May I ask when I may expect an answer to a question I put down on the 5th of Febraury with regard to the value of the preference given by Great Britain? It has been on the order paper for nearly a month, and I want the answer for the purposes of the debate which is coming on this afternoon.

There has apparently been some difficulty in getting the information, I presume. I will make enquiries.

I move—

seconded.

Very short notice has been given of the motion. In the meantime, many members have made other engagements, and it is really most awkward and inconvenient at such short notice to make this change. Members on this side want to expedite business. We are getting through our work most expeditiously, and we put it to the Prime Minister that the convenience of members should receive consideration.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will be prepared to treat one or two of the motions on the Order Paper as unopposed motions? There is one standing in my name, No. 13, dealing with a very important matter, the need for an enquiry in regard to the administration of justice; a question which I am sure the Prime Minister cannot disregard in view of its importance. I hope the Prime Minister will take this opportunity of giving us the assurance that he will be prepared to appoint a select committee to deal with the matter referred to in the motion.

I should very much like to meet the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), but this question has been very carefully considered. I was approached only yesterday on the matter, but the time, I understand, will be required for the discussion of the next motion. I had, unfortunately, to say yesterday to those who approached me suggesting that to-night should be left free that it was impossible.

I move—

I shall have to make various observations, but, at the outset, I want to state what is, and what has always been, and what will be the policy of this Government, and I want to contrast that policy with what is evidently expected by hon. members opposite, and by those who have so copiously criticized this treaty. The position of the Government on the one hand is this—we appreciate the preferences given by Great Britain to us. We appreciate the market that Britain affords us for our products. We recognize that with Great Britain, and with any member of the commonwealth, we should be always on a cordial footing, and I make bold to say that we have been on a most cordial and harmonious footing not only with the British Government, but with every member of the British community of nations. We have in the past shown that we wish to give preference within reasonable bounds. We have maintained that preference, and that preference remains safeguarded in this treaty; but we positively decline to put such a ring fence round the British commonwealth of nations that we possibly cannot have an outlook upon the rest of the world. That is what hon. members opposite, and that is what unreasonable critics of this treaty, are expecting. In other words, they want us to say to any foreign country: “We will make a treaty with you, but be it well understood that the British commonwealth is cut out of that treaty, and that we reserve the power to ourselves during the period of that treaty, whether it be long or short, to arbitrarily confer benefits on Great Britain and other members of the commonwealth as we may absolutely think fit from time to time. That, I say, is a most unfriendly attitude towards the rest of the world. It is an impossible attitude.

make a remark [inaudible].

The hon. member who makes that observation has not the remotest idea of what this treaty means; his criticism to-day, if he offers it, is not going to be very helpful. I am glad that the indefeasible right of the Union of South Africa, and, indeed, of every member of the British community of nations is common cause. I am also glad to see that it is common cause, or professes to be common cause, that it is perfectly legitimate, nay, desirable, that we should have treaties with foreign countries, and how on earth hon. gentlemen reconcile this absolute ring fence with the desirability of having treaties with the outside world, passes my comprehension, because they surely do not expect us to insult foreign countries by offering them something for which they will say: “Thank you for nothing.” A speech was made the other evening at the Zionist Hall—it may have been an after-dinner speech— and the position was there explained, as follows: “This is an attempt to twist the lion’s tail, and it is only an opportunity for the Government to show how independent it is.”

Window-dressing.

I want to contrast that with an utterance of the same right hon. gentleman on another occasion, and those who are impartial and the public whose sense, I think, on such matters—indeed on all public matters —is generally correct, will be able to judge for themselves. The right hon. gentleman, the leader of the Opposition in this hon. House, is reported in the “Cape Times” of June 24th, 1923, to have made a speech in the House of Assembly on the previous day dealing with inter-imperial commerce and trade. He was then on the point of going to the Imperial Conference, and he took the House—wholly or partially, I do not know which—into his confidence. He said—

Then he goes on to say—

Can you recognize this in view of the present attitude of the Opposition? The right hon. gentleman went on to say—

When I read the right hon. gentleman’s speech at the Zionist Hall I could not believe it was the same person who was speaking. He goes to the Imperial Conference and he says to the president of the conference—

Canada had begun to settle its own fiscal policy in 1859. Are we very slow in following?

You are not following it now.

Continuing, the right hon. gentleman said—

And his colleague, Mr. Burton, followed on the same lines. Well, as I say, it is very difficult to understand the criticism which has emanated from the right hon. member of this treaty in the light of these facts. A leading commercial man in Johannesburg said of this very treaty that he was glad trade barriers were being removed. And this is a Britisher who said this, and even the press in the country and the various chambers of commerce have emphasized the desirability of treaties with foreign countries. But the attitude adopted by the hon. members over there, and what they expect of us, is utterly inconsistent with any desirability of a treaty with a foreign country. They are mutually destructible, because what they wish us to offer to a foreign country is something absolutely worthless, and a thing that no self-respecting foreign country would accept. We have had the example of a foreign country saying to us practically: “Thank you for nothing.” Do not be in a hurry. I am not going to hurry myself, nor am I going to hurry the House. How does this bitterness that is being shown over this treaty accord with the appeal of the reverend member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) for world fraternity? How does it accord with the appeal made by the right hon. member on Table Mountain last Sunday for world peace? Is he not aware that if anything has caused wars in this world, it has been economic conditions from time to time in the world and in various countries.

Charity begins at home.

Let me remind the House that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was one of the fathers of the covenant of the League of Nations. To-day he is seeking to illegitimize one of his own progeny.

Nonsense, try again.

I will tell the House what the offspring is. Article 23 (e) of the covenant says this—

What is the view of the world economic conference, which was endorsed recently by the Council of the League of Nations, on this matter? I quote from the world economic conference held at Geneva in 1927, the annual report, page 33, number 4, “Commercial Treaties”—

It passed several resolutions, number 1 of which reads—

That resolution is intended to be world-wide in its effect and operations. That is why I say the combative attitude of the Opposition, as led by the right hon. member, virtually amounts to a repudiation of the covenant of the League of Nations, and we are not going to be a party to that sort of thing. I want to point out too that Germany was welcomed by the League of Nations, not only as a member of the league, but on the council. It was also a relief to the world to know that Germany had joined the Kellogg treaty. The right hon. member, in connection with the covenant of the League of Nations, has been hankering after the adherence of other great nations of the world to the League of Nations, among others America. If this spirit that is evinced to-day is to continue, what hope have we of the world, economically and otherwise, evincing a desire for fraternity and comradeship? This treaty deals with a number of things that have nothing to do with customs, and so does the Anglo-German treaty, which, for instance, has 31 articles. I have gone through them very carefully, and I find that 17 out of 29 do not draw any distinction at all between Germany as a foreign nation, and England or any member of the British commonwealth. The bulk of that treaty of 1924’25 does not deal with Germany as a foreign nation, and so the effect of that treaty is not to put around the British commonwealth that ring fence which hon. members opposite evidently expect us to do. When I see this spirit of racialism rampant here in connection with this, in a country that was so far removed geographically from the scene of the terrible things that occurred in the great war, I cannot but admire the greater spirit of tolerance and brotherhood evinced by the English people in the Anglo-German treaty. Now what do we find in the past economic history of England? Hon. gentlemen want to make out that England has always had an absolute ring fence around the empire. That is far from being correct. [Interruption.] That is what you are expecting us to do in this treaty. In the treaties of England with Germany, which lasted from 1865 to 1897, and with Belgium, which lasted from 1862 to 1897, there was no ring fence at all, and it was because Canada had suggested the idea of preference that England, practically at the instance of Canada, cancelled these two treaties, and then in her treaties, started to attempt to put a ring fence which was, in many cases, not even absolute, around the British commonwealth. Only recently England entered into a treaty with Persia. I would like hon. members to know the simple facts and to explain them in the best way they can. This treaty says—

Such a fuss was made about it that England was always very careful in any treaty to speak of any nation outside the British commonwealth of nations as a foreign country and differentiated and discriminated. I want to show in the Anglo-German treaty of 1924-’25 that in the majority of articles that is not the case, and here is a specific instance of a treaty with Persia. The question is asked why should we have a treaty at all with Germany? The answer is very simple. We have entered upon a new era of peace, and there is no doubt whatsoever that trade and economics are an important factor in establishing an era of peace. The treaty, moreover, is one only for two years, and can be terminated thereafter by six months’ notice. It is therefore for an extremely short period. Germany is a good customer of ours, and there has been a material increase in our trade with Germany, as will appear from the following; and I am not going into great detail with regard to figures and so on. We contemplate treaties with foreign countries, and the policy of the Government has to do not only with Germany, but treaties on similar lines with other countries are contemplated, and negotiations are now going on. Our exports to Germany in 1923 were a little over two-and-a-half millions; in 1924 they were nearly three millions; in 1925, three-and-three-quarter millions; in 1926, about two-and-a-half millions; and in 1927, four-and-a-quarter millions. Moreover, even if the foundations of the treaty were merely a friendly gesture, for the reasons I have started it would be desirable, because we know that tariff retaliations should be avoided as far as possible throughout the world. As to the Anglo-German treaty, someone says: “Are you not reaping the benefit in that treaty you should get under this treaty?” While that is the case in the Anglo-German treaty, in one of the sub-paragraphs of Article 31 provision is made for Germany to terminate the agreement by three months’ notice; and, as a matter of fact, she is not giving the same facilities she is giving to us to Australia and other members of the British commonwealth. Now I come to Article 8, which is the pivot around which the whole thing turns, and all criticisms levelled at this treaty can be levelled at Article 8. It is totally untrue that we are putting England on the same footing as Germany, because one of the main provisions of this treaty is the maintenance of the status quo. It safeguards the position as it is to-day. There is an automatic preference to Great Britain, and anything that goes to Germany will automatically go to Great Britain. It is, therefore, entirely false and incorrect to say that the whole tendency and object of this treaty is to put England on the same footing as Germany. What hon. members and those outside who criticize this treaty are doing is this—you have a picture, you wipe out a portion of it, and you say that with respect to the rest, England is like the rest of the world. Is that a rational proceeding? They act as if the principle of preference was not maintained as regards Article 8. If you look to the rest of the treaty it is easy to say that England is on the same footing as Germany or France. It is a most unjustifiable attitude to take up. We find to-day there are members of the British commonwealth of nations who do not grant preference to any part of the commonwealth, e.g., India and Newfoundland. Canada’s position is such that there are countries to-day that are actually getting a better tariff in respect of certain things from Canada than England does. If you take trade as a whole, England is in a more advantageous position, but there are countries which get better preferences from Canada than England gets. There is no specific or automatic rule in regard to Great Britain in regard to preferences which Canada may grant to other countries; so, you see, we have safeguarded the position in every direction. [Interruption.] I am stating simple facts, and I am not going to repeat them. Hon. members can ascertain these facts for themselves. I should have thought that after the tremendous fuss that has been taking place for months past, hon. members opposite would be better informed. Now I wish to refer to Section (7) of the protocol, taken with Article 8 of the treaty, and I want to ask hon. members opposite, if they are so wonderfully well informed, can they point to where any preference will operate in favour of Germany on the ratification of this treaty? I have already stated what our trade with Germany is. I defy any member to point out what customs concessions or other privileges and advantages will accrue to Germany except a gesture of friendship. Of course, they cannot. I would like to know what their case is. Look at Article (7) of the protocol, and compare it with Article 8 of the treaty. You will see that in Article 7 it is stated—

The position is so extremely simple for those who wish to understand it. The position offers not an iota of benefit—

Tear it up!

There you have the old prejudice coming in. The very idea that it is German—

No, no.

Oh, yes, they have let the cat out of the bag. You talk about fraternity, you talk about world peace, and on Sundays peace is preached, on the top of Table Mountain. These interruptions will not take me off my line of thought. Until the agreement eventuates in terms of Article 7 of the protocol, nothing further can happen, and then it will be a matter for my friend, the Minister of Finance, and an agreement will be submitted to this House in terms of the Act of 1925, and any benefits will go to England automatically. I expect hon. members to have some notion of what they are talking about. I admit that these things require study, but there are some outstanding principles which even a child can follow, and members opposite are either shutting their eyes, or they are so utterly misinformed that one must forgive them on both grounds. The general treaty is something which falls entirely outside the Act of 1925, because Article 8 deals with matters which may happen in regard to the terms of Article 7 of the protocol, which has to do with the Act of 1925. This has to do with specific tariff concessions. In the Act of 1925 there is nothing in Section (5) dealing with reciprocal privileges, so far as England is concerned. England’s position has been so well entrenched that there are no specific reciprocal privileges, although the idea was put forward that reciprocity should take place, but it is not prescribed by statute. It does stipulate in the Act of 1925 that there shall be equivalent reciprocal privileges at the termination, and under Section 7, that there shall be equivalent reciprocal privileges by foreign countries. If we wanted to add to the articles England is entitled to we should have to pass a law, but there is nothing to prevent us from entering into a treaty with England apart from the Act of 1925, and giving her the most-favoured-nation treatment.

Is that coming next?

Why not? The hon. member opposite is still obsessed with the spirit of the status. There is no provision in the Act of 1925 for any agreement with England. Agreements are confined to the dominions and all foreign countries, but that does not exclude a treaty with England, and in order to give England the benefit of further specific preferences outside those she is enjoying to-day we would have to legislate. We have always laid down the principle that England will always be entitled to the most-favoured-nation treatment. The net result of this opposition, if it worked, would be that we would be offering to other countries something that they would refuse, and rightly refuse, and I will tell the hon. House that it has been refused by at least one foreign country. The papers have been full of snags in the German treaty. The latest snag is the question of standardization—an absolute mare’s nest. I am thankful to one prominent paper which mentions the snag in its news columns, because it was fair enough in its leading columns to point out what it amounted to. Now we come to the question of why Germany was chosen first. I have seen it stated that we deliberately entered into a treaty with Germany in order to exacerbate British sentiment. It is a scandalous statement, totally unjustified and totally untrue. It was stated by one of the great supporters of hon. members opposite, Mr. Sibbett. Now the reason why Germany concluded a treaty with this country was that Germany was more vigilant than other countries. Other countries have been treating with my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, before I handled these matters. When the matter was transferred to me, because of the bonds that tie this country to Holland, I wanted to conclude a treaty, if with any foreign country at all, with Holland in the first instance, although the tie between this country and Holland is not for a moment to be compared with the tie between English-speaking people and England, because Afrikanders consider themselves a people apart.

made an interjection. [Inaudible.]

What a beautiful spirit is being evinced. It is a pure accident that this treaty was concluded with Germany, and as a matter of fact, a treaty with other countries, practically in identical terms, was drawn up before the conclusion of this treaty; so that the statement that we deliberately chose Germany is absolutely devoid of any truth. A complaint is made that we are putting German shipping on the same footing as British shipping. Those people who say these things must be aware that since the middle of the eighteenth century, and the last of the nineteenth century, the last traces of the Navigation Act disappeared, and shipping was put on an absolute equality with the rest of the world. These are the little straws they catch at, and it shows how weak their case is. Then the argument is that we are tying our hands, but can you conceive any treaty or convention or contract, or whatever you may wish to call it, that does not tie your hands to a certain extent? What is the idea of a treaty but to impose certain obligations. It was only in 1928 that we rebated, in spite of what business considerations dictated to us, the duty on British telescopes, optical glasses and field glasses, to the extent of 20 per cent. It will be years before England will be equal to us in regard to reciprocity. It will certainly take much longer than the period of this German treaty. Let me give the House the figures. In 1920 we got from England £145,156, and we gave to England, and sacrificed revenue to the extent of £1,314,356. In 1921 England gave us £255,000—I am not quoting the hundreds—and we gave her £751,000. In 1922 England gave us £155,000, and we gave her £695,000. In 1923 she gave us £143,000, and we gave her £766,000. In 1924 we gave her £812,000. I have not got the figures she gave us. In 1925 she gave us £127,000, and we gave her £643,000. In 1926 she gave us £284,000, and we gave her £392,000; and in 1927 she gave us £274,000, and we gave her £421,000. Now I wish to say that the policy of this Government is that we want nothing for nothing from England. If by an accident, which is very difficult to anticipate or to conceive, these articles on which England, according to her own choice and selection (Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Act of 1925 was arrived at by consultation with England, and by allowing her practically to indicate that list) if by an accident that list becomes worthless to England, or is materially reduced, the policy of this Government will be to take special steps to restore the balance. That is why the treaty is for a short period. [Interruption.] Oh, would you like to make it for ten years?

Ten minutes will do.

The argument is advanced—“See the advantages you get from England; for instance, dominion securities are accepted under the Trustees Act.” Of course, that benefits England, because the amount of money to be invested is so enormous in England that if she had not dominion securities to invest in the interest on trust funds would be reduced. Moreover, England must perform her duty in regard to trust funds, and she has to see— whether they are invested in England, Canada or South Africa—that the security is adequate, and if it is adequate, how do you say it is of benefit to us? Dominion securities are safe. It is further argued that we get the benefit of the million pounds spent by the Empire Marketing Board. But that money was given by England when, owing to political influence, she was unable to carry out her idea of preferences, and this money was voted as a sort of compensation. It is further argued that we have the benefit of consular and ambassadorial assistance in foreign countries through the British consuls and ambassadors, but I am afraid that that is rather a remote consideration. We appreciate it, and are very grateful for it, and gladly avail ourselves of it, but it is rather remote. It is said that we have a voluntary preference, whatever that may mean. The public of England can buy from whom they like. No, the Opposition is suffering front an economic complex, Chauvinism and racialism, following the philosophy of the right hon. gentleman for one economic holism, but confined to the British empire. These are the people who say that we on this side of the House are coffined and want to isolate ourselves. I want to know from the right hon. gentleman, if he is against this treaty, why did he inaugurate the system of trade commissioners in foreign countries, and why we have extended that system, and extended it with success? The Opposition does not regard this matter from a South African standpoint. We have numerous instances in the. British commonwealth of this sort of thing. You had it in Canada when it practically revolted against England economically in 1859; a section in Canada then accused their fellow Canadians of disloyalty and lack of patriotism. The same spirit was displayed more recently when the jingo section in Canada objected to the appointment of a Canadian ambassador at Washington, so that it took six years to bring about the appointment. Why do Canadian business people say openly that they wish to trade with the Union and other parts of the empire, not through England, but direct? If they pass by the United Kingdom, why should we not enter into a treaty with an outside country without the Opposition showing all this bitterness? I come to another aspect of the question. We have been threatened that Britain will retaliate, but I am convinced there is no idea at all of retaliation, because there is no ground for retaliation. It is a remarkable fact that if this treaty is going to injure England, as depicted by hon. gentlemen opposite, why are they so apprehensive in view of the fact that the bulk of the importers in this country are British people? Who compels them to import German goods, these great loyalists? They understand the art of making snug in peace and war. I have an invoice of a Cape Town firm that imports even now German ties, although haberdashery is a line which has been particularly British. For all I know, hon. members may be wearing German ties. Enamelware, aluminiumware, electric irons and cutlery, were among the things that were imported in enormous quantities from Germany by big firms in Cape Town. They also import American motor cars, calculating machines, typewriters and agricultural machinery. You go to an ordinary business man in Cape Town and tell him to stop importing American goods, as it is unjust to England and a suggestion of unfriendliness; just watch what he will say. They may choose the best market for their business and for their pockets, but when we come along with a trade treaty, they say, “Oh no, the Government may order nothing from foreign countries, but everything ought to be ordered from the United Kingdom.” Not sentiment but business, with them precious little sentiment, precious little loyalty—all business, all self. In any case the Anglo-German treaty shows that England was willing to make a treaty on broad fines and practical lines with the greatest of her recent enemies. But assuming that treaty does create —which I do not admit—a ring fence round the British commonwealth, is there any reason why we should follow that necessarily? The Imperial conference resolutions of 1926 created quite a different position in regard to treaty-making, and the treaty-making powers of the various members of the commonwealth, including Britain herself, are set forth very clearly in the resolutions. This is only a repetition of the same old argument, re status, re the flag, re language and similar matters. They do not object to a thing academically or in theory —but for goodness sake, do not put anything into practice! A leading Cape Town newspaper had the audacity to criticize what I have stated about the right hon. member’s statements in this House and at the Imperial Conference of 1923. These statements were published in a newspaper in Cape Town and an English newspaper had the audacity to say, “that is perfectly correct; the principle is conceded, but you are doing the things and that is the great sin!” This thing goes farther than hon. members over there realize. The Afrikaans-speaking people—although they are not great importers and although the importers could neutralize the treaty by importing British goods, only—they have also something to say. Neither England nor we are in a position to extend much preference in the nature of the case. England is a free trade country. We saw Mr. Baldwin’s statement: “No taxes on foodstuffs.” What remains’ Does England give us any preference for our wool? Are we not in the same position as the Argentine? The position of the dominions and that of England varies materially, the dominions being protectionist and England being free trade, and that in the nature of the case limits preference. We limit our preference because we have nothing much left to bargain with. Then we had the spectacle of the Ramsay Macdonald Government coming in and reducing preferences and the general political outlook in England, being very uncertain as regards the future of preferences. You have a general election pending in England and if a Labour Government came into power the position might be materially changed, and if a Conservative Government comes back, it will take considerable time to deal with the matter of additional preferences from England to us and before that time arrives another year and a half or two years will have expired. Many of the articles we export and many that reach England from the rest of the empire are re-exported by her. I will give the figures. In 1921, she re-exported over £7,000,000 out of £18,000.000 odd: in 1922, £6,600.000 out of £16,000,000 odd; in 1923, £5,800,000 out of £15,000,000 odd; in 1924, £8,300,000 out of £18,000,000; in 1925, £12,700,000 out of £25,000,000. Those are the figures as between England and the Union of South Africa. These are figures I got from a very reliable source, the Board of Trade and Industries. We have a leading newspaper in Cape Town discovering for the first time on the 18th January that the treaty between us and Germany omitted the word “foreign.” What a remarkable discovery! That treaty was published months ago. Then we have this amusing spectacle. Sir Benjamin Morgan comes out. He goes to Natal in the first instance and he impresses upon the good people of Natal, the sugar planters included, that it is highly undesirable that we should allow sentiment to apply so much in economic matters. He recommended business agreements, agreements on business lines, and what was the result? There was a howl in Natal and they said: “For goodness sake, don’t suggest that, because under the sentimental system England is getting much more from the Union than she would if the thing were put on a business footing.”

Sheer nonsense.

Who said that?

The “Natal Mercury,” and the rest of the Natal press, I believe, acted as a chorus to that. Another objection is that commerce has not been consulted. Why should it devolve on us to consult commerce? They have the whole thing in their hands, these influential merchant princes and those whom they influence. All they have to do is to refrain from importing German goods. Another cry is that it is upsetting Rhodesia. I would like to know what has upset Rhodesia? So far from that being the case we have safeguarded it in Article 4 of the treaty and Article 1 of the protocol. The whole thing is that hon. members are very dissatisfied with the position created by the Act of 1925, and they want to go back to the old preference provisions imposed by the sword and not by the sense of the people of South Africa—imposed at Bloemfontein at the Lord Milner conference in 1903, and on an occasion when the delegates from the Cape were entirely against that idea. To-day hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to go back, and they want to get behind the Act of 1925. They want to revert to the old position which cost the country millions and millions of money, and against which the right hon. gentleman himself in his speeches here and at the Colonial Conference protested. That is why he called the whole position one-sided. If you take the preference we give to Great Britain, you will find the statistics show that, per capita, we give her far more than any other member of the British commonwealth of nations. Our figure is about £19 odd compared with the others, Canada, New Zealand and so on. England herself departed from that old mercantilist policy, and very wisely, and laid down the principle of free trade and the open door; of the universal most-favoured-nation treatment; and it was only in 1903 that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain began to depart from that old principle of free trade. The attempts since then have not been very successful. We had the McKenna duties, which were intended to act in certain respects as preference, and were abolished by the Macdonald Government. The sound position to follow is this sort of treaty with foreign countries. The press and hon. gentlemen opposite, some of them, have tried to incite and instigate. As a matter of fact, the hulk of the preferences we enjoy from England are due to sugar—not that we undervalue or did not appreciate the rest—we appreciate them very much. But when the press comes along, and critics and certain farmers, and say we are jeopardizing the preferences England affords in regard to fruit, sugar, wine and so on—

Future preference.

