I have to announce that notice of objection to the adoption of paragraph (1) of the second report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders dealing with the procedure on Bills and resolutions for granting pensions, grants and gratuities or other pensionable benefits not authorized by law, presented to this House on the 28th instant, having been given by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) it now becomes necessary for a date to be fixed for the consideration of that part of the report.

The paragraph to be considered on 3rd May.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

It is not my intention to take up the time of the House. This Bill has had a very smooth passage

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When the House adjourned last night I had demonstrated to the Minister that the policy of price fixing was futile and, if it were not futile, it would be unjust. The public will have to pay a reasonable profit on an article, and if it does not go on the article on which the price is fixed, it will go on an additional profit to some article on which there is not a fixed price. The Government’s policy—perhaps I may be wrong in calling it a policy—but the effect of the Government's policy as I see it, is that through the Board of Trade they propose fixing prices, and through the Wage Board they propose fixing expenses and costs. The socialistic wing of the party is gradually getting its jig-saw puzzle put together. They are gradually getting various points put through in legislation which when they complete their scheme, will form a very complete socialistic scheme for this country. Last night when we were discussing this subject the Minister was under the impression that the prices now fixed, that is, 25s. and 26s. 3d. and 3½d., as the retail price of sugar, were prices in force in March.

No, I never said so.

I understood the Minister to say that the retail price was 3½d. a lb.

That was all I referred to.

We will take that one point alone. Last night I denied that. To-day I have taken the trouble of enquiring, and today’s price and the March price of sugar is 4d. For the information of the Minister I have several grocers’ price lists here. I take it he was referring to No. 1 sugar. No. 2 sugar is 3½d., and probably that is where he has gone wrong. I would point out that the difference between 3½d. and 4d. is all the difference between affluence and bankruptcy as far as the grocer is concerned. Therefore I do urge that the grocer must have a reasonable profit on his sugar, a profit that will, at any rate, cover his reasonable, legitimate expenses. The Minister was under one misapprehension, and I made an understatement of fact as regards the capital employed in what one might call the current stock of sugar. I stated it would require half a million to finance it, but, after making enquiries, I find that I should be much nearer the mark if I altered it to a million and a half. That million and a half will have to be found by the producer, or a large portion of it, because at the price which the wholesaler is going to get, it will not leave him any margin to do any financing or any warehousing. I would suggest to the Minister, having become aware of the profits on sugar, does he think that there is any case whatever for fixing the price for the distributors. As far as the distributor is concerned, there is no case for fixing a price. No extortionate profit has ever been made on sugar, as far as I know. By the prices which the Board of Trade have fixed now, there is no margin at all. There is another aspect of the case. I did not discuss the risk the distributor has of the market going down. There is no provision as far as I know made by the Board of Trade to cover that risk. I could give the House a hundred instances.

Why not wait until the Bill comes along? You do not know the details.

No; unfortunately that is the difficulty in this House. We are asked to vote on things, and we are not given sufficient information to enable us to check and criticise them. There is one other point, and that is that I notice that in order to encourage the grocer, the Minister at the same time as he is putting a limit on the selling price, is putting up the duty on the bags in which the sugar is put from 1¼d. a lb. to l½d. a lb., so that you are going to make a man’s costs of distribution even greater than they are to-day. No man can see where the Government is going. They fix a man’s profit, and then they immediately put on duties to make his expenses higher. I am afraid that owing to this miserable time limit I cannot devote any more time to the sugar question. I should like to make one or two remarks in regard to the income tax proposals. [Time limit].

I am sorry the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is not in his place, because I wish to refer to some figures he quoted yesterday. They are rather startling figures, and I have not been able to either prove or disprove them. He contended that through the protectionist policy taxation is very heavy, but it would be interesting to dissect the customs tariff and find out what items are put on for revenue purposes, and what items for purposes of protection. One advantage under a bounty system would be that we would at any rate know what our industries would cost, whereas to-day it is a matter of speculation. The actual revenue from customs last year amounted to £8,250,000 On account of protection shutting out some articles and the bad system limiting purchasing power this year the estimate of revenue has been reduced to £7,250,000, so that the extra taxation spoken of was not justified by tin-facts. Of the items of the tariff, only about 10 per cent. of them have been increased. In some cases the increases were very small and in others they were merely suspended duties. Despite all the hubbub I say the Minister’s propositions are not so very drastic after all The hon. member for Kimberley said that if customs and indirect revenue were got rid of, industries would be able to work cheaper, and more employment would be found, but he omitted to say that, in order to get the necessary revenue to carry on the country we would have to increase the income tax by about 150 per cent. I am sure hon. members will agree that if the Minister came forward with a proposal to increase the income tax by 150 per cent. he would be chased out of the House The argument used on the other side is that instead of encouraging other industries we ought to concentrate on fostering farming and mining. With regard to the mines. I am glad to have the word of an expert, like the hon. member for Kimberley, to corroborate what I have already told the House. The hon. member tells us that our mines will last only about another 20 years, which goes to confirm what I said on the budget debate, that it is absolutely necessary for the Government to take steps to supply some other form of employment when the mines are worked out. The hon. member advanced the best argument in the debate for protection. He says we should concentrate on the mines, but in 20 years they will be finished. If at the end of 20 years, by some magic wand, you could establish another Witwatersrand all would be well, but no other mines are coming along, and the Government is not providing for any further mining extension. In ten years’ time mines will commence to close down and from then onwards we should be prepared to deal with 30,000 white men now engaged on the mines, to say nothing of the thousands now working in other industries, for whom employment would have to be found. In about 20 years’ time the leaders of the mining industry will be able to pack their bags and leave the country with a legacy of dumps and holes in the ground and miners’ phthisis sufferers. Unless we are also prepared to clear out, we must establish industries to provide employment for our children. For this reason I think it imperative that all we can possibly do should be done to support the Government to foster industries. With regard to the dumping duties on flour and wheat, I think the abolition of dumping duties has done good because it has given more certainty than hitherto to the prices, and the millers and the bakers know better what they have to pay. Growing wheat is a national industry and each nation should be able to supply its own food supply, which is one of the reasons why special consideration should be given to wheat growers. We have large areas of ground which are suitable only for growing wheat, and when you consider the low fertility of the soil, the sparse rainfall and low output per acre compared with other countries we find our wheat farmers are not favourably situated at all, and they want all the assistance we can give them if they are to continue growing wheat. If we are not going to encourage the farmer we will drive him off his land altogether and have to find employment for him. The railway rates to-day do not give the farmers the protection they gave some time ago. For instance, the wheat growers of Malmesbury sending their wheat to Johannesburg have now only sufficient per ton preference over the Australian farmer sending his produce through Durban. In 1914 the South African farmer had a railage preference of 25s. 10d. per ton. The important point about the Minister’s proposals regarding wheat and flour was that they would not raise the price of bread to the consumers. I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say that it was impossible to fix the price of bread. Recently in England the Cost of Living Commission there, not only fixed the price of bread, but fixed it at 9d. for a 4-lb. loaf, against 8d. for a 2-lb. loaf paid in this country. I certainly think, with regard to the proposed further tax of 5d. per 100 lbs. on flour, we should not agree with the Minister’s proposal, which is for the protection of the millers. Anybody, who has studied the question, knows that the millers do not requirt any protection. As a matter of fact, the public require protection against the millers. All the big milling corporations have been paying an average dividend of 25 per cent. and, in addition, have been putting a lot of money into reserve funds ; for instance, in two concerns I know the value of plant has been so depreciated that it showed more for depreciation than the first cost, although it was in first-class running order. Apart from milling, they control the bakers and have established a baking combine. We had evidence given before a commission that practically all the bakers in the Cape Peninsula are controlled by the milling companies, and on the Witwatersrand the same thing is happening.

That is not correct.

It is correct according to the evidence laid before a commission five years since.

Oh, five years! A change has taken place since.

The Minister has referred to the importance of the milling industry to South Africa, but how many people are employed by it? We, on these benches, judge of the importance of an industry by the number of white people it employs. The milling industry employs less than 1,500 Europeans, and in order to enable them to employ that number they and the bakers are allowed to plunder the public as they like. Rather than assist the millers to do this, we ought to take off the duty on flour altogether. I have always held that the preference put on motor-car bodies is insufficient to secure what is desired, viz., that motor-car bodies should be built in South Africa. In Australia, where they tackle the matter in earnest, they put on 40 per cent. preference, and the result has been that motor-car bodies are built on the spot. One firm in Adelaide (Holder’s) started seven years ago in this particular line of business. In that year they paid £3,706, and last year their wages bill came to £491,000. In Australia, when you buy a car, they ask whether you want one with an imported or local body, and in every case that I have seen the price of the local body is considerably cheaper than the other. If we were to go on the same basis as they are, it would make a great difference to us industrially. Last year we imported 13,000 motor-cars. If you take the average motor body at £76, it means that in motor-car bodies alone we could have an industry of £1,000,000 per year at least. Then there is the kindred question of batteries. Some hon. members complain that the Board of Trade do not only protect industries when they are called upon to do so, but have also suggested that certain industries should ask for protection. If the board is to be blamed for this, I should be blamed also, for I plead guilty to being re sponsible for this particular item coming into the tariff. Last year I met, in Cape Town, the representative of the biggest battery manufacturing company in the world. In the course of conversation I said to him—

And he told me what they did in Australia, where they were forced by the tariff to open a factory, and to-day they are practically doing all the battery business in Australia. I introduced him to the chairman of the board, and the result is this tariff to-day. The firm has now undertaken to come to this country and make batteries here, and I understand there are other companies willing to do the same. It is immaterial to me which concern does the business, so long as we get the industry here and as many of these things are manufactured here as possible. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) waxed very indignant about the particular item and spoke fiercely about monopolies and overcharges, but he seemed to forget that in this particular instance a suspended duty was suggested, and if these people should do what he fears, it would be the simplest thing in the world for the Minister to revert to the previous position by proclamation. If manufacturers tried to take advantage of the public, South Africa could be flooded with imported batteries within three months. In regard to overcharges, it is always suggested that it is only the local manufacturer who will overcharge; but we know the oversea manufacturer is just as prone to do so. In order to meet the extra customs duties and to keep their trade, numerous overseas firms reduce their prices to the local merchants ; and we have a direct instance in the mining machinery people who say that, in order to keep the trade, they are quite willing, despite the extra customs duty, to sell at the old prices. If that means anything, it means that hitherto they have been overcharging if they can cut their profits so easily. The matter is in the hands of the Minister, and if any of these people do not play the game, the Minister can say at any time: “We are going to withdraw your preference,” and does the House think that any responsible firm would come here from America and establish an industry in this country, and then play monkey tricks, so as to have their preference withdrawn? The Opposition have criticized this tariff, and some members have shed crocodile tears on behalf of the poor working man and the mechanic: and others on behalf of the farmers; but who have been shedding these tears? Not the representatives of the mechanics, nor the farmers in the House. Those who have complained are the representatives of the mining industry, whose business it is to get as much out of the country as they can immediately, and also the importers, who want to get their profits by handling goods from overseas, and do not care what becomes of the country afterwards. I appeal to the Minister to continue the policy he has adopted. My only complaint is that he is not going fast enough. He has the country behind him in trying to foster industries, and I trust he will pursue that policy right to the end.

When mentioning the proposed increased duties on whisky, the Minister said he did not expect he would get very much, but that it would please some of his hon. friends, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and others. I wish to stress the words—

The Minister knows from past experience that when the duty was raised he has got very much less in the form of duty and also that the consumption of the local product, instead of going up as the duty was increased, has gone down.

That will please them more.

