the population going to the Katanga has come through here, and we have always kept contact, but I fear that in future we shall be completely alienated from the north. We look upon ourselves as the torch-bearers of the white civilization of South Africa. We look upon ourselves as the mainstay of white civilization in South Africa. The Latin idea of colonial expansion is totally different from ours. They believe that our system is wrong, that our native policy, our civilization, is going on wrong lines. Up to now there has been an interchange of ideas. There will be practically no intercourse in future between ourselves and the Katanga. This action of the Prime Minister is going to have ramifications and repercussions transcending anything which the public of the Union have realized up to now.

I know that high politics is a very difficult question for a poor layman like myself to speak on, but it seems to me that I can justly ask the Prime Minister to-day if he has abandoned the slogan “South Africa first.” Enough has already been said about the building of the railways injuring the Union, but now that this Government is in power, it is permitted to the detriment of South Africa. What would we not have heard if that had been done by the South African party Government ? The Prime Minister has always said: “South Africa first,” but now he says that he is not anxious for trouble. Will that be said to the people outside, or will it always be said “South Africa first”? In my stupidity I consider that the Prime Minister has not acted rightly towards South Africa in regard to this matter. He has given away our rights and advantages. What the old Government preserved he sacrifices. It is so remarkable that the other Ministers have left the Prime Minister in the lurch and run away when he was discussing this important matter, with the exception of the Minister of Defence, who was formerly the Minister of Labour. It is necessary for South Africa to get as many markets as possible for our produce. The Minister of Defence, when he was Minister of Labour, established a large labour office and introduced the tenant farmer scheme to train people to become farmers. What is he going to do with those people and the things they produce if we have no markets?

We will carry the produce over the railway.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), who is a representative of farmers, is in favour of our losing a market for our produce and of our railways no longer taking produce there. Then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told our leader that we should not discuss the higher status here to-day. The Prime Minister has given a very clear explanation, and I do not agree with the hon. member for Standerton that this is not the time to discuss it. I think this is just the time to discuss it openly. Outside the Nationalists have always told the people that we should be independent. Now the Prime Minister says that we have attained a status of equality and independence. Why have the other Ministers run away, and even the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) and the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Pienaar). Where are the hon. members who tell the simple people outside that we should have our own independence. The statement of the Prime Minister openly made in this House has pleased me. It is an admission that the South African party Government got that status for South African Hon. members may laugh, but they cannot get past the truth. It was the South African party. Let the hon. members for Zoutpansberg, Marico and Albert (Mr. Steytler) go to the countryside now and honestly tell the people what the Prime Minister has said. The lead came from our party, and it is now the time to make the people clearly understand that all these stories that are told on the countryside mean nothing. What do we want with independence? We have it, and the Prime Minister is quite right in his statement.

If people outside knew what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has said, they would receive a wrong impression. It seems to me that the hon. member is not one who would willingly distort anything, but if he knew what the position was he would not represent matters like that. He wants to make the public think that the Government is damaging the railways of South Africa. I want the hon. member to go to the library, take a map and see the course of the railway. I did so. He will find that the shortest way for Katanga to carry its produce is not over the Union railways to Cape Town or Port Elizabeth, but to Beira or via Elisabethville. We do not get a single atom of the traffic from Central Africa. The argument of the hon. member for Standerton is that if that railway is built it will injure Rhodesia. There is something in it. Rhodesia gets part of the traffic from Katanga over a part of its railway to Beira. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that one-third of this railway has already been built. There only remain 600 miles to be completed to Elizabethville. When one looks at the map then the natural run of things is that that railway should be built. The railway will not do us the least harm when it is finished. We will not lose 6d. The line will benefit us greatly because when it is built Central Africa will develop and we shall have a market for the fruit of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and the other Worcester farmers and for the produce of our country. If we want a market we should look at Central Africa, and then we should not adopt a policy to stop the development of those parts. I do not want to go into the question of our higher status which was mentioned by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). Let that member go back to the time when years ago we said that there was a higher status. We were also right, but one of his leaders, to wit, the late Minister of Mines and Industries (Mr. F. S. Malan) went to Stellenbosch and argued at length that the higher status did not exist, and he talked about disloyalty and sedition. We obtained the higher status and not hon. members opposite. We obtained it and the hon. member for Standerton himself acknowledged that we could secede. To the question whether secession is desirable or not I will not enter. That is a problem for the future. Hon. members opposite must not say that they are responsible for the higher status. The Nationalist party obtained it because it insisted upon certain rights. To-day we still state that we have more rights, that we can establish a Republic, a thing which the hon. members for Standerton and Johannesburg (North) do not want.

I regard this as one of the most serious blows to the development of South Africa. The Minister of Defence amazes me. He says this is not going to do South Africa any harm—cutting off the north—and he goes on to say that the Rhodesian system was built long before Katanga was ever heard of. I may tell him that I went up from Buluwayo to Katanga in a bullock waggon long before any railway was built from Buluwayo to the north. The Tanganyika concessions were floated in 1899, before the Boer war. I remember two or three years ago going over to the Prime Minister’s office, when the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was Prime Minister, and I saw him looking at the map of Africa. I discussed with him the building of this line from Lobito Bay to Katanga ; and he showed that vision of the future of South Africa which now appears to be absent. He saw that if this developing trade of the north—of Katanga—was once to go to the west it would be lost to us for ever. He saw that if this trade was not confined in these channels it would never flow in this direction. Any man who can look at the map of Africa and not see that must be extraordinarily lacking in vision. I have been preaching for a long time that we should turn our attention to the north for encouraging trade. Here the first opportunity the Government has of doing a disservice to the encouragement of trade for South Africa it takes that opportunity. To say it might disturb friendly relations with other countries is the most childish reason I have ever heard of. A piece of folly of the worst kind. I must confess my astonishment at a Government looking for the future development of South Africa taking such a step.

I was extremely pleased to hear from the Prime Minister that the report in the Johannesburg press that Mr. Schlesinger was going to Russia to negotiate with the Soviet Government, and that he had the support of the Prime Minister or some of his colleagues, was entirely without foundation, and I am sure it will be heard with a good deal of satisfaction.

Why ?

I was only saying I was extremely pleased to hear—

The hon. member cannot repeat himself three times.

If that is your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the views of the Speaker on it, because if an hon. gentleman says he has not heard the statement of an hon. member and another hon. member asks why he has made that statement, am I to take it that it is your ruling that he cannot reply to that ?

The hon. member may proceed.

If it had been necessary to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Government it would not have been done through a private individual. I was extremely pleased to hear that statement was incorrect, because if it had been correct it would have been an extraordinary attitude for the Prime Minister or his colleagues to have taken up. With regard to the discussion on secession, I agree it is an entirely unnecessary discussion and an academic discussion, because we on this side, and I think the country, received with the fullest satisfaction and confidence the statement of the Prime Minister last year that secession would be a national calamity, and we took it that he spoke for all the members of the Government.

I cannot allow this vote to pass without a reference and a reply to the remarks made by the Prime Minister during the course of the budget debate in regard to the question of commissions raised by me.

The hon. member can neither refer or reply to remarks made during the debate by the Prime Minister.

Why, sir?

Because it is parliamentary practice not to allow a reply.

May I not refer to a statement of policy made by the Prime Minister? Would I be in order in moving a reduction of the Prime Minister’s salary ?

The hon. member can move a reduction if he desires to do so, but he cannot attack the Prime Minister on something which happened during the budget debate. Let the hon. member proceed—I will tell him when he is wrong.

Do you want me to sit down, Mr. Chairman?

Not a bit—I want the hon. member to go on.

I move—

I move it formally, not to attack the Prime Minister, but to bring before the House a matter of policy. It was a matter which was entirely scamped by the Prime Minister in his budget speech—it is the matter of the policy with regard to the appointment on commissions, which has been stated by the Prime Minister in one direction, and by a subordinate Minister in another direction. In the first place, may I say that I treat, with the contempt that it deserves, the Prime Minister’s suggestion that in raising the matter in the way I have done, I did so because I had not been appointed, or was not offered an appointment, on a commission myself.

The hon.member is now out of order, because he is dealing with a statement of the Prime Minister in the budget discussion, and he is now replying to it. He cannot carry on the budget debate in committee.

rose.

To save the time of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Mai. G. B. van Zyl), who knows the rules of the House, may I quote to him what May says—

But I can go a little bit further, and quote what ex-Speaker Krige said on June 16th, 1922, when he gave the same ruling I am giving now. On the very same point, Mr. Speaker gave the same ruling on 4th September, 1924, as reference to the Votes and Proceedings will show.