They are certainly unfounded. These preferences are extended to other members of the British commonwealth, and England will not dream of withdrawing them from only one member of the British commonwealth. In regard to the Anglo-German treaty of 1924, the point made is that we will save in connection with these matters, but Germany does not export tobacco, dried fruit and so on—she imports these things herself, and, therefore, she should be entirely indifferent as regards the preference granted by England to the dominions in regard to these matters. This aspiration of economic self-sufficiency within the bounds of the British empire is one which is not justified, and it is an aspiration that does not make for economic and world peace. I want to point out that in spite of the preference system, if you take the years 1906 to 1927, you will find that our imports from the United Kingdom have fallen from 56.5 per cent, to 44.8 per cent., and our imports from foreign countries have increased from 30.5 per cent, to 40.4 per cent. So how hon. gentlemen can say that the treaty will disastrously react against South Africa passes my understanding, or how they can say that our export trade with our best customer is seriously endangered, I cannot understand. When the future agreement comes, hon. gentlemen will have an ample opportunity of considering that agreement on its merits, and it will be submitted to the House in terms of the Act if that agreement comes. I would like to quote a few words from a well-known industrial and commercial paper, of December 28th, page 661. It is headed, “German trade treaty; Mischievous agitation”—

I am not influenced at all by whether they are pro or con, but I quote this to show what the feeling, sentiment and opinion are amongst people who are certainly not Nationalists. I say this, and I say it with conviction, that as to these threats that are held out to the Union of South Africa by the jingo section of the population here, if there is anything in them, the sooner we ensure our position in treaties with foreign nations, the better, and if there is nothing in them, and I believe there is nothing in them, it is hitting below the belt to have recourse to such things. We have shown our sympathy in various ways, and this Government has been on the most cordial footing with the British Government. I am repeating the item of £1,200 for the Imperial Institute. Well, I know it could not be justified on business principles, but we put it on the Estimates out of pure sentiment. We met England in the most sympathetic manner in connection with the 26 per cent. German reparations, and only a little while ago, as I pointed out, we rebated the 20 per cent, on telescopes, optical instruments, and field glasses. Generally, the policy of the Government is that we will see that these preferences in favour of England are maintained. This has been a campaign of calumny, racialism and misrepresentation, and I will only say in conclusion that it is typical of the attitude of the Opposition for years past. This has been the spirit shown in connection with every step forward taken by the Union of 8outh Africa, in its political and economic development, and it has been the experience of every other dominion, and especially of the dominion of Canada. I say our future, in terms of the views of the right hon. gentleman opposite expressed in 1923, and at the Imperial Conference, I say our future demands that we should take this step forward. This is the first treaty we have entered into off our own bat, and I regret exceedingly that our first endeavour has been met in such a pusillanimous spirit by the Opposition.

seconded.

In the first place, the Minister laid stress upon the conference at Geneva two years ago, at which certain resolutions were passed. What has the Government done in connection with that matter? It has not taken a single step.

What do you suggest we should do?

I am not sitting on the Ministerial benches. That is a favourite way with Ministers when they want assistance. Then the Minister said we were not in favour of continuing the preference to Great Britain. That is simply absurd. He also referred to the treaty with Persia, but surely that is a long way from his argument. As I understand it, we simply give Persia the same rights as we give any other government in Asia.

Then why should you be so keen upon the word “foreign” being excluded?

Because you want to keep it out. You want Great. Britain treated as a foreign nation, which is a thing we very much object to. We have no objection to a German treaty under two conditions; firstly, we very much object that any of our rights should be given up. You have surrendered certain fiscal rights. Then, secondly, the principle is one which I think should be avoided.

What principle?

We believe in maintaining the community of nations, but the Minister has gone away from that.

No, it is maintained.

Then the Minister referred to the chambers of commerce; well, these bodies are very closely concerned with this matter. It is a curious thing that all the chambers of commerce in this country, both large and small, are very strongly opposed to this treaty. These men are good South Africans.

But they are not above scoring a point.

They are not above buying German goods.

They buy in the cheapest market. Quite a large number of producers are also opposed to this treaty. I have a pamphlet here issued by the South African Cooperative Deciduous Exchange Limited, and what do they say? They say—

The unanimity with which the chambers of commerce and these producers have condemned this treaty has been truly remarkable. I want to point out also that it is entirely opposed to the policy of the Prime Minister, expressed by him when he was in London. The great idea there was to bring about co-operation between the members of the British community of nations. Mr. Mackenzie King said that the agreement arrived at the conference was that there was a fundamental unity of purpose and a desire to work on a sound basis in co-operation. Gen. Hertzog said—

Does that mean no co-operation with other countries?

The essential co-operation here is co-operation between members of the British empire. My hon. friend pledged himself to a scheme of co-operation with other members of the British League of Nations. Has he gone back on what he promised in London?

What is the value of a treaty to a foreign country if you get your way?

The value of this treaty to South Africa is shown by the fact that the only leading commercial man who supports it so far is Mr. Gundelfinger, of Durban, and he has so little confidence in it that he advises the Government to make it for one year instead of two.

He thought he might pacify your mind with a sop like that.

But my hon. friend has not answered my question. What advantage will South Africa gain by this treaty? Do we get any new market? No. Furthermore, we get no preference. We are absolutely in no better position the day this treaty is signed than we were before. I am asking the hon. Minister what advantage you get for South Africa by having concluded this treaty? My hon. friend cannot say what South Africa gets out of this treaty in any shape or form. Germany has sixty similar treaties I understand. My hon. friend has not gone out of his way to retain the friendship of the producer in Britain. I go further, and I say that the Minister has gone against the interests of South Africa in this matter. That is proved by the opposition of many classes of producers in South Africa, and by the opposition of the vast bulk of the chambers of commerce. Surely they have some common sense.

That is why they buy German goods.

Get a better argument than that. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that it has been the policy of Great Britain to promote, by co-operation, the development and trade of the British empire. From that South Africa gets its full share of benefit. That is also the policy of the other members of the commonwealth; that is to say, the other dominions wish to promote this policy of development and expansion of trade by co-operation amongst all the members of the British commonwealth. The quotation I have read from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in London shows that he himself was at one time inspired by the same spirit. What has been done to carry out that policy? The first thing was the establishment of the Empire Marketing Board. We have representatives on that board, and every part of the dominions is also represented; but Great Britain pays the piper. Great Britain sets aside every year one million of money. Is not that worth consideration? She does not ask this country or any other dominion to pay a sixpence, and we get our full quota of benefit from that board. The object of the Empire Marketing Board is to encourage production in all parts of the empire and to increase the market for those products in Great Britain. The activities of the board are expressed in many directions, for instance, it encourages scientific research.

That is an excellent line.

The board recommends the Governments of South Africa and Australia to encourage research in their own countries and the board gives assistance by means of its experts to teach the best methods to empire producers. Another problem which the board is studying is the preservation of dried fruit during long voyages across the tropics. Surely that is of great advantage to South Africa, which exports large quantities of dried fruit. Then information as regards packing, shipping and financing empire goods are given by the board, which also spends large amounts annually on advertising empire products, including dried fruit. During 1925, Great Britain imported fruit to the value of £49,000,000, which is more than three times the value of that imported in 1913. This shows the benefits fruit-growers are deriving from the operations of the Empire Marketing Board. There is still a large field for the empire fruit-grower, as only about 35 per cent, of Great Britain imports is imported fruit from the dominions. Great Britain is spending a million a year trying to encourage the dominions producer.

Yet she is importing the bulk of her fruit from the rest of the world.

That is not her fault—she is doing her best to encourage the consumption of empire fruit.

What is Germany doing in that direction?

Nothing at all. However, if the Minister does not appreciate the efforts of the Empire Marketing Board other people in this country do. For instance, the South African Co-operative Citrus Exchange points out that the very existence of the citrus industry depends on the British market, which absorbs 90 per cent, or our fresh fruit.

I do not appreciate the relevancy of your point.

I cannot help that, but I mention this to show that it is the fixed policy of Great Britain to encourage the consumption of empire products.

And not to hamper our development.

Great Britain does not haggle about getting a quid pro quo from the dominions—she is far too big for that. She pays out the money and does her best to assist the dominions. On the other hand our Government has reversed the policy of dominion co-operation. There is co-operation in the treaty. Remembering the efforts that Great Britain is putting forth to encourage the development of South Africa, Article 8 of the German treaty is a great injustice. Great Britain, in addition to the money she spends every year in the operations of the Empire Marketing Board, gives, a very decided preference to empire wines, dried fruits, tobacco and sugar. She gives preference in all these cases—

Well, we give her twice as much.

No, indeed, you do not. It has altered since 1926. But let me give an example which, in my opinion, is worth more than all my friend’s talking. It was stated at the general meeting of the South African Dried Fruit Company that the company had benefited to the extent of £15,000 by the preference given by Great Britain, and the other companies exporting dried fruit had also benefited in a like sum. Here in the face of the benefits we have been getting from Great Britain you go and make a treaty with Germany. What has South Africa done to help forward this empire development? Has she spent a single sixpence for development? I come back to the preference, and I start back in 1926. It was in 1925 when my hon. friend made the alterations in the tariff. In 1926, South Africa gave to Great Britain £319,000 in preferences, and in 1927, £420,000. In 1926 Great Britain gave us £284,000 in preferences, and in 1927, £274,000. Since my hon. friend came into office, the preference given by the Union has decreased.

It is double what it was in 1923.

Since the preference was altered in South Africa, the preference given to Great Britain has decreased.

It was a million once.

The Prime Minister says it will be years before Great Britain gives as good a preference as we do. My hon. friend must remember ours is a small population, whereas in Great Britain you have an enormous population. The Prime Minister says it will take years, but I think he is wrong. I do not think it will take long to equalize it. With all this policy of my hon. friend, there has been no going back on the part of Great Britain or any hint on her part. Great Britain is beyond that.

You do not suggest Great Britain is going back on that?

The very opposite; Britain would not dream of going back on it. I come to Clause 8. While the treaty provides that the concessions Great Britain or other parts of the empire get at present will not be interfered with, the point is that under this clause no further concessions shall be given to Great Britain, which are not shared by Germany.

Why was that put in?

Exactly, that is the point. We want to see the British empire develop for our mutual benefit. Britain was engaged in that policy, and we, to a certain extent, strongly supported it, but now in future, the possibility of negotiation by which we give something to Britain and she gives something to us is done away with. My hon. friend will see that any further progress will be stopped. Britain might have been able to give us certain concessions. There was some talk of our getting a preferential market in Canada for our wines. There is no question of that now, simply because any concession we had to give to Canada to get their preference we should have to give to Germany also. You have put an end to any further development of co-operation throughout the British empire for our own benefit, and that of every other part of the empire. That is what we complain of. That is where we think the Government has gone absolutely wrong. It could easily have been avoided by putting it in the treaty.

It would be a ring fence.

It would undoubtedly have been to the benefit of the Union. England has been our best customer, and why should she not continue to be so? Later on she may give us preference in other directions, and why should we throw that away? Is it likely that Great Britain is going to negotiate with us or give further concessions, if whatever concessions we give her we have to give to Germany too?

Did we give special preference in 1925?

What has that to do with it? Nothing at all. We are talking of the future, and not of the position to-day.

You are looking at a portion of the picture and forgetting the rest.

Not at all. Is it likely, or right, or can it be expected, that Great Britain will give us any preferences when anything we give her is to be shared with Germany? That is where we strongly object to this.

You have no right to deal with it in fractions—you must take it as a whole.

I am not dealing in fractions. I ask, what has Germany done for us?

Buy our wool.

Does not Great Britain buy our wool? [Time limit extended.]

Does not Deane object?

Has Germany given us any preference in any shape or form, or is she going to do so; is she giving us any market?

Of course she has given us a bigger market.

For which she has to pay us the market price. My hon. friend, the Minister of Defence is in an extremely uncomfortable position, and admitted it the other day in a letter.

Have you never bought from Germany?

Of course I have; what is wrong with that? We have got everything we wanted in the Anglo-German treaty.

You differ from your leader?

It was not necessary to bring this in; it does not bring us a sixpence; we can get all we want under the Anglo-German treaty. We have surrendered the power of negotiating with Great Britain. [Rest of sentence inaudible.]

That is entirely incorrect; in Article 8 preference is maintained.

I am dealing entirely with the future. I say it is quite possible that circumstances may arise in which Great Britain is prepared to give us future preference, and that the Minister of Finance wants also to give her preference on the goods she sends to us.

How long will it take to reach that necessity?

We cannot tell; but it is not business. Is it likely that Great Britain is going to give us more preference, when any preference we may have to give we must share with Germany? Take ready-made clothing as an example, and we said that we give you a rebate of 5 per cent. We should have to give the same rebate to Germany as things are today. I am not grumbling at what we have done in the past; that goes without saying. We have held up progress as far as the future is concerned, and as a result of this policy you will lose. Take this big advertising campaign which is going on at present. You are going out of your way to throw away customers, but you should carry your customers with you. I would like to ask about Rhodesia. What is the position in regard to Rhodesia? Has Rhodesia made any representations about this treaty? They are entitled to do so, because it is a very serious thing if we lose Rhodesia.

In which way is Rhodesia affected?

I think she is very materially affected.

Tell us how.

There it is, the old story when you are in a tight corner. What I want to know is, has Rhodesia made any representations?

She has asked some questions.

Will the Prime Minister lay the papers on the Table? If you lose Rhodesia it will be most serious, as they are partners in the concern. If Rhodesia wishes, she certainly can go out, and the people who will suffer most from that will be the Union of South Africa. I speak from knowledge. In conclusion, I only want to say that this treaty has been entered into without adequate consideration on the part of the Government. They do not understand the implications of it. I regret that the Government did not call in a few commercial men to consult with. Had they done so, it would have been far better. I hope that after this treaty has been thoroughly thrashed out, this House will vote against it.

Notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been encouraged, I doubt whether the Opposition members agree with his arguments. I am certain that the Dutch-speaking members opposite, for instance the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler), Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) do not agree with them, and that it will be extremely difficult to use those arguments on the countryside. On the contrary, I think that they are just as much convinced as we are, and as the country is, or will be shortly, that the whole purpose of the Opposition is a forlorn hope to get an election cry, in place of the old one which disappeared with the flag settlement. I do not want to contend that the trade treaty is the only thing the Opposition will try to drag in. I do not in the least doubt that in Natal, for instance, hon. members will discover that a dozen or half-a-dozen discussions or interviews with the Minister of the Interior took place, of which the Minister and others who should have been present, know nothing. This is, therefore, not the only one, but I do not doubt that some hon. members opposite regard this treaty as a trump card which they are going to have. We shall survive their not using it on the countryside in that way, but in the towns against the Labourites, there it will be employed as a trump card. The Opposition realize that these kinds of arguments and scaring about preference will not go down on the countryside. Besides the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has himself said that Great Britain will not withdraw the existing preference. The farmers will not be frightened, on the contrary this desperate effort of the Opposition to rouse feelings again and to try to point out to the English-speaking voters that for the umpteenth time, the empire is in danger, will lead to the people on the countryside, English- as well as Dutch-speaking, seeing that their interests are upheld under the existing treaty, and giving their vote accordingly. I do not doubt that the leader of the Opposition will get up later in the debate and make clear to us all that is owing to the empire. The hon. member will now want to speak for the unequal team which is known to us as the Opposition. He will speak here for them, and I want to suggest that on that occasion he will assure us that he, for instance, will explain to the voters at Standerton that, if he comes into office again— which will not happen—he will take steps to set the treaty aside. Let hon. members opposite who represent country voters explain this to them, and we shall see what the result will be. I believe, however, that there are a few members on the other side who put up this opposition, not only to get an election cry, and that there will, unfortunately, also be people outside the House who are honestly convinced that the empire is again in some danger. They will feel the danger just as in 1924 when they were frightened with blood and tears and that capital would go out of the country. I can feel sorry for these people; they have been born a hundred years after their time. “The empire is in danger,” is their creed, and, with all respect to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), let me say that be is also influenced by those sentiments, the sentiments which can be summed up by a proclamation which the British Government issued in 1926. It was as follows—

I cannot get away from the idea that even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is influenced by the feeling, and it is interesting to trace for a little the views of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in connection with his speeches, though I know that is a very dangerous test. I need not expatiate on the ideas which the hon. member for Standerton cherished up to 1914, but since then it appears clearly from his speeches on the status that he has had in mind a sort of superstate in the empire as a super authority which should regulate everything concerning economics and trade in the empire. In this connection we can say that, from the nature of the case as a rule, the full benefits would fall to the mother country. This was the one idea for which the hon. member for Standerton stood till 1926, when the Imperial Conference put an end to the idea of a super state. He may, perhaps, deny that he was in favour of a federal imperial Parliament, but that he regarded it as a good thing, we can deduce from his speeches, even after 1926. After 1926, however, hon. members, such as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), understood that by the declaration which the Prime Minister got at the Imperial Conference an end was made to that dream of a super state, and they pursued another beautiful dream, that of an economic unity of the British empire, shut off from the outside, and virtually only trading with itself. Where this would not be feasible, it must be so arranged that another state could not get any advantages which they had reserved for themselves within the British empire. I even go so far—I should like a denial from the hon. member for Standerton with a statement of reasons—as to say that this is the point to-day on the agenda of the South African party on which they will fight the election, the point that the basis must be an economic British unity with the exclusion of other foreign nations. The apostle of the idea, and the man whom the leader of the Opposition follows was none other than Lord Melchett, and I think that, if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would just dare, he would use the same words as Lord Melchett, namely: “If we only had courage to put a tariff ring fence round the empire.” This can be denied and not recognized, but it was the economic policy of the old Unionists, and is the policy of the section of the South African party which at present call the tune. If they only had the courage they would want to erect the ring fence, but in England Baldwin thought otherwise, or he did not have the courage, because we know that his Government did not agree on the point. They were divided on the subject. There are Ministers who feel strongly in favour of that ring fence round the empire, others again think—and I think that we in South Africa with all deference can join that side—that it will not lead to closer co-operation within the British empire, but will eventually bring about the dissolution of the British empire, a thing which, under normal circumstances, would possibly not take place for another 100 years, if it does take place. The test we must make, however, is whether Great Britain can give us preference on the produce we want to export, the things which we produce in the greatest quantities. It is a vital question to us, and we find that Great Britain itself can give no preference on our meat, maize and wool. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) himself acknowledged that Britain was not going to abolish his preference. It would be bad business for Britain to do so, because according to the figures which the Minister of Mines and Industries quoted, Great Britain receives £100,000 more from South Africa than what it gives us. It will be bad business to throw away the £100,000, because she feels that in future she will not be receiving greater preference than Germany. The strongest Conservative Government that Britain has had for decades is the Baldwin Government, but he was not able to give us the preference on the articles we most need it on, or to so extend the preference that the British preference to us is equal to that by us to Britain. What will be the position after the next election? Whether the Baldwin Government comes in again or not, the preference position will be bad. For four or five years we shall not be able to expect any extension of the British preference. The calculation is that 265 Conservatives, 260 Labourites and the balance as Liberals will be elected to the House of Commons. Even if the Baldwin Government come into office again, it will be in a worse position after the next election to give us a further preference. The Opposition now wish us to do nothing for the next four or five years, while the farmers make demands every day for further markets for their produce. They want us to enter into no trade agreements to get a further market for the produce of the farmers. Why? It is not because hon. members opposite can tell us that we are going to get further preference from Britain or that the value of the British preference will increase on account of a greater export to Britain. This assurance they cannot give us, but because there is a possibility of there being a small change in the next five years they want us to sit still and not listen to the demands of the farmers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) made quotations from English papers, but it would have been much better if he had quoted from the “Manchester Guardian” of the 27th December last year. This paper said—

We, therefore, see that the paper does not deal with the matter as something which has always existed and which we are interfering with, because it says it is a feeling which is becoming stronger in Britain—without effect being given to it. The paper adds—

Here we clearly see that the “Manchester Guardian” and of the Geneva Conference. Then British industrial interests are opposed, but that it has elicited an outburst of hostility from certain sections. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) states that the opinion in the Union and in Britain is against the treaty, but one of the largest newspapers in England, which is in a position to discuss commercial matters, says very clearly that it is only certain sections, and that it is only a small outburst. Then the paper continues—

In other words, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) represents the people who hope to get a still wider preference, but without giving anything in return.

I did not say that.

That is the conclusion from his arguments, because otherwise it proves that his arguments are entirely premature. He will have to raise them when negotiations about particular customs duties between Germany and South Africa are taking place and when agreement is reached. Then he will have an opportunity to discuss the matter in detail. The newspaper says, further—

These super patriots in South Africa are not satisfied with the attitude of the “Manchester Guardian” and of the Geneva Conference. Then the newspaper says—

The super patriots of South Africa will, therefore, not be at home in Canada. Thereafter this follows—

Therefore, the “Manchester Guardian” welcomes this treaty as something which will assist to relieve the tense political position in Europe. It does not say that we want to break up the empire or that we are ungrateful towards Britain. I am prepared to accept that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and those who agree with him, are much greater patriots than the “Manchester Guardian,” but the attitude of that newspaper proves that only a small section of the English public agrees with the views expressed by the hon. member here. It is only “some interests” who are a little disgusted and who are behind the agitation in so far as it is an election cry. I do not know whether the “some interests” have financial interests in the “Cape Times” and the other South African party newspapers and how far they can contribute to election funds, but let me say that those “some interests” will never advance the interests of South Africa. They are also interests which do not concern us. There is still a third class of person who goes on in a most embittered way against the treaty, and it is noticeable enough” that it is the class of man who does not care a rap for imperial preference. It is a class of individual of whom there are many in our chambers of commerce, who are only out to fish in troubled waters. He will buy goods from China and Japan and represent American motor firms—as one hon. member opposite does—and now hope to stir up the same spirit that we had in 1915 with the burning of the German businesses. He hopes to stir up strong feeling in order to injure the existing German trade, and to see that German ploughs, windmills and railway material do not compete—not with British articles, but with articles from the United States or other countries. It will be interesting to find out who the biggest shouters in the chambers of commerce in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban are, and then to enquire where they do their buying. Then we shall see whether they are not people who even implore and entreat that no further preference must be given to Britain, because it will affect imports from China, Japan and America. One does not want to be too personal about hon. members, but it is acknowledged that certain members do not carry out in practice what they proclaim in the House. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has himself acknowledged that he buys in Germany. If he feels so strongly, how can he reconcile it with his behaviour? I understand too that the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is an agent for at least two kinds of American cars. It is these members who stand up in the greatest indignation and are annoyed that something is being done to Britain. Instead of their contributing a little and helping Britain, they are agents for firms in other lands.

They are pocket patriots.

Now we have the case of Capt. Campbell, who has come here to risk his neck—not so much to create a record—but to give the British motor industry a push forward. Doubtless the hon. members for Newlands and Cape Town (Central) welcome Campbell here in South Africa, and encourage him to risk his neck on the track. He must attempt the death struggle of the British motor industry, but if the hon. members have to buy cars themselves, then they are only too often not English cars, and if they buy goods, then they are too often not English goods, because there is no profit in it. They are ready to sacrifice the interests of South Africa, but if it affects their own pockets…. Unfortunately, however, I fear the attitude of the Opposition has done us harm abroad already. When I was in Europe three-and-a-half years ago—and I may as well here inform hon. members opposite, and especially the late Ministers that I paid all expenses out of my own pocket—I travelled round the Continent and all over Germany with the Trade Commissioner, and I talked to and corresponded with people with the idea of discovering whether it would be possible to find a sale in Germany for the fruit which, on account of its quality, or some other reason, cannot be sold at Covent Garden. The answer of interested people always was that, notwithstanding the fact that the fruit would compete with their own fruit, all the fruit we could produce would be accepted, provided first that a suitable trade treaty of most favoured nation be concluded. I do not know how far the attitude of the Opposition has already injured that important future market for our fruit. The fact that the German East Africa Line, for instance, provides more cool chambers for carrying fruit, encourages the idea that our fruit export to Germany will increase in importance, but I have before me another example which makes me afraid that the attitude of the Opposition has already done harm. This is in connection with our maize interests. It is known that in the last years thousands and tens of thousands of tons of hominy-chop have been exported from South Africa to Germany, and where our maize farmers are concerned, this would have become apparently a great trade possibility. I do not know what the exact figures are, but about £600,000 worth of this article is exported in one year. However, I have here a letter from one of the biggest importers of hominy-chop in Germany, a letter which he sent to his local agent here, and wherein he says that the yellow hominy-chop unfortunately cannot be placed, that great difficulties have arisen. The importer further writes that he learns from the press that German delegates were in South Africa for the purpose of concluding a most favoured nation trade treaty, but that the approval of the treaty was being refused by the Union and that Germany, of course, was taking reprisals, and stopping all shipments of hominy-chop and imposing a heavy duty of 8.50 marks per 100 kilograms on it, which made it impossible to hope that hominychop would be sold in large quantities in Germany. I wonder what the constituents of the hon. member for Bethal think of the matter, and how they will regard this treaty. The South African party need an election cry, they calculate thereby to catch the English-speaking vote, but they will not get the vote of the English-speaking and Dutch-speaking farmers in that way. And then there is another vote, namely, the German vote, of which the hon. member for Standerton, when he took up his attitude about the treaty possibly did not think. It is that vote which brought Wakkerstroom into our side in 1924. No one knows this better than the Opposition; therefore, they have made every endeavour to get and keep the German vote. We recollect the bit of impertinence on the part of the hon. member for Umvoti Mr. Deane) in 1924, an audacity which has possibly never been paralled in this House, when he moved that compensation should be paid to the Germans who in 1915 had suffered loss through riots. It was the supporters of the South African party who burnt out the people’s goods, it was the South African party which refused all these years to give compensation. When, however, this Government came into office, that South African party supporter, actually the hon. member for Umvoti, came and proposed that the people should be compensated. Personally, I hope that it may yet be done, but coming from the side of the South African party, it was unprecedented impertinence. But the South African party went further to catch the German vote. They attached so much importance to it that they saw to it that the German paper published there could not go on with its policy, and they went so far as to plan the starting of a new German paper, and giving their support to it. This shows how anxious they are to get hold of the German vote, but in this way they will certainly not get it. There are many constituencies in Natal where the German votes turn the scale, and of the German votes in places like Kingwilliamstown and others they have hitherto got 70 and 80 per cent. They will lose many of the votes now, but I do not grudge them the punishment. They deserve it if they walk in such paths.