If the Minister intends to please the prohibitionists or the local optionists he is going along the right lines in that direction, but the Minister should say so explicitly. I propose giving some of the figures showing the results of our experience for the last eight or ten years. The Minister will remember that in June last year, when speaking on the question of the extra duty on whisky, he said that the Board of Trade had to a certain extent, gone into this matter and that it was doubtful whether this would be doing a service to the local industries. He said it was an open question whether, if the import duties on whisky were increased, the local product would be consumed to a greater extent than hitherto. I am going to prove by figures which I think are indisputable that the increased duties, while decreasing the revenue do not affect the local industry in the form of increasing consumption. In 1913, when the duty was 21s., we imported 804,530 gallons of spirits. In 1916, when the duties were increased to 23s. 6d. we imported 786,189 gallons. In 1920, when the duties were increased to 30s., the importation fell to 644,243 gallons. In 1921, when the duties were raised to 37s. 6d. the importation fell to 532,372, and in 1923 with the same duty the figure was 398,335, while in 1924 it was 340,651 gallons.

What was the corresponding increase in local consumption?

I will come to that. In 1923 the revenue amounted to £718,043. In 1916 the revenue received was £785,207, but in 1923, when the duty was 37s. 6d., the revenue fell to £634,848. The hon. member asked me in regard to the consumption of the local article. In 1916. when the duty on imported spirits was 23s. 6d. per gallon, the consumption of colonial spirits was 2,227,178 gallons ; in 1920, when the duty was raised to 30s. a gallon, the quantity of colonial spirits consumed was 1,937,629 gallons, the corresponding: figures for the two following years being, 1923, duty 37s. 6d., consumption 1,893,420 gallons: in 1924, duty 37s. 6d., consumption 1,769,857 gallons. These figures speak conclusively that as you raise the duty on imported spirits the consumption of both imported and colonial spirits diminishes. The revenue obtained from imported spirits in 1916 was £785,207. and in 1923. £634,418. In 1916 the quantity of Union spirits consumed was 2,227,178 gallons, and in 1924 the quantity fell to 1,769,857 gallons. The question is if we are so anxious to have the consumption of the colonial article increased are we going in the right direction to obtain that end? I maintain not. It is best to leave things as they are. We are very anxious that our wines should be consumed to a greater extent in Great Britain than they have been in the past. When I had the honour and privilege of speaking for South Africa at Hull the other day I advised the people to come to South Africa, see the country, and drink our colonial wines and spirits. In almost every shop window in London our wines are exhibited, and you can buy them there very much cheaper than you can purchase them in some of our own hotels. You could buy Van Riebeek for 6d. at Wembley in London against 1s. here. The value of our wines exported to Great Britain fell from £104,419 in 1924 to £61,698 in 1925. On the other hand the export of wines from Australia to Great Britain increased from £823,982 in 1924 to £1,054,462 in 1925. Can this be due to the action of the Government last year in removing the 3 per cent. preference?

No.

Can that be working silently against us? We should maintain good relationship with the other side, as the greatest market for our produce is in Britain, and we must not fall out with it. The stupid sayings, “South Africa alone” and “South Africa first,” are rebounding against us. The figures I have given show what the results of our policy have been. Our policy is wrong. Regarding the gold industry, I have put a lot of money into that industry, but have never had a penny dividend. When people do obtain a big dividend from a gold mine, it is forgotten how much money they have put into unsuccessful companies, and not only received no dividend, but lost their capital, as I have done. It is now proposed to impose further taxation on the gold and diamond industries. I came across some figures the other day in regard to what the gold industry has yielded to us in the last 10 years out of the profits earned. In the period 1915-'16 to 1924-’25, the total profits were £18,321,257. Would it surprise this House to learn that the Union Government during that period took no less a sum than £6,986,379 out of those profits? That is apart from customs dues, and so on. In other words, the Government took by way of direct taxation 38.13 per cent. of the profits of the gold industry during that period. We are told that capital can easily be found for South Africa ; in fact, as much as we want. I am not so sure about that. I remember last year the Government wanted to raise a loan of £5,000,000 in London. I do not remember seeing the details as to the results of that loan. If the Minister is so convinced in regard to the raising of these duties that they will not bring a single fraction more, but, on the contrary, will produce less revenue, then I would advise him to beware of the Board of Trade. There is a commission sitting at present in Cape Town, of which Mr. Lucas is the chairman. I understand that commission is sitting in public. That is the proper thing to do. If the Minister speaks as he honestly thinks—and I know he is an honest man—he must be satisfied that he is pursuing a wrong line in this matter.

I find myself again having to join issue with some of my free trade friends in taking up the battle for protection from this side of the House, but if the Government considers that my action shows there is any real party disunity on essential principles, it is mistaken. Whilst the S.A.P. can hold different views on free trade and protection, they are united on far bigger principles.

What is a bigger one?

If hon. members will allow me. I will endeavour to explain. It is an amazing thing to hon. members opposite that the S.A.P. has so many voices on free trade and protection. But the reason of it is perfectly plain—the members of this party represent all classes and all communities in the Union. They are drawn from the town and from the country. Representing these conflicting views, they are able, in talking over their difficulties, to compromise all extreme views, and come to a decision which is in the best interests of the country. We have in our ranks the extreme protectionist and the extreme free trader, and we have others differing equally as much in other matters of minor degree. But all these differences disappear when one looks along these benches and sees on our front bench five Dutchmen and five Englishmen. That fact forms the great binding cement of this party. The principle that we are standing for, the unity of the two races, keeps us together in this party ; and I believe in that above all things. Provided both white races can act together in cooperation, each of us sinking our economic-differences, all struggling together for the best interests of this country, we are doing the country the finest service possible. That is the great binding principle of the South African party. I want to make another explanation. When I get up and defend the protectionist policy, it is said that I myself am a recipient of the benefits of the protectionist policy, in that I grow sugar. It has been said that I have in my constituency only people who are interested in sugar production. May I say that the people interested in the sugar industry in my constituency are not in a majority? Zululand is a constituency of a very wide and very varied interests. There are farmers in my constituency who grow wool others grow cotton. Nearly every kind of farming is carried on, and in advocating protection of industries, I have as much regard for them as for the sugar farmers. Regarding the virtue of protection, I would like to tell this House a story which has the merit of being perfectly true. Years ago there was a young boy who left Scotland and went to Australia. When he arrived in Melbourne with the proverbial shilling in his pocket, he saw an advertisement in a butcher’s shop—

He applied and got the job. He sent some time afterwards for his parents, and they lived in a cottage near that butcher’s shop, in his mother’s kitchen he started to make confectionery. Then the Government of Victoria put on a protective tariff, and from that little kitchen of his mother’s, that confectionery industry has grown, until to-day it supplies the whole wants of the continent of Australia. That is the history of MacRobertson. I want to point out this, that in Australia confectionery is sold below the English retail price. English producers, finding that they could not compete with this particular firm, were compelled (Messrs. Fry, Cadbury and Pascall) to form a company to erect an establishment in Tasmania, where they started also to produce confectionery ; and to-day Australia is an exporting country in that commodity. Here is a case where the imposition of a tariff has lowered the cost to the consumer. The whole argument of free trade throughout has been that a protective tariff means raising the cost to the consumer. We have had a wheat duty in this country for many years. Would it surprise the House to know that in Canada, where they grow wheat and export it, the price of bread is precisely the same as it is in the Union? According to the last statistics of the Union Government, the price of bread in Canada was 3.80d. per lb., and in South Africa 3.85d. per lb. In England it was 2.44d. per lb. What is the cause of the difference in retail prices between this country and England for instance? The cost of distribution, which is out of all proportion in this country to the cost of distribution in other countries. If any proof of that is wanted, it is given in this fact, that the wholesale prices in South Africa are the lowest in the world, and yet our retail prices are the highest. We talk about the retail price of sugar here. The cost of distributing sugar in this country is considerably greater than in Australia, where sugar is grown at one end of a huge continent, and then distributed all over by long sea and rail carriage. Before coming to consider the question of sugar, I want to say a word in regard to the figures given to the House yesterday by my hon. friend, the member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), because they have been referred to as “startling figures.” Whilst to some extent I agree that a bounty is the best thing to foster industries, in other circumstances I submit that it is quite impossible. The hon. member gave these figures to the House with an air of authority. He said that the average artizan in this country paid £50 a year through the customs. According to the latest returns, the customs and excise as a whole amounted to £9,500,000. I have in my hand the last census of occupation. I have taken the trouble to look up the statistics with regard to occupations and industries in the Union, and these show that there are 330,000 European males engaged who are living on a civilized standard, excluding all farming occupations. What are mechanics, what are artizans? Are they the only persons who pay customs duty? If these 330,000 European males paid £50 each per year through the customs, we should have a total of £16,500,000. How then, under that system, can the artizan be paying £50 a year? I have not included the farmer, nor have I included the native. But if the farmers and the natives are to be included as payers of income tax at the rate shown by the hon. member for Kimberley, the Minister should be budgeting for a customs revenue of 30 millions a year. Now let us take those engaged in industries which are protected. There are something like 50,000 people who owe their living entirely to protection. Where do they purchase their food commodities? From the farmer. He has a production of about £17,000,000 worth of milk a year. To whom does he sell it? To the people engaged in industry. The whole of production and the people’s activities proceeds in a circle. Production in one quarter begets production in another, and where production is stimulated by protection there is more wealth to go round. All sections benefit. I do not want it to be understood that in supporting the Government’s policy of protection, I am supporting the Government’s economic policy. That is an entirely different matter. I noticed the Minister of Finance interjected the other day, while the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was speaking, that the railways were productive. The railways are productive just as long as they can carry commodities from one point to another at a price which will enable those industries to continue to produce, but immediately the railways begin to charge such a high price as to wash out an industry then they become unproductive. That is why I cannot go the whole way with the Government in its economical policy. Now a few words on the sugar position. It may be interesting to hon. members to know that the world has reached a very critical stage in the sugar industry. The last world crop returns are as follows: In 1923 and 1924 the world produced 20,000,000 tons, which was an increase of 2,000,000 practically upon the previous season. In 1924 and 1925 it produced 23,640,000 tons or 3,525,000 increase over the previous year. In 1925 and 1926 the world produced 28,868,000 tons or 1,237,632 tons above the former season. The consequence is we have a tremendous over-production in sugar. The effect of this over-production may be judged from the following. I want to quote from the Cuban Review—

The situation became so acute that the President appointed a sugar commission to go into the position. This is what is happening. Recent cables show what the remedy adopted is. This telegram is from London, dated 2nd of April—

On April 10th—

On April 13th—

April 14th—

April 16th—

I have just received a wire—

I want to ask my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), in view of the grave situation in the world’s sugar market, when Cuba has had to reduce its crop by 10 per cent. by legislative enactment, whether South Africa is not in danger. Here is the position that a country which produces a quarter of the world’s sugar can land sugar to its own advantage in our own country to smash us out of existence. I ask whether that is not a real fear. The hon. member stated he admitted South Africa was the lowest protected country ; but he asked—

He quoted the example of maize. We have a duty of 2s. per muid on maize but it is ineffective, since we have to ship our maize overseas it does not affect our country at all. But he omitted to say that that duty was put on when the country was not producing sufficient for its own consumption and when we were actually importing maize. These sugar duties, many of them, have been imposed within quite recent years. They are effective in other countries where sugar to-day is being sold behind their tariff walls. I can tell the House what are the actual prices regarding sugar in Australia. South Africa and Canada. I have here the last issue of the Union statistics, which reflect the retail position. In Canada sugar fetches 3.8d. per lb., in Australia 4.5d. per lb. and in South Africa 3.85d. per lb. So that South Africa is having its sugar sold as cheaply as in Canada, where no sugar is grown. In all these sugar statistics one has to ask what kind of sugar is being quoted. The Government say that sugar is being sold in Cape Town at 3½d. My hon. friend, the member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), says it is 4d. Is it refined or low grade sugar? We have sugar in Durban which might fetch £22 per ton. and another grade which would only fetch £16 per ton, but it is all sugar. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth raised the matter of another injustice, the preferential railway rate. The greatest competitor in sugar in South Africa has been Mozambique, which rails its sugar free at South African produce rates. The preferential railway rate has never been any use to the sugar industry. It is one of those mere theoretical protections which in fact confers no benefit on the sugar industry. I believe the position to-day is that Mozambique sugar has the right to travel all over the Union at South African produce rates. I am open to correction but I believe that is true. In the particular legislation which is coming forward the Government proposes to fix the price at 3½d. per lb., and we have just had it from the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that it is being sold here at 4d. under the present conditions. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but I put this position to the House, and I think I ought to put it on behalf of the industry. Cuba is reducing its production because it cannot continue to sell at the present price, and the result must be that world’s prices must rise or the Cuban sugar industry must go out of existence You have the report of the Board of Trade, which points out that the Natal sugar industry is in such a way that it cannot continue as things are at present. In all these circumstances is it not taking an unfair advantage of the sugar industry to restrict it to the present low price? I put it whether it is fair under present conditions, when sugar is lower than it has been for years past, to pin it down to a price which if sold in an open market it would be able to climb up above in a year or so. If prices do rise South Africa has no guarantee that we shall be able to take part in these rising prices.