I am not really replying to the Prime Minister’s budget speech, Mr. Chairman. This was a matter raised by me on the Estimates earlier this year, to which I asked the Prime Minister to reply, but to which he refused to reply. The Prime Minister seized the opportunity on the budget debate, when I could not reply to him then. He made the reply he should have made two months earlier, and I could not reply to him.

The hon.member will get an opportunity later—on the Appropriation Bill.

I want an opportunity now, Mr. Chairman.

I am very-sorry to pull up the hon. member.

You have not given me an opportunity of explaining.

I am very much averse indeed to stopping an hon. member, but I cannot help it, I have to stop him. I regret I have to do it, but I have to.

What value is the House to attach to a statement of question of policy made by the Prime Minister in the House which is not followed by other members of his Cabinet ? That is peculiarly a question to be raised on the Prime Minister’s vote, and on a motion for the reduction of his salary, and if you rule that out of order, Mr. Chairman, we shall see whether that can be tested.

The hon. member can proceed, but I will pull him up when he is out of order.

That is the point— the Prime Minister, having made a definite statement of his policy, that has been flouted and ignored by his Ministers. I ask your leave to mention, by the way, that I treat with the utmost contempt the Prime Minister’s suggestion that my object in raising this matter of the appointment on commissions—

No; the hon. member must take notice of my ruling. He cannot reply to that debate in committee. Now that is definite.

I am not to reply to that ?

The hon. member is now trifling with the chair.

Oh, no.

He is.

Where a remark derogatory to my honour is made, I hope I will have the indulgence of the chair to allow me to reply to it.

I have told the hon. member he can reply later, on an Appropriation Bill, if he so desires.

With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, this is a question which touches the rights of all hon. members. You began, sir, by referring to a previous ruling, and the House is entitled, before you rule a member entirely out of order on this point, to an explanation of the previous ruling given by Mr.

Speaker, so that the question of the rules may be quite clear. There is a rule, where the salary of a Minister is challenged on a question of policy, that the question can be raised. I have always understood so, and now the Chairman has intervened and says a certain practice has been laid down. We would like you to explain to the committee the rules, Mr. Chairman.

Will the hon. member look at page 802 of the Votes of Proceedings, June, 1922, and he will find a rule given by himself. I am only following in the footsteps of an illustrious Speaker (Mr. Krige) of the House. The present Speaker gave a similar ruling on 4th September, 1924, which will be found on page 270. These are very long rulings. On June 16th, Mr. Rooth, then in the chair, stated that an amendment was moved in terms of the new standing order, challenging a Minister’s salary on a question of policy. The hon. member, he ruled, was precluded from discussing general financial issues … because it would practically be a continuation of the budget debate. I am not going to read on. I must ask hon. members to assist me to carry out these rulings.

A discussion of this sort is very important, and before the hon. member can proceed he must know definitely on what lines he can proceed. I have always taken it that on voting supply it was the one privilege a member had of ventilating any grievances he or his constituents had.

I do not want to stop the debate ; but May is particularly clear on the point that replying in committee to statements made in the House on the Estimates is not permitted, and he gives many instances where the Speaker of the British House of Commons has called up members, including Ministers, for speaking as the hon. member has done. The hon. member may proceed, and could probably make his speech, but I will pull him up when he goes wrong.

I take it that ruling was probably based on Order 74 of our rules of procedure. Order 74 deals with the point of making a personal explanation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has indicated that there was a suggestion made against him the other day which he wishes to explain.

I am sorry but I cannot give any different ruling after two Speakers have given a ruling on the point. My ruling is particularly based on May.

I appreciate the courtesy you have accorded me. I was not trying to evade your ruling, but it does rather cramp one’s style to be told that I may proceed till pulled up. If I knew the lines on which I might proceed, I could go on. Will you, while the matter is still fresh—and in parenthesis—allow me to repudiate a certain suggestion regarding me personally which was made and which is an entirely unworthy and unfair suggestion of the Prime Minister, that in making those representations in regard to commissions I was actuated by a sense of disappointment that I had not been appointed.

I understand the hon. member is making a personal explanation. He should have done that in the afternoon when the Speaker was in the chair. The hon. member may not proceed.

May I suggest, with all due respect, that I am not being treated fairly in having been allowed to proceed, and having got half-way through—

Can’t you explain to the committee?

The Prime Minister somewhat belatedly gave an explanation in regard to the complaint that I have been raising in this House, with regard to the appointment of members of Parliament on commissions. I first raised the matter in February, 1925, on the Supplementary Estimates. I do not think the Prime Minister was present, but, in any case, he took no part in the discussion which was raised by me and other members ; but, in May, 1925, the Prime Minister was present, and took part in the discussion. The points I raised were that it was wrong in principle to appoint members of Parliament to serve on commissions; that it was wrong to put anyone on commissions who had expressed definite views on the subject the commission was going to investigate, and that the Opposition was not being treated fairly in regard to representation on these commissions. The Minister of Finance disagreed with my views in regard to the appointment of members on commissions; but the Prime Minister, who entered about that period, did agree with me and, after an animated discussion—including a reference to Mr. Speaker—the Prime Minister laid down what we took to be the policy of the Government on this question of commissions, and laid it down in language which was, for him, singularly clear. For once he succeeded in stating exactly what we thought he meant, and having got that expression of policy from him, we let the matter rest there, and never intended to raise it again. In regard to the appointment of members of Parliament on commissions, he said he thought they also felt that it was very undesirable that members of Parliament should be appointed to commissions. He went on at considerable length to develop the point that the practice was undesirable, but explained that it was a new Government, and did not know where to turn and, therefore, they had put members of Parliament on commissions up to now. He led us to understand, however, that this practice would cease in the future ; but what happened? Three commissions were appointed after that—a Police Commission consisting of two members of Parliament and one other ; the Economic Commission with one member of Parliament and, finally, this year, the commission on Old Age Pensions, consisting of five members, all of whom were members of Parliament. This year I raised this point and referred the Prime Minister to his pledge and, although he spoke for 25 minutes the other day, I reminded him of the point, but he entirely ignored it. I ask him again whether we are to take his pledges as being worth 20s, in the £. We desired to get the Prime Minister in this House to tell us whether he meant these words or not, but we could not get him to do so, and the Ministers here seem to flout this declaration of policy on the Prime Minister’s part. Then there was the question of fair representation for the Opposition. On the 8th of May last, the Prime Minister, when he listened to a full discussion, said that, in this respect, the former Government had not set a good example. As a matter of fact, that is not true, but the Prime Minister said that the former Government took too little notice of the other party, and that the then Opposition felt at the time that they had a just cause for complaint about it. The Prime Minister added—

What did the Prime Minister mean by those words? He has never yet told us, but I hope he will do so this afternoon, without making an unnecessary attack on the member who raised the point. I read it that the Prime Minister’s statement means that the Opposition will get fair representation upon every commission appointed by the Government. I suggest that fair representation would be in conformity, as far as possible, with the relative strength of parties. Since that pledge was given, the Police, Economic and Leper Commissions have been appointed, upon which we had no representation, while on the Old Age Pensions Commission there were four Government members and one Opposition member. Thus, of the 10 or 11 members of the House appointed to serve on commissions, only one belongs to the Opposition. I shall raise this point until I get a satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister, undeterred by any heat he may show, or any personal abuse of myself.

That is an appalling threat! With regard to Mr. Schlesinger’s visit to Russia, I don’t want to be accused of duplicity or of hiding anything. The only thing I know about it is that two or three months ago a gentleman in business in Johannesburg—not Mr. Schlesinger—put before me, while I was acting as Minister of Industries, a company scheme he had arranged in Russia last year. He wanted the Government’s blessing. Well, we do not give our blessing to any commercial undertaking at all. It is not a wise thing for the Government to identify itself with a commercial undertaking, so that they can say that they have the imprimatur of the Government behind them. For all I know, Mr. Schlesinger may be interested in this company. The Government is quite willing to see trade carried on between the two countries, but we are not going to take any responsibility either for the stability or anything else connected with this company.

I am very glad the Minister has made the explanation, but it is a pity he did not let the Prime Minister know that this conversation had taken place. He says Ministers are not likely to be associated with companies. Has he forgotten the certificate that the Minister of Justice gave to the Doornkop Sugar Estates a couple of years ago ? As far as I can remember, the press stated that Mr. Schlesinger had had conversations with the Minister, and that he was going to Russia to discuss trade, and also the formation of a company. I am glad I have gathered that no Minister has associated himself with proposals of that sort.