It seems to me that the point of view which I can best advance is the point of view of the man in the street. I do not claim to be a trade expert, and I do not take extreme views, nor have I an eye on the election. I have examined this treaty to see whether it is in the best interests of South Africa. To whose advantage is it that the treaty should be in the form in which it is? So far as I have been able to study it, there is only on strong objection that can be raised to the treaty. That objection is the reason why I am not in favour of the motion before the House. The objection is that the Government have tied their hands so as to prevent themselves at any future time, when it may become necessary in the interests of South Africa, from taking advantage of any offer with regard to preferential arrangements from any other part of the empire. I have no hostility to Germany. I am very glad that Germany has been able to rehabilitate herself, and I would like to see our farmers extend their trade to every country. Neither have I any hostility to German trade, but we are members, as the Act of 1927 says, of an association constituting the British commonwealth of nations. When we make treaties we must always remember that we are freely associated with other nations in the British commonwealth. The Government in nearly every clause of this treaty has actually excluded certain things. In Article 4, “favours actually granted or which may hereafter be granted.” They have five lists of things in this clause which Germany cannot possibly get the benefit of, and in Article 8 there is the exception made that the Minister referred to, and existing preferences are not touched. If you can exclude all these things which are actually tangible, they are in existence, why should we not have kept our hands free for the future? If you once begin with a system under which other nations follow suit, what becomes of your free association with the commonwealth of nations? If every other nation is associated with you in trade to get the same benefit then one does not see how preference under the free association of the commonwealth of nations can ever be carried out at all.

When the House adjourned I was trying to express the point of view of the man ídthe street on the German trade treaty. I was endeavouring to show that under Article 4 certain very tangible favours are not to be granted to Germany. Article 8 of the treaty is a very important one, for under it the German Reich may not claim the minimum rates or rebates which can only be granted on goods produced or manufactured in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British dominions. One must not forget that this treaty is based upon the powers given by Parliament in 1925, and if we look at Act 36 of 1925, sections 6, 7 and 8, we find there it is distinctly laid down that certain preferences may be granted, treaties may be made, and so on, and one section deals with the United Kingdom, section 6 deals with British possessions, and section 7 deals with a foreign state. It is provided under section 8 that you must come to Parliament when you make arrangements under sections 6 and 7. You have not to come to Parliament with regard to the United Kingdom. The commonwealth of nations we recognize, and internationally the commonwealth of nations is recognized. Although each part is perfectly free and independent in its status, it is recognized by the whole world that, as far as the commonwealth of nations is concerned, it is quite right and proper that it should make these reciprocal arrangements. No one has ever suggested before that it is an insult to a foreign nation because these arrangements are made, or that it is an unfriendly gesture. The Minister said the Government appreciated the preferences they got. Then I ask why give away this important bargaining counter, because that is what they have done. I am thinking entirely of South Africa. Take the question of maize. I do not know whether I am correct in this, but, as I understand the position, it is this: at one time Australia got from us certain preferences for some of her products, and those preferences were done away with. While we were giving these preferences, we were getting one from Australia for our maize. The moment we did away with those preferences, they did away with the preference on maize, and that bargaining counter was lost.

It is the other way about.

I do not think so. I believe the position is that as the result of taking away certain preferences we gave Australia, they will not take our maize any more, and the South African farmer has lost that market. Supposing that is correct, would you not be in a better position to deal with Australia if you had a bargaining counter in the form of a preference? If you deprive yourself of this bargaining counter, you cannot bargain any more. That is where I think the Government has made a great mistake in the present case in giving up this very good bargaining counter. I have already referred to the number of very important things Germany has agreed do not come under this treaty. The interpretation put upon this agreement by the Minister of Defence—and I agree with him— is that the existing preferences in our Act of 1925 can definitely be increased without giving Germany that benefit, so long as we confine ourselves to the kind of goods specified in the schedule. That is a legal matter and I would like to know what the Minister of Mines and Industries thinks about that. If you look at the words in Article 8, they simply say, “In respect of the goods now specifically enumerated.” It is quite an arguable thing to say that the existing preference, so long as it is confined to the goods mentioned in the schedule, can be increased without giving it to Germany. That is how I read it, and that is how the Minister of Defence read it. The question is, is the Minister right in his interpretation of Article 8? I am inclined to agree with him. The Minister of Mines and Industries referred to the question of coloured labour. I want to put a very pertinent question to the Government. The Government have, for a long time, been working cordially with the Labour party. They want to see fair conditions of labour. In considering this treaty, have they tried to find out whether the goods which are going to get these privileges are produced under the same conditions of labour as they would be in other parts of the world?

What privileges?

The privileges of the most favoured nation. Really, is my hon. friend contending that Germany is getting nothing? What are we wasting our time for if Germany is getting nothing out of it? I take it you are giving Germany something tangible, and I am asking whether you have satisfied yourselves that the goods are produced under the same fair conditions of labour as they would be in other parts of the world. Is it the intention of the Government to bring these customs tariff concessions before Parliament? The protocol, item 7, says—

Parliament would have the right to expect that these mutual tariffs would come before it.

They will. I said so.

Then I will postpone my question until then. The Minister gave us a list of preferences and how they worked out. I think the old hostility of the South African producer came in this: he asked what they were getting for it; they were giving England a large thing and getting little in return. I agree with the Minister that we are free to settle our own fiscal policy, and no one has questioned this. The Minister and the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) spoke of a ring fence. I submit this is a bogey, and there can never be a ring fence round the British empire, because Great Britain must essentially be a free trade country and the dominions protectionist countries. But what can come about is more sympathy between one part and another, and one part agreeing to buy products from another part, and the other part buying its products from them. But sympathy and mutual co-operation are something different from a ring fence. There can be no doubt that the British are an essentially free trade people, and any political leader who has touched that policy generally comes a cropper at the elections. As a matter of fact, the Empire Marketing Board is giving us something far more tangible, and advertising our wares all over the country and getting people to buy our products. It is persuading the people of England to buy our products, and is that not a splendid thing for our people? One must not forget that there are other things we are getting. We are getting protection for our overseas commerce, and the most enthusiastic South African must admit that it will be a long, long time before we can pay our own protection. All that should be recognized and mentioned. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to Rhodesia, but it seems to me that all the benefits it gets under its existing tariff are specially protected. The Minister of Mines and Industries said that England was largely a re-exporting country. From people who have travelled extensively on the continent, and I have information from men who have just come from there, it appears that all our trade with Germany is not with that country, which is the great distributing centre of Europe, and goods which go to Germany are distributed amongst many other countries, Germany acting, like England, in that respect as a re-exporting country. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg quoted from the “Manchester Guardian” very effectively in an able speech, and effectively from his point of view, but I would ask him and his hon. friends whether they would quote that paper on native affairs or whether free trade or protection is the right policy for South Africa? It is a paper for which I have the greatest respect, but one to which anything like preference is anathema. You have to bear in mind that you are dealing with a paper and a point of view which regards anything apart from free trade as a sin against the light (interruption). The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has always been honest in his views. He likes the “Manchester Guardian” probably in other respects, as well as my hon. friend. There is one thing I strongly deprecate; the hon. member for Zoutpansberg said something about this being used at the elections and anti-German feelings being stirred up. I do hope we will have nothing like this. Nothing more deplorable than having anti-German feeling aroused could be conceived. I deprecate many things said by prominent men in this country, and there was something in the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) the other evening which I was very sorry to see. He said—

That identical remark was once made by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain with regard to Russia, and caused much diplomatic trouble. The right hon. gentleman also said—

Such expressions are unworthy, and I dissociate myself with remarks of that kind. Although I think the Government has gone wrong in certain respects, which I indicated, I think that any attempt made to stir up anti-German feeling should meet with the contempt it deserves.

The publication of this treaty was received from one end of the country to the other with expressions of incredulity, dismay and indignation by chambers of commerce, meetings of farmers, the press and innumerable men and women. The Minister can see in these expressions only calumny, racialism and misrepresentation. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) said that the expressions voiced constituted only an election cry, and he then proceeded to utter opinions which were nothing else but a plea for the votes of the German people in this country. The Minister and the hon. member for Zoutpansberg stated that the Afrikaans-speaking population of the country, especially those of the backveld, saw something very different from anyone else, and that all they could see was anti-German feeling. If I know anything of the Afrikaans-speaking people, if there is one thing they want to see it is a fair deal and fair play. In this treaty the Government is not playing the game with the rest of the British empire. That is one of the strongest objections we have against it. The Minister put up bogies in order to knock them down. They had nothing to do with the case. He gave us aseries of long quotations about the value of treaties, but who disputes them? Objection would be taken to the clauses of this treaty no matter to whom it referred.

You do not seem to know what your press has broadcast.

Perhaps you will allow me to speak for myself.

I don’t want you to speak of what is incorrect.

Both the Minister and the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) seem to make one very grievous mistake; they both said the British Government would never draw back from the preference it has given. Do these hon. gentlemen not see the difference between a preference given by a Government and the feeling of the people behind that Government? By giving a preference the Government simply gives the right to sell goods on favourable terms, but nothing but the goodwill of the people can make the people use those goods. That is more important than anything else. The Minister quoted what the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said at the 1923 conference, but he only quoted selected passages. Taken as a whole, the speech of the right hon. gentleman was an exact expression of the opinion of this country in regard to preference. The selected passages taken out by the Minister make very good reading, but I propose to fill up the gaps he left. I think it was the hon. the Minister who interjected with the remark, “What did he get?” Well, let him ask his friends behind him; ask the wine farmers and the fruit farmers. The right hon. gentleman got something which this Government has never supplemented. Whatever the Union got came from that 1923 conference. And what has the Government done since to improve the position of the farmer? Absolutely nothing. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) was quite right in pointing out that it will be impossible to increase the preference on certain specific items, but that it will be possible to increase the preference on items themselves. Under the article he referred to, Germany has the right to claim a minimum, but nothing is said about a maximum. In regard to foreign countries, has the Minister considered what the effect of this treaty will be? Any concessions which might be given to Germany must, of course, be given to any other nation which comes under the most favoured nation treatment, but has the Minister considered the position of America, where the President has been given the right to retaliate with an ad valorem duty to the extent of 50 per cent., so that anything given to Germany must also be given to America, or must we take the risk of our goods being differentiated against? That, to my mind, is a clear indication that this matter has not been properly thought out. Another point is that any new concession given to Canada or the other dominions must also be given to Germany, but any concession given to Germany does not go to the dominions; hence it is clear that the dominions would be in a worse position than the German Reich. Further, Rhodesia, Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland are perforce bound to give this same preference to Germany. That is the position this treaty creates. At the risk of boring the House a little, I would like to go slightly into the history of preference. So far as I know in this country it was first mentioned in 1887, and then it took the form of a surcharge upon foreign goods, and that surcharge was to be handed over to the British Government as a contribution to the British navy. The first time it came into practical effect in this country was in 1903, when, as the Minister rightly said, the Governments of South Africa were not all governments of the people, all of them not having responsible government; but he was wrong when he said the Cape Colony did not agree. The Cape Colony had its delegates at the conference. The member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was a delegate for Transvaal, and I was another, from the Cape, and the Minister will find if he will turn up the minutes that the motion on preference was moved by myself, a Cape Colony delegate, with the approval of the Prime Minister, Sir Gordon Sprigg. The from of it was changed. It was no longer called a tax upon foreign goods. It was called giving a preference. It was then an ad valorem duty of ten per cent., and upon ordinary goods seven and a half per cent., which was the same as charging two and a half per cent, extra upon goods from foreign countries. It gives one a better understanding of what the preference really meant if one thinks of the way it originated. That preference was given in 1903. Later on the two interior colonies each got their own form of government. We went into union, and there was never any movement towards change until this Government made it in 1925.

The leader of the Opposition said it was advisable.

Yes, but I would like to make it clear what was meant. The leader of the Opposition made a speech, and part of it has been quoted by the Minister. The Minister did not quote this: “We come here in a spirit of mutual consultation to consider how we can best by meeting each other’s point of view develop the trade of the empire to the fullest extent.” That is what the Minister did not quote, and that is what I complain of. The Minister has not one atom of the proper spirit in this matter. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that we were naturally very anxious to retain our freedom of action in developing our trade with other countries also. That is not disputed now. There is no objection to making treaties, but it is this particular class of treaty that is objected to. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that we appreciated very much what had been done in relation to preference, and that it was quite possible to extend preference to specific articles. Now this again is what the Minister did not quote: “And we are also willing to consult with you in regard to those items which are of special importance to your industries. I think a consultation like that will supply with us with guidance so as to shape our policy.” The Minister has quoted selected parts which do not bear out the text. What was the result of this conference? The British Government came forward right away, and gave you preference on your tobacco, wines, sugar, and dried fruits, and they gave those preferences without any bargaining. What the value of those is there are hon. members who are better able to state than I am. Then with regard to the attitude of South Africa it became necessary for Mr. Burton to be consulted, and Mr. Burton’s attitude was that he was prepared to meet the British Government by transferring from some items and giving a bigger preference on certain others, so long as he was not called upon to surrender more revenue. There were meetings with the authorities in England to go into the question as to what would most benefit them, and that was the arrangement. After Mr. Burton came back the Government went out, and the present Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance came in. What did he do? He deliberately reduced the preference so as to make it £400,000 less.

Do you object?

I say it was an ungenerous thing to do. It did not do us any good, and the consumer had to pay the difference. I had hoped that when the Minister of Finance went to the last Imperial Conference and saw that his fears about dominance were without foundation, and seeing that we had a full treasury, I had hoped that he would make some move to restore some of these preferences.

I am going to look first after the interests of this country.

I hoped you would do it in the interests of this country. The preferences were cut down, and now we have a treaty under which it is impossible to extend these preferences, or to restore the position to what it was originally, without Germany obtaining a similar benefit, and that would mean only half of the benefits being given to England. There has been no bargaining in framing these tariffs between the Union and Great Britain, although there has been bargaining between the dominions themselves. What are we going to gain by this German treaty; if we lose the goodwill of the people of England, who are our biggest consumers, any other gain will be infinitesimal in comparison. One cannot help feeling as if the Minister, having obtained some new independence clothes, must needs strut about in them.

What petty nonsense.

I am afraid I am getting down to the level of the Minister’s speech. Does he imagine that he has gained the respect of the German people by entering into this treaty? Why, a leading German said, “By this treaty we have created a breach in the family group of the British empire.” Does the Minister think the German or any other nation will respect us for this?

You are assuming what you are saying is a fact, but it is a fallacy. You are assuming that this is turning our back on England.

I cannot read anything else into it.

Why don’t you frankly say you do not want any trade treaties with foreign countries?

Because I should not be speaking the truth.

What sort of treaties do you want?

Not this sort. Before entering into it, I should consult people who knew something about the matter.

You, for instance?

It is a pity you did not.

If you had, I would have given you all the help I could. I am afraid the Minister merely consulted some of his officials, and their experience is limited. The popular idea outside is that this treaty is the result of conferences between the three B’s—Beyers, Bruwer and Bodenstein. The Minister has protested so much that there is no trace of any anti-British feeling in the treaty that I begin to have misgivings on the point. I hope the Minister will still think better of it and alter the treaty.

I do not think we need fear treaties when we look upon them as treaties purely and simply, but what we do fear is whether there will be an alteration in the fiscal policy of this country so as to safeguard the economic and civilized standard under which we live. It is no use looking at the matter entirely from the sentimental point of view. It is true that we have in Section 4 of the Customs Tariff Act of 1925, a principle which gives the Government the right to safeguard the working conditions under which goods imported into South Africa are produced. We believe that embodied in that Act should be a clause to regulate the price of a commodity it is landed at, in South Africa up to what the price would be if the commodity were produced in this country. For instance, before the war, the economic value of production in different countries was as follows, taking the medium at 10s.: we had 5s. 10d. in China, 6s. 1d. in India, Japan 6s. 3d., Italy and Greece 7s. 2d., Austria 8s. 2d., Germany 8s. 5d., and Great Britain 10s. I understand this treaty is the forerunner of a large number of other treaties, and if we are to accept these treaties, we believe on these benches there should be an amendment before voting on the treaty to the Customs Tariff Act of 1925. In Section 4, subsection 1, second line, after the word “Minister” there should be inserted the words—

And in sub-section 2, line 7, to insert the words: “declare that the duty to be paid be such as to increase the price until it is equal to the price of goods produced under South African economic civilized conditions.” For instance, in the international settlement in China we find British and American capitalists are producing cotton goods at practically 80 per cent, of the cost of production in Britain. The result is a reduction in the cotton workers in Britain and a corresponding increase of workers in China. There was an increased production of over £7,000.000 of cotton goods in China and a corresponding decrease in Lancashire of over £6,000.000. This shows we want economic tariffs based on the cost of production. The free trade agitators are always pointing out how treaties and agreements having as a principle free trade is beneficial, but to show the fallacy of their arguments I will give a few figures showing the trade relations between Germany and Great Britain before the war, when Great Britain’s imports from Germany were practically on a par with the imports by Germany from Britain. What do we find? We find that owing to having control of the shipping of the world Britain-—it also had control of raw commodities—was exporting to Germany raw commodities. On the other hand, Germany was exporting back to England manufactured goods, economic experts state that if you manufacture a commodity 50 per cent or half of the value of the commodity when exported represents wages and profit left in the country of manufacture for internal wealth. In the case of exports from Germany to Britain 73 per cent, of the total gross value was in respect of manufactured or partly-manufactured commodities. 50 per cent, of that 73 per cent, was left in Germany for internal wealth. Cheaper wages enabling cheaper production meant that Germany did manufacture a larger proportion of goods used by Britain than British manufacture were used by Germany. The result was that while there was left in Germany 50 per cent, or half of the 73 per cent., we find there was only 50 per cent or half of the 39 per cent, of the total gross value left in Britain for internal wealth. In other words, Germany held the big stick for the simple reason that the cost of production was lower. It is not only a question of the treaty, it is a question of the conditions of the treaty. While the Minister is correct in stating that Great Britain is a free trade country, I believe Great Britain lost its opportunity at the close of the war, and if it was missed it was the fault of the same gentlemen who are now protesting against this treaty. While Great Britain, for sentimental reasons, desired closer co-operation with the colonies, we find that the commercial men of this country and of Great Britain were opposed to that because it meant naturally less profit for them. On the other hand, the workers wanted closer co-operation because they believed there would be better conditions for the workers. If you want another instance it is that in Germany the workers are working at least 10 hours a day, and, in some instances, 12, compared with 8 hours worked by workers in this country and Great Britain. Also, they are working at practically two-thirds of the pay of the latter; calculated on the purchasing power of their wages, I am giving it as broad an interpretation as possible. I think it would be more accurate to say 50 per cent., but say 66 per cent. A clause should be inserted which would regulate the prices of the commodities at the port, not only to prevent dumping, but also to prevent the capitalistic classes of the world from investing money where labour is cheap and so making a greater profit for themselves. What I would like the Minister to do is to consult the Minister of Finance, and to see in the customs arrangement which must be considered under this treaty, whether a scheme could not be brought about under which goods manufactured in Germany under this treaty, or under any other treaty, by this or any other Government, would be subject to a stipulation which would not allow any goods to be introduced into South Africa, if they were produced under economic conditions worse than those of South Africa, unless at the port, a tax was imposed equivalent to the difference in the economic conditions between the two countries. For instance, if an article is manufactured in Japan for 6s. 3d., and in Great Britain for 10s., it will work out at 11s. 9d. in this country, allowing for differences in freight and incidental charges, at the ports the price should be levelled up to the price at which the article could be produced in this country. Unless we carried out a principle of that description, we shall follow other nations like Babylonia. History tells us that Babylonia destroyed itself by employing people who lived on a lower economic standard. Egypt exploited other nations also, and the latter having the initiative and creative faculty, developed, they eventually destroyed the Egyptians. You had the same in Greece and Rome. Unless we produce the commodities we require, or refuse to exploit people who live on a lower economic standard, ultimate disruption will come upon us, because our creative and initiative faculties cannot be developed. Let me appeal to the Minister; you must safeguard that civilization of which you the Minister has so often spoken about in this House. You have advocated the uplifting of the people, and that a certain standard should be lived. I hope that this treaty will not be the means of throwing out of employment, workers, either in this country or in Great Britain because they naturally need more money and are living on a higher standard than in other countries, and of finding work for people in other countries instead of people of our economic standard. The Minister has stated that charity begins at home. I hope he will bring that into being, and that he will look upon South Africa not only as South Africa, but also the standard under which South Africans live.

If there is one thing that has become plain in this debate it is that it is necessary to repeat that this treaty is not in the least intended to harm Great Britain as such. I say this because it appears very clearly that the attitude of hon. members opposite and of their press, that they are anxious to create the impression that the treaty has been made not because it is in the interests of the South African people, but it is intended to injure the English people. I refer to this, because, unfortunately, outside the House throughout the whole country well-known South African party speakers are going about saying that the treaty is a slap in the face for England. Another again speaks of the “snoke in the wheel,” and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) even mentions “twisting the lion’s tail.” These speeches are only intended to give a wrong idea of the matter. It must be clear to every impartial person that the Government in the treaty is only aiming at the welfare of the South African people, and not to insult the English people. In the circumstances we can only come to the conclusion that the speeches of the Opposition and their criticism are only intended to create suspicion. The second matter to which I want to draw attention is that the South African party, and also many members of the public outside the House, are not able to discuss any economic matter without dragging in party politics and sentiment. I say that not only because I am afraid of it, but because we have proof of it. When the resolution of the London Chamber of Commerce in connection with our trade treaty with Germany was sent to Cape Town to be debated, three members of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce spoke so wildly about it, that it clearly appeared that it was not possible to them to discuss such a matter without bringing in sentiment. The resolution of the London Chamber of Commerce reads as follows—

Now we can, of course, understand that a message like that from London inspired Cape Town Unionist circles. Here I want to refer to the speech of Mr. Sibbett of 30th January last before the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. He said—

Which is not true, as we know only one mother country, and that is South Africa—

Then I want to quote from the speech of Mr. Baxter—

It seems to me that these people do not think in terms of South Africa at all, but only in terms of Great Britain. I should like to see business men in South Africa who put South African interests first. This attitude taken up by the chambers of commerce, by the South African party and by the South African party press is merely a continuation of the old Milner imperialism, and I will indicate what right I have to say so. I have listened with astonishment to-night to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) dragging in sentiment and politics into the matter. There is an increasing national consciousness in the dominions which is painful to the British imperialists, because it forces them to the conclusion that the market for British goods is thereby being damaged. In this connection I want to refer to the report of the Dominions Royal Commission of 1912, which said—

This is letting the cat out of the bag. The stupidity of the imperialists in maintaining the empire as such and to allow Great Britain to be benefitted by the produce of the dominions, becomes more clear to us in the war fever of 1916. I want here to refer to the resolution of the Paris Conference of 1916, the most shameless part of which begins as follows—

The same attitude is maintained in the resolutions of the Imperial Conference in 1917-18. I need not go into that, but we remember how steps were taken to allow the South African produce to go in a certain circle for Britain’s benefit. The basic idea on which imperial policy rests is clearly expressed by Ellis Barker in the “Round Table” of October, 1916, where he says—

To realize what is laid down in the above, the idea of imperial citizenship and imperial patriotism was created, and the father of this is none other than Lord Milner with his “Wider Patriotism” for the empire as a whole. In connection with this we have the frank statement of Jebb in his “Empire Eclipse.” He explains why super-patriotism must be created and says—

The truth of the whole business is clearly published here. The cultivation of a sentiment towards Britain is prostituted for trade purposes. The English people are certainly right in being angry that their principles are being exploited for purely material advantages, and I also think that Union citizens on the whole have sufficient good sense to bring them to the conclusion that the action of the South African party is meant to allow the Milner patriotism to continue. What applies to South Africa is the attitude which is laid down as a sound principle for Canada by J. S. Ewart and is applied by the Canadian Government. It is shortly summed up in the following words, which I quote from a statement by Ewart, substituting the words “the Union” for “Canada”—

1. 1. The Union’s economic policy must be defined in the Union—and nowhere else.
2. 2. The Union will not permit the Allies or anyone else to continue an economic war after the end of the present war.
3. 3. Such an economic war with former enemy countries is foolish and ridiculous.
4. 4. The Union refuses to ruin itself by holding to the agreement that its natural resources must be conserved for other nations.
5. 5. The Union will fix its own economic policy. Any other policy is ridiculous and self-destructive.