You do not want to suggest that the industry should have it both ways.

No, but I do suggest it should be fixed at a price which will enable the industry to come out on. My own feeling about this matter of protection is this, that a fixed tariff price is one which is likely to be abused. It is one which may bear at times very unfairly on the consumer and at other times may be of very little value to the producer. Supposing the price of wheat in the world’s market falls so low that protection is of no value to the people in this country, who may be going through a time of drought and getting a small yield, what is the use of a fixed tariff then. It will not save the producer from bankruptcy. On the other hand if the world’s price is very high, owing to a small world crop, and prices rise, the people in this country may have had a very good crop, and then they are reaping an advantage through protection to the disadvantage of the consumer. I have always felt about protection that it should be fixed in some way which will allow the producer to produce at a profit, and the consumer to pay a reasonable price. I would fix a protective duty by just ascertaining at what price a commodity could be produced with advantage to the producer and sold at a reasonable price to the consumer. I would then fix the duty and allow it to rise or fall in proportion as the world’s prices rose or fell, so as to stabilize the price. Half our industries are carried on under conditions over which our producers have no control. They are at the mercy of overproduction, if favourable rains fall in another part of the world. An industry in your own country may be closed down by dumping, and usually the Legislature looks askance on any protection to meet the circumstances.

You can impose a dumping duty if dumping is proved.

A dumping duty has so many objections. You have to prove many things.

You must prove dumping.

There are all kinds of dumping which cannot be proved. If, owing to no fault of their own, the price of sugar slumps, the protection granted by the Legislature, to safeguard the industry against uneconomic prices is lost. The producers should be protected against that slump, because they may be ruined by that slump. Why should not agriculture be protected? We have a Wages Act to see that the workers have a minimum wage, why not a minimum price for produce. Why should the workmen alone come along and say—

and the agriculturist must submit to Providence? A farmer may be closed down and made bankrupt for things over which he has no control.

Because he has to depend on the world’s markets.

There are many products the price of which does not depend on the world’s markets. But on things where you have to depend on the world’s markets, why should the producer be made bankrupt by having to sell in his own country below the cost of production, merely because another country has a great surplus. Why, because of good rains in the Argentine, should the mealie farmers sell at a loss here? That is a doctrine which spells stagnation to every agricultural industry in the world. No workman, no trades union would allow that. The world is insisting that everyone who puts in his labour in any task should have recompense for that labour. The whole aim of the age, if I read it correctly, is stabilization.

How are you going to fix the price of wool?

I think even the price of wool could be fixed. How did the world fix the price of wheat, sugar and wool during the war? How did the whole of the nations combine to put their goods into a common pool?

The supply was short.

The supply was regulated, and that should be the aim of all statesmanships, to regulate the supply and stabilize the price. Does my hon. friend suggest that it is always because the supply is short that prices rise, that there is no gambling in prices when supply is ample? How and when are prices regulated? The people who are producing commodities are frequently the victims of the gambling carried on by those who never see the product and gamble merely under a fall of rain.

Join the Labour party.

No, no. At any rate, I have tried to express to the House how at any rate the sugar industry could be stabilized, and I believe it is humanly possible to stabilize prices even in times of peace. I am convinced that if all agricultural products could be stabilized something on these lines, the country would be very much better off, the remedy is not to throw ourselves on the world’s markets, as my hon. friend suggests, but is to bring about the fullest co-operation in the sale of our products, which my hon. friends do not like. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) let the cat out of the bag the other day—

He said the age of the old merchant princes is passing away. The big houses now are vanishing, and everything is passing into a number of small hands. I could not help reflecting that that is a confession that South Africa is beginning to look after its own interests. South Africa used to be the happy hunting ground of the big houses which bought in the cheapest market and sold in the dearest. To-day, the manufacturers have created other channels of distribution through which their products reach the consumer without having to pay the huge toll exacted by the merchant princes. While realizing the great benefits which distributors such as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) confer—and whom despite our differences on free trade I regard with great admiration—I do say we are carrying too large a distributing class for our small population. While the farming industry is obtaining the barest pittance, you find the suburbs of the great towns studded with palatial residences, luxurious motor-cars going all over town, and people living in perfect comfort —on what? The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) spoke yesterday of the two sources of wealth—the mines and the farms. The primary producers pay, it is not the distributors who are paying to the customs, the taxes they pay are passed on and ultimately comes back on the farmers and the mines. The country would be much better off if these distributors turned their wonderful brains and energy to the laws of producing instead of distributing.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has quoted figures to show that, as a result of the tax on whisky, its importation has diminished. We are glad. That is what the wine farmers want. As to the consumption of the local product, the reduction has nothing to do with the duty on whisky, but must be ascribed to the people no longer taking so much drink, and preferring tea-rooms and cafes. People drink more tea and coffee now. I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is not here, because I want to make a few comments on his speech. It was interesting to hear the hon. member—one of the mining magnates—put up a plea on behalf of the interests of farmers. He said the farmers pay a large sum in indirect taxation. He was concerned about the farmers, and said that each paid £45 a year in indirect taxes, or 2s. 8d. per pound sterling of his income. I do not want to go into that, because the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) pointed out last night how incorrect the figures were, and I agree with the hon. member for Gordonia. The hon. member for Kimberley is concerned about farmers’ interests, but when the Government imposes a tax on wheat and flour, he opposes it. I have reason to think that the hon. member is not sincere and honest because, if he meant well to the farmers’ interests, then he must be in favour of the import duty on wheat and flour. His attitude makes one think of the words: “Sympathy without relief is like mustard without meat.” The hon. member is against the import duty and in favour of a premium, but if the Government had given a premium then he probably would be against that. The hon. member for Kimberley blows first not and then cold, and he has sympathy for the farmers, and then again he is unsympathetic. He follows the example of the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts). In the House, if his leader is in favour or against anything, it is only a question with him of yes and no. That is the attitude he takes up. When the Government wanted to protect the farmers in the export of eggs, the hon. member for Standerton said that it was a scandal.

He knows more than you.

The Opposition have no settled policy, but wander about. Now it is this way then the other. Our farmers, I am speaking on behalf of the part I represent, are quite satisfied with the protection policy of the Government. We are convinced that the Government’s intention is to assist the primary and secondary industries of the country. As an example of that, we have the action of the Government in allowing farming machinery to come in free of duty. In the time of the great drought the Government assisted the farmers with an amount of £500,000 to buy sheep, and also in fencing matters, the Government assisted the farmers. This Government, however, does not only aid the farmers, but also the industries, because the great object of the Government is to have the raw materials found in the country, manufactured here by our own people. In the past we have been sufficiently used as the milch cow for overseas people. To-day we want the milk, butter and cheese ourselves. I am, therefore, glad that the Government has taken steps to impose an increased duty on ready-made clothes. The Opposition is also opposed to that. During 1924 the imports of ready-made clothing amounted to £2,000,000, which proves that there is a large market for that commodity. What will it not mean to the country if we can make the clothes ourselves, because it will give work and bring money into circulation?

The poor man must pay for it.

In this case one must choose the side of the Government or that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) cannot have it both ways.

Are you in favour of the protection of wire netting?

I am glad that the Government has increased the import duty on ready-made clothes, and it was very wise to reduce at the same time the duty on cotton goods, which are used in industry by per cent. Then the hon. member for Kimberley also said that the policy of the Government was calculated to drive capital out of the country. I have never yet heard greater nonsense. A proof that that is not the case is the fact that 343 factories have come into existence.

Where did you find that number?

The former Government had no industrial policy. We had to squeeze things out of the former Government. We can well remember how the present Minister of Railways and Harbours stood opposite fighting for the interests of the factories to get something in that direction from the former Government. Our Government actually has an industrial policy, and the intention is to make the country self reliant and independent in economic matters. We, as farmers, give our hearty support to that policy.

What I wanted to say has largely been said by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir E. Oppenheimer) yesterday delivered a very effective speech which seemed to get the ear of the House. He said his figures were correct, but had been prepared by his staff. There is an old adage which says—

and I think the hon. member should have investigated his figures himself. The hon. member said that the average artizan paid £50 per year in customs duties. Who are the artizans? I have taken not simply men doing artizan work, but men of that class including railway men, post-office men, ordinary clerks and shop assistants, tradesmen connected with building and printing, and farm workers—not labourers —in the better positions, and the total of these comes to 160,000 persons. If you multiply that by fifty you get £8,000,000, and last year the customs revenue was £8,233,000, so one must see at once that the hon. member cannot be right in his figures. The average artizan in this country earns £1 a day equal to £300 a year. He pays 25 per cent. duty, so that, by spending £50, he must be spending £200 on things that come through the customs. You can take rent at £60, which leaves him with £40 out of his £300. He pays no customs on his butter and eggs, and his clothing is made in the country. If he is a wise man, he will buy his boots also in the country. So I think the hon. member will see at once that his figures are impossible. No working man could afford to pay £200 a year on dutiable goods, but there are other gauges by which you can test it. The average current wages up north are about 25s. to 30s. a day, and at the coast the tradesman gets 2s. 9d. per hour. That works out at about £6 a week. If you were to go round your shops you would find that the average shop assistant does not get above £25 a month. That makes £300 a year, and he is not able to buy these things. I do not know how the hon. member’s staff got the figures, but they will not bear investigation. I submit that the hon. member would not be able to demonstrate that the average artizan pays £20 in customs duties. There is another side to the question. This thing is ruining the country. There are between 50 and 60 thousand persons employed in industries. What is their spending power? If that is taken into consideration, who is given the benefit of it? The farmer; because his produce is bought. So that, if the farmer were to get rid of these duties and get his goods in cheaper —what he pays customs upon—he would lose far more in the sale of his goods on the local markets. He is the gainer to-day by the present system which is in vogue in South Africa. I would take the hon. member to Woodstock, Port Elizabeth, Durban, Wellington and other places where there are industries. What would be the result? You would have all these persons out of employment, and is it not better to have the employment in your own country? We know what Abraham Lincoln says and, much as I admire the hon. member for Kimberley— and he has been a successful man—I think, for statesmanship, I will worship at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. He laid down the axiom that if you want, say, 1,000 dollars’ worth of stuff—

We had that from the hon. member from Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) last night.