I told this gentleman that Government would be only too glad to see the opening of fresh markets for our goods, either in Russia or anywhere else, and this was known to my colleagues. As to the other incident, I think the Minister of Justice said in this House that he had on that occasion acted injudiciously.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I was saying when we suspended business that I thought it right to make the explanation that I had done. I shall be sorry if any words were taken as detracting from the assurance that I gave these gentlemen, that the Government regarded with great goodwill any endeavour to find a larger market and a new market for our produce, wool, etc. I hope they will have every success.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention was drawn to the paragraph to which great publicity was given throughout the press of South Africa that a particular gentleman was going to Russia, either acting officially or semi-officially on behalf of the Government? If his attention was drawn to it, it is a great pity that no repudiation was given at the time. I would also ask him whether the Minister of Defence, who has given quite a different complexion to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, is speaking for the whole of the Cabinet, or whether the Prime Minister is able to say whether any assurance was given by any other Minister which could have been the ground for the publication of such a notice in the paper, or form any foundation for such a notice in the paper ? I think the House must be very much indebted to the candour of the Minister of Defence in making the statement which he did just before the adjournment, but it has created quite a different impression from the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon ; and, as Ministers seem to work so much in watertight compartments, I should like to have the information asked for.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he or his Government have any policy to put forward to assist the cattle farmers ? The cattle industry of this country is in a very depressed condition. Prices are extremely low ; in fact, very unprofitable and non-payable. Without cattle, many of the farmers in this country will become poor whites in a very little time. Last year about 50,000 head of cattle were exported from the Union, but of that number about 36,000 came from Rhodesia. Of the balance, a large number bad come from the outside territories such as Bechuanaland and Swaziland, so that very few really went from the Union. Unfortunately, the Government thought fit to discontinue the subsidy which the late Government had granted on the export of beef. You cannot protect beef or cattle by imposing an import duty, and I would commend to the consideration of the Government the question of whether they should not reinstate that subsidy, but on a wider basis than it was before. At present three grades of beef are being exported, and I would suggest to the Government that on “under grade” they should give a bounty of ½d., on “fair average quality” a bounty of ¾d., and on “good average quality” 1d. That would be from £1 a head on the “under grade,” to £2 on the best grade. That would encourage the farmer to go in for a better quality of beef. It is no use preaching to the farmer to go in for better bulls, because better bulls alone will not improve the quality of our cattle. We have deterioration not only from poor breeding, but also from bad feeding. It, is important that our people should be trained to feed cattle. It is all very well to encourage the export of maize, which brings a lot of money into the country, but it will be much better to export that maize in the form of beef instead of sending it to the United Kingdom and the Continent to feed cattle on that side. I understand that the Prime Minister is going to London about October next, and he would do a great service to the cattle industry of this country if he could induce the British Government or the Agricultural Department of the British Government to place South African cattle in the same category as Irish or Canadian cattle, that is, to allow them to proceed from the port of entry to the feeders. At present, our cattle are sent to quarantine ports. At these ports they have to be slaughtered within ten days of landing. That is a very heavy drawback, because the cattle of this country have not been used to stall feeding, they lose condition on the passage across the seas, and, of course, they have to take their chance in the market on landing. A shipment of Rhodesian cattle was landed in England last year at the same time as a large shipment from Canada and another big shipment from the north of Ireland. It would be a great advantage if cattle from this country were sold to the feeders. It is no use sending rubbish. Unfortunately, we have got a preponderance of rubbish, and we have to get rid of that in the continental market. If the Government could see their way to reinstate the subsidy on broader lines than the last one, I would suggest that they differentiate between the different grades to the extent of at least ¼d. per lb.

The statement made by the Minister of Defence throws a new light on the question that I put to the Prime Minister just before the committee adjourned. The Minister of Defence says that he had a conversation with another gentleman in connection with the Russian trade, and that he might perhaps have been associated with Mr. Schlesinger. It is perhaps better that I should give the House the information which I have taken from the press, so as to give the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence an opportunity of replying. In “The Star,” on the 17th inst., an article appeared purporting to disclose the real reasons of Mr. I. W. Schlesinger’s visit to Europe and Russia, which were stated to be to discuss with the Soviet authorities a definite propostion for opening up trade relations with this country on a very considerable scale. It is further stated—

In the commercial article in the same paper, a further statement takes place with regard to Mr. Schlesinger’s visit—

I am only reading a public newspaper report, and if there is no truth in it, I think the Prime Minister will take the earliest opportunity of having it publicly repudiated. Perhaps he will enquire from his various colleagues if there is any truth in this. If gentlemen go to Russia for the purpose of making arrangements with the Soviet authorities, with what they consider to be the support of the Union Government behind them, and they, at the same time, establish a syndicate for exporting to Russia all these particular products, it will be practically giving them a monopoly of these articles. I see the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) is here. He, I understood, took a flying visit to Moscow, whether as a private individual or whether as the ambassador of the Union Government, perhaps the Prime Minister will also inform us. The hon. member perhaps might be able to tell us whether he considers there is any possibility of business of this character being carried out, and whether, when he went to Moscow, he had the support of the Union Government behind him to enter into any negotiations. The Minister did not mention the name of the gentleman with whom he discussed this question. I understand another name has been mentioned in the press, that of a Mr. Kuper, I think. I am perfectly certain it is not the intention of the Prime Minister, whatever may be the intention of his colleagues, that business arrangements be entered into with the approval of the Union Government for the purpose of side-tracking our products like wool, dried fruits, base metal, etc., from the British market, and sending them to the Soviet market of Russia.

Why not ?

I will tell the hon. member why not. When this country desires to borrow money for carrying out public works, its first application is to the people of Great Britain, from whom we get far better terms than from any other part of the world. It is one of the first axioms of commerce that you should try and inter-trade. Perhaps the Minister of Defence, who evidently knows a great deal more than the Prime Minister does about this, would fell me whether things have changed since last year, and whether the basis upon which these business negotiations are to be carried out, is what is familiarly known as “spot cash,” or whether it is a case of asking for twelve months’ credit, as last year. The farmers of this country last year said that on the basis of twelve months’ credit they were not prepared to do any business with Russia. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Government is going to back the Bill.

I am sorry the right hon. member did not give me notice that he was going to carry on this conversation, or I would have got the papers which are in my drawer.

What papers?

The papers Mr. Kuper showed me. I did not mention his name before because as a general rule it is not a desirable thing to bring in the names of persons who are not members of this House in our discussions unless it is entirely necessary.

Why did you not tell the Prime Minister about it ?

The Prime Minister knew all about it, and so did all my colleagues. We discussed the whole matter in Cabinet. Do not let us waste our time. If it interests the right hon. member I will tell him everything I know. Mr. Kuper tried to go to Russia two or three years ago. He asked me for a letter to Mr. Thomas in order to get a passport. His passport arrived a fortnight after he got back to this country. Next year he went again and at last got to Moscow. He showed me what he had concluded with a responsible commissary of the Soviet Government. We have nothing whatever to do with a monopoly. If he or anyone else chooses to go to Russia and arrives at any agreement with the Soviet Government by which he can import their goods and export our goods, he is perfectly welcome to do so. We shall put no obstacles in the way. The broad outline is simply that they formed a company in which the Soviet Government are participants to the extent of half capital and half control.

Does that include propaganda ?

I hope not. I am quite willing to import timber and other things, but there are things I do not care to import. It is a trading concession. The only point was that he had an open letter and he asked us whether we had any objection to this attempt to establish trade relations with Russia, and asked for a letter from me to that effect. I discussed the matter with the Cabinet and we were quite clear on this point, that any citizen who enters into arrangements which bid fair to open up new markets for our products, should have goodwill from us. As for giving a letter, I think the decision was quite right.

You did not give him a letter ?

No, because I do not think it is well for the Government to give a written imprimatur to any trading company, however sound it may be.

You did not mind his publishing that he had it ?

I told him he could tell anyone he had our entire goodwill. That is the whole story. Mr. Kuper is the only person I have seen in the matter. He is a personal friend of mine. I said he was at liberty to tell anyone we hoped they would be successful in opening up this new market for their goods. It is a tremendous mountain out of a molehill. You know what newspapers will make out of anything.

All I stated was that the newspaper said that Mr. Schlesinger was going upon this mission with the knowledge and approval of the Union Government.