I want to heartily support this treaty with Germany, because I see in it in the first place sound statesmanship. I have taken the trouble of comparing the treaty clause by clause with the British German trade treaty of 1924, and it agrees with it verbally, except for the difference in Clauses 8 and 10. I support the treaty from a political standpoint because three things are laid down in it which are in the interests of South Africa. It maintains our friendship with the British empire, it maintains lour friendship with our neighbouring states— Rhodesia, Portuguese East Africa and the native territories; it must serve to define friendship between South Africa and foreign powers —in this case, Germany. Further, the treaty is economically sound because it starts from the interest of South Africa and from the standpoint laid down in 1925 by the Minister of Finance, namely, that our system of preference—except for the concessions we already give to England—must be based on the economic principle of quid pro quo. Apart from that, we cannot do better in South Africa than follow the example of England herself. If then the South African party, the so-called friends of England, find fault with our action, they must also blame the action of England, and if they approve of the latter, they must also approve of our action. In this connection I want to show what the attitude of Britain was with reference to the trade of recent years. The standpoint has always been “Britain first” and this comes out clearly in the Balfour Report of 1917, which says—

Here it says prominently: the protection of “the producer of this country.” The maintenance of “key industries at all costs.” The economic maintenance of “national safety;” the maintenance of “our economic power and welfare.” In other words, always Britain first. Throughout the action of Britain this attitude is maintained, and we find it specially with reference to the meat trade in which South Africa is greatly interested seeing we have 10,000,000 head of cattle of which we should like to export a great number. Canada itself was in this position but England constantly took up the attitude that the British producer must be protected. Only in 1925 did England agree to the importation of Canadian cattle, but only on the reciprocity principle— not preference. An Act was passed authorising the Minister to all importation of breeding cattle on condition that the same treatment was given by Canada in the case of British cattle. In Britain the question of protection is still a political problem. All parties agree that Britain must regulate its world trade in the interests of the British people, but each party has its own platform which it will apply if it comes into office. If then it is said that we must bind ourselves further to Britain then we have no assurance that Britain will follow a similar policy. We have unfortunately enough proof that the British policy is not logical, because in 1924 only we saw what became of imperial preference when the Labour Government came into power. The principles of the Conservatives were mentioned by the Minister of Mines and Industries but I want to call attention to clauses in which we are particularly interested and about which we want an extension of the preference, and where the British Government dare not give any preference. On the 7th December, 1924, Mr. Baldwin said in a speech—

We have no objection to that, we acknowledge the principles of Britain first for Britain but we adopt the same principle for South Africa, namely South Africa first. If time permitted I could make more quotations from the speeches of Mr. Baldwin and other Conservative leaders to show their attitude. Now I come to the Liberal attitude. In the manifesto of the Liberal party before the last election it was said—

The Liberal attitude is more definitely explained in an important book “Britain’s Industrial Future” which appeared last year, it says—

In 1924 Mr. Clynes took up the same attitude on behalf of the Labour party and I quote from a newspaper report—

Opposition speakers referred to the detriment which the export of South African fresh and dried fruit would have if the trade treaty with Germany became an accomplished fact. Let me briefly quote from the report of the British Industry and Trade Committee of 1927 to show what the attitude of England was and what benefit we had from its trade. In spite of the existing preference granted to the dominions the figures for 1927 were as follows—

We get this small figure for tobacco, e.g., notwithstanding the preference and although South Africa and Rhodesia also is saddled with large quantities of tobacco. The British buyers have not the least sentiment for South Africa but buy in the cheapest market. Let me say with regard to raisins that Britain gives such a preference on them that our raisins cannot be supplied without a subsidy of the Co-operative Wine Farmers’ Association. I spoke to the chairman of an exporting society recently and he told me that the average price for raisins in England was only 2 1/16d. per lb. and that at this price it was more paying to the farmer to crush the grapes and make must. If it were not for the subsidy there would notwithstanding the preference be no export of raisins to Britain. Then I want to quote something else to show what kind of preference the British buyers give to South Africa and I do so from the “Cape Times” of the 19th inst.—

The Argentine production has increased so much that the South African growers have no chance of getting a look in the British market. The point of view of hon. members opposite was that England was our best market. Now I want to read an extract from the same paper about the attitude of New Zealand, a land of unchallenged loyalty—

New Zealand is going to export its fruit to the Continent because there is a better market there but if it is suggested in South Africa to conclude a trade treaty with the Continent and with Germany then we have to listen to hon. members opposite saying that it is a slap in the face to Britain. Now I want to devote my attention to the export of agricultural produce from South Africa. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) mentioned the export of maize this afternoon and I want first of all to confine myself to the position of the fruit farmers. Unfortunately there are people in South Africa who make use of their position to terrorise the farmers and here I refer more particularly to the wrong information furnished by the directors of the deciduous Fruit Exchange to its farmer members with the object of influencing them against the Nationalist party. In the first place we can take the wine position. To-day the position is that the Co-operative Wine Farmers’ Association has to search all round for markets for their produce. The possibilities of selling in Canada, China, South America, Britain and on the Continent was enquired into and the only difficulty operating in the last mentioned case was the fact that the customs duties on the Continent were too high. In Canada our co-operative societies cannot compete with France and it is a difficult matter in England. If our wine, however, could get more favourable tariffs on the Continent there would be a better chance. If that is the opinion of the chairman of the society then hon. members opposite must say no more. Now I want particularly to refer to the benefits to South Africa which are connected with the German treaty. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that the last speaker appears to have driven the Minister out of the House in despair, and I hope the Minister will come back again in due time. It is very difficult to speak on the motion when the Minister in charge of it is not present. I do not know whether the Minister who is now on the front benches would be prepared to accept the adjournment.

No.

I think hon. members behind the Minister this afternoon must have been very disappointed with his speech. I understand he had made it qnite clear that his case in favour of the German treaty was unanswerable. I suppose in a certain sense it was unanswerable. He gave us no reasons whatever for entering into this treaty, and, therefore, it is very difficult to answer his unspoken reasons. Instead of giving us any reasons he dragged a great many red herrings across the trail which had nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether it was advisable to enter into this treaty or not. He brought in the usual gibe at the British “jingo if that animal still exists in this country. At any rate, in the mind of the Minister it still exists. He brought in the statement that there was a great deal of racial hatred against the Germans on this side—a bogey entirely put up by the Minister. It is the first time since this controversy started I have heard that given as a reason why we object to the treaty. He then introduced another extraordinary red herring that we must give the same fiscal advantages to Germany that we give to the partners in the British Empire, otherwise Germany would feel insulted. That is one of the most curious reasons that a Minister could possibly bring forward for entering into a treaty with a foreign nation. The Minister of Defence has up to the present only written letters about the matter, and we should now be delighted to hear him on the floor of the House giving the other version of his opinions about the German treaty. Another strong point in the Minister’s indictment was that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had made certain statements in order to get preference for the Union at the 1923 conference. As far as I could understand the speaker who followed him on the other side (Mr. Pirow), he said that the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger) bought goods in Germany and I bought motor-cars in America. I do not think a more stupid, sillier argument could be advanced for a very important document. What we want to know—and we want a definite and straight answer—is what are the advantages South Africa is going to get by the signing of this treaty. The Minister spoke for an hour and a half this afternoon and carefully avoided telling us. We are not here as philanthropists. I suppose the Minister asks us to enter into the treaty only if it is for the advantage of South Africa. I do not ask him to look further afield and say that it should be for the advantage of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I hope when the Minister replies he will tell the House exactly what advantages will accrue to South Africa.

What advantages did your leader contemplate?

I want to balance these advantages against certain disadvantages which we know will accrue from the signing of the treaty. I think the Minister will agree that under Clause 8 we cannot give increased preferences to Great Britain without giving them to Germany, and any preference under the second schedule of part 1 extended to the dominions must necessarily be extended to Germany. I should like to have the Minister’s opinion of Clause 3, of the protocol because as I read it preference granted under parts 2 and 4 to the second schedule of the 1925 Act would be applicable to Germany because those were extended in 1926 to the United Kingdom. Any minimum rates which we grant after the signing of the treaty simultaneously go to Germany; that is, Germany would get the advantage if any other treaties were made. Under article 4 (2) the Minister said he had not treated Rhodesia differently from Portuguese East Africa. Is not Portuguese East Africa to be under more favourable conditions than Rhodesia, because the exclusion as far as Portuguese East Africa is concerned is absolute, and conditional as far as Rhodesia is concerned, and therefore Portuguese East Africa will be in a more favourable position than one of our dominions. I would like to speak of the disadvantages that will accrue if this treaty is signed. In the first place I should like to mention some of the principal preferences; on sugar it is 4s. 3d. per hundred-weight, on tobacco it is three-quarters of the duty, on dried and preserved fruits we get the whole of the duty rebated, on still wine it is one-third of the duty, and on sparkling wine one-half. The Minister has been interjecting several times that this treaty is not going to do any harm until the customs treaty mentioned in one of the later clauses is concluded with Germany. I do not quite understand what the Minister means by this. If he means it will do harm when it is concluded there is no reason for going on with the treaty, but if he means that the customs portion of the treaty may never be entered into it seems to me he is putting a bluff on the German Government. I should like to point out what a gamble the Minister is taking on. Our exports in 1927 amounted to £54.000,000. In order to put the matter in the most favourable way, I would deduct from that the gold exported, which amounted to £24,000,000, which brings our net exports to something over £29,000,000. Our exports to Germany amounted to £4,000,000, so that under this treaty we risk losing seven times as much as we gain, and if you take those items in which we are particularly interested, the position is that we risk practically everything for nothing. Our export in 1927 of wine was, £72,000; tobacco, £116,000; sugar, £783,000; fresh fruit, £820,000; dried and preserved fruit, £231,000. These particular items amount to a total of over £2,000,000, and if you take a little tobacco and wine sent to the adjoining territories, then practically the whole of these commodities go to the British Empire. Germany practically takes nothing, and yet, under this treaty, we are risking £2,000,000 practically for nothing. I will go further and say we are risking almost a certain increase in all these exports, and that the likelihood of an increase in our exports to Germany is a mere bagatelle. When I say exports to Germany, I do not wish to connect Germany with the war. Just the same arguments would apply to Italy, France, or any other nation. Do not let us mix these matters up as they are mixed in the mind of the Minister.

In the mind of your press.

We have nothing to do with our press in this matter. We have our own opinions. We are not so affected by the press as the Minister is. He seems to trade on the fact that the British Government will not take away the present preferences, no matter what we may do, but the British Government have very little power in this matter. I would ask the Minister to imagine himself what the position would be in the North of England when the wife of a man who is about to lose his job because we were not supporting British industries offered her a South African orange. I should like the Minister to imagine what that woman would say. It is true that the British Government can help or hinder in this connection, but they cannot make the public buy. There is another rather curious matter in his; statement, when he sneers at what he calls the voluntary preferences. I will give him an example. It is a very curious thing that while we export £116,000 worth of tobacco, Rhodesia exports five times as much. Does it not strike the Minister that there must be such a thing as a voluntary preference in England, and that the British public are prepared to smoke Rhodesian tobacco because the Rhodesian people treat them fairly? I have a cutting here from the “Cape Times,” dated 19th December, in which they are dealing with the difficulties of the Union tobacco grower, and where it is pointed out that the growers in the Waterberg district are very indignant because the Minister of Agriculture is sending a professor of economics instead of a business man to London to sell their tobacco. It is pointed out that Rhodesia was confronted with, a serious state of affairs, but that by means of judicious advertising, a firm market was secured, and they got rid of their surplus. In spite of any advertising is a treaty like this likely to bring the British working man to smoke Union tobacco? Here we are spending £25,000 a year in advertising, and the whole of the results, accruing from that are being negatived by blunders such as this treaty. In regard to the value of English trade, I should like to refer the Minister to the report of the Export Wine Trade Committee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture on the 31st August, 1928. They were appointed to look into the question of the export of wine, a very important thing, because: if we do not get an export market we shall have: the same trouble that we had about eight years ago, over-production of wine. This is what the committee said about export possibilities—

The Minister of Mines and Industries is not helping his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, by signing a treaty diametrically opposed to the interests of Great Britain. The committee also says it is of opinion that for the present the most likely market is that offered by the United Kingdom, and that no effort should be spared in the direction of taking full advantage of the opening. They mention that the Government through its trade commissioners should be looking out for markets in other parts of the world, and the countries they mention are India, China and Japan. They do not turn to Germany to help them out with their wines. There is rather an interesting document issued by the Minister himself—the. “Commercial and Industrial Gazette,” issued under the authority of the hon. F. W. Beyers. It is the report of our representative on the Continent dealing with the German markets for South African products. One would imagine, if one had seen the German treaty only, that its inspiration came from the advantages held out by our representative on the continent, but that representative tells us in this “Gazette” that there is practically no business in Germany in fresh fruit or dried fruit. When you come to tobacco he says that the tobacco trade has had to struggle in Germany with unfavourable conditions during the past year, and that an improvement on previous years can hardly be realised. Business on a large scale has been handicapped by the prevailing shortage of capital. That gives you an idea from our own representative of our prospect of getting any advantages out of this treaty. This was published in April, 1928, and I think that was the last report. The Minister of Defence wrote a very interesting letter to a Mr. Ross. I must say that I never knew that the Minister of Defence was so simple. The Government also issued a statement by the Secretary for External Affairs in which it is stated that the conclusion of the treaty will have no adverse effect upon the production of wine, tobacco, fruit, etc., in the Western Province. I can assure the Secretary for External Affairs that he will not be able to put that kind of stuff on to the producers of the Western Province. If you sign this treaty to-day, whether you have in the distance this coming customs treaty with Germany or not, you will be too late to put the thing right. You will have created a feeling among the other portions of the British commonwealth that will do infinite harm, and it will take years for you to put it right. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) said that because we had not signed this treaty at once, the German Government had already retaliated with regard to hominy chop. I am sorry the hon. member has got such a low estimate of the German Government, because I do not believe the writer of the letter that the hon. member quoted. I am perfectly certain that no European Government would deal with any foreign country in such a niggarrdly and stupid manner. That was a bogey put up to frighten this House as to the necessity for immediately signing this treaty. I would like to compare this treaty with the United Kingdom treaty of 1924. The Minister says that as the English treaty is terminable at three months’ notice and the German treaty at six months’ notice, therefore 21 out of the 26 clauses which apply to us in the farmer treaty have to be repeated in the treaty now under consideration. I suggest, however, that the repetition of all these clauses in the present treaty is simply a smoke-screen to allow certain verbal alterations to be made in the clauses so as not to exclude Great Britain and the dominions from this treaty. If you go through the clauses in the existing treaty you will see that they talk about “any other foreign country.” In our treaty we have carefully erased the word “foreign” from every clause. That is very curious, and I suggest that the British commonwealth is deliberately brought into this when it could have easily been excluded, and, further, that the German Government would not have been so silly as to imagine that they were entitled to favours which were granted only to countries within the limits of our empire. I think the disastrous effects of this economically are clear; economically it is unsound for us to enter into this treaty. I would now like to say something about the moral aspect of the matter. I have here an appreciation of preference made at the Imperial Conference by the Minister of Finance, who said—

Who said that?

The Minister of Finance. I can imagine the cheers that came from the members of the conference when they heard this, and their feeling that they were safe in the hands of the Minister of Finance.

Is the saying otherwise now?

He is not acting on it.

It is not what you say that counts, but what you do, and that is what our friends on the other side do not appreciate. There is another point—we are losing the power to negotiate further preferences with Great Britain. It is the dearest wish of some of our producers to obtain other preferences from Great Britain; probably the Minister of Mines and Industries may not be aware of it. Under the treaty he cannot offer Great Britain any preferences without making a similar offer to Germany, and in that case England would say, “It is no use offering preferences to me if you offer them at the same time to Germany, as she is my principal competitor.” That seems to be perfectly obvious. [Time limit.]

I have carefully listened to the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken and also to some of the other speeches from the opposite side in order to find out whether there is anything in their speeches to indicate any love for South Africa, whether there is in their speeches anything to show that South Africa is also their country. If it is correct that South Africa is always represented as a young lady then I think it is time to remind the members opposite that young ladies like to hear protestations of love sometimes. So far she has only heard how much they love the other girl.

Young ladies like something more solid.

We are told that if the Minister of Finance has any surplus in his treasury then he could do no better than to apply it to preference for Great Britain. Why not apply it to some advantages for South Africa? It is always something that must be done for some other country. We would like to hear what these members have to say about South Africa. The intention of the treaty is to do something for South Africa and hon. members over there protest against that.

What does it do?

Members try to oppose this treaty for the simple reason that it is doing something for South Africa. We have been told by the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger) how much Great Britain is doing for South Africa through the Empire Marketing Board. Is Great Britain doing that only for South Africa? Is she not doing it for herself in the first place?

No she is not.

Would Great Britain spend a million pounds if it were for South Africa only? All he have heard is benefits to Great Britain or some other country. What about benefits to South Africa? What England wants, we are told, is not a level deal and equal trade, but benefits. She does not want to deal with us on level terms but she wants benefits. She wants something more than somebody else gets. Is not that an insult to Great Britain to say of her that she cannot deal with South Africa except she is spoon-fed in trade. We are told when we try to create another market for our produce—and we have been told by members opposite that South Africa wants more markets—when there is an attempt made to find a new market for South African produce we are told it is a slap in England’s face, but we are turning our back on England. If you buy a motor-car from America do you turn your back on England for that reason? I would like to know when England made a treaty with Germany in 1924 did she turn her back on South Africa or any other dominion?

She safeguarded us.

That is what we have done. In this treaty England’s interests are more than safeguarded and not only in this treaty but by law. We are asked what are the advantages of this treaty. The advantages are these. We get one market more for the Union—unfortunately only one. I hope some more will come. We are told on the other side that it will bring certain disadvantages, but it is curious to hear the arguments of these hon. members. They begin by assuming that if we start trading with Germany automatically England will cease trading with us. Is that not an insult to England? Is not the whole point of their argument that we are risking 29 per cent, of our trade because we are opening another door for our trade with Germany? The fact of the matter is we know that during last year Great Britain took only 54 per cent, of our exports, and what is more, she re-exported half of that. The actual amount England consumed of our produce was something like 26 per cent. What happened to the other 74 per cent.? Supposing we cannot sell that 74 per cent, of our produce, what will happen to it? The result will be we shall have to sacrifice it, and that will make us so much weaker. Hon. members opposite seem to think that it is an advantage to South Africa to be unable to sell her produce, and they assume that by giving benefits to other nations, and to Germany, we will lose whatever trade we have at present with Great Britain. They tell us we are stopping development, but the very process of giving benefits means getting benefits, and the very process of opening a new door means creating new trade. The very process of trading with Germany means getting trade from Germany, trade being one of those things which are twice blest—“it blesseth him who gives and him who takes.” Do hon. members argue seriously that Great Britain can deal with us only if we give her special privileges above others? One of the hon. members opposite said we have surrendered our freedom. Has Great Britain surrendered her freedom when she entered into the treaty with Germany in 1924? On the contrary, it is the very exercise of freedom to enter into a treaty with another nation. England has entered into treaties with various countries, such as Persia, Germany and others. Did she lose her freedom by doing that? I have not heard a single argument all the afternoon showing how directly we can lose anything by this treaty. Indirectly they told us a good deal of what can happen. We must ask how can we, directly, lose by this treaty. In the first place, it must be admitted by them that directly we can get only benefits by this treaty—better trade results, better profits and more prosperity for this country, and it can have the effect only of stimulating trade and further production in our country. We were told that certain people in this country were frightened of this treaty, because they were afraid it might mean retaliation against our fruit and other products. That is an astounding policy to adopt. If hon. members know anything about the traditional policy of Great Britain, they know that it is in her interests to admit all foodstuffs free. That has been the traditional policy of Great Britain through all these past years. It has been argued here that because we open trade with some other country England will refuse to trade with us. Such an argument is incomprehensible. There is the further question whether England would take away her trade with us in raw materials. Will England be so stupid as to refuse to take our raw materials, when these raw materials are required for her factories? It is the policy of Great Britain to take as much raw material as possible for her manufacturing industries. The main point which we must remember is that England has shown that she cannot consume all our products, and that she has adopted the system of getting an article from one country and re-exporting it to another. Once in 1776 this system was adopted in respect of the importation of tea from the east, and then re-exporting it to America. It brought on the American War of Independence. England has now departed from that policy. Subsequently there was another phase of it in connection with wool transactions during the war. That shows the kind of policy England has pursued of late: she proposes to be a great commission agent for the British empire, to import articles from the dominions, re-export them to other countries and make a profit out of it. In other words, Great Britain is to be a conduit pipe through which these goods will flow to other countries. It is wrong for the Union of South Africa to sell her wool or her maize direct to Germany, but it is perfectly right for Great Britain to buy from the Union and re-sell to Germany. That is the policy propounded. Behind the whole position of this treaty is the suggestion that Great Britain will retaliate against us.

I move—

I object.

When the House adjourned last night, I was busy examining the argument of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) to the effect that by entering, into a treaty with Germany, we are risking our trade with Great Britain. The argument is that by the mere fact of extending our markets, to foreign countries, Great Britain will take umbrage and take away the trade which we have with her at present.

Whose argument is that?

The hon. member for Newlands argued that. That argument would represent Great Britain as being capable of an attitude and actions which I consider altogether unworthy of Great Britain. I absolutely refuse to believe that Great Britain, will ever do anything of the kind. In the first place we know that Great Britain has always honoured her treaties, and I believe she is still capable and willing to do that. We have our relations with Great Britain and we have kept our contract with her. It appears from the arguments used in the House that during 1927 Great Britain prospered in respect of the preferences that we gave her to the tune of £421,000, whereas we had less than £200,000 to our advantage under the same agreement. Great Britain surely realizes that position, that we are playing the game with her, and I do not believe for a moment that Great Britain will depart from that position simply because we are doing what she has done herself right through her existence, that is, to trade as far as possible with other countries. It is beneath the dignity of Great Britain to suggest such a thing about her. All this wailing about Great Britain and preferences to Great Britain is really getting quite pathetic, and I doubt very much whether Great Britain feels very flattered by the arguments used in this House. Great Britain is a great country to-day. Why is she a great country? It is on account of her strong trade position in the world. How has she acquired that strong trade position? She has acquired it by the method of extending her trade to the four corners of the world, and by trying to get trade connections with all the foreign nations. She has done that by selling in the best markets and by buying in the best markets. Do hon. members suggest that Great Britain will begrudge the Union of South-Africa the methods which she has adopted herself right through her life, and which have tended to make her a great nation? It is misrepresenting Great Britain. It is misrepresenting her attitude towards the Union. There is no likelihood that Great Britain will ever do anything of the kind, and I refuse to believe that she is so deaf and so blind to her own interests and those of the British empire, as to do anything of the kind. It is true that at one time there were certain politicians and statesmen in Great Britain who advocated a policy of keeping the colonies and dependencies small, in order to show off Great Britain’s greatness as compared with them. The document referred to by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) is evidence of that, and if hon. members opposite would have an instance of a practical application of that policy they need only read the history of Ireland. Certain politicians wanted to keep Ireland small, and she was carrying on a fairly good trade with Belgium, but England prohibited that trade. England has abandoned that policy and has become wiser, and as a result she has become greater. This policy which she has abandoned is the one these hon. members opposite are advocating, and these self-styled protagonists of Great Britain are doing her no good. Some stand with one leg in the seventeenth century. Great Britain is not happy in the personnel of her defenders in the Union of South Africa. It is not the British government which is opposed to this, because it realizes what hon. members opposite apparently do not, that it is in her interests to place no restrictions or to expect South Africans to place no restrictions on her trade. The policy of keeping the dominions small is dead, and Great Britain will never recommend the Union of South Africa or any other dominion to adopt anything smacking of that policy. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said it was not the government of Great Britain that opposed this, but implied that it was the people of Great Britain who did so. I say it was not the people either. It was noticeable when this treaty was first announced that it got a reception which was not at all unfavourable; some papers actually commended it, and others remained silent; but after the usual process of inspiration and wire-pulling from South Africa had an opportunity to take its course it was then that this opposition began, and increased in volume as it proceeded and developed into a general philippic against the treaty. The fact of the matter is that the election was coming on, and they wanted co-operation in the empire—even to win elections. The objection is in this country and not in England. There are those in South Africa who are trying to be more loyal to other countries than their own, and fail to see South African problems from the true national point of view: they profess to be seeing them from the British point of view and to represent to us the British mind; but in most cases they misrepresent that. What we see here often is not a picture of the British mind, but a cartoon of it. This treaty is calculated to do much good to the Union of South Africa.

Tell us how.