I am glad to see that my hon. friend has been saying his prayers, and is repenting to-day.

It is a fallacy.

Everything is a fallacy with my hon. friend that does not bring things down to the lowest cost. Thomas Hood’s Song of the Shirt would never have been written if there had been proper protection in Britain. The position to-day is that you have all these persons employed, and all that money being spent in the districts in which they are employed, and in the districts in which it is being spent, it is bringing employment and that brings prosperity to the country. I ask my hon. friend if he can name a single country in the world that has ever risen except Britain on free trade. America, the greatest country, I suppose, in the world, has protected industries. The hon. member for Kimberley said he believed in bounties, but if there are no customs duties and no means of raising revenue, where are the bounties to come from? The taxpayer will need to provide the bounties. If the farmer has to pay taxation in any form, where does the difference come in? It is better to provide it in this form than in any other. Where are you to get your taxes from? After all. 15 per cent., at least, of this is for custom purposes, and 10 per cent. may be for protection. Where is the revenue to come from? I think it will be generally admitted that the gold mines cannot afford to pay very much more. I think diamonds could pay a good bit more, judging by dividends and prices, and that is the only source at present that the Minister can tax. The coal mines, as a whole, are not paying too well. The bounty system has never been practised to any extent in any country. It is not practical. I am not in favour of bolstering up industries that are not likely to be a success, but whenever we have introduced the suggestion here to have protection it has been fought to the utmost. Take the boot industry ; it was fought and fought. If you could trace the boots from the time they leave the manufacturer to the time they get to the feet of the wearer, far more money escapes than is paid in customs duties and other sources. The intermittent sources take up more money than the customs duties. I regret the hon. member for Kimberley was not here to hear the hon. member for Zululand’s speech, because I challenge the former’s figures. The revenue of the country is only 8¼ million from customs, and I left out labourers and natives in my calculations. I only took artizans, so the figures of the hon. member for Kimberley will not bear investigation. He gave us no details of how they were made up or where they came from. The speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir E. Oppenheimer) was a beautiful utterance, but it will not bear investigation. I hope the House will continue its policy of protection. This is a young country, and we want it to take its place among the nations of the world, but that can be done only by providing occupation for its sons and daughters, and if we cease to establish industries, our sons and daughters must go under. Some of the biggest industries in the world have grown from small beginnings. I hope the Minister will not be shaken in his faith, and will not accept the figures of the hon. member for Kimberley as the last words on the subject.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is very much perturbed as to what will happen to the hon. member fur Caledon (Mr. Krige) and myself in the event of our voting against the proposed increased duty on wheat. At no time, however, have we intimated that we were against affording protection to the wheat producer, or to any other legitimate producer. When the Minister introduced his budget, he did not mention that he intended to give the Board of Trade the right to levy a dumping duty. I was justified in stating that a duty of 5d. per 100 lbs. on flour was not going to assist the farmer very much. The price of South African wheat depends on the price of imported flour. The hon. member for Piquetberg wishes to convey to the House that the wheat market has risen since the Minister declared his intention of putting a duty on flour, but that is not the cause. The real cause is the drought in Australia.

It just coincided with the duty here.

While I am absolutely in favour of giving the fullest protection to all producers, I warn the Government that there is a possibility of retaliation from the Australian Government. There are numerous enquiries for large quantities of maize for Australia, provided it can be shipped on or before May 16th, because it is the intention of the Australian Government to place a substantial duty on imported maize. No one can accuse me of not being a protectionist. If the hon. members for Piquetberg and Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) try to throw dust in the eyes of our constituents, they will not succeed. The hon. member for Malmesbury states that the production of wheat has increased considerably since the Government announced the higher duties. As a matter of fact, our wheat has not yet been sown, but I hope the increased duty will be an incentive to our farmers to grow more wheat.

I saw an article in “Die Burger” in which the writer is inquisitive as to what the members for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw), Paarl (Dr. de Jager) and Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) will say about the raising of the duty on whisky. I thank the Minister for it. The hon. member for Worcester and I were the only ones to speak last year when the Estimates came up, and subsequently in committee, and the Minister was then so friendly as to say to me that he would consider the matter during the recess. I heard that hon. members opposite advocated making the duty on whisky the same as in the country it comes from. I am a little opposed to that, because I think the whisky drinker is in a sense the friend of the wine farmer when the total abstainers become a nuisance. I am also thankful that the Minister accepted my hint to raise the duty on perfumed spirits by 11s. I am only sorry that the Minister has not also taxed all the powder puffs and brushes and face paint. The import duty on wheat is 7d. and 5d. per 100 lbs. more. I only sow wheat on a small scale, but I know the Malmesbury farmers, who produced wheat exclusively, are on the verge of insolvency. They said that if they did not also produce oats and other things, they could not exist. Many of my hon. friends here apparently do not understand the difference there is between growing wheat here and in Australia and Canada. In Canada—I get this from books—the standard of the soil is very good, and the area like that is very considerable. The climate is excellent, and so good that the wheat ripens on the lauds, can be reaped and thrashed there, while the straw remains on the land for fertilizing or for cattle feed. We, on the contrary, have to cut the corn, bind it and have it thrashed at home. Moreover, last year in Caledon, two-thirds of the oats was blown away. We have terrible gales. That the hon. members who live in the big towns do not know. I should like to give them a piece of ground to grow grain, and would not grudge them the profit in the least. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the Minister regarding the increased 5 per cent. duty on ready-made clothes. I am altogether in favour of the tailors and factories in the country being protected, but the poor man, as conditions are now, cannot have a suit of clothes made. A decent suit of clothes costs from six to ten guineas, which he cannot possibly pay, as he lives from hand to mouth. I should like to see the Minister alter this, so that only suits of clothes worth more than £2 10s. shall be liable to the higher import duty. The tax will especially hit our poor whites and coloured people severely. Then something about tooth powders, pastes and water. If these things are manufactured here, and it is certain that they are of good quality, then I have no objection; but I think it is the serious duty of every parent to see that there is tooth powder in the house. There are poor whites and coloured people who never have such a thing as a tooth brush in the house, and the consequence is bad health among the small children. If we do not manufacture the article well ourselves, then the duty ought not to be increased. Hon. members on the cross benches, such as. e.g., the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), advocate the building up of our industries. I am also in favour of that, but those hon. members are opposed to the protection of the wheat farmer. They forget that it is an industry on which thousands of people in the country are dependent. It is an industry which existed in the days of Father Abraham, and it is in a very bad way.

What about the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)?

Yes, very well, the hon. member has once and for all his own opinion, and he is honest and a hard worker. Let us allow him his pleasure. But the hon. member for Boksburg, who wants to protect industries, must not leave out the farming industry.

We have had a most interesting discussion ranging over many points, and I think that we have perhaps traversed into regions that are more theoretical than practical. We have had long discussions about free trade and protection. I do not think that discussions of free trade and protection are matters of practical politics for us, because now all three parties in the House are committed

Four.

Yes, four, the fourth party unanimously. They are all committed, as I was about to say, to a policy of fostering or encouraging industries, which is, in plain language, a policy of protection more or less regulated, more or less controlled. The question for us is what sort of protection are we going in for and how are we going to regulate it. I think we are most of us agreed, not all, on this point. Some members I know would like to see protective duties on everything that can be manufactured here on any sort of scale and under any sort of conditions, but most hon. members, I think—and I claim the Minister of Finance among them—believe in another line of action, they believe in a discriminating sort of protection. They believe in the protection of industries, but carried out in such a way that the consumer will not be unduly mulcted and that satisfactory conditions of production will be observed. We know from the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries which we have seen, thanks to the enterprise of the newspapers, that they proposed duties on various things which the Minister rejected, presumably because he thought that the imposition of duties of that kind would do more harm than good to the country as a whole. I believe they proposed a duty on imported phosphates. We ought to encourage people to bring phosphates into this country in any way that we possibly can. The Minister is evidently of the same mind as we are, that the protective policy should be a policy of discriminating protection and one that is administered so as not to press unduly on the consumer and not to hurt other industries in the country. That is the difficulty, of course, about administering protective policies. You protect one industry and find you are injuring another. In this country the problem is particularly difficult, because the main industry of the country, from the point of view of employment and productivity, is that of mining, and, although this industry is in itself not permanent, we are at the present time dependent upon it to an extent which sometimes alarms one. It is quite clear that any protective duties that we put on which are going to send up the cost of mining are going unduly to limit the amount of payable rock in this country and, therefore, limit the amount of employment which ultimately can be obtained from the gold mining industry. I was surprised to hear the way in which some hon. members of this House talked during this debate about the gold mining industry. They seem to think that it does not matter if you put up the costs a bit of the gold mining industry because, they say—

The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) said the other day—

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) says—

It means that you are going to more than double the income tax of anybody who chooses to invest his capital in gold mining in this country. I am not surprised that the Government has not carried out what the hon. member called a “promise.” In the carrying out of this policy of protection we want the advice of a most competent Board of Trade and Industries. I am not going to say a word against the competence of our present board. I do not take the simple optimistic-view of the hon. member for Ladybrand, who says that, because they are all good Afrikanders, they must be thoroughly competent to express an opinion upon any matter of trade or industry in this country, but I do say this that, however useful theoretical knowledge may be on a question of this kind, it does not and cannot take the place of practical experience of business and commerce. I do think that the Board ought to contain at least one member who has had some practical experience of commerce and! industry and the actual work of commerce and industry. Another thing I think is most essential and that is that they should not carry out their inquiries in the sort of go-by-night method that they adopt at present. Their reports tell us that they have heard representations from so and so, who produces a certain article. He says if he had protection he could double his plant or extend his industry very largely, and after going into the matter they recommend the Government to give him that protection. The Minister, when he was tackled about that, said that after all the Board of Trade could use their own common-sense as to what could be said in regard to the possible interference of a duty with other industries or with consumers. That is not enough. What would the Minister think if a judge, for, example, gave judgment for a plaintiff without hearing the defendant? The Board of Trade, however able they may be, cannot give a proper judgment without hearing the other side. They ought to hear the views of people whose industries will be interfered with by the duties which they are asked to put on, or the consumers. They ought to sit in such a way as to give people every opportunity of being heard, and their reports ought to be available to this House before we discuss these matters, because we are sitting in darkness on these complicated questions ; the House is uninformed. In regard to the question of the sugar duties, we have heard a great deal about the possible effect of these duties. This proposed duty on sugar looks very large, certainly, but it is accompanied by some very drastic, conditions, and I suppose it is the imposition of these drastic conditions that has induced the friends of the Minister on the cross benches to withdraw the almost frantic opposition which the present Minister of Labour used to put up to any question of an additional protection for sugar. I suppose they have become reconciled ; anyway, they are sufficiently reconciled to be absent when the debate is going on. They have been reconciled, I suppose, by these conditions. All this is going to be a very interesting experiment. The experiment of price-fixing has been tried, it is quite true, during the war, but do not let us be misled into thinking that because things can be done during war time, when production is limited, when everyone is prepared to co-operate for the common end in view, that experiments successful in time of war are going to be successful in times of peace. I shall look forward with great interest to seeing the result of this experiment, because if you can successfully fix the price of sugar so as to give a profit to the distributor that will enable him to carry on, and at the same time give the consumer a fair share in any drop in the market there may be, you will certainly take away a great deal of the opposition that can be legitimately put up against protection on an article such as sugar. We have heard from an hon. member who speaks with authority on such matters, that it cannot be done. I am looking forward to seeing whether it can be done successfully, and if so if the sugar industry can stand it. I am very glad this experiment is being made on sugar, because it will give us a great deal of insight into how far we can go in these particular matters. There is a great deal to be said for the Minister’s intention; that is, that the sugar industry should be protected against a sudden and violent drop in world prices which, due to conditions outside our control, might conceivably destroy or subject to crisis a thing like the sugar industry. There is a good deal to be said, too, for the proposition that a fixed duty, if it can be made effective, is better than a dumping duty, because when you have a fixed duty the people dealing with the article know what they are in for, and regulate their business accordingly. But in the case of the dumping duty, nobody quite knows what is going to happen, and therefore a man is liable to make a much bigger margin to provide for contingencies than if he knew what duties he had to face. I am very glad the Minister is going to revise, or attempt to have revised, the milling agreements in Natal, because they were made, it seems to me, in entire neglect of the interests of the sugar planters at the time they were made, and their revision, I think, is very long overdue. If the Minister can exact from the industry, in return for protection, a revision of the milling agreements on fair terms, it will be something achieved. I am not going into the duties in detail. Some of them, I think, are of very questionable value; others I see very little objection to. The policy which they are carrying out is a policy which I do not think will find any serious opposition from any party in this House, although it may from individuals. The policy, as I understand it, is that of a discriminating protection by encouraging our own industries in such a way as to avoid placing an unreasonable burden on the consumer ; and to avoid interference with the primary industries of the country, and that the Minister is endeavouring to do with the assistance of the Board of Trade. We have launched on this experiment and we must go through with it. It was begun by the late Government, and is being carried out more extensively by this one. I urge the Minister that he ought to take steps to see that enquiries which are set on foot in order to advise him whether or not he should impose certain duties, should be carried on by a board which brings to bear not merely theoretical knowledge, but practical experience, and in such a way that the people concerned may have an opportunity of being fully heard before a judgment is come to on the matter at issue ; and also the public should know and the House should know, definitely, what has been said for and against, what considerations have been urged, before the conclusions have been come to advise the Minister in the way in which he is advised.