The arrangements had been made ; they had got their company. The whole thing is in black and white—the terms, so to speak, on which the Soviet Government participate in this company and the terms on which the money is raised.

I am very sorry to have to explode the case the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has attempted to set up. I may just tell him that my visit to Russia was entirely private. I suppose the correct thing should have been to advertise. For instance, in the way the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) advertises his visits when he goes anywhere.

Everybody knew about it.

The South African party certainly seemed to try and make something out of it, and that is why I am giving this explanation. There is this difference, that I am not connected with the papers that advertised my trip. I am glad to have the opportunity of also dealing with the question which I understood was put by the most courteous member of this House, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), as to whether I was financing the trip myself or whether I was going at the Government’s expense.

I never referred to you.

It was certainly communicated to me. After the exhibition given by the hon. member in the House to-day I would be quite prepared to accept it as the view he took of it. If he did not, I will leave it there.

I never referred to the visit to Moscow, and certainly not in the terms mentioned by the hon. member—the movements of the hon. member do not sufficiently interest me. I want to get back to the Soviet business. I understood from the Prime Minister that there was absolutely nothing of the sort going on. Now I find there have been negotiations with a capitalist concern, and the Government giving it the seal of their approval. When a capitalist concern in this country like the Imperial Cold Storage, builds up an industry, and has 3,000 people in their employ, it is hounded down, here we have a concern which wants to trade with Soviet Russia getting the seal of Government approval, it certainly struck me as inconsistent and illogical on the part of the Government. Listening to the somewhat halting explanation of the Minister of Defence, I thought there was something more in it than met the eye. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, if I am in order, whether he would kindly give us some information of the Schwarz expedition in the Kalahari. Have thy reported, and if so, would the Prime Minister kindly give us some information ?

The report has been handed in to the Government.

Has it been laid on the Table ?

No.

This expedition is figuring prominently in the mail papers, and it seems peculiar that the Union public have no information, whereas the mail papers from England are full of it. I am speaking of the expedition in no disparaging terms, but we are extremely interested in the report. It may have far-reaching effects on this country.

I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here. I am very much interested in this, and I want very much to see what the report is. He told me the report was still in preparation. I suppose later on we shall get it. I know nothing about its being laid on the Table. Now I want to make a few remarks with regard to the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). He put a question to me with regard to Mr. Schlesinger. I have not the least doubt about it—I know nothing of the thing. I could not infer that it had any connection with Mr. Kuper. Let me say at once that my friend the Minister of Defence came to see me, and one thing we were agreed upon, that we were not going to give anything of what he said looks like a recommendation from the Government as to any undertaking whatsoever. We have always left that to private individuals. I do not want him to go under any misapprehension as to this, with regard to the extent to which we would be prepared to see business connections between Russia and South Africa. I am rather surprised to hear from my hon. friend the very circumscribed manner in which he put our duty as to trading with other nations besides England, because if my right hon. friend is correct, I do not think we ought to have a trade commissioner in America or on the Continent. I am very glad to hear that here, at any rate, he does not mean to go so far. As far as Russia is concerned, I wish to say here openly that I see not the least objection to business connections being established on a proper and business-like footing with South Africa. And I may say that in taking up that attitude it is nothing but the attitude which is to-day adopted by the whole of Europe, including Great Britain herself.

Not the United States though.

Oh yes! Well! But I am speaking about Europe at any rate. We know what is going on with regard to Great Britain, so that there is nothing wrong. We are quite on the same friendly footing and want to be as any other nation if they want to do business with us. I do not want the country to be under a misapprehension that if we can do business and sell our products to Russia we are going to close the door. No; I think it is the duty of the Government to see that the products of the country are sold in the very best markets. May I say one word in regard to the position my right hon. friend has taken up in regard to England. One thing we cannot get away from, and that is that the feeling of the people in South Africa all round is so well disposed towards Great Britain and it is so generally felt that the advantages are so great—undoubtedly my right hon. friend has referred to the money market—but all that should not drive us to the extent of making enemies of the rest of the world or even trying to curb them or our relations with them to such an extent as to sacrifice the real interests of this country. I know that is the feeling of the Dutch and English-speaking in South Africa and I think it would be very unwise if we were to go and say—

because we get those advantages from Great Britain. The good feeling in South Africa is a sufficient guarantee to see that what is right over against Great Britain as over against any other nations shall be done.

My right hon. friend must have misunderstood me if he thought I said we do not want to get the best possible world prices for our products. On reading this information, it appears as if special consideration is going to be given to Russia in connection with these markets, and a syndicate formed in association with a couple of Russian gentlemen in this country, not for opening up the world market, but entering into negotiations with the Soviet Government (which is in the habit of entering into negotiations) for the purchase of certain classes of South African produce, which, if it goes through, instead of opening up markets, will practically give a monopoly to this syndicate. That is the dangerous position that was brought to my mind, and I hope that the Prime Minister will see, as far as he is concerned, that he will not lend the approval of any member of his Cabinet in any way to any arrangement which will give special consideration and special facilities to Russia, and place these facilities in the hands of a syndicate, which is practically to be a monopoly, in connection with our wool, fruit and other things of that character. He knows that we have fought in the past against a monopoly of any of our products.

How are you going to alter it?

That is about the last thing I would have expected to hear from my socialistic friend. I thought he was against all monopolies, and that he would have raised Cain in the Cabinet if he thought anything of that kind might have been done. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has taken a saner attitude in the Cabinet.

I think most of us would agree with what has been stated by the Prime Minister. All we want is for the Government to keep out of the business. If any individual wants to trade with Russia, that is his business ; but do not let the Government interfere in any shape or form. My hon. friend, the Minister of Defence, should have learnt before the danger of having anything to do with newspaper men. You don’t want a monopoly given to trade with Russia. We take the assurance of the Prime Minister that nothing of the kind is in contemplation. If the Russian Government care to give a monopoly, that is their business and not ours. So long as there is no interference by the Government, and no concession is given in respect of our produce to Russia, there is nothing further to say. So long as we get that assurance from the Government, that is all we want.

I tried to explain as clearly as I could that it is not in our power to say who shall trade with Russia, Every single man in the country is as free as another to try to establish trade relations with Russia. It is not our fault if the Russian Government trade through one company. All we are concerned about is, that trade beneficial to us shall take place, and our attitude to any person or persons who are trying to open up new avenues of trade is “good luck to you.”

I want to put a matter of considerable importance to those concerned, but I do not know to whom to go with it, and so I put it to the Prime Minister. It is a question of information leaking out. I have had telephonic communications to-day from raisin exporters who have been doing a fair business on the other side in raisins, that on Monday their agents informed them that buyers are holding off buying, as they have had information from South Africa that there is a considerable quantity of this stuff on the water, and the figures they give approximate very closely to the amount estimated to be on the water. I do not know through whom the information has leaked out. The shipping company has the information, but we have been assured that they did not give any information. Then there are the departmental officials who supervise the handling at the docks, and they in the course of their work get the information. The exporters complain that this leakage has considerably interfered with their business, and to-day they have to sell at lower prices. I think the Prime Minister should see that in formation of that kind is not furnished to the other side, which would damage, as it has done, the sellers on this side. It is for the suppliers to give any information they wish, and no one else. The complaints have come from Robertson, Worcester and Wellington, all in the same tenour.

I hope my hon. friend will see the Minister of Railways, because it seems to me that it must be somewhere in the railways, so that investigation can be made to see really where the fault lies. Evidently it must be at the docks, or along the railway, as he says. I can quite understand that those people who are interested will feel very much upset if they are going to suffer by it.

I do not suggest it comes through the railway, as we have found that the railway officials are the last people to give away any information concerning consignments of goods.

Why I say the railway, is because, as far as I can see they are the only department concerned with the produce; then again at the docks, unless, of course, these products are shipped from Cape Town, in which case it may be your dealer here. Of course, it would be very difficult to trace, unless you can do it in connection with definite consignments coming from the farmers, say, at Worcester, to the docks.

They have a perfect right to send information if they wish.

In the case of private individuals, exactly! But if it is the railway or harbour, they should be told that they should not do it.

I am glad the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is here, because I want to ask the Prime Minister a question which I have previously put without getting an answer. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement of approval or disapproval of what was stated by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs early this year, referring to evidence given by public servants in which that Minister practically intimated that public servants were not to be allowed to give honest, unbiassed evidence of what they believed to be the truth, but were to give evidence practically such as was dictated by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

I do not think you are stating it fairly.