I have done so, because it does exactly what England has done—increased her trade—and it tends to extend our markets, as England has done for herself. England will be more unhappy if she adopted those arguments of hon. members opposite for her own use. This treaty is with a country that is able to produce what South Africa requires. We have had instances where this was not the case; for instance, we have been selling our wines to Mauritius, and this has gone down because Mauritius could not sell anything to us at all. We have been trying to sell our meat to Italy, and Italy could not sell anything to us—for what reason I do not know—perhaps the action of the merchant princes of South Africa—and we are rapidly losing that trade. Here we are opening the door to a country which can produce a number of things which we can buy, and can buy a number of things which we can produce; therefore, we have a direct trade, which we want for the Union of South Africa. The whole argument of the opposite side is not that it is not good for South Africa, but that it is not good for England. All their arguments show that what they have actually at the back of their minds and what they really mean is not the empire, but Great Britain, which can look better after her own affairs than members in this House. It has been stated that Rhodesia is against this treaty, but she has been properly safeguarded in it, and if hon. members will refer to Article 4, sub-section 3, and Section 1 of the Protocol, and take these two sections together, they will see that Rhodesia is absolutely safeguarded and has nothing to complain of. [Article 4, sub-section 3 and Section 1 of the Protocol read.] No, the objections to this treaty are not objections raised anywhere else in the British empire. Canada will not object; she has done the same in her land. What we want in this country is a little more of the South African spirit. Give us a little more love for South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken has made certain statements to which I wish to refer. He said that the reception which was accorded to this treaty was favourable both in South Africa and in England. He then went on to mention that this treaty holds out great prospects and advantages to South Africa, and that the interests of Rhodesia were completely safeguarded. I wish at once to refer to this point—that the reception of this treaty was, in the first instance, favourable.

Not unfavourable.

Why? I agree. The treaty was concluded on the 1st of September, and was published on the 16th of November, and during the interval the papers of this country were supplied with semi-official information repeating the statement that the preference system was completely safeguarded. The Minister referred yesterday to a statement by Mr. Sturrock, of Johannesburg, who appeared to have given the treaty his blessing. Mr. Sturrock did so under the information conveyed to him semi-officially that the preference position was safe. That brings me to the statement by the Minister that this has been a campaign of calumny, racialism and misrepresentation. This criticism did not start because it was a treaty with Germany, but before the people had ascertained later on, actually reading the treaty, that it made a breach in the preference system, and attacked that fiscal system root and branch. In his laboured and futile defence yesterday, the Minister made the point that this was the first treaty of the Government. Well, this country fervently prays it may be the last. The Minister also emphasized that this treaty was only for two years, but it will not be for two years if this Government remains in power, and it will be for this country to decide whether it is to remain in force for more than two years. The country knows that this represents the policy of the Government, and if this Government is returned to power it will be a case of this treaty remaining in force not for two years, but perhaps for many years, and even in perpetuity. This first attempt in regard to making a treaty has been a most unfortunate experience. I do not remember in the whole of my political life a measure by a Government which has occasioned such widespread criticism as this treaty has. The Prime Minister asks whether it was bona fide. The Minister said that the campaign was one of calumny, racialism and misrepresentation. Well, this treaty has been condemned by every shade of public and political opinion in this country. Does the Minister remember the statement made by Mr. George Kolbe, a leading Free State Nationalist and the President of the Agricultural Union of the Free State, and does he remember the refoundation of this treaty by one of the leaders of his party, Mr. Larkins, who won the Waterberg seat recently for the Nationalist party? Does he remember that in last December a great congress of wine farmers and fruit growers, called at Paarl, at which every leading light in those two industries was represented, and at which this treaty was unanimously condemned? To come forward now with the statement that it has been a campaign of calumny, racialism and misrepresentation is utter nonsense, and quite on a par with the rest of the futile speech delivered by the Minister. The people of the country recognize that there is something big at stake, and that a breach has been made in the settled fiscal policy of this country. They realize the point made in the German Reichstag when it was stated by a leading member of the Nationalist party that this was the first time that a treaty had been concluded with a British dominion, and that it made a breach in the British empire preference system. That was the point emphasized in the German Reichstag. The Minister asked me how I could be so untrue to my past as one of the fathers of the covenant. But look at the conditions of the covenant. You would assume from the statement by the Minister that this clause of the covenant was meant to put an end to the preference system, but this clause in the covenant was not only drafted by the British delegation, but was approved by it, and every part of the British empire was a signatory to it. There was no question of going contrary to the preference system. It was agreed that the British empire constituted a group, not only political, but a group which was recognized in other ways, and we made that clause, completely and fully reserving our rights to preference in the British empire. I ask the House to look for a moment at the inception of this treaty. Here is a treaty of vital importance. That has been the argument of the Government—that it is not something insignificant, but something of first-rate importance. This treaty about the fiscal policy of this country was entered into by the Government without consulting any organ of public opinion which could have informed them upon this matter. One would have thought that upon a matter of this kind which does not concern merely the Government and the public administration of this country, but which affects every citizen and? the trade and commerce and the industry of the country, that the Government would have informed itself of the trend of public opinion. Oh, no. Nobody was consulted.

On what point f

I will come to that just now. I would ask the Prime Minister please not to interrupt me. I show the Prime Minister every courtesy when he speaks. Nobody was consulted. The Government, simply on the-advice of its official advisers, young and inexperienced men, entered into this treaty, and the country to-day has to hold the baby. Let me make another point about the inception of this treaty. We are solemnly bound by resolutions of the Imperial Conference to consult with other members of the British empire when a treaty like this is made affecting common policy. I assume the Government has corresponded with them, and ascertained their opinion. We have asked in this House to be informed of the result. Surely we are entitled to know what our empire partners think of this matter. It is a matter of the public and fiscal policy of the empire. We are entitled, in this House, the supreme organ of legislature in this, country, to know. No, the Government gives no information. I know why these documents are not produced, and why we are not informed of the advice and opinion of other members of the empire. It is because the Government is afraid to lay these documents on the Table. One-member has shown his hand already. Mr. Bruce was asked in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament what view his Government take of this matter, and his statement was reported in the press that the Australian Commonwealth Government viewed this Bill “with the utmost seriousness.” I assume that that is the trend of the correspondence in the possession of the Government. We are not allowed to see it. The Government are afraid to let the country know what the view of our partners in the Empire is with regard to this measure. Let me brush aside at once one aspect of this question. We are supposed here, in this debate, and in fighting this treaty, to be launching an attack on Germany. Nothing of the kind. I will take the statement of the Minister which he made yesterday, and which everybody knows to be true, that similar treaties, identical treaties, are in preparation with other countries. I assume that this matter we are discussing has nothing to do with Germany. It is the German treaty that comes first before us; it might have been a Dutch treaty. It is a mere fortuitous circumstance that this treaty is with Germany. I was arguing at the meeting last week which has been referred to that this Government, inexperienced, juvenile, rushing into dangers which other governments might avoid, must be very careful in entering into treaties. I made the general statement that he who sups with the devil must have a long spoon, and I think the Minister will, by this time, appreciate the force of the remark I made. My reference was general and had no particular reference to Germany. Nor need we bother about the question of status. An attempt has been made to make the point that we are attacking our treaty-making status, and that this country has the right to make treaties. There is no objection on that score; we have the power. The question is whether it is a good or a bad treaty, and our point is this, that the Government has made a bad treaty, a treaty which is not in the interests of South Africa. May I turn to this treaty for a moment. It does various things to which we take objection. It is founded on the Anglo-German treaty of 1924, clause by clause and almost letter by letter; but here and there a change is made, and it is these changes that give cause for criticism. It is not only the matter of preference which we are criticizing. We go further. There are a number of other important departures in this treaty from the Anglo-German treaty. It is not only a matter of preference; it is a much wider question. Take the article which deals with trade, commerce and navigation. The original article provided that the contracting parties agree that in all matters relating to commerce, navigation and industry, any privilege, favour, or immunity which either of the parties has actually granted or may hereafter grant to the ships and subjects or citizens of any other foreign country shall be extended simultaneously and unconditionally without request and without compensation, to the ships and subjects or citizens of the other. For the words “any other state” the original treaty of 1924 has the words “any foreign country.” All through this treaty you have this substitution. The original treaty between Great Britain and Germany referred to the words “any other foreign country.” Here the words are “any other state.” “Any other state” refers not only to foreign countries but also to states in the empire. The result is that with the alteration of those couple of words in this treaty the whole of the provisions, the most important provisions of the original treaty, go awry, and you have the anomalies which arise. We object to that. I do not see for what reason the Government, having this original before them, have dropped out the words “any other foreign country” from almost every important clause, and substituted the words “any other state.” The result is that the Minister, to use his own words, has broken the circle of the British empire. States in the British empire are to be treated on exactly the same footing as any other foreign state.

It is not so.

You said so.

I did not say so.

That is the effect of this treaty.

What effect is that?

States in the empire are to be treated for commercial, navigation and industrial purposes on exactly the same footing as foreign countries are.

Is that not the case to-day?

Not under the Anglo-German treaty.

What is the differentiation?

This departure from the language of the Anglo-German treaty is deliberate, and is intended to place the states within the empire on exactly the same footing as foreign countries. In the article dealing with tariffs you have exactly the same change, and you have the results which have been criticized so widely and so strongly. The Minister wanted me to be fair, and I am going to be quite fair in explaining Section 8 of the treaty.

I never appealed to you to be fair.

I am in the same position as Great Britain—the Minister knows he can trade on my fairness. Article 8 makes it perfectly clear that existing preferences under the Act of 1925 are safeguarded—that the articles in which preferences are given under the Act of 1925 remain as they are. The safeguard, however, does not extend to any preference which in future may be given on other articles. The effect and intention of Article 8 is to limit the preference system to the existing articles. If in future South Africa wants to extend her preference system, that will have to be accorded equally to Germany. Before 1925 we had a long list of items on which there was this general preference given to Great Britain, but in 1925 this list of 120 items was contracted to, I believe, 20 or 25. If, at any time, we want once more to give a preference on any of these old items, we cannot do so to Great Britain without doing so on equal terms to Germany. For instance, we used to give a preference to British motor-cars, but that was taken away in 1925. If at any future date we want to accord preference to British motorcars or motor products, we cannot do so without doing it on equal terms to Germany. That is the point of criticism we make against the Bill. The matter goes a step further. Suppose the Government wish to make most-favoured-nation treaties with other countries, what will be the effect after this treaty with Germany has come into operation? Those countries will have to get the same treatment as Germany has, and the result will be after this treaty comes into force that any country with which we make a most-favoured-nation treaty will have the future preference system extended to it. Whatever Germany receives under this treaty will have to be extended automatically to any other country with which we may make a most-favoured-nation treaty. This may happen tomorrow. We hear that there is a stock of treaties on the Government list, and the Government, like children playing with a new toy-— the power to make treaties—are going to make treaties galore. I come to the point made by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie), who asked whether Rhodesia was not safeguarded. Rhodesia is in the customs union with us, and she has to admit free of duty all goods from open stocks in the Union of South Africa, and, therefore, any preference given by us to Germany will be forced on to Rhodesia. These products of Germany will come into open stocks here and from us they will go free and unimpeded to Rhodesia, and, although Rhodesia may hate this policy, she will be forced into the same position as we are, unless she leaves the customs union. The same holds good in regard to the other protectorates in South Africa—every state and territory with which we have a customs agreement will be forced to come under this treaty.

It can only happen if an agreement is not made under the protocol.

If the Government is not sent about its business before. The Government has not erred unintentionally, as they deliberately altered some of the words, the effect of which is to make this breach in the British preference system. The Anglo-German treaty of 1924 was very favourable to this country. The British Government did not play the dog in the manger, but negotiated the same most-favoured-nation treaty for the dominions just as for herself, and their rights were safeguarded. Under the Anglo-German treaty, we are treated as a most-favoured nation, and under that treaty we have every possible advantage which we can derive from the treaty now under discussion. This treaty was unnecessary to secure the benefits of the German minimum tariff. We had these rights secured for us by the action of the British Government in 1924 What have we gained for these surrenders? The answer is, nothing at all. Our position, our rights remain entirely and absolutely as they were settled in 1924. So far as future extensions of preference are concerned, my statement is absolutely correct. I can see the Minister is wriggling. I will make him wriggle a little bit more. Look at his arguments yesterday. He said: “What self-respecting country would make a most-favoured-nation treaty and leave the preferences still intact?” Germany is that self-respecting country; Germany has made exactly such a treaty with the British Government. The Anglo-German treaty gave most-favoured-nation treatment, and the preference system as it is now, and as it will develop in the future, was left intact. That is the answer. It is perfectly clear that the Government has deliberately done this thing, gratuitously and unnecessarily, without securing any benefit to South Africa, and they have done it in order to make a parade of their sovereign treaty-making powers. There is another argument which shows how deliberate has been their action. The Government was simultaneously negotiating two treaties, one with Germany and the other with the Government of Mozambique. Both treaties were signed in September, one on the 1st and the other on the 10th or 11th. The negotiations were going on simultaneously, and I suppose by the same person. Let me read the article on preference in the Mozambique treaty. Article 45 says—

And so forth. I say there was every circumstance of complete deliberation about this. Here the same Government is making two treaties at the same time. It is not an oversight. Here in one treaty it reserves, just as Great Britain in 1924 reserved, the preference system, but in the German treaty they provide that any future preferences will have to be shared with Germany. This has been a deliberate policy, and its significance is very well understood in South Africa, and that is the reason for this wide public outcry. There is no racialism about it. This action of the Minister in deliberately and gratuitously, and without any quid pro quo altering the fiscal policy of this country is a most serious business. There is no doubt about it. From the point of view of fiscal rights we have in a large measure sold our birthright. We are an exporting country, our biggest market is Great Britain, and we export to Great Britain goods to the value of £48,000,000 per annum and to Germany something like £4,000.000. We have deliberately endangered this great market in order, the Minister says, to extend most-favoured-nation treatment to smaller markets. I say we have sold our birthright, and not even for a mess of pottage. We have got nothing for it. No wonder the public of South Africa are puzzled and seek for an explanation. The only explanation they have heard so far from the Government is that it is window-dressing. That reinforces their own suspicions. When you find a policy like this is unnecessarily and gratuitously entered into, a policy of far-reaching economic significance without any reason given, you begin to search for the cause.

You gave the reason fully enough in 1923.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has fully dealt with that. I could wish for nothing better than that my speeches in 1923 were republished in toto and not in selected extracts as the Minister has dealt with them.

I gave the substance of the thing.

The Minister was really trying, like an astute lawyer, to build up a case, and he did not tell us the truth. I stand exactly where I stood in 1923. In 1923 I took this line with the British Government. They were a free trade country; we were largely protectionist. We were not going to bargain over fiscal policy. We did not want to change the fiscal policy of Great Britain, nor would we submit to the argument that our policy was wrong. But we said whenever, for fiscal or for other purposes, duties were imposed by the British Government, the preference should be given to the dominions. My argument was entirely based on that, the complete fiscal independence of both parties.

You objected to exclusive preference.

It is very difficult to argue with the Minister. The result was very different from the policy on which the Minister has embarked. At any rate, we came back with the goods. The position we took up safeguarded the fiscal independence of this country and produced this good for South Africa that we came back with preferences granted and reciprocity made by Great Britain which has been of the most valuable assistance to this country. It is said to-day that there is no mutuality, that we are giving more than we get. That is entirely—if I may put it that way—our own fault. The British Government has given these preferences to our goods. There is no limit. If we have the capacity to export more wine, dried fruits, sugar and tobacco and similar things, then very soon, if we have the capacity, and we make the effort to export more, that balance which now appears to be in their favour will be equalized. It is entirely in our own power. [Time limit extended.) I thank my hon. friend (the Minister of Mines and Industries) and the House for the courtesy. The Minister and other hon. members who followed him on that side kept repeating that Great Britain surely will not retaliate. We have to embark on a policy which is odious to our partners, and which they resent violently, and the Minister entrenches himself behind the generosity of the other members of the British empire.

Why do you say “violently”?

Lay the documents on the Table. I have good reason to say so. That the others besides Australia have not made public their opinion is simply due to their courtesy. It is a good policy to stand by your friends. No one has done more to extend our facilities for trade and our trade arrangements with the rest of the world than ourselves, the predecessors of the Minister. But we did so in ways which would not cause resentment and the ill-feeling which is bound to follow in the wake of this treaty. I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House, and I will leave out most of what I wanted to say. But I do wish to refer to one point made by several hon. members over there—the conduct of Canada. I wish the Government had followed the example of Canada, which led in the van for the fiscal independence of the dominions. The Minister knows the history of what took place in 1897, when Canada, in the assertion of her fiscal independence, wanted to carry out her preference policy in spite of German threats. Canada fought the point and finally secured the assistance of the British Government, and gained her fiscal independence and gave the preference to Great Britain, which she wanted to do of her own free will. What the Minister did not mention was that this policy had its roots in the suggestions of a great South African statesman. We often hear of the policy of the Unionist party, but the Minister forgets that this preferential policy originated with the Hon. Jan Hofmeyr, who made the suggestion in 1887 at the Ottawa convention, and made it for a specific purpose—that of imperial defence. But the idea took root and developed, and it was not ultimately confined to the question of defence. It took a general form, and Canada accepted the suggestion, and ten years afterwards carried it out. That was the start of the preferential system. I wish that this Government had followed the example of a great South African statesman, who had given them a great lead. I wish they had followed the example of Canada in fighting for their own fiscal independence, and not tying themselves up like this Government has done in connection with this treaty. If we wish to enlarge our empire markets in future we shall be debarred by this treaty. Two years is two years too long. I hope the country will bear in mind that this treaty is the settled policy of this Government, and that it is hanging like a sword of Damocles over the producers of this country; and so long as this Government sits here in future, so long will this sword continue to hang over them.

This letter of mine has been referred to, but as is quite obvious from the letter itself, it is a private letter from myself to another person, and it is a new departure in the ethics of journalism to me that a letter written by me to someone else can be published without the leave either of the recipient or of the sender.

It is the Natal way of doing things.

[Inaudible.] You should know in future that if you write anything to the Opposition press and they will not print it, send it as a private letter to a friend. I said in that letter—

and I go on to explain that it is simply giving a piece of ammunition—of the kind such as is giving the party over there more chances of stirring up their only stock-in-trade—matters based on racialism, matters which have their root in old racial suspicions and jealousies which we ought to put behind; and that is a great pity. Let us discuss this candidly. I am of the same mind as most hon. members over there; I recognize the fact that this country is a comparatively new one. I heard the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) say: “I am as good a South African as any man in the country.”

A good deal better.

I am merely going to say that neither he nor I can have intuitively and instinctively the same undiluted feelings for South Africa as the man whose forbears for generations have been born and died here. I candidly admit that on most of these questions at first sight intuitive considerations which are connected with the country from which I come, which are more centred there than exclusively in South Africa, come to my mind. It requires a certain effort of sympathetic imagination to realize that our first duty is to promote the prosperity of the people of South Africa. I am not going to enlarge on that, but I am going to say, when we approach questions like this—I speak as one largely belonging to the English stock in this country, and not as a member of the Government—we make arguments for ourselves which are really not rooted in the promotion of South African interests, but mistakenly rooted in our view that that is the way of promoting the solidarity of the British commonwealth. The continuance of that commonwealth is one of the greatest things to which we can lend a hand, but, as far as South Africa is concerned, the one cardinal thing we have to bear in our minds is that all sections of the people must be in that commonwealth with the feeling that they are in it of their own free will. It is the only way in which we are going to promote a feeling such as we all desire to see in this country. Taking the history of this country there must be comparatively few among the big bulk of the Dutch-speaking stock who share these feelings compared with the English-speaking stock, and I believe that if I want to feel I am working with the big bulk of the Dutch-speaking section I believe the best example I can have in that matter is my right hon. friend who sits on my right.

You protest too much.

All through my political life in this country I have expressed this view, and occasionally I have said what I am saying now. I had occasion to say something to the same effect soon after the Boer war, when I was cut in the Rand Club for associating very intimately with their present leader, and that having been my guide in political life, I am not going to be untrue to it now. I see in the “Cape Times” reference is made to window-dressing and pro-bona the backveld. Why I said it was window-dressing I will explain quite clearly; it was this—that, as far as I am concerned, having already secured all the preferences which are valuable to Great Britain, you can have all the rest. That is rather like window-dressing to me. Let me say at once that I regret having made that remark. We always make remarks in our private conversation and private correspondence, which, occupying the position I do as one of his Majesty’s Ministers, would not have been fitting for me to have made in public. I am going to rebut what I believe to be the position taken up by the Opposition, a position which I believe would not have been taken up if this treaty had been made within six months or a year of this Government going into power, but regarding which a tremendous lot has been made because the Government was within six or seven months of its going out. What protest did the Opposition make against departing from our fiscal policy in 1925? None whatever. There was no general election in prospect then, and they very soon dropped it.

Read your “Hansqrd.”’

A great deal of prejudice has been imported into this matter, and it is not correct for the right hon. gentleman opposite to say that this agitation is not owing to the fact that this treaty is made with Germany. Hon. members undoubtedly know that a great deal of prejudice and opposition has resulted because this treaty is made, with Germany.

No, no.

I made a treaty with Germany.

I say it is the belief of thousands of people, and it will be admitted that thousands of people are asking: “Why did you make this first treaty with Germany, of all people?” and not one of them will be reproved if he gets up at an election meeting and asks that question. Read the “Cape Times” of this morning. That tells much more than all the speeches of hon. members opposite. [Interruptions.] If it were not for their “Cape Times” their “Star” and their “Cape Argus”—

They would be dead without their press.

This morning I read a long article in the “Cape Times” in which it tried to make out that the speech delivered (by the Minister yesterday indicated that the whole treaty was a pure accident. The whole thing is too ridiculous for words. It has been borne out again in this debate, in the course of which hon. members opposite, in dealing with this matter, have presented only half of the picture, and left the other half alone. Under Article 8 all the existing preferences are preserved. Let us just examine that for a moment. In 1925 we abandoned the general preferential system which was in vogue up to that date, and the right hon. gentleman cannot deny the force of the observations he addressed to this House in 1927, the main point of which was that this preference was a one-sided business, and that it must be placed more on a quid pro quo basis, so that this country could seek other markets and develop trade relations with other countries. Following on that, my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, in 1925, submitted his proposals to the House. The essence of those proposals was that, instead of giving this general preference of 3 per cent, all round, which in many cases was useless to the British producer, instead of these indiscriminate preferences, that a carefully adjusted preference should be substituted, by which we selected a number of lines of goods upon which that preference was of real benefit to the British producer, and left the other range of articles in our hands to extend our trade with other countries. After the Economic Conference of 1923, a list was drawn up by the British Board of Trade of those lines of goods upon which they would like preference.

A full list?

One or two lines were left out—motor cars and watches, I believe. We went on that policy.

Bargaining.

I think our bargaining power was a good deal injured by the amendment which we incorporated in the Bill to which I refer, an amendment which I was entirely in favour of, that no preference could be given to any other country which did not automatically go to Great Britain as well. There is another point where we resent the kind of impression conveyed by speakers and newspapers on the other side, that, under this treaty, Germany is placed in a better position than Great Britain, because everybody knows that we cannot give Germany better terms than Great Britain. Having ring-fenced practically all those commodities in which the British producer is in competition with the continental producer, my hon. friend, having secured those, said that anything outside this we could deal with if we wanted to. To make a fuss about such a treaty lasting for two years! The basis of it is not the treaty, but trying to bamboozle the elector with an eye to the coming election. Another point—the right hon. gentleman made a great deal of Article 3. He said that we had substituted the words “any other State” for the words “any other foreign country,” the latter words being contained in the British treaty. He said that in navigation, trade and commerce, we differed from the British treaty. But what discrimination exists to-day in empire ports? No discrimination has been exercised in British or dominion ports for the last 70 or 80 years, and none is being exercised, and there is no intention of exercising discrimination. The whole thing is reminiscent of the story Mr. Merriman used to tell about his first election campaign. He did not know what cry to get up, and someone suggested: “Stem vir Merriman en geen wolbelasting.” [Vote for Merriman and no tax on wool.] The right hon. gentleman and those who follow him are looking for a cry, and there is just about as much meaning, serious meaning, in their statements about this treaty as there was in the cry suggested to Mr. Merriman of “No tax on wool” at a time when such a thing was not even dreamt of. The position is that we have by Act of Parliament given a preference on all articles in regard to which the British producer is in competition with other countries, but we retain the power to increase these preferences. We also retain in our hands the power to give to Germany or anyone else any particular favour outside that list, which favour must also automatically accrue to Great Britain. The rebates we give to British goods amounted in 1926 to £392,000, and in 1927 to £421,000. This clearly shows that those increased preferences on a limited number of goods were appreciated, and were having an effect on the trade of the British producer. There is a view that this preference system should go on for ever— the ring fence idea of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

It is no ring fence idea.

It is very difficult to follow the hon. member. I can conceive the idea of a tariff binding members: of the commonwealth together if it were possible to have free trade right through the empire. I cannot but see, however, that in the future there will be many difficulties in adjusting our tariffs as each of the dominions becomes more and more the producer of those goods which Great Britain manufactures. I have always been very doubtful of the proposition whether any mercantile or pecuniary bond is going to be a real lasting tie of empire. I do say this, however, that, if in the pursuance of imperial preference, you leave in the minds of any one section of the people the idea that the pursuit of this great object of commonwealth co-operation can be achieved only by subordinating to it the prosperity of your own country, you will have a very lukewarm-support for that suggestion.

There is no such suggestion.