As a farmer, I want to say one word of caution with regard to a protectionist policy on a very big scale and in a very big way. I would, as a farmer, like to refer to the object lesson of those who are engaged in farming in the U.S.A., which has been given to us as an example of protection adding to the prosperity and welfare of a country ; but there is another picture to be seen there and another lesson to be learned there. As an illustration, I will read a few words from a well-known author who paid a visit to America, and who says—

The agricultural and pastoral production of this country is estimated at a value of £70,000,000 of money a year. If we go in for a strong protectionist duty, as in this schedule, and if you look into it, you will find that it means an increase in the cost of production of 5 per cent., and that is putting it very low. This represents 3½ millions of money taken directly from the producers to pay the costs of this protective duty. Take your 20 millions of mealies—I believe it was more last year. I am sure that, under this protective policy, the costs will be increased by 1s. a bag, or £1,000,000 of money out of the pockets of the mealie farmers alone. We, as farmers, are not looking solely to local consumption, and all our exports have to go to the world’s markets, and we have to take the world’s price. If you are going to place any duty on articles which are a necessity to the people of this country and the people who are employed by the farmers, you are adding to their wages, and you are adding an increased cost to labour, and you will not receive the fair profit to which you are entitled ; therefore, the farmer has less profit. There is another serious aspect, which is that the smaller farmer is taxed just as heavily as the big farmer under protection in comparison with his efforts, whereas, under the income tax regulations, a man under £400 is exempt from that taxation. The poor man is not going to be exempt from customs duties. This question of protection, if on too big a scale, I am going to say in all seriousness, is to commit race suicide. We hear a great deal of talk about South Africa as a nation and as a people—a great and noble ideal —and worthy of the traditions of the people of this country—but are you going to maintain these traditions by straining every effort to entice people to go from the country to the towns? It is the duty of every farmer to make every effort to keep the people on the land, and to prevent their drifting to the towns, by giving them work on the farm, even if it is not such a profitable concern as it ought to be. There is no getting past it—the towns destroy a race. The more industrial you become in this country, the more you are going to destroy the race of this country. By keeping them on the land you are encouraging initiative amongst the Europeans—Dutch and British—and encouraging that skill which is naturally the gift that the European has, who is far better suited for work on the land than if he drifts to the towns and has to come into direct competition with other races who are better able to live on the economic wages which are certainly not suitable to a white man, and thus lower the wages on which a white man should live. I would appeal to hon. members to be very careful of introducing a protectionist policy in a very big way. It is going to have a detrimental effect on our people. We could do a great deal personally, as farmers, by keeping poor whites on our farms. I think this object lesson—this report on the condition of agriculture in the United States—ought to make every thinking farmer in this House seriously consider whether it is wise to go in for the big industrial policy that has been adumbrated in this customs tariff.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), who has just sat down, said that more industries would kill the South African people. I do not know whether that expression is quite right when one considers the figures that I have before me. We find the largest percentage of population engaged in industries in the various countries of the world, in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom the percentage of the population employed in industries is 51.2 per cent. which is more than half. The hon. member for Queenstown will surely not say that England has destroyed its people by its industries. I think the hon. member does not, by his statement, mean that the English race to-day has been entirely destroyed. Here are the figures which are very instructive. As stated, the percentage in the United Kingdom of those employed in industries is 51.2 per cent. In the United States of America it is 30.9. In Germany, 37.2. In France, 27.5, and in Italy. 25.8 per cent. Now I come to the dominions, because, for comparative purposes, they are of the greatest value to us. In Canada 27 per cent. of the population are connected with industries. In Australia the percentage is 30.2, and in New Zealand 26.5, in comparison with our position in South Africa, as far as the white population alone is concerned, of 12.3 per cent. white people who are concerned in industries. I repeat that that is only the percentage of the white population. The number of whites connected with the industries in South Africa is 66,000, and the total for black and coloured is 116,500. What does that show? If we take the percentage of the population, white, black and coloured employed in the industries, it is not 5 per cent., while, as I have said, in the United Kingdom it is over 50 per cent., and in the other dominions about 25 per cent, on the average. I allege that no country can be happy and develop without there being a certain percentage of its population engaged in industries, and a certain percentage in agriculture. I state that there is a certain relation to be maintained between the two. I think that less than 5 per cent. in South Africa is far too little for the development of the country if we take into consideration that we have rich sources of iron and coal, which are far larger than in many other parts of the world. Therefore, I think that the hon. member for Queenstown is not right. What I wanted to say, further, is that hon. members opposite repeatedly say certain things about the members of the Board of Trade and Industries. As I have mentioned, it is only a small percentage of our population that is engaged in industry and the Board of Trade and Industries is regarded as a body which can promote that development. What is the position? Hon. members opposite say that the members of the Board of Trade and Industries are young people without practical experience. That is not quite right, because one of the members is a man of middle age. Even young members, e.g., Dr. Bruwer, the chairman of the board, has made a special study of the protection question. Dr. Bruwer has written a thesis on the history of the South African tariff system. He has made a special study of the subject. What does a paper like the “Economist” say about that thesis? It says that the view of the chairman is an impartial treatment of protection and of Imperial preference. I do not think that it is quite praiseworthy for hon. members opposite to attack those members of the Board of Trade and Industries. They are people who are developing themselves, and have made a study of their specialty, and they have acquired a large amount of practical knowledge. Above all, they are people who work very hard to do the great work which has been imposed upon them. I should like to express my agreement with what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said yesterday, that we should honour and respect all the members of the board for their work in the interests of our country and people. There is something else I wish to call attention to. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other members opposite, such as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and now the member for Queenstown, have made it appear as if our tariff system has been so arranged as to entirely ruin the farmers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said, I think, that the scale of duties as we are applying it here is entirely intended to damage agriculture, and the hon. member for Standerton went further and said: What is the Government doing other than injuring agriculture? He used the word “hit.” Now I should like to mention a few figures to show that hon. members opposite, who think in that way, are wrong. The Minister of Finance has already quoted facts and explained the protection on wheat and flour, but here are some more facts. In connection with the protection of cheese, I may say that cheese was imported into the Union during 1924 to an amount of £30,000. To-day the position is improved. The import duty of a penny farthing per lb. has been increased to 4d. per lb., and the result is that cheese is no longer imported from abroad, but our own cheese is being used. During my visit to England, I found that all the dealers in Tooley Street, London, are asking for South African cheese. They said that our cheddar cheese was better than any other imported cheese.

What about Dutch cheese?

There is no cheddar cheese in Holland, but Gouda cheese. Our cheese is better than the cheddar cheese of New Zealand, and as I have said, the Tooley Street dealers say: “Send us more South African cheese, because it is the best in the world.” The action of the Government with regard to cheese cannot be called a “hit” at agriculture by the hon. member for Standerton. Then there is the protection of barley used for brewing beer. I think the Minister of Finance has made that plain. Last year import duties were levied on eggs, imported here in a dried form. The import duty of 17-20 per cent, ad valorem was altered into 3d. per lb., which is very high. That was done to prevent the import of egg products into the country. Then there is the protection of bacon and ham. We know that a large quantity can be produced in this country and, in 1924, bacon and ham was still imported from abroad to an amount of £60,000. Fortunately, however, there is now a duty which will stop the importation, because the Minister of Finance had increased the import duty from. 1d. to 3d. per lb. Then there is the question of condensed milk. The tariff on English condensed milk has been increased from 8s. 4d. to 10s. 5d. per 100 lbs. and, further, there is a suspended duty of 2s. 1d. per 100 lbs. Then there is, further, the duty on agricultural implements. The import duty was 3 per cent. ad valorem on all agricultural implements, not imported from England, and this import duty has been repealed. The hon. member for Standerton cannot regard that as a “hit” at agriculture. However it be regarded, the figures in any case show that hon. members opposite the hon. member for Standerton, Cape Town (Central), Queenstown and various others, who say that protection is being given at the expense of the farmers, are on the old, wrong road. I think that the Government are to be congratulated on their fiscal policy. It is a policy which will lead to the development of industries and of the agricultural industry of the Union.

I wish only to refer to one particular point. I think it unnecessary to go over the whole field again, and to discuss once more this question of free trade and protection. It is a purely academic discussion. In this House, with one or two exceptions, we are all protectionists in one degree or another. On all sides of the House, in all quarters, and I think in the country, public opinion has gradually hardened until one can say that it is, within reasonable limits, frankly protectionist. It is not a matter of theory, but how this policy on which we are all in agreement is going to be carried out in practice. There the trouble begins, and there comes in the difficulty in regard to the particular measures recommended by the Board of Trade or carried out by the Government. The question remains one of the practical application of a principle on which we are all agreed. I am not satisfied that the methods we are following at present are in the best interests of the country and are wise. I would ask the Minister if he is doing merely lip service to protection ; judging by the high standard of the Board of Trade, he is almost a free trader. I find that the bulk of the board’s recommendations has not been carried out by the Minister, and if he tried to carry them out he would have been dynamited out of his position by public opinion, although public opinion is protectionist. Therefore, there is something wrong in our methods. I am not passing criticism in general on the Board of Trade. I said last year, and I will repeat it, that I regret very much that so responsible a body of men have only had a theoretical training, are absolutely wedded to protection in its extremest form, and seem to make a fetish of most of the doctrines of protection, instead of exercising a judicial function. I find this board has made recommendations, the bulk of which the Minister himself, who is an ardent protectionist, has had to discard in the interests of the country. I have 21 instances of it, and I could show that the most important recommendations of the board have not been carried out by the Minister. I say there is something wrong in this. Why should the Minister be in this difficult and invidious position? He has not heard the evidence, but he is called upon to overrule the body which has heard the evidence, and I submit there must be something wrong in this procedure. The Minister can only act arbitrarily in the general interests of the country.