I have taken it from a report which has never been denied. The Minister practically intimated in public, without any repudiation from the Minister of Defence, that members of the public service must not express views—in giving evidence—which were antipathetic to the economic policy of the Government.

He said precisely the opposite!

Well I read now from the report what he said as follows (extract read). It bears out what I said now. A member of the service appearing it may be before a court, a commission or a select committee as a witness is either sent there expressly to give the views of his Minister, in which case he is only a mouthpiece, or he is there to give evidence from his own experience and point of view. It may be before a court or before a commission with which the policy of the Government has nothing to do, or it may be before a select committee of the House, where it is desired to get his honest views whether they are in opposition to the policy of the Government or not. I consider that the statement by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs imposes a strain on the integrity and honour of every public servant, and is ruinous to the reputation of the service in the country. The Minister of Defence smiles.

I am laughing.

I should like to ask him why he did not at the time repudiate the views of his new colleague under the circumstances, also why he did not stand up for the members of the public service when the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in his somewhat recent and new-fledged authority dared to stand up in a public body and issue threats to the members of the public service who are protected by a statute and the law of the land. I want to have, definitely and simply, from the Prime Minister, whether he is prepared to associate himself, or disapprove of the statement made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, because I consider that statement a very serious blow dealt to the public service of this country. I ask the Prime Minister to accept my assurance that this is not a question of party.

Really my hon. friend being an advocate of long standing— and one who one of these days will probably be on the Bench, let us hope—

I am speaking as a member of this House on a matter of public concern.

That is why I should express regret that he should not be an example to the best of us.

I want an answer, I don’t want that!

I shall give the answer in time. I am not going to give answers to hypothetical cases. I first want to ask my hon. friend. Both these Ministers have been in this House and are here to-night. Has he ever asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether what is attributed to him there is correct ?

I raised the question in debate.

Am I not correct in stating that at any rate, if he were on the Bench to-day, that is the first thing he would require from any man putting up that question before him. Would it not ?

I will answer that.

Unless and until such time as he has done that, and asked the Minister, of course he cannot expect an answer from me. He knows that.

The hon. gentleman is Prime Minister of this country, and as such, he is responsible to a very large extent to allow the public service of this country to preserve its integrity. I have a perfect right —as the hon. gentleman had—as a member of this House to ask the Prime Minister to stand up and allow the public service to have an assurance that when they are summoned to give evidence before a select committee they will be at liberty, without being penalised, to give truthful evidence, and that they cannot do, if the statement read by the hon. member is carried out. The question put by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is in the interest of good government and the public service. When a public servant is summoned to give evidence he must not be afraid of the disapproval of his Minister if he gives what he considers to be honest and straightforward evidence.

If the head of my Department expressed opinions which were in direct conflict with my policy I should keep my eye on him to see that he did not carry out his opinions and not my policy. Does the hon. member ask me to repudiate the idea that a Minister, if he is well advised that his chief holds an opinion on an important matter which is totally at variance with the Minister’s, the latter is going to watch him ? So far from repudiating what the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said I say that is the obvious attitude to adopt, but it does not mean that there is any interference with the public service, only that the policy should be dictated by the Minister and not the officials.

The Minister should either prohibit public servants giving evidence or if they do do so and they are asked questions in regard to policy, the Minister must expect these men, if they are honest responsible officials, to express their own opinions and not to say something which might be directly contrary to those opinions. We understood that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that seeing an official had given expression to opinions which were antipathetic to the economic policy of the Government, the Minister was going to keep an eye on him. That expression will only be understood in one sense—that there is very little hope for that particular official so long as that Minister is in power. If the Minister does not mean it in that sense he ought to say so. The view. I take of public servants is that they are there to carry out the instructions of their Ministers to the best of their ability, whether those instructions are in accordance with their opinions or not, but you cannot coerce people’s opinions and if officials are called before the Public Service Commission they must be expected to give their opinions.

That is precisely what I established. The report is substantially correct. I was asked what I was going to do about this and I intimated to the conference and to the individual concerned that no interference with the opinions expressed or held by a public servant was to be tolerated. I was establishing most emphatically what had never been done before and that was that public servants had the same citizenship rights as anybody else. I go a great deal further than my colleagues in this matter, and that is that in all respects public servants have rights equal to those of any other citizens. That is what I emphasise. I then went so far as to say that I had not read the evidence that the gentleman gave. If any public servant is called before a commission or the Public Accounts Committee so far as I am concerned he has the most perfect liberty and right to express any opinion he cares to do.

I am very glad indeed that we have had that assurance from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Prime Minister thought fit to give me no answer at all, except a taunt. He suggested that I was quoting from a report the reliability of which could not be sustained, and say that I should have asked the Minister first whether it was correct. But the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs admits that the report is correct. Moreover, when the matter was raised on a previous occasion in the House, the Minister emphasized the threat and said that if any public official put a spoke in the wheel of the Government he (the Minister) was going to keep an eye on him. That is victimization. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has admitted that what I said was substantially correct and I hope the Prime Minister will withdraw the taunt he made to me because it was a most unfair one. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had practically admitted that the report was correct and therefore I never thought it necessary to raise the question of its correctness or otherwise. The Prime Minister never gave us his answer on the question of the absolute freedom of public servants to give evidence. Originally the Minister evidently thought that public servants should give evidence according to order, or that it must not be antipathetic.

No, no.

No member of the Government is entitled to dictate to any member of the public service as to what evidence he shall give, nor has he the right to intimidate him by threatening to keep an eye on him, in other words victimization. I am glad we raised the point to-night because we have at last got from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs an assurance that members of the service will be free to give honest evidence and will not be victimized. That is the whole position we stand for, and that position has been conceded.

This is a case of much ado about nothing. The members of the public service will be delighted that the Opposition at all events is now prepared to support the view that public servants have perfect freedom to say what they like.

I think every member of this House will agree that in select committee, when we have asked any official what his personal opinion is, the statement has been made from the chair that he is there to give the views of the department. The chairman has, on some occasions, ruled my questions out of order on that ground Only the other day a prominent member of the South African party on a select committee, when I asked a question, said that this gentleman was not there to give his personal opinion ; he was there to give the views of the Treasury. That practice has generally been accepted by members of this House, and I join with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in congratulating hon. members opposite on changing their views considerably. I would ask hon. members opposite exactly where they stand on this question of the public service and liberty of opinion. When the private secretary to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made a statement at a public meeting during his own spare time, hon. members opposite rushed in and put a question on the order paper as to what was going to be done with him. How dare a secretary to one of the Ministers, or a member of the public service, make statements outside bringing the Government into contempt! The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is continually shedding tears of sympathy for the Government in power to-day. On that occasion members opposite were very much concerned that this gentleman was not rapped over the knuckles, that he was not victimized. People of the capitalist class know a good deal about the gentle art of victimization and of black-listing people who dare to have opinions of their own. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) supported the last Government in passing legislation, forbidding public servants from taking any part in political organizations. They must be free so long as they are expressing the views and aiding the propaganda of the S.A.P. They must never be free to take part in this wicked Nationalist organization, or this Labour organization. No Nationalist politics, no Labour politics, but as much S.A.P. politics as they care to participate in.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) having a bad case, has very cleverly endeavoured to draw two or three red herrings across the whole thing. I was speaking of the class of case where a public servant is called, as a matter of duty, to give evidence before a select committee, a commission, or a court of law. When a man is called in that capacity, he has to give evidence to the best of his ability, and to the best of his ideas of truth and honour. The hon. member for Brakpan tried to draw a red herring across that, after the Minister had withdrawn from the original position—

I have never withdrawn from the original position.

He has tried to cover that up with a very excellent red herring, which is the question of the right of public servants to take part in politics, and I maintain strongly, as I have always maintained, that members of the public service, who occupy a peculiar position in the body politic, are not entitled to identify themselves with open public political work, which may, as a matter of fact, be “antipathetic” to the Government of the day, or may be anything else. The best public servants recognize that the most dangerous idea for the public service itself would be to allow them that so-called freedom which the hon. member for Brakpan claims. Then the hon. member tried to draw another little red herring across the trail, which was that mock indignation of his at our raising the question of the private secretary of one Minister on a public platform attacking another Minister by issuing a challenge—

It was not on a public platform at all.