The idea of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that, because we are entering into this agreement with Germany, the people of England are not going to buy our oranges, is a most ridiculous suggestion. As Sir Benjamin Morgan said recently, sentiment should not enter into these things. I am now going to read a newspaper extract; if I read it I am a renegade Englishman, but if the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) read it he would be accused of being inspired by bitter racial hatred. This is what Mr. James McBride said to a representative of the “Natal Mercury.” Mr. McBride is a prominent Durban shipper and importer, and he said, inter alia—

What has that to do with the point?

Mr. McBride also said—

I don’t believe it.

We don’t believe the things we don’t want to believe.

What bearing has this on the German treaty?

We give “the British manufacturers preferences on practically the whole line of goods in which they are in competition with their Continental competitors, and now we are accused of breaking through the whole system of empire preference. Hon. members opposite say we have to conclude no treaty which does not leave us free to extend empire preference in the future. It may be that in three or four years’ time we may find the balance of trade with Great Britain against us. As our shippers take more advantage of the British preference, so in return they will buy more and more British goods. That balance is not likely to go in the other direction, but if it does, it will be our business to reconsider the position. It is really the general election that is worrying hon. members opposite.

Is it the election that is worrying you.

Not a bit. It is a pity to give the Opposition any little weapon with which to play upon the worthy, but uninformed susceptibilities of people who are far too prone to racial suspicion and to suspect ulterior motives where they do not exist. I will conclude on the same note with which I opened. I believe the best possible road to follow is to study the interests of South Africa and the people of South Africa, and I believe the worst enemies to the British connection are some of my friends from Natal in the Empire Group, who are eternally on the jump—

Who are the Empire Group?

You are.

Nothing of the kind.

Of course he is in the Empire Group. I repeat that the worst enemies to preference in South Africa, and the worst enemies to the real loyal conception of the British commonwealth of nations and the worst enemies to the hearty co-operation of South Africa with the British commonwealth, are, undoubtedly, this jingo group who are always ready to take offence, and who might belong to those shabby genteel nationalities with all their greatness in the past who are always frightened of being confronted with the present. The best guides to the prosperity of South Africa and the cordial co-operation of South Africa with the British commonwealth of nations are not the hon. members who sit over there, but my hon. friends here.

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken refuses to believe that those on this side of the House who have criticized the treaty may have been moved by the same considerations as those he claims move him. He has attributed it to what he calls the “jingo” spirit, and he indulges, like the Minister of Mines and Industries, in a charge, which, I think, is abominable, that what we have said is animated by what he described a “rampant racialism.” When it is noticed that this charge was made by the Minister of Mines and Industries, and repeated by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow), and now the Minister of Defence, of all men, sounds the same note, we find some indication of the line of defence taken by this Government in the uncomfortable position in which it finds itself. In order to extricate itself from its difficult position, it charges those on this side who are opposed to the treaty with an anti-German spirit. I think that is most regrettable. It may seem good tactics to them, but I believe the country will see through the manoeuvre, and will realize if it considers for one moment the record of this side that there is no ground whatever for such a suggestion. I might remind the Minister that in 1920 the first Government in the world to withdraw from the stringent confiscatory provisions of the peace treaty was the Government of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). That was followed, after some years, by America. Only a few days ago we were adopting unanimously in this House the Kellogg peace treaty, to which Germany was a party, but no one suggested that we on this side in supporting that were animated by any anti-German feeling. I think the Government should at least cease from endeavouring to convey the impression to people outside the House that our criticisms have any such bias. I say it is a most unfair and unjust suggestion. I have no doubt the Minister of Defence was put in some difficulty to explain this letter of his which referred to this as a “window-dressing” treaty. He said there was so little to concede to Germany that really, so far as they were concerned, the treaty might be regarded as mere “window-dressing.” Well, one wonders why Germany enters into the treaty at all. But what does strike one in contrast with the statement of the Minister is the fact that earlier in the course of this debate we had the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) standing on his feet for nearly 45 minutes to explain the wonderful advantages which this treaty possessed both for Germany and South Africa. I wonder how the Minister explains that very remarkable inconsistency. He then said this treaty would only last for two or two-and-a-half years, and he thought in that time no real harm could be done. But for the sake of a treaty which he says is worthless to Germany—and he was not able to show that in any respect it was of value to South Africa —he is prepared to jettison the whole system of imperial preference, to throw it overboard. As for his suggestion that it would be so easy, so simple to terminate this agreement, I would point out that the moment this treaty becomes effective other nations become entitled to the same treatment as that to what Germany would be entitled to thereunder, and whether Germany would be satisfied or not to receive six months’ notice, what will be the position of those other countries? Does the Minister propose to terminate all the treaties with them that are in existence? I think the country, when they are asked to accept this as a matter of little concern, should realize that the moment that it is adopted in this House and ratified, it then has far more wide-reaching consequences than merely so far as Germany is concerned. And to take a point of procedure, I notice that we are asked to ratify a treaty which has been made between “his Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland,” etc., and the resolution before the House is to the same effect. I notice from the new estimates that an additional sum of £1,550 is to be devoted to meet the salary of what is called an international law expert in the Department of External Affairs. I have no doubt these gentlemen earn what they receive and make a close study of external affairs, but one would think with all this talk of our new-found status they might at least learn to know the regal style and title of their King. It is not really a formal point to draw attention to the fact that there is no longer a United Kingdom, and by formal proclamation two years ago the style of his Majesty has been altered. I think there must have been quite a giggle round the Chancelleries of Europe when they noticed that our External Affairs Department had not yet been able to master the style and title of the King. It seems to me to turn to the Act of 1925 that the distinction we are now contending for between members of the empire and foreign nations is clearly reflected in Section (7), where authority was given for the conclusion of agreements on most favoured “foreign nation” terms. It will be seen that the section itself is ample justification for the view put forward in this connection from this side of the House. Dealing with another point which might be regarded as one of procedure, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government will give an assurance that in exercising, the delegated power which it is proposed to give to it by Section 7 of the protocol, no definite agreement will be concluded without this House being consulted. I ask the Minister to give me a deliberate answer, because it is a matter of importance, and I would like to know definitely that this is so. It does not seem to me sufficient that where there may be an alteration of the statutory customs rates a Bill would be put before this House to deal with that alteration. I would now like to refer to the “mare’s nest” mentioned by the Minister yesterday; he was then referring to a resolution of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Johannesburg, which drew attention to a clause which had crept into Clause 4 (b) of the protocol, and which is not to be found in the Anglo-German treaty of 1924. This was put there by the German negotiators for some special reason, not so far disclosed, and the German diplomats when negotiating this treaty-decided that they should, for the protection and the assertion of their rights and interests, put in the words which I am going to read—

I should have liked the Minister of Defence, when he spoke, instead of raving against the supposed anti-German bias on this side of the House, to have told us, with his experience as a civil engineer, what he thought of that particular clause. I have a copy of a specificationframed by the British Engineering Standard Association, formed largely by British civil engineers, as is well known, for the purpose of establishing the quality of British products, who have laid down definite engineering standards covering every known range of plant, machinery and accessories used in engineering. It has been the practice in this country, certainly almost universally up to 1924, although a certain hesitation has been shown since that date in ordering goods for all Government departments, including the Railway Administration, to specify that the goods called for should be supplied in accordance with British standard specifications. I have a little booklet here containing 30 or 40 pages dealing with tungsten filament electric lamps—a perfect marvel of skill and ingenuity, describing the quality of that article, in the interests of the consumer. I should like to ask, will it still be competent, if this treaty becomes effective and ratified by both Houses, for the Government or any provincial administration to specify in future that articles for which tenders are called must comply with British Standards? May I point out what is likely to be the view taken by the German exporter, or more probably his agent in this country, when he finds that the Government, in calling for tenders for the supply of, for instance, certain tungsten electric lamps, lays down that they should be in accordance with a British standard specification. They may say: “No, I object; you are to use the words of the treaty differentiating against my goods, and you, as a Government, should not restrict me by putting in a tender a particular classification of this product.” I think that is very likely to arise. I may give a more pointed example, and the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Madeley) may bear me out, as to what is the practice in what was his own department. Cables supplied to the post office and for electrical purposes have invariably been specified to the standard prescribed by cable makers in England known as C.M.A. cables and used in South Africa for many years. The C.M.A. specification is used because it gives a cable of superior quality and ensures the customer getting a good article, in the manufacture of which a great deal of deception is possible. Will the Government be at liberty to specify C.M.A. cables in any future notice calling for tenders? In the Public Works Department and in the Railway Administration the specification of C.M.A. cables is very well-known, and in constant use. An hon. member asks me why we should not draw up our own specification. In our technical advisers to-day we have men of experience and knowledge, but can they say exactly in what manner and on what basis articles of that kind should be manufactured? Without actual manufacturing experience it is obvious it could not be done, and if they merely copy this specification they would still be in the same difficulty; it would be objected that a standard was being set, to which the German industrialist could not conform. The next objection taken would be that the German industrialist, who, in many cases, has his own internal standards, would say that in drawing our specifications in South Africa he must have a standard that would suit his own industry. I would refer to the resolution passed by the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, which indicates that serious attention is being paid to this matter, and that a branch of the British Engineering Standards Association, which comprises gentlemen who are concerned only with the question of preserving a proper standard and quality, last week passed a long resolution in which they particularly invited the attention of the Government to the value of maintaining these standards, and the possible danger that exists in this treaty that the clause to which I have referred may be used to cut out the products to which that clause applies from coming into this country. It is points like these upon which the Government would have been better informed had it taken the trouble to consult commercial opinion. I have heard it said that such a step was not necessary. What a preposterous claim that is! I would ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that the Government will not allow any interpretation to be placed upon Clause 4 (b) whereby British engineering standards will be excluded from any Government tenders or specifications that may be called for. If he does not answer that unequivocally in the affirmative, then there seems to be ground for the apprehension to which I have referred. I should now like to call attention to Articles 8 and 10. Article 8 provides that any article produced in Germany, on importation into the Union, shall not be subject to other or higher duties than those imposed upon like articles produced or manufactured in any other country, while in Article 10 the contracting parties undertake not to impede the mutual traffic through the imposition of any prohibitions or special restrictions upon their imports or exports. I would point out that when the Mozambique treaty was framed, the Government reserved to itself the right to impose dumping duties. In view of the language of the two clauses to which I have just referred, it is possible that it may not be competent for the Government to impose dumping duties upon the surplus production of Germany, and in this connection I would point out that we may be faced with the position that Germany will claim to say that no dumping duty shall be differentially imposed upon any of her products. We import various articles from Germany, and one commodity which I have particularly in mind at this moment is cement, and if the position I have in mind arises, we have a cement industry in this country which might be very adversely affected. I do not propose to add anything to the criticism levelled against Article 8, but I would like to ask the Minister what interpretation he places upon Article 3 of the protocol, because, as I read it, Germany will be entitled, the moment we give any preference to, say, any of the dominions, not only to claim the same benefit, but that the whole of the existing preferences shall be done away with as far as she is concerned. Let us see what Article 3 says—

Supposing we set out to overcome the fatal blunder of the Government in regard to Australia, and we decide to give back to Australia the 3 per cent, preference; then we extend it to a country not specified in Article 3. The moment we do so, Germany is entitled to say that the whole of her renunciation falls away, and that she can claim the right to the minimum rates referred to in Article 8. I would ask the Minister whether I have not rightly interpreted the meaning of that article? I would point out further that upon the conclusion of this treaty, not only are we bound to give the same treatment to other foreign countries, but we immediately become bound to give the benefits of this treaty to all those countries to which we are at present bound to give the most-favoured-nation treatment. In other words, not only does Germany open up this breach” in our preference system, but it is opened up in favour of every other country with which at the present moment we have a most-favoured-nation treaty. What are those countries? I have a list supplied to me by the hon. Minister’s department. I have been supplied with a document which runs to 12 pages, but so far as I can tell, the countries with which we have most-favoured-nation treaties— made, of course, by Great Britain, but binding on us—are Austria, Bolivia, Esthonia, Finland, Greece, Honduras, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Siam and Spain. This breach in the empire preference system, which was noted with such satisfaction and glee in the Reichstag, is very much wider than the range of this treaty, because the countries I have named can claim the benefit of Article 8, and every other benefit that accrues to Germany by this treaty. Let me take another point. Can it be imagined that if there is value in this treaty those foreign countries who are outside this particular circle will remain silent. Take the case of America. America, if she thinks she is unfairly treated, can impose by a decision of the president only, a surcharge of 50 per cent, upon value of goods entering that country. Similarly we may expect other foreign countries will put in claims, and if they do not secure what they claim, they may take some means to retaliate. These considerations show that there was very great substance in the remark that the treaty brought about a breach in the empire preference system. It is very significant to notice that a leading newspaper in Berlin regarded with very great satisfaction this fact: It stated that this treaty “set a limit to unrestrained British economic expansion.” In other words, it is a political treaty. This treaty is intended not to be so much of economic benefit as of political value to Germany. I would like to refer to a remark made by the Minister of Mines and Industries yesterday when he said, with a considerable degree of acerbity, that he could not understand the reference to a voluntary preference, a sentimental preference. I would like to give him an illustration of that. I find it in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the Railways and Harbours Administration he refers to the most valuable sentimental preference which has been given by our own Railway Administration to German goods. I find that, 18 months ago, our High Commissioner in London was able to buy in London £600.000 worth of goods, of which £175,000 was purchased without tenders or even a contract, and the balance without any tenders at all being called for. Where there is a sentiment in favour of doing business, business will follow that sentiment, and there you have a most vivid illustration of the manner in which this Government, at any rate, feels competent to do business to the extent of £600,000: I have not time to refer to the extent in which the fruit- and wine-growing districts are concerned with reciprocal empire preference. Figures are to be given by other hon. members which, when they are disclosed’, create surprise even to the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, and will convince him of the mistake he made in not consulting the industries affected before entering into this treaty. The output of those products has been growing, and it is perfectly clear that in the immediate future they will have grown to such large figures that the balance on preference account would be entirely on the side of South Africa. Let me ask the hon. the Minister what effect the treaty will have upon our exports from the Western Province in the German market, because I understood the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) to say that great prosperity would follow the execution of this treaty. Let me, for a moment, illustrate the competition which our own products would sustain in the German market from the exports of countries which at present enjoy most-favoured-nation treatment in Germany. In the case of our fresh fruit, Spain and America have most-favoured-nation treatment; in the case of dried fruit, Turkey, Greece and America; so far as meat is concerned, the Argentine; and in the case of wine, we would have to come into competition with France and Portugal. Does he suggest that with regard to these particular commodities, these exports worth over two millions a year, he is affording them a market by anything there is in this treaty? Let us contrast the advantages in the German market, which are nil, with what we would have in the English market. In the latter market, in the case of tobacco, the rebate of duty is equivalent to the full value of the commodity itself; in the case of sweet wines the rebate is 4s. a gallon, and in the case of sultanas, raisins, apricots and prunes, we have a substantial advantage over our competitors. Mr. Gundelfinger, who was put up to present a case for the Government, candidly admitted that the German treaty was of no value whatever to South Africa in a material sense. Not a voice has been heard from the Government benches indicating to what extent the treaty will be of any advantage to us. The Minister of Mines and Industries says that this treaty is a friendly gesture. [Time limit.]

I move that an extension of time be granted.

I object.

I just want to answer a few points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). As I understood him, and I presume that he is speaking for his side of the House, the position now is that that side has really become pro-German. If that is the case I want to congratulate them on their conversion. Perhaps it is because they have now seen their mistake, or perhaps that they think that they have now got enough from Germany’s colonies and possessions. I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) that he mentioned certain facts which are not quite correct. One of his last words was that this treaty did not give us any benefit as most favoured nation, because Spain, e.g., already possesses the preference. I think the hon. member is wrong, but I doubt it because I have a report here by the correspondent of one of the newspapers of his own country, the “Rand Daily Mail,” at Hamburg. He says in this report on the same subject on which the hon. member has spoken that on 140 articles Germany is going to reduce or abolish its customs duties if this treaty is adopted, and amongst these articles are oranges and lemons. With regard to fruits we shall be put in the position of a privileged nation, which is not the case with Spain, because Spain has no such treaty as we are going to conclude. If I had to choose between the two opinions, that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), and that of the correspondent of the “Rand Daily Mail,” who is apparently an expert, then I would give the preference to the latter. We can therefore take it that the hon. member gave completely wrong information, and that our produce will find a more extensive market owing to this treaty with Germany. It has already been pointed out by hon. members that the ships of the German steam shipping lines have been more and more fitted out with cold storage accommodation during recent years, so that it is continuously being made more possible to ship fresh fruit direct to Germany. Let me point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) that the import of fruit into Germany does not amount to such a small amount at all. I have the official figures here and find that Germany at present chiefly from countries on the Mediterranean imports oranges to an amount of £3½ million, lemons £700,000, and raisins £1½ millions. How, then, can the hon. member say that it is hopeless to find a market for fruit in Germany? There are several other kinds of fruit, and the amount thereof imported runs into millions. If the treaty is passed we shall have a chance in the market. I am again speaking from a practical point of view. Everyone who has been in Germany knows that the country is again getting plenty of capital, that the purchasing power of the people increases daily, and that they will in the future again be able to buy all sorts of articles which they temporarily cannot buy. The fruit farmers actually have a very good chance there. And what must I say about the wool farmers’ Germany during the last few years has imported much of our wool, for £5½ million in 1927 and by rapprochement in economic and commercial matters the purchase of wool will increase. The correspondent of the “Rand Daily Mail” reports that, according to his opinion, our export of wool to Germany will increase tremendously. The quality of our wool, he says, has much improved in consequence of more scientific treatment, packing, and handling, and that the average consignments of wool from South Africa are better than those from Australia. The correspondent says that quite possibly more firms will open offices in East London to buy wool for Germany. Shortly thereafter there was a report from Durban that the Germans were already buying more wool there, and that the prices in consequence had considerably risen. The wool farmers of Bethal and Standerton, the report stated, got 6d. more for their wool as a result of the purchase by German dealers. The market was a little lifeless at first,, and the prices were from 9d. to 11d. a lb., but from the moment that Germany came into the market they rose to 1s. and even to 1s. 4d. Here we have a strong proof that in consequence of this treaty our trade with Germany will considerably increase. The prospect of the treaty is already sufficient to increase our trade with Germany. Another important point in the report of the correspondent of the “Rand Daily Mail” is that the German Chemical Trust, which extracts oil from brown coal, is trying to establish a similar industry in South Africa. Our Government decided a short while ago to put an amount of £30,000 down for the obtaining of petrol out of coal. The Chemicals Trust is a powerful body, and is already carrying out certain schemes in Australia, and their activities in South Africa may mean a gooddeal. They are prepared to send out experts to enquire what can be done. It further appears from the report from Hamburg that. Rhodesia also will get considerable benefit from the treaty, because chrome and other minerals which are much exported from Rhodesia will, if the treaty is concluded, have special preference for importation into Germany. Those bodies that mine for ores will undoubtedly be able to do better business than at present. Altogether the German Government will grant, us exemption from customs duty or partial exemption on 140 different articles imported into Germany, as soon as this treaty is agreed to. I have said that in consequence of the reapproachment, the prices of wool have already considerably risen. These are surely practical points. Then it is said that we entirely forget England. In my humble opinion we must not neglect our trade with England, and we will not do so. No one can deny that. England is a great market for us, and will be so in the future. We also appreciate the attempts of the Marketing Board, and even of her Majesty the Queen to encourage the use of produce from the dominions, but we must also remember that England after all is only engaged in looking after her own interests. Just think of the two Acts in connection with stock, the one about stock disease and the other about the importation of stock. We know that England imports annually no less than £105,000,000 in meat. The majority is cold storage meat, but fresh meat which can especially be delivered by the dominions is not imported so much, although the English meat eaters prefer fresh meat. This became very clear from the report, of the Imperial Economic Commission. We are grateful for the £1,000,000 which England makes available for investigation and experiment, but in connection with the import of meat the report says that it is felt that it is not desirable, from the standpoint of the interest of the consumer in the first place, and the producer in the overseas parts of the empire in the second, to limit the income from meat so greatly. In the report it says that slaughter stock which, before they are slaughtered is fed up must be allowed into the country from the dominions as long as disease stock is kept out. It follows, and this is a fact, that at the moment it is practically impossible to import fresh meat for slaughter purposes in England. That report says that an alteration must be made, and that the dominions should have a chance of exporting live stock to Britain. What happened, however, immediately after the publication of the report? On the same day the British Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, issued a statement and said that he did not agree with the recommendation, because the importation of live stock from the dominions would not be in the interests of the British farmers. In connection with this statement the “Star” (of course the London journal) said that it was only issued for political reasons—precisely the reason for the present attitude of the South African party. Shortly before this there was a recommendation in England about the importation of dried fruit from Australia, and on this the London Star” said—

Even there then the Union Jack is used for political purposes. The same principle prevails in Britain which one expects in any country, namely, “charity begins at home.” We do not expect England to put her own interests second to ours, but they must also not expect us to put our interests after theirs. That is, however, what hon. members opposite want. It is a false sentiment with them because they want to whip a section of the South African population for political purposes. This is done for other reasons as well. There is a great deal of selfinterest in it, and it appears from a statement by no less than the “Countryside”, a newspaper published in Salisbury in Rhodesia. That paper in November, 1928, had the following noteworthy remarks—

That contains the actual position. Hon. members opposite want to protect the personal interests of the big merchants. I am convinced that this treaty will help Great Britain in another way. It is generally known that a great development took place in industrial matters in France and Germany, and that England has remained behind in this connection because it is always fed artificially. This cannot always continue. The British industries can no longer compete with the Continent. If we said it frankly to Britain; “We are going to treat you with all the sympathy you deserve, and cooperate with yog, but on business lines,” then the English manufacturers will be assisted because they will appreciate that they must wake up to be able to compete with the Continent. I was told that the British manufacturers will have to spend millions to put their factories on the same footing as the Continental ones. Hon. members opposite ask what Canada and Australia say. Let me read something in the “Star” of the 2nd January last, as to what Canada is doing—

Now a little while ago the Canadian Government decided to increase that percentage to 50 per cent., which means that half the export from Britain to Canada will lose the preference. Is that ever discussed in the House? No, never, because hon. members opposite think that it will not pay. I think that this treaty will lead to our trade with Germany being developed and that it will also have the result that the British industrialists will take steps to put their business on a better basis.

The Minister of Defence this afternoon charged us with opposing this treaty, because it was made with Germany, and with our opposition being based on racialism. He has no justification whatever for making that charge. I take it that I am right in saying that we would have opposed a similar treaty with any other foreign country. We consider on this side of the House that this treaty is against the interests of South Africa. I have had an opportunity of reading the treaties which have been made by other dominions and portions of the British commonwealth of nations with foreign countries, and comparing them with this treaty. I find that in every instance the words “foreign country” are inserted in them. I find that in the treaty which was made between Great Britain and Germany in 1924, article 3 is identical with our article 3, but for the words “foreign country.” The Minister of Defence did not explain, and no one on the other side of the House has yet done so, why the word “foreign” has been omitted; the gravaman of our charge is centered on that word. Under the treaty Great Britain made with Germany, she provided that each dominion would have favoured nation treatment right through, and that would continue until the dominion had given three months’ notice to Germany. I say this agreement is, still in full force as far as South Africa is concerned; in other words, we enjoy the full right of a favoured nation with Germany under the Anglo-Germany treaty. Therefore I say this treaty is absolutely unnecessary. Germany, of course, has the same right of giving us three months’ notice. Under the agreement which Great Britain made with Germany, she reserved the right to enter into a preferential agreement with, or give any preferential rates at any time, to any portion of the British commonwealth of nations. That right is specially reserved in the treaty she made with Germany, but I find on going through this treaty that that right, so far as the future is concerned, has been wiped off the slate. When the treaty was made by Great Britain with Germany, the latter did not take the provision reversing the right of preference as an affront or regard it as an insult. I would like to go further and say that the right of differential treatment which exists within the British commonwealth of nations is one which is universally recognized by the League of Nations. It is one which all nations have recognized. I would like on that point to refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister last year in this House on the Imperial Conference declaration, which affirms that recognition when he said—

The Minister of Mines and Industries yesterday made a point that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was running away as a father of the League of Nations from the declaration made by the League in article 23 of its covenant, which provided that all its members should have freedom of communication and also should not impose any undue or unfair restrictions on trade. The Minister of Mines forgot to tell the House that the League in its covenant recognized the fact that as far as members of the British commonwealth are concerned, they stand in a relation to each other on a different footing and are entitled to enter into trade and other trade agreements, inter se, on a different basis. I make bold to say that in every case where a treaty has been made by any of the members of the British commonwealth with a foreign country, they have specially reserved the right to make preferential arrangements and to continue to do so.

Have you ever thought of it that we have got the same thing in our law?

Under this treaty we are not doing the same thing.

Has it struck you that it is not necessary to do so in view of the law?

If we accept this treaty we are bound by it. The treaty makes it clear that any future preferences will automatically be granted to Germany or any other country which enters into a favoured nation treaty with South Africa on exactly the same basis. We have not, as yet, had an explanation from the Government benches why the word “foreign” has been omitted, seeing it is included in every other agreement.

Cannot you appreciate the simple fact that if you omit the word “foreign” there is no need for Article 8.