It is a matter of policy—there is no dispute about the facts. The Government is responsible for the policy, not the board.

Fifty per cent. of the recommendations are carried out, but the others, recommended equally strongly by the board, are set aside. We agree on protection, but we have not the best way of carrying out the policy. Criticism has been levelled from this side of the House at the manner in which the board has conducted its work. Instances have been given where recommendations have been made on one-sided evidence—certainly large sections of public opinion have not been heard. There is a great deal to be said for the view urged by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that, as far as possible, the evidence should be given in public. We are in this difficulty, that we know nothing about these matters until they are the law of the land. That is really a difficult position which I want the Minister to appreciate.

The tariff proposals are discussed in Committee of Ways and Means.

As soon as the Minister has announced his tariff in his budget speech, it comes into force. When the public hear of these things for the first time, they are the law of the land. Surely we ought to be able to devise a better method of informing public opinion before these important decisions are come to. It has been suggested that we might follow the Australian practice and take evidence in public, but that would not meet the case with the vast majority of matters brought before the board. If the evidence were given in public, that would be notice to all the world, to everybody interested in the matter, that this matter is sub judice, evidence is being given before the board on this matter, and they are put on their guard. I would go further, and make this suggestion. I want the Minister to consider this matter, because I want to have workable machinery for carrying out our policy of protection. My suggestion is, is it not possible when the board has heard some parties in regard to any special claims they are making for an increased tariff, that a notice should be published in advance before the actual finding of the board, before we are confronted with the matter here as the law of the land? Is it not possible for the board to announce the fact that a claim has been made before them, and evidence has been given before them in favour of raising the duties on certain specific articles, and that they intend making a recommendation to the Government thereon, and inviting further evidence on the matter from parties interested? That will be notice to the public that the board is dealing with the matter, and that they propose that the tariff should be changed, and consumers or other producers or people who are interested generally, may come forward. The result would be that when a recommendation is finally made by the board, the board would have the fullest evidence before it on the matter. The Minister may say that that would be notice to the public that duties are going to be raised, and it might lead to increased importations in the meantime. That, to some extent, would be an evil, I admit. It would be one difficulty in the way of the suggestion I am making, but I say it is a small evil compared to the situation we are having to-day. I think the board is placed in an impossible position under the procedure which we are following now. They cannot compel evidence before them, but if the procedure which I am sketching is followed, the public will not be able to complain. I am not sure in my own mind that we have hammered out the proper procedure in the application of our policy, and the result will be that if we continue as we are to-day, there will be a great deal of criticism of the board, which may not be warranted, but the public also will have a most legitimate grievance, because they do not know what is going on. Take the case of superphosphates, which is one of the items not adopted by the Minister. An official of the phosphate company comes and puts the case before the board, he makes out quite a strong case, and the board makes a recommendation. I do not suppose a single member of the public outside the phosphate company knew what was going on. All that we have before us appearing from this evidence is that the official of the company appeared before the board and made out a strong case, and the board adopts his view and makes a recommendation to the Government.

The right hon. gentleman forgets that this is a matter which was investigated by his own Government and acted upon. A duty was put on by his own Government.

I only want the Minister not to look upon this matter in a controversial sense.

I want to remind the right hon. gentleman that there was ample evidence and investigation of this particular point, which he cites as an example.

There is this proposal after having heard not a single farmer, not a single consumer in this country, this proposal to increase the duty on superphosphates. The Minister, acting quite properly in the public interest, says that he is not going to carry that out. I say there is something wrong in the procedure. I think we ought to have machinery which will inform the public of what is going on, and to my mind the most workable and efficient machinery would be if the board, after having taken evidence on a point, if they are going to act on the evidence and to be influenced in their recommendation to the Minister by it, then published the fact and said that a claim had been submitted and evidence had been given to them on a certain point, and they were going to make a recommendation thereon, and they invited evidence from the public. To my mind, it is purely a question of practical procedure, and if in this system of a Board of Trade we were to hammer the wisest and best procedure to follow, it seems to me that we shall not only be helping the good cause of protection, but we shall be serving the interests of this country in the best way. I do not want to raise any further points, because I think that with the proper application and working of our existing machinery, we may avoid a great deal of the sort of discussion that is going on now. We shall avoid the situation which we have at present, that the board makes a large number of recommendations, which the Government again, sitting in judgment thereon, without having heard any evidence at all, has to set aside. Quite rightly, too. I admit that the Government acted wisely in setting aside those recommendations. The board will be better informed and come to more cautious decisions if they have all sides before them, and that, to my mind, can only be done if they give proper notice as I have suggested. I hope the Minister will consider that point, and if it is possible, in that and other ways as suggested by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), try and get the actual machinery, which, to my mind, is by no means perfect as it is working to-day.

I only want to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We appreciate his efforts to make the House feel that there is possibly a better way to get a sound solution as regards the decisions of the Board of Trade and Industries. I must, however, say that I think the hon. member will soon see that the reasons given by him why it is necessary to take this matter into further consideration are actually of no account. He proceeded from the point of view that the board made proposals, and that the proposals were sometimes not adopted by the Government, but were rejected, and he said: “Well, now what procedure is there that the advice of the board, which has taken evidence and gone properly into matters, may not be rejected by the Government who know nothing of the facts and have not heard the witnesses?” I now want to point out to my hon. friend that when the Government rejects recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries, it does not at all mean that the recommendations are wrong from a purely industrial point of view. The Government does not act as an industrial board. That is the function of the Board of Trade and Industries. The Government exists for the purpose of seeing how far the recommendations of the board, although from an industrial point of view, they may be entirely inacceptable, may be acceptable in the general interest of the State. In other words, the Government precisely fulfils the duty that the hon. member for Standerton feels we should all fulfil, viz., that we are all protectionists. But the great question is not protection or free trade from an economic point of view. The great difference was always how far protection should go, but you see that is precisely where the Government sometimes rejects recommendations of the board. The board looks at the industrial life of the people, and says what consequences they may have on the industrial life, if this or the other step is taken, and in how far it will touch other industries, injuriously or beneficially. Now the board possibly makes very good recommendations in this respect, but because it has only to do with the industrial life of the people, the Government has to act from time to time, and say that certain things beneficial for factories, e.g., conflict with the interests of the farmers or of the traders. Then it is the duty of the Government often to say to the board: We can go so far and no further. The hon. member for Standerton—I want again to emphasize this —said quite rightly that it was not merely a question of protection, or not, and whether protection should be applied whatever the consequences of it might be. I remember quite well how Mr. Merriman said here: “We are all intellectually protectionists,” but it is absolutely necessary that the Government does not allow the board, which only looks after industrial interests, to prescribe what legislation should be passed for the whole population. We must, therefore, expect that from time to time the Government will not adopt the recommendations of the board. What surprises me is that the Government does not reject more of the board’s recommendations. Then the hon. member for Standerton says' that the board should possibly take more evidence in public and evidence should be got from other quarters as well, in addition to the present sources. But he has himself pointed out one of the difficulties, viz., that he is not at all convinced that it was desirable, because in some cases it would continue evidence unendingly, and that alone, to a great extent, could stultify a measure. He himself, is not convinced on the point, and is only making a suggestion. He says he is not certain that the present procedure is the proper policy for the board. The first thing we feel is that there should then be some other proper procedure for the board. As I understand the hon. member for Standerton, however, he is not even certain that some other policy ought to be pursued, or that it could be. There is only a doubt in his mind, and the question is whether it is not possible that the work would be better done by the board if more publicity was given to it, and if evidence from additional sources were taken. I will only say in this respect— the Minister of Finance has already referred him to it—that the board was not created by this Government, but existed before, and I do not think that I can refer to one case where, in the past, more publicity was given to the acts of the board. As for the report, about which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was talking recently, I do not think that the previous board did any other and better work—just the contrary. If there is anything wrong in the action of the board then an alteration can be made, but from what I have heard this afternoon from the hon. the leader of the Opposition, he himself, doubts whether there is any other way, and whether there is even any necessity to follow another way. I do not think, therefore, there is any reason for giving further attention to the matter at the moment. If we have got no further than that we think an improvement may be made, I say it is unnecessary to go into the matter further now, unless we can also say that we can improve upon the policy. In conclusion, I want to say that it seems strange to me that the hon. member first says that they are all protectionists, but later he adds it is difficult to say how far the protection ought to go. That is just the difference between us on this side and hon. members opposite. We here are, in any case, prepared to say that we have come to the House with the best we were able to put before it.

Why don’t you appoint a small commission to work the whole thing out?

Because we think that what we have put before the House is the best possible.

You have no business experience on the board—that is the drawback.

Oh, no business experience?

*Even admitting that they have no business experience, then they still hear evidence and get people to give evidence who possess the business experience about all the various details of any business with regard to which they are called upon to advise. And I must say that I do not see why, as long as they take the necessary evidence about matters upon which they have to advise, should not be able to advise about any business, even if they have no knowledge of it. Is there any one in this House? We will never find anyone who has experience of all branches of business. We can only obtain men who have experience of one, two or, perhaps, three businesses, but of other things they have just as little experience as the members of this House. And I say the members of the board must have knowledge how to dovetail things into each other, and that they must not only bear in mind the business in one industry, but also how measures with regard to one industry affect other industries. For that purpose professional men, and not business men, are required ; men who have been educated in political economy. We have them on the board, and I say that I have never yet found a board in this country which consisted of more capable men, and men more eager to render services to the country than the present board. What is more, I have come into touch with numerous prominent men in all walks, who have praised the Board of Trade and Industries very highly. I think it is unfair to condemn the board simply because it proceeds from a different point of view than the hon. members who are criticizing it, and I think that that is the basis of the criticism. Moreover, we must not forget that the policy of protection being carried out by the board is inspired by the Government. They only exist to make suggestions to the Government with regard to that policy from time to time, and I think the board is doing its duty as well as any board has ever done it.

I am in favour of protection, but in my opinion we are going much too far. Our young industries require encouragement, and I approve of that encouragement, but I believe there is a better way of encouraging the industries of the country, and that is by a system of bounties. By that means you do not penalize the rest of the country. If I may give an illustration, and it is one that affects my own party and my own province—nevertheless I consider it is wrong—we have an industry there, an extra duty of 2s. a case was put on condensed milk. That that particular industry was unable to supply the requirements of the Natal province alone, and this meant that the consumer had to pay a half-penny a tin more for his milk. That increase affected the whole Union of South Africa. If the country had by a system of bounties paid that industry so much on the value of its production it would have been very much better for the rest of South Africa. Now you are giving further protection to the clothing industry. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here just now. Last session the Minister flourished in this House a letter he had secured from a clothing manufacturer in Durban, hoping that the Government would impose a protection on shirts, as he intended establishing a shirt factory in Durban. I happened to be in Durban at Easter when the Wage Board was sitting, and it was most interesting to me to find that the employees of that manufacturer gave evidence stating that they were not receiving a living wage, and if they wish to augment it, it is necessary for them to work in the lunch hour or at night. In my opinion that is an industry that ought not to be protected unless it can be proved to the Government that they pay a living wage, and I strongly object to a tariff which is going to bolster up industries of that kind. I suppose I may touch on the sugar question, seeing that it affects my province. That is an industry which employs an enormous amount of labour and has brought a tremendous amount of money into the country and therefore it should receive proper protection, particularly at the present time when there is so much production in other parts of the world. The protective duty in this case should be such as to prevent other countries dumping their sugar in this country. I also agree with the hon. member for New-lands (Mr. Stuttaford) in regard to not fixing the retail price of sugar. I do not wish the consumer to pay top price but to restrict the price to 3½d. per lb. would mean that the retailer would be compelled to add the ½d.— the price is now 4d.—to some other article, so that the consumer does not benefit by this reduction at all. I hope the Government, before protecting an industry, will satisfy itself that the industry is paying a living wage, and in view of the evidence placed before the Wages Board in Durban at Easter, I suggest that the Minister should satisfy himself that that clothing industry is paving a living wage to its people.