Well, on the platform of a political party, which makes it worse, whose proceedings were reported in the public press, and were intended to be reported in the public press. I say that if the gentleman who did that had been a member of the public service, he could have been dealt with under the Public Service Act. This gentleman apparently was not in the public service, and therefore, the odd thing is that the private secretary of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can go on to a public platform and attack the Minister of Defence, while the private secretary of the Minister of Defence, because he is in the public service, cannot go on to a public platform and attack the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Questions of Ministerial taste, Ministerial responsibility and Ministerial decency have, as a matter of fact, to be left to the people concerned to decide for themselves whether they choose to be guided by tradition and custom and by the best observances in the Parliaments of the world. Whether they choose to be so guided or not is entirely their own concern. We say again that when public servants are called upon to give evidence before a select committee, or a commission, or a court of law, they are entitled to give their views truthfully, and without dictation, and without fear of victimization, and we have now got that assurance.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell withdrawn.

I want to draw attention particularly to, and to move in connection with, Item (e) contribution towards expenses of League of Nations £17,000. I consider this is a very large amount, and this League of Nations has been very costly so far as this country is concerned, and generally. Up to the end of March, we contributed £151,900, including this vote. That is a very considerable amount indeed. One wonders when there are such appeals made for economy from gentlemen opposite that large amounts should be passed overseas as contributions which can be ill-afforded by this country. The extravagance of the League of Nations has been remarked upon in many quarters. The luxury of the staff has been such as even to shock those accustomed to extravagance in diplomatic quarters. Are we to go on contributing in this liberal way to this organization which has been so careless in regard to the funds which have been contributed? More particularly, as we have no representative of this country included on the staff for the contributions we make. I think, therefore, we are perfectly justified in drawing attention to our contribution and moving for a reduction in regard to it. My direct object, however, in moving the reduction which I am going to propose is to show that, as it is a well-known fact that we will have to face a deficit at the end of the financial year, we should be very careful in the votes we pass, as to whether we are disposing of money that could be better used in this country. There are many grants-in-aid which uphold the argument that we are more careful of societies elsewhere than of those established in South Africa. When applications have been made for assistance by organizations in this country the answer is that there is no money. I want to make a comparison in reference to this sum of £17,000. I wish to point out that we have a Geological Society of South Africa, a body which has done a very great deal of good work in the past. An application was made to the Government for adequate assistance, but no money was available for it; but when we have before us the question of £17,000 for the League of Nations, or on the other hand the encouragement of our own institutions, we have a right to make a comparison. What are we likely to get from the League of Nations compared with what we get from a local society of this useful nature? Every year we are extracting £55,000,000 of mineral wealth, and yet this geological society when it asks for money is told there is none for it. I would remind the Government that early discoveries of our mineral wealth were made by amateurs, not by the professional scientific men. The total mineral wealth extracted to date is over twelve hundred millions, due almost entirely to local enterprise in prospecting. We can send £17,000 to the League of Nations, and yet we cannot let our own people have enough to keep their geological society going. What sort of business Government is it that simply turns down an old society like this, and yet (as we shall find in item after item) contributes to scientific, societies over the water. When a society can point to magnificent work done in years gone by, without any question of remuneration for its members, I think it is extraordinary that we should now be passing a sum like £17,000 for the League of Nations when a beggarly £180 asked for by a society of our own is turned down by the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance says we have not got the money. If we have not the money, as it appears by the deficit anticipated, let us save it on various votes. If we must face a deficit—as apparently we have to—how is it we can go on making provision for things with which we have really very small concern ? How can we turn down remorselessly one of the most useful organizations we have ever had ? That the Government should deliberately turn down societies which exist for the welfare and Benefit of the country is to me simply a want of plain ordinary business commonsense. We have pointed out how more revenue can be obtained without injury to the country ; and indeed the discoveries of geologists might amply repay any cost which their society may add to the budget by the small grant denied to it. I move, therefore, and trust the House will support me—

I have a good bit of sympathy with what my hon. friend has said on this amount. I think we are contributing on a liberal scale. Does the Prime Minister know on what basis we contribute this amount? I have not yet been able to ascertain it. It does appear to me that, with a small population like ours, to have to contribute £15,000 is on a very liberal basis indeed—it is certainly too much, considering the position we hold. I think the Prime Minister should look into it. Then there is another point I want to ask him about—about this consul in Angola. Where is he going to be stationed ? In Loanda ? Is he a South African ?

Yes; he is living there. He is a Union subject.

A business man?

Yes.

I think that the Prime Minister should give to this House a deliberate statement on the League of Nations. There are a large number of international socialists in this country who believe in meeting all nationalities on an equal basis, there are also a large number of international capitalists who believe in internationalism in capital, which means exploiting the workers on the lowest civilization. But I fail to see that this Government is wise in going in for inter-nationalism from the national point of view. On the League of Nations, all nations have the equal vote, I believe, whether they are living on a highly civilized and economic standard, or on a lower. I also believe that the majority of the representatives of the League of Nations Conference represent nations which are living certainly on the lower scale, and not on such a highly civilized scale as the inhabitants of South Africa are. If we are going to send representatives to that conference they will be in the minority, and our vote is really of no consequence whatever in the great economic issues which are being fought at the present time. You cannot have equality in the world unless you lift up the lower nationalities, the higher nationalities to meet them half way. I appeal on behalf of our civilization to the Prime Minister to see whether he cannot meet America and the British Empire along with other nationalities who are living on the same scale and economic standard. They should meet together and decide on the policy.

May I ask the Prime Minister if he can give some information as to the case of Captain Lane. It will be remembered that Captain Lane was, at the time of the change of Government, the Secretary to the Prime Minister, and recently we have been told that he has been pensioned off, but no reasons have been given, as far as I am aware, as to why a man in the prime of life, of ripe experience and good judgment, should be singled out at this time for retirement. We can quite understand that the new Prime Minister, when he came into office, might have desired a change in the immediate personnel of his staff, but it is, surely going to prove a bad policy for the Prime Minister, in a wish to change the personnel of his staff, to allow one of the leading administrative officers of the Union to be retired from the service in consequence of that desire. I can speak with some personal knowledge of Captain Lane, as I have known him, since he came to this country, as a young man 20 years of age, in the Crown Colony days in the Transvaal. He has been a man who has adapted himself to the changed conditions of the Government, working hard, and qualifying himself in every way for the high position he held at the time of the change of Government. I know of nothing in the whole of his career which has not redounded to his credit. He worthily represented South Africa at Wembley quite recently, and I feel sure that many of his colleagues in the service will regret his being retired at a time when he is still full of good work. He has never been of more value to the Government than at the present time, and it would almost seem that we are going back on the tradition that the civil service is to be ready to give its best work to whatever Government is in power, and to prove its loyalty to whatever Minister happens to be in office. We are not giving the service a chance of doing that in the case of this particular official. Recently a meeting of officials in Johannesburg has complained of the introduction of men from outside to high appointments in the public service. That surely indicates that appointments of considerable standing have been made, and that there might have been some adjustment in which the services of Captain Lane could have been absorbed. I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is necessary for the Union to send a Government official to represent us at the labour conference at Geneva. I understand that the Secretary for Labour is being sent, and one would like to know what particular reasons exist for the sending of an official, at considerable expense, to this union where, in the past, merely a representative of the employers and the employees have been sent.

You are wrong.

On this point I speak subject to correction. Then I should be glad if the Prime Minister would inform us of the name of the consul who is being appointed in Angola, if he considers he is at liberty to do so at this stage.

I should like to dissociate myself from the amendment before the House. I should like to know whether those who approve of the reduction of this vote have reason to find fault with the ideal of the League of Nations.

No; the expense.

Of officials?

Yes.

Well, you know nothing about their value. I put human life before money, and when I look back and realize that, through the League of Nations stepping in, they stopped what might have led to one of the biggest wars—

Which?

Between Bulgaria and Greece. The League of Nations recently stopped what might have been the biggest war that has ever happened in the Balkans with a consequent tremendous loss of life. The League of Nations is worth all the expense. Does the hon. member know who the officials are? Many of these officials have sacrificed far more lucrative positions to take up this work. I know the type of man that is there, and they are well worthy of their salaries. But is this the proper place to criticize their salaries? No ; it should he done in the General Council of the League of Nations with the representatives of all the nations of the world there. Let me tell hon. members that this expenditure is scrutinized and criticized as well there as any expenditure in this Parliament I sympathize with the hon. member in regard to his desire for geological research, hut he is not entitled to mix it up with the League of Nations vote in this ludricous way. I defend the principle of the League of Nations. I hate to think what the outlook of this world would be without some attempt being made to maintain peace in the world. I think it is absurd to say that we should dissociate ourselves from the league because it contains among its other members and there are some of the backward nations of the world. Nothing is more likely to cause war than the competition of the backward countries in searching for markets. But, while they are under the control of the League of Nations, these elements of competition can be controlled and a levelling-up process go on. We owe a great debt of gratitude already to the League of Nations. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), I would point out that it has been the practice, until last year, for the head of the Labour Department in this country to go to Geneva. The Secretary for Mines and Industries went for several years before the Labour Department was constituted, but last year a departure was made, and Prof. Clarke went. I am glad the Government has resumed the sending of the head of the department, because of the valuable information from all parts of the world, which is gathered there, and with which he will be able to keep himself up to date.