I want to know why you have omitted it.

Because it logically follows from Article 8.

I contend that you should strike Article 8 out of the treaty and strike out also the word “foreign”. I say it is altogether unnecessary, and I submit that the Minister has set up a position from within which it is not recognized by nations outside the British empire. Yesterday he referred to an agreement entered into between Great Britain and Persia. I would like to ask him when that treaty was concluded.

In 1928.

Is the word “foreign” excluded from that agreement?

Yes; it is an ordinary treaty between England and Persia.

Does it exclude all other members of the British commonwealth of nations and not reserve the preferential policy as in other treaties?

They are excluded by the fact that the word “foreign” does not occur.

Then I take it that no provision is made for any preference to be continued. In 1925, when the customs agreement was entered into, the Minister of Finance laid it down as the considered policy of the Government that for the future the Government would be prepared to enter into and grant further preferences to Great Britain provided there was a quid pro quo. I want to know whether the Government still adheres to that policy, because it seems to me that under this treaty there has been a total reversal of that policy, and that we would be precluded from entering into any new preferences with Great Britain on a quid pro quo basis. Immediately we did so, Germany would be entitled to claim the same privilege. The Minister of Defence this afternoon said that practically all the preference which we could grant had been granted, and that there was no necessity for granting any further preference. It is a most extraordinary thing that only last year a 20 per cent, rebate was granted on optical instruments. If this treaty had been in operation, that rebate could not have been granted. The Minister of Mines used that rebate as an argument that it showed friendliness to Britain, but it also shows that there are still articles on which further preference could be granted. I think it would be interesting to refer to the declaration made by the Prime Minister when he returned from the Imperial Conference. The Prime Minister said that whilst hitherto the empire possessed us, he felt that we now possessed the empire, and that he was now prepared wholeheartedly to co-operate with the empire.

Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister says, “Hear, hear”, but is this treaty his idea of how we possess the empire, and of how this wholehearted co-operation which the Prime Minister referred to when he came back from the Imperial Conference is to be given effect to? The key-note of the Imperial Conference was goodwill, good faith and co-operation. As Mr. Amery said in another speech, the value of the conference is that we remove doubts, clear away suspicions, and on the sure basis of equal freedom pave the way to equal co-operation in the future. It seems to me an extraordinary way of carrying out that declaration which the Prime Minister made at the Imperial Conference—the Government entering into this treaty. In the very first treaty which is entered into, the word “foreign” is eliminated, and the main principle enunciated at the Imperial Conference is violated. That is something which no right-thinking man in this country will be able to understand. This treaty is a departure from the spirit of co-operation and goodwill which existed at the Imperial Conference, and which everybody hoped would continue to exist after the declaration made by the Prime Minister at that conference. But this treaty should be considered also from the point of view of the primary producer in this country. I submit that there has been a tremendous stimulus to the growing of fruit due to the large and splendid market which this country has in Great Britain. Had it not been for that market we would never have had the fresh fruit industry of this country expanding to such an extent as it has, and the industry owes a great debt of gratitude to the British market. The export of grapes have grown in four years, from 1925 to 1928 inclusive, from 1,180 boxes of 10 lbs. each to 210.520 boxes of similar weight, and it is probable that during this season the amount will be very greatly increased. The same remark applies to the citrus industry, wine and raisin industries. Practically the whole of our exports of citrus go to Great Britain, and, apart from the preferences which have been referred to, we receive a tremendous benefit from free advertising through the Empire Marketing Board, a board which done a tremendous amount of work in advertising the products of our primary producers. A sum of £1,000,000 is spent every year by the board in advertising, in stimulating markets, in advising people to reciprocate and carry out a spirit of co-operation within the empire, and purchase fruits and primary products from the dominions. The results of the work of the Empire Marketing Board have been very gratifying. The prices received for fruit have increased enormously. Only last year the citrus growers received prices they have never received before in that market, and the work of the Empire Marketing Board is of almost greater value to the primary producer than actual preference would be in respect of our fresh fruit trade with Great Britain. It is an organization which has done an enormous amount of work in opening up this market. The position in regard to the amounts of preference that we receive, as against that which Great Britain receives, is improving year by year, and it is improving from our point of view because markets are being opened up. In 1925 the value—sc we are informed by the Minister received by the Union on preferences granted by Great Britain was £127,400, and in 1927 it was £274,500, whilst in 1928 it was £350,000. We have not got the figures yet of what Great Britain received from us, but I can only say this, that, so far as South Africa is concerned, the value which we are receiving is going up year by year, and I have no doubt that in the course of a very short space of time, that value will be more than double. It is possible in the near future that the value of the benefits we receive will be greater than the benefits now obtained by Great Britain. The German treaty is detrimental to South Africa because it strikes a blow at the preference system, which has been of great benefit to us. The Empire Marketing Board is a form of preference, as it gives our producers a very valuable free advertisement. Are we to have a free advertisement in Germany? The treaty creates a breach in the preferential system of Great Britain, and I am supported in that view by a member of the German Reich, who says that the new treaty will strike a blow at the imperial preference system. Mr. Kolbe, one of our leading producers, points out that Great Britain offers the best market for our products. There is no reason why the preference Great Britain now gives us should not be extended, and that South African’s first duty is to protect her chief market—London—by an increase in imperial preference. Sir Benjamin Morgan mentioned that it is possible that in future a preference of eight per cent, will be granted on our fresh fruit by Great Britain. We export a million cases annually of citrus fruit to Great Britain, and this additional preference would mean £100,000 a year to the citrus growers of the Union. But we are not going to get similar benefits from Germany. If she grants us any favours they will have to be extended automatically to sixty other countries with which Germany has most favoured nation treaties. So far no proof whatever has been advanced that the new treaty will be of material advantage to South Africa. I claim, as a South African, that this proposed agreement is not in the interests of the Union.

When listening to the speeches of the hon. members for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and Gardens (Mr. Coulter), and bearing in mind the agitation which has been going on in the press, I thought that the agitation might very well be described as a new game to be called “puzzle, find the snag.” I have not found the snag. The press has been looking for this snag for the last few months, and members over there have been trying to find it, but they have not succeeded yet. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) this afternoon thought he had found it in the method of procedure, and when he found that did not cut any ice, he fell back on the question of British standards, which has been cleared up time and again and has been shown not to be the snag they think it really is. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) ought to know that there is a clause in this treaty against special discrimination against any special country. There is nothing to prevent the Government of South Africa from accepting goods of British standard. If hon. members over there are so anxious to support British industry, they should listen to the advice of the Prince of Wales, that it is much better for British industry not to depend upon being bolstered up in this artificial way, but to try and study the needs of the countries it wants to supply and create standards according to those needs. It has been rather amusing to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) standing up as the champion of this super-protection, which is called imperial preference. He has supported this imperial preference for many years, and I know he has the reputation for being very consistent without being logical, but in this case he is neither consistent nor logical, and he has given away the whole show of the Opposition. How on earth is it possible for a man who says he has the interests of South Africa at heart, like the hon. member, to say: “I am dead against protection to protect the industries of this country, but I am in favour of protection for the industries of another country, therefore, I want imperial preference.” That is the doctrine of South Africa first—protect the industries of Great Britain, but do not care a scrap about those in South Africa! We have heard of this ring fence that is going to be built round the British empire, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has been drawn into being a builder of this wall, this Chinese wall if you like, which is called imperial preference. If that ring fence is made high enough, I am certain of this, that there will be an unholy scramble by members over there to get across as long as there are cheap markets on the other side. I am pretty sure that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will be the first to go over that wall, and I think the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) will be a good second. These are the people who preach this doctrine of imperial preference. I have been listening to a great many of the speeches in this House; few surprised me. One that did surprise me was that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who, with his usual clarity of vision, saw straight away what was behind this agitation. He saw what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) meant when he spoke of supping with the devil with that long spoon. But there was one point in the treaty which compelled the hon. member to vote against it— he thought it rather ties the hands of South Africa with regard to bargaining for the future. I would like to give as a reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), the words which the right hon. member for Standerton used in 1923, which were quoted by the Minister of Mines and Industries.

Partially quoted.

The words were—

We want to retain our freedom of action, and we are doing so by this treaty, to develop markets in other countries. If we were to show a general preference to Great Britain on all our goods that would be tying South Africa hand and foot, and we would not be doing what the right hon. member for Standerton said about retaining our freedom of action. If anything is plain in ordinary English that ought to be plain.

They cheered every quotation I made, and then they say I misrepresented it.

Undoubtedly the most regrettable thing in this whole agitation is the spirit behind it. I think it would not have been necessary for us to take much notice of this ludicrous snag-hunting going on if it had not been for the exposition of a spirit which we hoped had died years ago in South Africa. There must be a snag somewhere, because it is a German treaty. On the face of it there is nothing wrong with the treaty, and the whole thing would have been subscribed to by the press of the opposite side, but because it is a German treaty they think there must be a snag somewhere. There is not the slightest doubt of it, we have here just another form of that old cry that has been raised at every election, time and again: “Vote British.” You cannot get away from it, and the public is gradually beginning to understand what is at the back of this. As to Article 8, and this hypothetical class of future preference, I would like, for the sake of hon. members opposite, who have forgotten their history, and for the country outside, to remind them a little of the history of this imperial preference in South Africa. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says he knows all about it. Yes, I think he does. When I heard the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) speak as the high priest of Milnerism in South Africa—if ever he reserved that name, that speech of his this afternoon has given him a full right to it. I have never heard a speech which gives a man a better right to that description, and when I looked at the faces of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and others alongside him, I thought of the words of Milton—

Last night the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) challenged a statement by the Minister of Mines and Industries that the Cape was forced into the system of imperial preference by Lord Milner. The Minister said the Cape was forced into that system before the Cape Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing it. As a matter of fact, the majority of the people of the Cape were against it. I would like to remind hon. members opposite that the year before, in 1902, when the question of imperial preference was broached in this House, members wanted to know whether it would be discussed at the convention which was to be held in Bloemfontein, and whether the Government was going to commit them to that policy. In reply Sir Gordon Sprigg said that the question was a purely academic one, and he gave the House an assurance that it would not come before the convention, as it was outside the scope of the customs union it was proposed to establish. Well, we all know what happened— Lord Milner dragooned them into it. He told us that the Cape was not forced on this question of a preferential tariff. The assurance was given to the free Parliament that the matter Would not be forced, and before the free Parliament could meet again, Lord Milner had actually dragooned the Cape. Mr. Merriman, speaking on the subject at the time, said that the Prime Minister had given out that it was a mere academic question, and that it would not form an article of the convention. Yet this article was the principle and mainstay of the convention. Mr. Merriman said that this was rather humiliating for that House. They declared positively that they did not consider a preferential tariff a good thing. Some thought it would be a bad thing, and yet in face of that, and without any mandate from the House, they found it forced upon them. That was what Mr. Merriman said at the time. I would like hon. members who are such keen advocates of imperial preference to read some of the speeches made by some of their shining lights. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that Mr. Burton is a good financier. Listen to what Mr. Burton, that good financier, said about this preferential tariff. He said that it was an attempt to get support for the new imperialistic doctrine. Mr. Chamberlain felt, or professed to feel, that the empire was in a dangerous position, and proposed this desperate remedy, a preferential tariff. Mr. Burton said that the proposal before the House at that time was essentially a part of this scheme of Mr. Chamberlain’s, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies attempted to force trade into channels in which it would not naturally go. The principle of preferential tariff was bad; everything that lay at the root of it was bad. That was Mr. Burton’s opinion.

He has changed his mind since.

It was carried in the Cape House of Assembly, but only by the casting vote of the Speaker. To-day, if we say anything against a preferential tariff it is pro-German and anti-British, but it was only carried by the casting vote of the Speaker in the Cape Assembly, and in the Upper House of that time by the casting vote of the President.

When the House adjourned, I was endeavouring to show that the Cape Colony was dragooned into imperial preference by Lord Milner, and that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) deserved to go down to history as the high priest of Milnerism. Among those who voted against imperial preference in the Cape Parliament in 1903 were Messrs. H. Burton, Curry, N. F. de Waal, Graaff, F. S. Malan—I wonder what Senator F. S. Malan would say to-day—Merriman and Harry van Heerden, now President of the other House. Only nine months after the roar of cannon had ceased in the north, Lord Milner managed to dragoon South Africa into accepting imperial preference. How many millions has that cost South Africa? During the seven years from 1920 to 1927, the balance in favour of Great Britain was over £3,250,000, so that we gave her a present of that sum. It is a present from South Africa. The moment we mention that they say: “But this is South Africa’s best customer.” Now that the facts have been published we find people are dropping this “best customer” slogan like a hot cake. We would like her to be a better customer. We will do everything possible to bring that about, but let us look facts in the face. In 1927 54.8 per cent, of our goods were imported into Great Britain and of that quantity she only retained 27 per cent., that is, for the balance she was merely a commission agent.

Why not?

I do not object to a commission agent gaining something, but do not tell us it is a customer. Germany is not such a bad customer of South Africa as some people would like to make out. Last year she bought more than a quarter of our wool and she has been buying a considerable quantity of our mealies, and we want her to buy more. In spite of what imperial preference costs and the way South Africa has been forced into it, we have not really touched the cream of the imperial preference given by South Africa to Great Britain. I would like to repeat the words of the Minister of Finance in 1925—

That is carried out to the letter in this agreement. The leader of the Opposition and several other members have stated that Great Britain is being placed on the same footing as foreign countries. She is not. She is being placed on a much more favourable footing. She retains the cream of our preference. It is specially safeguarded in the treaty, and what is more, she will be able to gain from Germany’s bargaining in the future. This whole treaty breathes a spirit of almost slavish friendliness towards Great Britain. Of course it does. We are not receiving a single thing as a quid pro quo from Great Britain for this present we are making her. The only recourse that people have is to say: “What about the British navy?” If only a section of the press in this country and also a lower section of the press in England were as fair as the right hon. member was trying to make out he was fair this afternoon; the position would be very different. It was said there was a very strong feeling in South Africa because of this German treaty. No feeling has been stirred up by the treaty; what feeling there is has been stirred up in a most artificial way by the Opposition. Let me refer to an article in the “United Empire”—

Then the writer says this of South Africa—

Continually, whenever we say anything about the German treaty we hear from members over there, like so many gramophones: “Well, what profits do we get; what benefits do we get?”

Yes, we would like to know.

Even the fruit farmers have been misled into thinking they are going to suffer under this treaty. Let me tell you that the fruit farmers will probably be the first people in this country to benefit by this treaty. It is quite true that at the present moment, under the Anglo-German treaty, we receive most-favoured-nation treatment, but that is on the basis of a three months’ notice. There is no stability in the thing. What is more, the favoured-nation treatment we are getting to-day is worthless to South Africa, because it is only of a seasonal character, which means nothing to the southern hemisphere. This treaty which we have before us is the lever to remove trade disabilities between this country and Germany. If that is not of importance to the country, I would like to know what is. They say Great Britain has made a German treaty, and we benefit by that. Surely as a self-respecting country we ought, by this time, to begin to make our own treaties and not be dependent on Great Britain. The Minister of Mines and Industries has said that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) disowned his own child, and this afternoon he tried to make out as if at Geneva people were always thinking of the British empire as a single state—the super-state we have heard about. Let me quote again from the proceedings of the Economic Conference at Geneva in May, 1927—

It says “states”; is South Africa not a state? Do we lose our status as a state? The agitation from the Opposition benches and the Opposition press has done, and is doing, two things; in the first place, it is damaging the trade of this country. Governments may make treaties, and introduce preferential tariffs; but, after all, it is the people of the country who buy, and when this misrepresentation goes on and the people of Great Britain are being told that South Africa is so anti-British, and all we get from the Opposition press, will the result not be that the people there will say: “We will not buy from South Africa?” The other thing, which one would hardly expect from the high priest of Milnerism in South Africa is that he is damaging all the good feeling the Prime Minister has been building up towards the British empire. I stated the other day in this House, and I repeat that no man has done more to reconcile South Africa to the British empire than the Prime Minister, and this agitation which is going on in the Opposition press and on the benches on the opposite side of the House is doing more to break down that feeling which the Prime Minister has built up thin anything else. Instead of empire-making, they have been empire-breaking all the time. [Interruption.] I do not pose as an empire-maker in this world. I have been a republican all my life, and I am not ashamed to say it either, but you will make me more of a republican if you go on like this. The Opposition is not going to gain much at the party polls by this shouting, and the people of Great Britain will not agree with them when they know the real facts of the case.

I have now listened to three speeches from the opposite side, one from the Minister of Defence, one by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow), who is not now in his place, and thereafter by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). Of the three that of the last-named was the most noteworthy. It is remarkable that the clerical element in the House should take up such a peculiar attitude. One would expect them to be the first to introduce a better instead of a bitter tone into the House. We who have already been in the political arena a long time are not inspired with the bitter spirit of the hon. member for Winburg. In the first place, we heard from him that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was the high priest of Milnerism. How can the hon. member say that?

But it is true.

Even if it is true, what has that to do with the merits of the treaty? Has the hon. member for Winburg made any attempt to answer the criticism of the hon. member for Standerton on the merits of the case?

Did he not?

I did not hear any thing. Perhaps he did it while I was not in my place. I return to Milnerism. We know what happened in 1903. The hon. member says that the preference was obtained by guns. I wonder that he does not bring up other sad things from the past.

Would we otherwise have given so much preference?

The hon. member said that is was forced upon the Cape Parliament, a free Parliament. If the Milner policy means that preference was granted, then I want to know from whom else he learnt it but from the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyer—“Onze Jan”— who, for the first time, raised the idea of imperial preference at the conference in Canada.

What did the Afrikanders say of 1903?

Ten years later, in 1897, Canada adopted the principle, carried out the idea of Onze Jan. I do not wish again to refer to the Bloemfontein customs conference. The matter was approved by the Cape Parliament, the leader of the Nationalist party, the present Prime Minister shortly thereafter joined the Fre State Cabinet. He was a Minister for two or three years. Did he ever make an attempt to have the 1903 tariff altered? In 1910 the Union was established. The Prime Minister was a member of the Cabinet between 1910 and 1913, did he move a hand to alter the Milnerism? The high priesthood there is assumed by the leader of the hon. member for Winburg.

Oh, come now.

And he adopted it until 1925. Then he commenced to tinker with it. I can understand the attitude of the hon. member for Winburg somewhat. He is at heart a republican and wants to know nothing of a commonwealth. If he sees a chance some day to secede on constitutional lines from the commonwealth of nations he will not wait till the next day. At the bottom of his heart he is opposed to any preference inside the British empire, but his leader, the Prime Minister, also supported the preferential system until 1925. He said nothing against it at the Imperial Conference. He came back from that and the words he used at the dinner given for him by the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce still ring in my ears. He said that in the future England would be his best friend.

But not the only one.

This a wonderful way of showing friendship. The hon. member for Winburg went as far as to quote from Milton. When a man drags in Keats and Milton and other writers in connection with such a treaty, then he is hopeless. The whole position, of course, is that the Government sits in fear and trembling of the judgment of the people. The Prime Minister said yesterday at Salt River: “Friends of Salt River, if you communists and socialists do not help me then in a few days I shall fall.”

This is a nice sample of the kind arguments you think you see a chance of using.

The Government is afraid of the party which sits here. When the Government came into power a few years ago, hon. members opposite told the people that they were going to rule permanently, at least 15 years. To-day they are as afraid of the judgment of the people as a buck is of gun-shot. To-day the people have found them out.

So the people are going to vote for us.

After all the promises, from which they have run away, they want again to bewitch the people.

From what promises have we run away?

I say that this treaty injures the real economic interests of the people. The Minister of Mines has told us that we, on this side, are against the treaty because it has been made with Germany. Where I, and every hon. member behind me are concerned, I want to deny this once and for all. The position we adopt is that, by the treaty, Germany is made a part of the British commonwealth of nations, because in economic spheres—in the matter of preference rights—we give to Germany the same rights as to other parts of the British empire. If this treaty had been made with Holland, France, or any other country, then we should have opposed it just the same. Our highly respected leader (Gen. Smuts) was, after the war, always disposed to be friendly towards Germany. With the peace treaty—

Read Keynes.

The Prime Minister knows that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, before the signing of the peace treaty, that there were some impossible provisions in it. What became of the £11,000,000 which we had in hand from the Germans? Did we confiscate it?

If it had not been for us you would have done so.

That I deny once and for all. The South African party Government came forward voluntarily, and gave back the £11,000,000 to the Germans.

Because you were afraid of us.

And what became of the £34 million which remained over? The Minister of Finance took that quickly enough.

To pay off your old debts.

Yesterday for the second time in the last five years I heard the hon. member for Zoutpansberg speak in the House. The first time he spoke he made a strenuous attack on Col. Mentz, but he had not the courage to repeat his statements outside the House.

He did.

During the period of five years, he has not taken his seat in the House for more than five months, and in his second speech he accuses us of seeking an election cry in the German treaty. His speech however, was nothing else but an effort to make an election cry of the treaty, and to make an appeal to the German vote. I heard that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg was the draftsman of the coloured Persons’ Rights’ Bill and the Parliamentary Representation of Natives’ Bill, but when the Bills were being debated—

The hon. member cannot now discuss the matter.

I just want to show that in connection with this case, the hon. member—

The hon. member may not discuss the attitude of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg towards those Bills.

I only want to say that he was perfectly silent with regard to the extension of representation to the north, though he said to the voters at Potchefstroom that he could assure them that no extension to the north would take place. Yesterday the hon. member told us that the maize and wool farmers were going to get such great advantages under the treaty. Let one of his friends get up to show us what grain of advantage those farmers will get. My great objection to this treaty is that it is not honourable.

That was a strange argument.

It is not honourable towards our colleagues of the British Commonwealth. It is contrary to the statements of the Prime Minister at the imperial conference and after his return from London. Now I wish to give attention to the preferences inside the commonwealth. Take for instánce New Zealand. It gives us a preference on dried fruit, which brings thousands of pounds into the pockets of our farmers every year. What will be the feeling of New Zealand towards our dried fruit industry after the German treaty is passed? I was in Canada recently and I very carefully enquired into the market prospects for our wine. At the moment Canada by its customs duty is giving a preference to French and German wines. We receive the same preference but as our wine has to cross the Equator it has to be fortified, thus involving. A higher duty than is the case with German and French wines. The consequence is that our wine cannot compete there. In our discussions With the Canadian Ministers on our recent visit to that country We brought the matter before them, and they are willing to meet Us. I told Mr. Eric Louw in New York that he should get the Union Government to inake a request of the Canadian Government in as much as the latter is prepared to meet us with reference to the strength of our wine. What however, will be the feeling in Canada after this treaty is passed?

We give Canada far more preference than we receive from her.

Any preference we give to Canada in the future we shall also have to give to Germany.

But we already give Canada to-day more than we receive from her.

What do you (Mr. Krige) know of Canada’s feelings? Who told you that Canada condemned the treaty?

I say that Canada has more respect for the British Commonwealth than the Minister, and so I say that the treaty will have bad results in Canada. The Minister of Finance says that we give greater preference to than we receive from Canada, but we want a bigger preference for our wine, and it will damage our wine farmers to pass this German treaty. Let the Minister of Mines and Industries lay the papers on the Table to show what the feeling of Canada and Australia is. We do not know their contents, but can guess. I did my very utmost for our wine export to Canada, and we have a good chance there. But after this treaty our chances will disappear. I think it is always the best to give members of your family the preference before members outside the family. We shall always do better if we show sympathy towards members of our own family rather than to people outside it. By the motion of the Government Germany will become a member of the family in future and this will cause great feeling amongst other members of the family.

Have they no other friends?

With me the question is what the preferential rates mean to us, to the fruit farmers for instance. To the Dried FruitCompany in the Western Province this means £40,000 a year, for the co-operative society which includes the wine farmers it means £200,000 a year. All the money goes into the pockets of the wine and fruit farmers. I challenge any Minister to say that it is not so.

Are we giving nothing? We get very little for what we give.

I am speaking of the future. If we want to give England the preference in future then we will have to give it to Germany as well. When we negotiate with Canada for a preference for our wine we can give Canada nothing.

It is not necessary, We have already given.

Canada will want to negotiate.

We give them more than they give us.

They will want to bargain with the Minister and want to get certain privileges if they give Certain preferences to our wine.

We shall point out to them that they already have much more.

But if they want more?

We shall not want to do that kind of business.

We shall have to give the preference to Germany, and Canada will object. I have no racial feeling against Germany, I admire the German people as one of the best and most progressive nations in the world, and so far as lies in my weak power I shall be prepared in Parliament to lighten the burden they are carrying, but as we are concerned with our own economic interests I must vote against the motion.