I would like to ask the Minister, in his reply, to state definitely what the policy of the Government is in regard to the protection and stimulation to be granted to the iron and steel industry in this country. The late Government did this by means of a bounty; and at that time the Steel and Iron Bounties Act was passed the board recommended that the subsidiary industries, when the time came, should be supported by bounties, but apparently the subsidiary industries are now to be supported by means of a tariff. It is very important to know whether the Government intends to go back on that policy or intends to support the iron and steel industry by means of a bounty and the subsidiary industries by means of a tariff. If we are to establish our subsidiary iron and steel industries on protective duties, then we will not be able to produce the requirements in these industries which will enable us to compete in the adjoining states, and we will restrict the industry purely to South Africa. I believe there is a very wide field for the product of our subsidiary iron and steel industries in northern and southern Rhodesia and other neighbouring states, in the future; and unless we can look to a certain amount of export, the local markets will not be sufficient to establish the industry on a sound national basis, and make a success of it. In my opinion this can only be done by means of a bounty. If the Minister is going to change the bounty system, it might affect the present effort which is being made in this country, to establish the production of iron and steel very materially; because the industry is being built up on the bounty system provided for under the present Act. In my humble opinion, if we are going to preserve our civilization in this country, we are bound to stimulate our industrial policy as far as we possibly can. But in doing that we must always see to it that those industries which ask for protection must, as a base, use the products of this country. It is no use building up an industry which is going to import its raw materials from other countries. All industries which ask for protection should be told that they must employ a certain proportion of white labour. The clothing industry, which has sought further protection, employs considerably more coloured people and Asiatics than Europeans. The last industrial statistics for February show that the increase among Asiatic employees in Durban is 25 per cent., Cape Town 30 per cent. and 80 per cent. on the Rand since July. I should have thought that when these people came to the Minister for protection he would have only given them protection provided they employed a certain quota of Europeans. He has imposed conditions on the sugar industry, why not the clothing industry. I hope the Minister will make a clear declaration as to the protection he is going to afford to the iron industry, and whether it is to be a sine-qua-non that all those industries, who seek protection, must employ a fixed quota of Europeans.

The more I listen to proceedings in this House the less I am impressed with the value of arguments concerning votes in the country. At the same time I am very much impressed with the fact that such arguments as have been heard from this side of the House should go forth for the information and education of the country. Very little is heard from the other side ; evidently the word has gone forth for hon. members there to remain silent. I desire to speak on behalf of those whose lot in this country needs some championship. I refer to the poorer labourers, whether whites, coloured or natives, to the public servants of small incomes, and to professional men of small incomes. You will find the cost of living advancing by leaps and bounds owing to this protection policy run mad. Of course, I believe in protection of a sane sort, but not the sort that gets beyond being sane and reaches the verge of madness— a policy of protection to the wage-earning class on whose behalf I want to lodge my protest against the present tendency of legislation imposed by a majority and a measure of protection that is harmful and burdensome and dangerous to the peace and good order of this country.

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

I move—

I want to say at once that I shall be very short and I hope hon. members opposite will be patient while I proceed with the Bill. I feel, however, that it is still quite early, and that we can go on for some time, because hon. members can rest to-morrow and the day after. Therefore, I hope they will not object. I am very pleased to be able to say with regard to agricultural education in the country that amazing progress is being made, especially when I think back years ago when the agricultural schools were established at Grahamstown and Somerset East in 1889, and when there was so little interest that the schools were locked up for three succeeding years. At that time people thought that it was not necessary to have education in agricultural matters. They thought a farmer was made automatically, and that a person could farm without any training. To-day we find that the position is quite different, and we particularly find the younger farmers giving attention to the hints of the experts and arranging their farming business in a proper way. It is they who are going to make a success of farming. I want to say at once that, as regards higher education, the first seed was planted shortly before the establishment of Union, when the Transvaal House of Assembly resolved to vote a grant for the establishment of an agriculture college. Those allowances had to be obtained from money repaid out of war repatriation loans, the collection of which took a long time, and which, as hon. members know, were afterwards very much written off. The matter was thereafter postponed until, in 1917, the House decided to grant £100,000 to the Transvaal university college for the establishment of a faculty of agriculture. After the reconstruction of the university system in 1916 the other universities, inter alia, the university of Stellenbosch, urged the Government to establish faculties of agriculture. The applications were considered, and that of the university of Stellenbosch subsequently granted. What I, therefore, wish to propose in the Bill is nothing new I hear more than one hon. member say that the freedom of universities is being taken away by the provision in the Bill that the agricultural college will fall under the control of the Government or of the Department of Agriculture. Let me at once remove that idea altogether. The faculty of the university is still just as free under the Bill, and after the passing of it the faculty will still have the same freedom as it has to-day under the university. There is, therefore, nothing in the idea that the freedom of the faculty is being taken away, but it is certain that it will enjoy the same freedom as it has to-day. It is said that the Minister of Agriculture, under this Bill, will have the right of appointing the officials of the faculty. Let me say at once that that is not so. The appointment will not be made directly by the Minister on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, unless the appointment is recommended by the university. Therefore the statement that the freedom of the faculty is being taken away falls away. Now the question arises: Who are the best people to judge with reference to the alterations here proposed? It is very clear to me that the university authorities are the very people competent to decide the matter. The problem was considered by the authorities of the Stellenbosch University, and they adopted this way. The Bill has been drafted with the approval of the university. I consider them the proper people to judge with regard to the working of the Bill in the future, and as they are in favour of the Bill I do not see that there should be any objection to it. My predecessor, as Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows what the feeling was some years ago with reference to the faculties of agriculture. In 1921 he appointed a Commission of Enquiry with regard to agricultural education, to find out whether it was necessary to have more than one faculty of agriculture in South Africa. The commission expressed the view that one faculty would be sufficient for the requirements of South Africa for a number of years. Whatever the feeling was at that time, it seems clear that, in the present circumstances, the existence of two faculties, one at Pretoria and one at Stellenbosch is justified. There is amazing progress to be seen. In 1922 the number of students at the faculty at Stellenbosch was 32. In 1923, 44; in 1924, 68; in 1925, 109; and now there are 192. I feel that if the Bill is passed there will be much progress, and in six years’ time the number of students will be doubled. The commission appointed by my predecessor did a certain amount of good work in recommending that, in the primary and secondary schools, agriculture should be a subject of study. In the Cape Province steps were immediately taken in that direction ; the Free State and Transvaal followed later. The Minister of Education and I felt that it was very necessary that we should consult with the provincial educational authorities and members of the universities to bring about a uniform policy with regard to agricultural education as much as possible. The conference took place in October last, and I am very glad to be able to say that the desirability of extending agricultural education is universally admitted, and steps have already been taken by us to instruct various teachers, who had not had any agricultural education. That is taking place now at the agricultural schools at Grootfontein, Glen and Potchefstroom. There are a large number of applications for teachers from various parts, and arrangements are being made so that young people can be admitted to the agricultural schools mentioned to a two-year course to fit them to give education in agriculture in the primary schools on the countryside. To that must, of course, be added the two faculties at Stellenbosch and Pretoria, who prepare teachers for the secondary schools. There the course is one of four years. That will assist us very much. We are always talking about economy. Everybody will feel that it is desirable that there should be co-operation between the two bodies at Elsenburg and Stellenbosch, which are only seven miles apart, and this can only be attained by amalgamation. In other parts of the world, such as America and Canada, the same system is applied that we are now applying. The professors and lecturers will now come into touch with the countryside, and not only with education. It is of great importance that they should not get into a groove. It will also be understood that if there is no amalgamation there will be a duplication of research work, of machinery and tools and also of lecturers. If Stellenbosch had to-day wanted to buy the tools, etc., of Elsenburg then it would have required £10,000 or £15,000. We cannot see what the objection can be against amalgamation. It will be an advantage to the whole country. As hon. members know the University of Stellenbosch is financed like the other universities by the State for the most part, For this financial year the University of Stellenbosch will contribute about £5,450, and the State £14,725 to the expenditure of the faculty at Stellenbosch. The contribution of the university consists of students’ fees and receipts from the experimental farm. It will be necessary in the coming year to further develop. To allow of this development to take place it will be much easier if Elsenburg amalgamates with Stellenbosch, because they can then get all the various requirements at the Elsenburg farm. Elsenburg is an institution with a good staff of capable teachers. I may say that many of the professors who are to-day at the agricultural faculties are people who have come from agricultural schools. The officials will therefore be able to interchange work. There are some who can be used for the faculty and others of Stellenbosch who can do certain work in connection with agricultural schools and short courses for farmers. By the amalgamation we shall get many more experts who can be used for development work, and therefore the effect will be very good. The official will then be able to go among the farmers and give them advice. Up to the present the farmers have not given much attention to the business side of farming, but if people are properly trained then I do not doubt that there will be much improvement in this direction. The newspapers say that we are taking away the power of the universities, but as has already been said: Who can best judge of that, the universities or the people outside them. The universities have always fought for their freedom and will not give up their rights. I do not think that any Government in the world would try to encroach upon the powers of the faculties or reduce them. If they were to try anything of that kind they would certainly get into conflict with the whole educational world. I think the objections that are being raised do not amount to much. Now as regards the agricultural professors at the university, they are employed on the teaching side of the matter, but we want them to take the practical side as well and to make enquiries so that in time they can co-operate and get into touch with ordinary people, so that there may be sympathy between the agricultural faculty and the farmers. By this Bill much of what they wish will be brought about. As for the appointments they are not made to-day directly through the Minister, but the necessary money has still to be voted by Parliament if the university wants to extend the faculty of agriculture. As I have said as regards the agriculture professors, the Minister is obliged to accept the nomination of the university. It is not necessary at this stage to go into the various clauses of the Bill, because if the House wishes it I would not object to refer the Bill to a select committee. If there is any doubt with reference to subordinate points in the Bill, and about the success of the amalgamation of the agricultural faculty of the Stellenbosch University with the agriculture school at Elsenburg, and if hon. members think that there may be a hitch and would like the Bill to be referred to select committee, I shall make no objection. Those points can then be thrashed out in select committee, and if the select committee thinks that any amendments should be made in the Bill, then it can be proposed in select committee to take evidence to find out if it will not be best to pass the Bill as now proposed by me.

I hope the Minister will now be willing to accept the adjournment, as I have some points to discuss in connection with this Bill and I do not know whether the House is prepared to listen.

Oh yes, go on.