The hon. member should have addressed his remarks to his colleague behind him. I never objected to the principle of the League of Nations, but I think £15,000 a year is excessive.

What do you think it is worth ?

We are paying more in proportion to our population than some South American nations, for instance, and some of the nations in Europe. I think the Prime Minister should go into the matter and see whether this cannot be reduced.

I rather agree with my hon. friend. I do not say that we contribute too much, but I think we ought to tell our representatives to enquire closely into the matter and ascertain whether too much is not being spent. It is intended to appoint Mr. Ernst Meyer as consul in Angola. With regard to Captain Lane, the Civil Service Commission has, after trying to find a proper place for him and not being able to do so, recommended that he be put on the pension list.

I am not attacking the League of Nations as an idealist organization, but there have been statements of wild administrative extravagance, and that some nations have, in consequence, refrained from paying their quota.

That is no reason why we should not pay.

I am for “South Africa first.” We have no right to spend money overseas if we allow our own institutions to starve, and therefore, I do not propose to withdraw the motion.

Withdraw it.

Amendment put, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mr. Hay) voted in the affirmative, the Chairman declared the amendment negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, “Treasury ”, £73,577.

I move—

I am agraid I cannot accept the proposal.

Motion put and negatived.

I wish to raise the question of the contribution towards the public debt. The Miniser of Finance yesterday rather reflected on his predecessor in office in not taking steps to increase the provision for the redemption of the public debt. The late Minister of Finance was in favour of doing something on the lines favoured by the present Minister, but the Public Accounts Committee, he thought, was against it, and therefore he did not use the same powers as my hon. friend has done in exacting a party vote. I have been a member of the committee for many years, but I have never known of a party vote in it before the one taken the other day. The report on the reduction of public debt was carried by a strictly party vote. The public debt is put down here at £223,000,000 at the present time, without any addition for what we may borrow during the current financial year. We propose to pay as interest on that debt for one year £9,071,000, to which the railway department will contribute £5,396,000, leaving a balance of something like £3,973,000, which is charged to consolidated revenue fund. My hon. friend expects to get interest from various items amounting to £1,450,000, which will bring the amount taken from the taxpayers down to £2,593,000. The only difference so far as the Public Accounts Committee was concerned in this matter was what the amount contributed to debt redemption should be. We wanted to make it about £750,000. As a matter of fact, £650,000 was the amount agreed to by the majority. I think, if we err at all in this matter, we should err on the more liberal side. An amount of £400,000 will have to be paid to redeem the Transvaal and Free State debt of £40,000,000, guaranteed by the Imperial Government. Then my hon. friend has also put down here £24,000 for redemption of the local debt which he brought about a year or a couple of years ago. The Treasury look upon the unproductive part of the debt as decreasing. I think it is a pity that my hon. friend did not, if he erred at all, err on the liberal side and take the suggestion we made to him of making a total contribution to redemption of debt of £750,000, that is the £400,000 you have to contribute now, plus £350,000. Take the railways ; they are all right now, and they contribute fairly liberally to the renewals fund and so forth, but some change might come about which would be really serious for the railways, and we do not redeem a sixpence of that debt apart from what we contribute to the Transvaal and Free State redemption fund. In other words, we ought to bear in mind the future, and we ought to make some real and substantial contribution towards the redemption of our debt.

I do not think the hon. member is quite fair in saying that I exacted a party vote in the select committee. I exercised no influence on the committee whatever. As a matter of fact, I had already decided the question. If the hon. member will look at the Treasury memorandum in reply to what the select committee stated last year in connection with this matter, he will see that we stated that we intended to put certain proposals before Parliament this year. The hon. member may think that we should have taken an extra £100,000, but, taking all the circumstances into consideration, I think we took as much as could reasonably be expected. It is a very considerable advance on what we have been doing in the past. We hope, as our resources permit, to make further provision, but in view of the fact that for various reasons last year our unproductive debt was considerably reduced through the procedure we have adopted, I do not think it would be fair to take out of revenue more than we are doing now. The Minister of Railways has for two years contributed £250,000 towards the interest-bearing item capital, which also in a certain way has the effect of reducing the debt. In other words, he is providing interest-bearing assets without borrowing for the full amount. The hon. member has referred to the Railway Vote, where we are securing productive assets. He says we must look to the future. It is to meet that situation that my friend here has introduced this new policy of annually providing a certain amount to reduce these ordinary borrowing requirements. I think hon. members will see that the position will improve rapidly. This £250,000 annually is used to finance capital expenditure without coming to the Treasury for the full amount required.

Is he reducing his betterment fund ?

No, it remains exactly the same.

There are two funds.

Both funds are not touched at all. He continues the policy followed in the past in regard to both funds, but, in addition, he is making this contribution. Originally my friend considered as to whether he should pay this money to the sinking fund, and I then pointed out it would be better to deal with it in the manner we are doing now. Otherwise, it would simply be paying off the debt and re-borrowing again, and having the expenses of borrowing. In all these circumstances, I think that the proposals which I intend to submit to the House at a later stage are fair and reasonable.

One of the troubles about the proposals of the Minister is that he proposes to put down the sum of £650,000 on the Estimates for sinking fund provision, but that sum bears no relation to any amount of the unproductive debt, or, in fact, to the debt at all. In other words, he is not laying down a principle which can and should be followed in the future by himself and his successors. All that we are doing this year is to put down, in addition to the statutory sinking fund, a sum of £100,000, and we are told that in the future not less than £650,000 will be paid. That binds nobody, so where are we getting to ?

I intend introducing a Sinking Fund Act.

I am glad to hear that, but my criticism still remains that the sum fixed will not be fixed on any principle. It is simply taken, shall I say, at random. The Minister tells us he had nothing to do with the vote of the select committee, but it is a curious coincidence that he should fix a sum of £650,000, and the committee, having haphazardly fixed the unproductive debt at £65,000,000, should arrive at the same figure.

Yes, because I was there, and I suggested that was the provision they should make. That was the only meeting, as a matter of fact, that I attended, and there I stated the view that the Treasury was taking in connection with the whole matter. I certainly repudiate any suggestion that I influenced the committee. It is not a coincidence at all. Before the vote was taken, the committee had all the facts, and the views of the department as to what we were prepared to do.

I should be the last person to suggest that the Minister improperly brought any influence to bear upon the Committee, but I do say that undoubtedly it was strictly a party vote that was taken. If he will cast his memory back, he did not tell them that £650,000 was his figure, or the Treasury figure. It was arrived at at a subsequent meeting at which he was not present. What he did say was that the Treasury would not go beyond an amount they considered reasonable. My complaint about the decision of the Committee is that it did not genuinely represent the opinion of the majority of members of that Committee. When the matter was put to the vote the proposal of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) was declared to be carried, until it was noticed that two members had not voted. They were told they had to vote, and then they voted for their party. By some mysterious process inside of two months our unproductive debt goes down from £61,000,000 to £55,000,000, because when the Minister’s own head of Department fixed the figure at £61,000,000 in February last, not a hint was given that a reduction was in process. There is no fixed principle about this. If the Minister fixes this contribution at £650,000, it is not going to fix the Minister or his successors. The Act which was intended to bind posterity says that the surplus should go automatically to debt redemption.

Parliament will have to alter that.