The first point is in regard to the difficulty raised by the Minister about the independence of the university. The Minister said, who should be the best judge of that? That the University of Stellenbosch is prepared to agree to this Bill and that they should be able to say whether it is too much Government interference or not. That may be so; but considerable inducements are held out to the university. I have known universities jump at the prospect of financial advantage and give away privileges which afterwards they would rather have kept. I am very strong on the point that we should not allow the universities to become departments of the Government. They are going to lose everything that is best in university teaching if they do that. When I was Minister of Education, therefore, I did everything I could to prevent that. They should be given their own life and the power to manage their own business and run their own courses and create their own spirit ; otherwise they will not be performing their proper functions. The Minister says this does not take away the independence of the university. If it does not, I am very much surprised—that is in regard to this particular faculty, not otherwise. Elsenburg College, and the faculty of the University of Stellenbosch, are to be under the control of the Government and administered by the department. If that is not Government interference I do not know what is.

There are conditions.

The only respect in which the university is not so is that the Government cannot make appointments of a principal or professors without the recommendation of the university.

What about section 4?

That is all right, but it is over-ridden by the fact that it has to be under the control of the Government.

No.

Then what does Clause 2 mean? Take out that, and I admit that it will take away a great part of my argument. Then, under section 5, the principal is to be an officer of the public service and to be responsible to the Minister. If that is not interterence by the Government, I fail to understand language, and I think that it is undesirable. I agree with the Minister that an amalgamation of some kind is desirable, and that, it was a waste of public money to have these two institutions running under different control and spending money very often for exactly the same purposes. But if I remember rightly the difficulty about Elsenburg School was that they could not get any students here. There used to be more instructors than students some years ago. It seems to me a better plan would have been to allow the University of Stellenbosch to take over the school altogether and run it as their faculty of higher agricultural education. I am not clear what the position is in regard to students who come to Elsenburg, not for the university type of education, but for the agricultural school type. I understood the Minister to say that that would go on as before; that farmers' sons would go there who intend to take the ordinary courses of an agricultural school but not a degree, but it appeals that all the students are going to be students of the university, Are they going to matriculate, and, If so, what entrance examinations are they going to pass? If you are going to take the ordinary farmer’s son who goes to this college as he would go to Grootfontein or any other agricultural college, and make him by law a university student, you are making: a great innovation in our university regulations, and one for which there is no justification. That is a point which I should like to be cleared up. I should like to know from the Minister what he is going to do with the Pretoria faculty. Is he going to constitute another statutory body up there to run the faculty of agriculture, or is that going to go on, as now, under the control of the university authorities? I want to know the necessity for this new statutory body that we are creating. We are creating a thing we call a college ; it is not a university college or a university in the ordinary sense of the word, but it is like one of those fabulous animals, half man and half horse—half a university faculty and half an agricultural school. I do not see why we should create a new organism in our educational life. Why could the change not have been effected by allowing the university to take over the agricultural, school? I am glad the Minister is going to send the Bill to a select committee, for it requires very careful consideration.

I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to, refer the Bill to a select committee. Opinions upon it are not so unanimous as the Minister thinks. It is perhaps daring of me, or of any member, to express his opinion on the matter when, as the Minister has said, the learned pundits of Stellenbosch have given their approval to the scheme, or asked that it should be carried out, I feel, however, as an old boy of the Stellenbosch College, that when legislation is introduced which may possibly in the future damage the universities, it is my duty to say a few words about the proposal. I think the University of Stellenbosch has acted quite rightly nr deciding to create a faculty of agriculture. They immediately attain success, and the faculty is developing more and more, and the number of students increasing. One could expect, when the faculty was created, that a time would arrive when it would be clear that two institutions of this kind could not exist in the Western Province, and that it would then appear that the institution which best answered the object, Elsenburg or Stellenbosch, would have the most success. Therefore, we find to-day that one is succeeding and the other retrogressing. That appears when we hear that there are almost just as many teachers as pupils at Elsenburg, and that on the other hand a tremendous development is taking place at Stellenbosch, and the number of students is nearly 200. That is a proof that Stellenbosch is answering its purpose, and the other institution not. If that is the position, then we can, of course, expect in future that our policy with regard to agricultural education must take account of the experience gained. I think, therefore, that it is wrong to have the two institutions next to each other, and everybody felt that they should be amalgamated into one. The simplest thing would have been what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has suggested, viz., that the faculty of Stellenbosch should merely have incorporated the agricultural college of Elsenburg. I think that would have been the best. Why keep a college which in the past has not been what we expected of it? Last year, during discussion on the agricultural vote, I said that I thought the State was not getting sufficient value for the money spent on agricultural education, and I think that must be attributed to the agricultural colleges being based on a wrong system. It is not the work of a Government Department, such as, e.g., the Department of Agriculture, to look after the requirements of education. Education should not be placed under a Government Department, but under universities and schools. Where the University of Stellenbosch occupied itself with agricultural education, it had more success than the Elsenburg Agricultural College under the Department of Agriculture. One can learn a lesson from that and see that the more education is conducted by the universities and schools, the better it is in the circumstances. Instead of the lesson being learned, one now gels the position which is created under the Bill, that there are now being created three kinds of institutions. The old system of agricultural colleges, such as Grootfontein. Cedara and Potchefstroom, and the university with a faculty of agriculture such as in Pretoria still continue, but now there is a third kind being created, partly under the Agricultural Department and partly under the University of Stellenbosch. I think that is an entirely wrong system. It would have been much better if the hint of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan had been accepted, if you leave education to the institution which has been established to confine itself to education. I think that it will be well if the Bill can be referred to a select committee, and it can be arranged that education shall fall under the University of Stellenbosch, but that the research work which is done at Elsenburg shall continue under the Department of Agriculture. If the system proposed by me is adopted, the Agricultural Department will more and more be able to establish further experimental stations of this kind. If such experimental stations are more used by the Agricultural Department for agricultural matters, then the experts can make experiments in a very much more effective way through the whole country, and remain in touch with the requirements of the farming population and spread knowledge amongst the latter so that they can get a better grasp of agricultural questions. I feel that these two big things, education and research, must be separated, and that education should no longer come under the Department of Agriculture, but be placed under a university and schools. As we know, that is the policy of the provincial administrations, to more and more provide agricultural education in the schools. When, then, such provision is made, the necessity for such large agricultural colleges as existed in the past at Grootfontein and Elsenburg will cease to exist, because the work hitherto done by them will be done in the schools, while higher agricultural training will be given by the agricultural faculties. If we rather took steps and passed legislation with this object, then agricultural education would also be of much more benefit to the farmers. There is no doubt that the universities have full liberty, and as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in contradistinction to the Minister has already said, the Bill does not give liberty to the universities, and I fear that if any faculty of a university should come under a Government department it would be detrimental to education. Therefore I should not like to see the liberty of the universities ended. Why should agricultural education be given by a Department of State? Why do we not find the Department of the Interior or of Public Health training doctors. Why do we not find the Department of Justice attending to the training of advocates and attorneys, or the Department of Industries that of our engineers? It is not the duty of the State and administrative bodies to occupy itself in this way with agricultural education. The Minister stated in self defence that the best people who were able to judge were the pundits at Stellenbosch, but are they responsible for the education policy in South Africa? That is the point open to most criticism. Was the Department of Education consulted in connection with the matter? Where is the Minister of Education? Should he not have been consulted in the first instance? Is it not he who has to introduce legislation in connection with educational matters. With all respect for the Minister of Agriculture—who is quite able to do it—I ask whether it is not the duty of the Minister of Education. There must be a definite Government policy with reference to education, and it must not be left to any department. For these reasons I cannot but say that I think that a mistake is being made here, and if we allow the Bill to pass it will possibly be said later: Why did the old students of Stellenbosch not raise a warning voice. Because I feel that the day may come when Stellenbosch will regret this step. As already stated the soul of the university is its freedom. I do not wish to prevent the universities from co-operating with the Agricultural Department in research work. On the contrary I wish it, and we must therefore try to get co-operation between the universities and the Agricultural Department. The faculty of agriculture which occupies itself with purely scientific work can then co-operate with the Department of Agriculture and take the necessarily highly detailed research work, and that can easily be attained in the Western Province, where two universities are so close to each other. It is quite easy for Stellenbosch with the Elsenburg experimental station so close to do research work in consultation with them. The universities should exist as a body which can regard the experimental stations as the highest authority, to which they can look and expect scientific knowledge from. I have spoken about the freedom of the universities. We saw recently that an article was written by an official of the Agricultural Department about the manuring of orange orchards. The official prescribed a certain manure and we find that the system of manuring which was suggested by him was, a short time after, completely contradicted by the agricultural expert of the Stellenbosch University. This shows how necessary an institution is of which the staff can express its views for the benefit of the farmers. If it were not for the freedom of the professors then this expert would probably not have made this criticism. If the agricultural professors are State officials they will not criticize, because we know that one State official will not criticize the work of another. As there was absolute freedom in this case, the professor, as one serving the interests of science, felt at liberty to criticize someone else. Therefore I feel that the liberty of the university must be retained, because it may greatly injure agriculture which is the most important industry—the backbone of the country—if the freedom of the agricultural professors is taken away. It is in the interests of agriculture for them to serve science in the best possible manner.

I just want to reply shortly to the various points raised in the debate. The hon. member for Yeoville said that there was much “inducement” for the Stellenbosch University to join up under the Bill. As far as I know the professors at the Stellenbosch University, they will not allow themselves to be led merely by additional support on the part of the Government. They are too highly placed for such an accusation to be made. I think that the members of the University of Stellenbosch will feel at once that the hon. member is injuring them when he says that the money and additional support they will get have driven them to accept the proposal that the control should come partly under the Department of Agriculture. I do not think it is fair of the hon. member to say that. Those men have sacrificed too much and they are not inspired by any such thing. In the United States of America, a land far in advance of us in agricultural matters, and also in Canada the same thing is done, and steps of this kind are taken. If the university is only occupied with books and does not do practical work and come into touch with the agricultural schools and the public, it will have an injurious effect on agriculture in the future. Therefore I think that the step now being taken is very important for the future of agriculture. The Stellenbosch University feels that more will be able to be done in connection with the Agriculture Department than hitherto. The students at the university will be trained and take courses to obtain degrees in agriculture, and at the experimental farm there will be special courses for the obtaining of diplomas, e.g. in viticulture and horticulture and short course on various subjects. The hon. member for Yeoville says this is duplicating work. I do not think so. We find that co-operation cannot succeed and now we want amalgamation because that is always better than co-operation. In the case of co-operation, one takes a certain direction and another the other. Now we want to amalgamate the two. As for the liberty of the university and for the agricultural faculty, I do not understand what the hon. member means by freedom. There are many kinds of freedom. The Agricultural Department will not stand in the way of professors who are working in a certain direction, and will not, after their appointment, get them to work to-day in this direction and to-morrow in another. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) asks why the agricultural schools were a failure. Can he say where? They were one of the greatest successes. If they had not existed where would the farming industry be to-day?

On a point of order I did not say that they were a failure. I said that the country was not getting enough value for the money spent on agricultural education.

My view is just the opposite, and I think that the training has contributed most to the development. Just look at the neighbourhood of the schools. How is wool-farming doing to-day? How has the fruit industry been developed? Was it not to a great extent due to advice received from the schools? There are only five of these schools in the country and I am very glad to be able to say that the farmers are commencing to attach so much value to the advice of the schools that we have not enough people to send when the farmers require assistance. Will the hon. member then say that the agricultural schools are a failure?

May I make a personal statement. The Minister seems to attribute to me some remarks to the discredit of the Stellenbosch professors, as if I had said that for unworthy reasons they had given up the independence of their institution. I should be the last man to say anything to their discredit, ; and I did not mean that they had any personal motive in the matter whatever. I give them credit for acting in what they regarded as the best interests of their institution, but I differ from them in their conclusion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and referred to a select committee for consideration and report ; committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers; and that it be an instruction to the committee to bring up its report on or before Friday, 14th May.