Every Minister puts in something in a small omnibus Bill to abrogate a section which has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

To a great extent I share the criticisms of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The real truth, to my mind, is that the amount is not based on any principle whatever, but is simply a round sum. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was not present, I think, but the Secretary of the Treasury did at one time point out that the unproductive debt would on March 31st this year show a considerable decrease on the £61,000,000. Where I join issue with the Minister is this: He raises a loan for reproductive purposes amounting to £2,400,000, and he says it is a business proposition to put aside 1 per cent, per annum to redeem that loan. When the Minister comes to arrange to repay unproductive debt, for which you have no assets at all, he arranges approximately the same percentage as for loans for which assets can be produced worth something in the neighbourhood of 20s. in the £. From the point of view of finance it seems to be remarkably weak. If the Minister takes up the attitude that £650,000 is the utmost amount he can pay, no further argument is necessary. It is purely a case of force majeure, but if he suggests that there is any principle in taking a lump sum of £650,000, I say it is absolutely unbusinesslike and cannot continue. The position naturally becomes absurd, if the Minister looks a little further forward, and if he pays off, at the due dates, any further loans and attaches to future loans similar provisions to those attached to the loan of £2,400,000. In a few short years the amount you will have to put aside will greatly exceed the £650,000 ; so he has either to go back on the policy which he adumbrated last year, and which was a sound one, of putting aside at the time they are put on the market one per cent. of these loans for redemption, or he has to arrange a definite percentage either of the total loan indebtedness, or the unproductive loan indebtedness—a certain percentage of those loans—and charge to revenue the necessary redemption, so as to cover those loans within a reasonable period of years ; and I say that 33 years is a ridiculously short time for us to hold debts for which we cannot show one pennyworth of assets.

I wish to make a few remarks to the Minister in connection with the Licences Consolidationi Act, which came into force at the beginning of this year, and which is not working satisfactorily. In Natal we set up elaborate machinery to govern and restrict the issue of trading licences in order to safeguard traders from over competition but I am afraid our effort to control the issue of licences will be nullified unless the new Act is amended. In view of the inroads of the Asiatic in commerce in Natal it is most essential that the issue of licences there should be controlled and restricted. An applicant is required under the Natal Law to advertise his intention to apply and objectors were allowed to state their objections before the licensing officer, and a licence was not easily obtained, the licensing officer in areas under the control of local authorities being a person: selected because of his knowledge of local conditions and requirements. But the power has been taken out of the hands of the officers who functioned prior to 1925.

Where do you find that?

The old licensing officer now issues a certificate to the applicant, who takes it to the Receiver of Revenue, who is now the issuing officer. That is the practice at the present time. It is the facility with which a general dealer’s licence can be obtained under the new Act that I think is likely to cause trouble and make control difficult if not impossible. A general dealer’s licence can be obtained in respect of any trade or business not covered by any other licence issuable under the Act which means that any person desiring to trade in one or two commodities which are not covered by any other licence issuable under the Act can apply for a general dealer’s licence.

I have permitted the hon. member a great deal of latitude, but I may remind him we are discussing the Estimates and consequently hon. members are not allowed to suggest any alteration in the legislation.

I have no intention of doing that. My object is to point out what appears to me to be a flaw in the existing legislation.

May on page 632 states—

All I propose to do is to point out certain anomalies in the existing law. I am not suggesting new legislation.

The hon. member may discuss the administration of the law, but, I am sorry, I cannot allow him to discuss the law itself. If there is any administrative point he wishes to discuss he may do so, but he is really suggesting that the law should be altered.

I am just trying to point out that in certain respects the law is not workable.

The hon. member is criticising the law.

My object in referring to these licences is to show that it is going to be more difficult to control the issue of licences in the future than it has been in the past.

I cannot permit the hon. member to pursue that point now.

Surely that is restricting the rights of hon. members very much indeed. We know there is a perfect muddle in the issue of licences in Natal. The Minister is responsible for the administration.

I told the House that I would bring in legislation shortly to deal with licences. The hon. member will have an opportunity in a day or two of discussing the Bill.

I cannot permit this.

To whom do the licence moneys belong—to the Government or to the municipality ? The position to-day is that the unfortunate people at Newcastle have paid their licences twice. They first paid to the municipality, but subsequently on the 28th of February a wire was sent from Pretoria to the Receiver of Revenue at Newscastle giving notice to licence-holders that unless they took out their licences through the Receiver of Revenue by twelve o’clock on that day, they would be penalised to the extent of 30 per cent. There seems to have been some serious mistake made by the Treasury. There are certain licences which the Receiver of Revenue claims that he can issue without a certificate from the municipality at all. That is also an undesirable state of affairs. Applications are being made to the Receiver of Revenue, and licences are being given to people whom the burgesses in these towns object to. The result is that certain licences are being issued by the Receiver of Revenue without any control by the corporations in Natal. We have got into such a mess there in regard to these licences, that the unfortunate people do not know whether they are standing on their heads or their feet.

It is very difficult. The hon. member deals with want of control. If there is, surely it is due to the law. He does not suggest the department is not carrying out the law. The trouble arises in the fact that in the legislation we passed last year, all we did was to lay down uniform licences. The whole licensing matter is a provincial matter. We deliberately left the matter of control with the provincial council. If there is want of control, it is due to the fact that the provincial councils are not doing their duty in regard to legislation. I absolutely refuse to ask the House to deal with this matter. Under the constitution the licensing question is a provincial one. In view of the fact that you have differing conditions in the matter of control, we deliberately refrained from dealing with it in the legislation passed last year.

I saw the Administrator of Natal and he says he has not got the power to control until this legislation is passed.

The legislation I am introducing will only compel the municipalities of Natal to refund what they have improperly appropriated. I am simply going to ask Parliament to reaffirm what is laid down in the legislation last year. I am going to leave untouched this question of control altogether.

This Bill is a vital matter to Natal.

It may be, but Natal cannot have it both ways. They want to retain their provincial council, and here they come and want us to deal with the question of control.

You have created the difficulty by the Act of 1925.

It only lays down the amount to be paid for licences. The hon. member will not be able to show me where it deals with the question of control at all.

I am trying to show you that persons dealing in one commodity have to take out a general dealer's licence.

That is not my fault.

The provincial authorities say they have not got the power. That is our position. We come to the Minister and he says it is a provincial matter. So where are we?

I have allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude in discussing this. The hon. member may consider it “bad administration,” but I think it has been clearly pointed out it is not a matter of administration, but a matter of the law.

I do not agree with the Minister. It is a matter of administration.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he will make some statement with regard to the double death duties about which I was speaking the other day. It affects a large number of very good South Africans.

I am very sorry to have to do so, but I have to adhere to the rules. That is not a matter which the hon. member can discuss here.

I am not very well acquainted with the rules of the House, Mr. Chairman, but can I ask the Minister a question with regard to a matter of policy? Is there not a possibility of our Treasury officials getting a reasonably correct estimate of the revenue that would be lost to the British Treasury if they accept our suggestion, and cannot the Treasury suggest a form of compromise in regard to the double death duties on mining shares ?

I am sorry I did not get the opportunity, in my reply, of dealing with the matter raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I may assure the hon. member I have gone very fully into this question, and I appreciate the difficulties which he laid before the House, but as he knows, the trouble arises, not through any unreasonable legislation which we have enacted, but due to the overlapping of legislation of our own and of the United Kingdom. This is one of the matters which I hope the Prime Minister will be able to discuss, when he goes to the Imperial Conference this year, with the British Government, to see whether some method cannot be devised which will be more equitable to those Union subjects who live, at present, in London, and who would be subjected to these very heavy death duties. I promise the hon. member my department will study the matter fully, and place information at the disposal of the Prime Minister to enable the subject to be dealt with adequately.

I would like to ask the Minister why the Government has decided not to issue any further occupation licences. A number were issued, but the money was refunded. Licences were issued to cobblers, hairdressers, farriers and photographers, etc., which are generally occupation licences. At the beginning of 1926 receivers of revenue claimed these general occupation licences, issued them, and I understand the money paid by them has now been refunded.

I dealt with this question before. I explained that I intended to ask the House to withdraw these licences and that is why those who have paid are having the money refunded.

Are the corporation to be entitled to them ?

No. They were not entitled to them before. It was a licence enacted by this House, but it is difficult to define exactly to what classes of trades it shall apply and for that reason I intend proposing to withdraw the licence altogether.

I understand the Minister to say that when he brings in this Bill it will only deal with the repayment of these licences to the Treasury. Now he says he intends introducing a measure to do away with these occupational licences. The position affects the Transkei too, where some general dealers have been called on to pay speculator’s licence as well, and it is due to a flaw in the definition,

When I said it was only going to deal with the return of licences I was referring to the Provincial Subsidies Act. The other is the Provincial Ordinance and I am bringing in legislation to withdraw these licences.

The Minister will remember that a deputation saw him at Pretoria during November, in regard to the administration of the Adulteration Act. The Act comes under the Department of Agriculture ; but the Minister has the excise staff under him, and it has been a matter under the consideration of the Treasury and the Agricultural Department, for a considerable time past, whether it would not be better to place the administration of the Adulteration Act under the Excise Department.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed :

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