I am not surprised at all this commotion over the German treaty. Whenever an election is in prospect the Unionists snatch at every weapon with which they can stir up race hatred. At the last Provincial Council elections it was the flag, at the Parliamentary elections of 1920 and 1921 it was secession, in 1915 it was the rebellion, and in 1910 it was just straight out “Vote British!” Without that sort of tactics the Unionists are nowhere. Such tactics were already used in Onze Jan’s days. He was throughout repesented as anti-British, although the Unionists now hold him up as an example. Without racial tactics the Opposition have no hope of winning seats except those that the kaffirs give them. The hon. member for Standerton (Gert. Smtits) said in his speech: “We have sold our birthright to Germany.” What is the birthright? The right Of being England’s slave? The right of putting lip a ring fence round the empire to our own detriment? A splendid birthright that! We treat Great Britain more generously than she treats us. If you take the figures of 1925 after the Government had reduced the preferences to England then the Britons will enjoy a preference to the amount of £420,000, as against one of £275,000 which we get from them. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) emphasized that it was Onze Jan who proposed the preference to Britain but he forgot to add that Ohze Jan meant that there should be reciprocity and he did not mean that the Cape Colony should give more to England than England to her, so the present preferences to England can be considerably further reduced before we are on equal terms. We give a preference to-day to the British importer on practically all classes of goods which are not produced in this country, therefore if we provide for the continuance of that preference as we are now doing Germany will gain Very little by the treaty, because it is not probable that we shall increase the number of articles to be preferred. The tendency is rather the other way. So the British importers have no right to say that we are putting the German importers on a like footing. Speakers opposite have argued that we may possibly want to reinstate the preference which we have removed from certain articles, and then the Germans share in the privilege. But off what article have we taken the preference? On sweets, Cape jams, fruit juice, beer, vinegar, blankets readymade, clothes, agricultural machinery, harness, boots, and the like. They are almost all things that we can make or produce in this country and the preference has been taken off with a view to protection. We are not going to reinact that preference. The hon. member for Standerton surely himself said recently that he was a protectionist. If that is true then he will have to approve of our having raised the customs’ duty on those things, and he should be the last to want to give the preference to Britain again. The noise against the treaty as I said is merely to make party capital. The British has been kept informed of the negotiations with the German delegates and no British Minister has disapproved of the action of the Union Government in connection with the treaty, still less have they considered it a slap in their faces. If the treaty bad been made with France, Belgium or the United States of America then we should have heard nothing about it, but because it was with Germany it is so easy to stir up racial feeling. Now you can speak of Germany and the Devil as the hon. member for Standerton has done. It is said that the British will now import less from South Africa owing to the treaty. Why then are our exports to England larger since the conclusion of the treaty? The British importers have now woken up and do not only want to retain what they have, but to extend the trade with us. We need only notice how active the “British Marketing Board” is now. Importers have no sentiment. Their interests are pocket interests. Nor is everyone British who carries on business in England. Will they now import less of our gold, diamonds, wool and skins in consequence of the treaty? They need our raw materials and will buy them in spite of any treaty. The hon. member for Caledon told us how beneficial England is to us in respect of our fruit, wine and such things. If that is so it will remain so. I may, however, point out that when there is an overproduction in this country the wine farmer has to open the taps and let the wine run away. So much does England assist us! As for preference to our wine it is true they give our wine a small preference in the tariff, but they take away with one hand what they give with the other. There is much wine made in England, heavy wine of the port type. It is made of concentrated grape juice or must which is imported duty free from France and Greece. There is an excise of 1s. 6d. a gallon on such wine in England, while an import duty of 4s. 6d. a gallon is levied on our wine of the heavier type.

That is not so.

Now I assure the hon. member that it actually is so. English wine is sold at 5s. a gallon and the South African wine at about 9s. Who therefore gets the preference in practice? South Africa or France? Regarding tobacco I recently read a piece in the “Cape Argus” saying that on the average only three ounces of empire tobacco per week was sold in the refreshment rooms of the British Houses of Parliament. It is moreover a well-known fact that the importation of Union tobacco into Britain is very insignificant. In the year 1927 they bought from us £17,000 worth only, while they ordered from the United States £14,168,000 worth. They buy where they like. As for our fresh fruit there is no preference given. The preference on dried fruit is also very small. But fruit growers are stirred up by political wire-pullers to protest against the treaty. So I also have received a telegram from the Piquetberg mountain. The Indian Government recently ordered a large quantity of railway material from Germany. Australia has done the same. Even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in his days did so. The British postal department recently ordered telephone wire value £60,000 in France although that kind of wire is also manufactured in England. We shall be expecting much more in future from Germany than from England, with regard to the purchase of our produce. England buys much of the raw material she requires in Kenya, Tanganyike, India and elsewhere. Germany has such colonies. Germany also is an industrial country and needs raw material. By cultivating friendship with that country and supplying the necessary facilities German trade with us could tremendously increase. Already the Germans buy directly more from us than most of us know. The hon. member for Standerton put the amount at £4,000,000, but it is about double as much. In 1927 I know it was £700,000. Germany imports about half as much wool as England; in wattle bark more than England and in maize fodder endlessly more. After England, Germany is already our best client, and will become a better client still if the middleman, the London agent, can be got rid of; Canada, Australia and New Zealand are dealing more and more directly with Germany in their fruit export, and we shall have to follow their example. We must remain faithful to our slogan “South Africa first.” The Opposition tell us forsooth that that is also their slogan, but they never prove it, least of all when there is an election on hand. Then it is only “empire first.”

It seems to me members opposite are rather hard put in their arguments to prove the truth of the assertion that this treaty is going to do South Africa any good. I do not intend to follow the hon. member who has just spoken in regard to the niceties of the markets, the extent of exports of hominy chop and imports of barbed wire. Whatever figures he or anyone else may quote, the fact remains that the amount of South African produce which Germany takes is only one-twelfth of that taken by Great Britain. We have had a good deal of discussion about this treaty, and there have been a good many divergent views expressed on many points. There are some points, however, on which some of us are pretty well agreed. There is no objection to trade treaties with foreign countries; there is no objection in itself to a treaty with Germany. Hon. members opposite have interjected that our objection is that this treaty is made with Germany. That is not the case. The whole world stands to gain by Germany regaining its position as a commercial nation, and there is no objection to treaties being made between the Union of South Africa and Germany. In the course of his speech yesterday, the Minister of Mines and Industries told us it was an accident. It may be so as far as he is concerned, because no doubt the Germans pressed their point, and he got a treaty with Germany instead of a treaty with Holland. On this side of the House there is no more objection to a treaty with Germany than there is to a treaty with any other country, providing it does not contain conditions to which we have a strong objection. A further question which arises is whether the Government have the right to make this treaty having regard to the resolutions of the Imperial Conference. We do not question that right, providing the conditions regarding the making of foreign treaties which were agreed upon in 1923, and confirmed in 1926, are observed. Whether what the Government has done is honouring in the spirit the undertaking into which we entered in 1926 is another matter with which I will deal presently, but that the Government has the right to make a treaty of this kind, I do not dispute. The question we have to decide is whether this treaty is to the advantage of South Africa or not, and it is from that point of view that I wish to treat the matter.

made an interjection [inaudible.]

I admit that the Prime Minister’s idea of what is reasonable may not always coincide with mine. No-one has shown what advantages we are to get from Germany. Some hon. members opposite hold the opinion that this is going to result in the manifestation of extreme goodwill on the part of Germany. Well, all I can say is that up to the present the goodwill has been all on the other side. We must consider whether we have, in making this treaty, observed in the spirit as well as in the letter, the obligation which we entered into through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in 1926. The results of that conference, with which the Prime Minister has over and over again expressed his entire agreement, were largely based upon the assumption that it was to the interest of all the dominions that they should act in concert together; that there should be free co-operation between them, and that the susceptibilities and requirements of each dominion should be considered by the other dominions. If we could only know what the other dominions have said in answer to the inquiries addressed by this Government on this treaty, I think we should probably get some very useful and interesting information. The Minister of Mines and Industries has told us that no British Minister has complained regarding the treaty. That is so, but it does not follow that no representations were made. It is perfectly obvious that the dominions have different requirements in respect of fiscal matters, but my point is that all the resolutions passed and agreed upon at the Imperial Conference were passed on the assumption that so far as was reasonably possible, the susceptibilities, requirements and interests of all the dominions should be considered when making any agreement or treaty with a foreign power. I do not think that in making a treaty of this kind we have properly fulfilled in spirit the obligations we entered into in the conference of 1926, because it is impossible to conceive how the provisions of this treaty are going to do any good to anyone of the dominions. It is quite true that there has been no complaint, except what we have heard from Australia. But it is impossible for anyone to see how the action of the Government in entering into a treaty of this kind can have been acceptable and welcome to any of the other dominions. It is impossible to conceive that you are going to gain anything by the treaty, and the possibility of drawing as under the bonds that unite the British commonwealth of nations make this treaty highly objectionable. I think it is a bad think for us to put ourselves in the position of being liable to the accusation that, we have not observed the spirit as well as the letter of the obligations we entered into at the Imperial Conference in 1926. I don’t think that is going to improve our credit in the eyes of the world. In spite of what hon. members opposite say, this treaty has been viewed with misgiving and dislike in other parts of the Empire. It has come to my own knowledge, I met a gentleman the other day who has recently been to England endeavouring to extend the market for Rhodesian tobacco. There has been too much tobacco, and the difficulty has been to find a market for it. This gentleman said that when he went to merchants, especially in the large cities in the north, and asked them to interest themselves in widening the market for Rhodesian tobacco, they said: “but your Government is in a customs union with the Union of South Africa, and the Union of South Africa has slapped us in the face with an agreement with Germany. Why in the world should we go out of our way to help you.” As soon as he explained that the Union’s action in this respect was contrary to the wishes of Rhodesia, they said: “that is another matter, and we will endeavour to help you.” There is certain to be a loss to this country of the active, willing co-operation of consumers in British territories because of this treaty. I think we are making a mistake in not co-operating fully with the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have reaped considerable advantages in the world of finance. Probably if it were not for the goodwill of the financial people in London we should have to pay more for our loans.

You get money on more favourable terms.

If this country was a business concern, and if Great Britain and the city of London were another business concern, they would say to us: “we are perfectly willing to lend you money, but we want to know what you are going to do with it.” They might say: “you have announced that you are going to spend three and a half millions to put up steel and iron works to compete with our trade. We are not going to lend you three and a half millions to do that.”

We have not arrived at that stage yet.

No, the Government are trading upon the certainty of their conviction that the British Government will be too big to retaliate. I think they are making a mistake, because the real thing that we are risking is not any retaliation on the part of the government of Great Britain, or the government of any of the dominions. What we are risking is the loss of the voluntary, active goodwill and co-operation of the consumers in the other parts of the empire. The Minister of Defence said this afternoon that there were always people of English origin in this country who looked too much to the English side of the question. If there are, we can always trust the Minister of Defence to keep us right because he will always take the other side. He has done it for years, and I have no doubt he will go on doing it. But we have really to consider what we are going to gain by this treaty that was not secured to us by the Anglo-German treaty. The only single thing said on the other side in answer to that question is that that treaty was terminable after three months’ notice, and this treaty is terminable after two years. One of the principal apologists for the treaty says that after all it is not a bad treaty, but it might be shortened by one year. That shows that it is not of great Value to Us, whatever its value may be to Germany. In any case the direct benefit to Germany seems to be exceedingly small; the direct benefit to us is nil. But I suppose that this matter like other matters which have been discussed this session, is connected to some extent With the coming election. The presentation of the case by the Minister certainly lends colour to that view. Hon. members opposite are rather hard up for a cry. The Minister of Justice—I am very sorry that he is not with us—before he Went aWay instigated making a cry of the native and coloured representation Bills. I think if he were here to-day he Would admit that that attempt to get a cry has fallen pretty flat. I suppose what happened afterwards was that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Mines and Industries put their heads together for the purpose of getting a cry. I suppose most hon. members have read in one of Disraeli’s novels of two famous characters, Taper and Tadpole who were always trying to find to find a cry.

I am sure we cannot beat you.

You can imagine the hon. Mr. Taper conferring with the hon. Mr. Tadpole with the object of finding a party cry, “don’t you think,” would say the hon. Mr. Taper, “that the German trade treaty will do quite well, if we say that the other people are opposing it from racial motives?” “Oh, yes,” would reply the hon. Mr. Tadpole, “but we must pitch it in rather strong.” That should be called “Window-dressing,” and they all come back to the old story that the other side are always racial. That may be the origin of the way in which the case was presented by the Minister of Defence. It is a great pity that a question like this should be treated from the narrow aspect of party politics. The policy embodied in the treaty is obviously capable of expansion— that policy may easily lead us a dangerous advance towards an ultimate position of isolation. At the present time we are making a treaty with Germany, a treaty which preserves existing preferences but makes it impossible in the future to give any further preference or to negotiate with Great Britain or the dominions to grant them any further preferences, unless they are given to Germany and probably to other nations as well. It is not a great step from that to making treaties which will give a deliberate preference to a foreign nation. The principle in the same.

Parliament will have to sanction it.

I hope Parliament will never sanction it. Remembering the Prime Minister’s speech when he returned from the Imperial Conference in London, if anybody had told us at that time that this treaty would follow within 18 months, most of us would have been surprised. When we deal with hon. members opposite we are bound to be cautious and anxious. The policy embodied in the treaty is capable of indefinite extension, and is capable of leading us into a policy of isolation, and if it is pressed further to give preferences to foreign countries it might lead to retaliation, and one thing might lead to another and it is difficult to see where that process will stop. I do not believe there is a Minister opposite who will deny that it is undoubtedly an advantage for South Africa to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. For these reasons I regret the policy embodied in this treaty, and I am sorry that the case for the treaty has been presented by the Minister, and some of his supporters, in a manner which is bound to offend the susceptibilities of a large number of people. Although there is no question whatever of racialism or antagonism to Germany on this side of the House, I am not going to deny that the manner in which the case has been presented by the Minister and some of his friends, is Calculated to ruffle feelings and do harm in a matter in which there should be no question of sacrificing principles to the narrow exigencies of party politics.

There is one word which has been present with me ever since this treaty was mooted—it is the little word “why.” In the 50 years I have known my friends and countrymen of Afrikander descent I do not recall a single instance where they gave away something for nothing. It is so absolutely foreign to them, and, therefore, I put to myself that little question “why?” I speak as a South African of British descent who knows this country very well, and I find that my views are Completely endorsed by the late Mr. Francis Joseph Dormer, for many years connected with the “Cape Argus” and subsequently with the Johannesburg “Star.” Mr. Dormer in his book “Vengeance as a Policy,” in which there is a great deal in defence of the Boers and also much that is critical of Rhodes, refers to “The proverbial inability of the Dutch to give anything without getting a rather more than fair equivalent in return.”

Are they Scots?

This is the only occasion on which they have undertaken to give something for nothing. Even when they went to Vereeniging to give in—and I have always admired them for sticking out for so long—even there they tried to get more almost than they gave. True, they gave their independence, but they hedged it round in such a clever way and made such a good bargain that never could it be truthfully said that they were a conquered race. They ended a very gallant campaign on their part with a treaty of rights. For that I have always admired them. Very well then, why this treaty? Is it love of Germany? Did they ever love anybody but themselves? During that war, which the Minister of Mines knows little about because he was not engaged I understand in defending the rights of the two republics, did they receive any help from Germany? They had received assurances that they would not be allowed to be oppressed, and republicanism would be saved to them, and their full independence guaranteed. What did they get? A telegram which I suppose cost the Kaiser about fifty marks .That was the fullest extent of all that Germany ever did for them. Therefore I rule out of consideration that it could by any possibility be due to any affection for Germany. It comes to this, not that the government loves Germany more, but that it loves Great Britain less. In trying to arrive at some reason for this most unreasonable treaty I ventured to think of the possibility of the Minister of Finance being seized with some amount of regret, that indeed his conscience troubled him, and so he said to himself, “well, all my great financial reputation has been built up on the £3,500,000 which I found in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy property belonging to Germany. I have callously collared this German money and my conscience rather worries me—we must make a gesture of goodwill.” The Minister of Mines and Industries explains that all the early stages of this wonderful treaty was in the hands of the Minister of Finance, so that lends colour to the idea that he may have been conscience-stricken. It is rather difficult to believe it, however, of the chief tax collector of South Africa one who taxes the people every year far more than what is needed so that he may have a surprise surplus. He hatches out his surpluses from a very hard-wrought country. Is there perhaps regret also that we happen to be controlling South-West Africa because it has been our fate and fortune that we should exercise the mandate? Has that something to do with it? One does not want to be told opposition is introducing racialism. There is no need for racialism in regard to the treaty. I have many German friends but do not hesitate to say that we, as one of the British commonwealth of nations (if we have any respect for what our friends have done and suffered in regard to safeguarding our liberties) say that Germany is the very last country that could have fairly claimed a treaty of commerce from any portion of the British commonwealth. Without being too hard I say Germany has done nothing to warrant any special treatment or any special gesture of friendship and affirm that without being conscious of any pronounced racialism. There still comes the persistent question—why? We have the Minister of Justice the jester of his party, whom we miss, and trust he will return fully restored to health who gave a reason, and his reason was about the most intelligent I have heard so far. He said “what use to have a right to make treaties and not to use it?” It reminds me of little George Washington presented with a hatchet, and when his father said, “Georgie, what made you chop down my cherished cherry tree?” he replied, “Well dad you gave me the hatchet.” I will not pursue the comparison further between the Minister of Justice and the father of the United States. I would like to ask a question as a layman as to what this reciprocal navigation means. Are we to have the “Protea,” the “Zonnebloem” and the “Immortelle” enjoying the right to go into the Kiel Canal? Is that reciprocal navigation, and are we going to have the new German cruiser allowed to come into Simon’s Bay without any question of the usual practice in regard to ocean navigation? There are numbers of things one would like to ask. When we now think back to the question of general preference decided in parliament in 1925 the query arises: why was the principle of general British preferences of 3 per cent, abolished? Was the abolition deliberately planned so as to provide an easy method of subsequently making differences in favour of other countries rather than Great Britain? It would seem so. If a number of specified articles have special duties in regard to them then the extension to other countries becomes easy. There could not well be a general application of the principle of an all round preference of 3 per cent, on British goods. Was this treaty then plotted in 1925? Perhaps the Minister of Defence knows and perhaps he does not. I think possibly he knows only what he has been told by his colleagues, because one cannot imagine that with all his experience he should have been led into paths which are certainly astray in regard to his traditions and the interests he is supposed to specially represent, I think with that simplicity which was shown in a recent letter that he also knew nothing about what was going on or what was intended to eventuate after altering the principle applied to Great Britain. What I wish also to ask him if other portions of the Commonwealth like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, were to get any preferences from us, would these be automatically given to Germany or not? It is a very interesting question. But at all events, if the hon. Minister did not quite know the extent of this treaty, there were those who did. The British attitude has been correctness itself. Whatever machinations may have been suspected, Mr. Amery in the House of Commons showed how thoroughly he respects the full import of sovereign independence and the freedom of action we enjoy. In the House of Commons he said that the British Government had been kept informed of the progress of the negotiations and had drawn the South African Government’s attention to the potential effects of the treaty’s provisions on the system of Imperial preference, whereupon the Union Government had explained that their general policy remained as embodied in the tariff of 1925-’26. He further said—

While he maintained correct attitude towards the Union as a self-governing country, the country itself was kept in perfect ignorance of what was going on, and has a perfect right to complain of that secrecy. The criticisms which were passed in this debate as to keeping the country ignorant of the projected treaty are perfectly fair, and should be met by some expression of regret on the part of the Government. But everybody in the Union was not kept in ignorance. As far back as the 17th July, 1928, “Die Burger” says in reference to this treaty “everything had gone well,” that is well from “Die Burger’s” point of view, and I do not think anyone would be guilty of supposing when “everything had gone well,” as far as “Die Burger” was concerned, that it would be in the slightest degree to the advantage of the Empire. That well-informed journal which knew, when commercial and political men, other than those in the Cabinet, did not know, went on to point out that it “understands the German delegates had made considerable concessions so far as Union interests were concerned, and there was not the slightest doubt that the Union is to gain enormously by the treaty”; so these German emissaries who came to this country with this offer of nothing for something informed others of what took place, whilst our Cabinet Ministers, who are supposed to represent the welfare of this country, kept the whole important business quiet until they sprang it upon us as a surprise. The question that has not yet been answered is, what benefit is South Africa going to get out of it. I have listened to statements about securing another market, and a prominent feature of the debate has been the protest against “a ring fence”being put around the British Commonwealth of Nations. The United States of America has proved the advantage of a ring fence around a number of States which have common interests. Again and again it has been pointed out that there has been no satisfactory answer to the question of what advantage the Union obtains, and when the Minister of Defence deals with it, his answer is, “there is none.” There is no advantage whatever, he says, and the treaty “won’t make a halfpenny of difference.” That may be so now, but in the future, who knows, it may be otherwise. Germany has no illusions, and I repeat what should not be forgotten here, how clearly Germany understands the position. The Union of South Africa trade treaty received the approval of the Reichstag on December 14. Dr. Reichert, an outstanding Nationalist member, was reported by the Berlin correspondent of the “Times” (London), as follows: —

The Berlin correspondent of “The Times” said—

It was no business of Germany to make any friendly gesture to us! The Minister of Defence, once our Labour leader, made it fully understood—we trusted him fully at the time—that there should be no question of preference to other countries, but that we stood entirely maintaining our close connection with the British Empire. On behalf of the Labour party indeed, a considered question of preference to other countries, but definitely—

and he correctly says that is also the view of his party. This treaty is a commentary on his consistency. How long can our allegiance to the Crown be safely left in the hands of the present Government? Already all other countries but this are described as foreign countries. Even Rhodesia becomes a foreign country! I know that no hon. member of this House took the oath of allegiance with his tongue in his cheek, but this declaration of fealty to the King and his successors is all that is left of what was entrusted to the Minister of Defence to maintain as the leader of the Labour party. This small nation is associated with the British commonwealth of nations and has perfect freedom of action, but the treaty is a contradiction of the trust we reposed in our lost leader, the Minister of Defence. He signed a compact that nothing should be done to weaken the existing British connection; but this action on the part of the Government is a smoke screen to disguise their continued movements in favour of secession. They cannot go so far as to actually “cut the painter,” as they made their vows and swore to be true to the British Crown, but they would try how far they can make every other country a foreign country to us.

You should join the South African party.

Anyway you will have an opportunity of showing that you are perfectly loyal to your oath. I may remind the House that the flag question was merely a matter of sentiment, certainly of very deep sentiment on both sides, but the question of separation from the British empire connection is one which touches the whole structure on which our status depends. It is pointed out in the report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 that we are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and every self-governing section of the empire can work out its own destiny. The British commonwealth of nations is the world’s greatest assurance for peace. We are in this commonwealth of nations as partners for each other’s mutual advantage and for the purpose of studying each other’s interests to the fullest possible extent, and to that end Great Britain itself is willing to assist every part equally. Is this treaty inside that commonwealth of nations? The Minister of Mines and Industries has himself stated that it is outside. That is the clear cut right across the question. Are we to fulfil our destiny within the commonwealth of nations, or outside of it? The Minister admits that he prefers to act outside. I would end what I have to say with a personal experience. It fell to my lot to work earnestly for responsible government in the Transvaal in the interests of the whole of South Africa, but particularly in the interests of the Dutch-speaking people of the former republics. During that strenuous time the question came up as to whether we could trust the Dutch. It was a very material question, because upon it depended whether we should go on with the movement or abandon it. It was said “you cannot trust Botha or Smuts; look at what Christian Beyers is doing.” The Committee told me to go and see Gen. Botha and “put it up to him.” I replied: “that is a very nice contract to take on—to go and tell a man that he is suspect.” Gen. Botha was one of the greatest men the Dutch race has ever produced. When I went to him at Pretoria he took me to his house and handed me his letter book and his telegraph book to read, saying, “you will find your answer there.” I was astonished when I read those letters and telegrams to Gen. Beyers and others, in which Gen. Botha said that they had undertaken to work out their destiny under the British flag; and to be treacherous to that pledge would be a mistake. They had undertaken to stand by it, and the attitude of Gen. Beyers and others was totally at variance with that honourable undertaking and prevented the realization of their aims and hopes. We intend to work out our destiny loyally under the British flag.” That very question comes up again now. Are we in the Union going to work out our destiny within the British commonwealth or outside of it? This treaty takes us definitely outside, and shows no intention whatever of assisting the British commonwealth of nations. We know the Minister of Mines and Industries. Have we ever known him in his whole life to say a kindly word, or to make a friendly gesture, to the British. If the government say that we are to fulfil our destiny outside the British commonwealth, that challenge will be taken up right through South Africa. Fortunately it will not be on a racial basis, because more than half the Dutch-speaking population of the Union will, stand by the British commonwealth. I am certain that this country will answer the challenge. It will be one of the decisions for the general election, and be a very great decision. It is the parting of the ways. Either we are going to remain in the British commonwealth, doing all we possibly can to build up this great commonwealth in the common interests of each and all, or else we have to lend ourselves to those who prefer to work outside. I can assure the hon. the Minister that in working out our destiny under the British flag and within the British commonwealth, we shall be marching forward with perfect confidence in the future, and those who get in the way of the movement will go under or be run over.

The Prime Minister last night at Salt River made a pathetic speech. It was a pathetic wail from the head of a great party, and amounted to the greatest surrender I have ever known a Prime Minister to make. He put his hands up. The Prime Minister said that the Government might be defeated in Parliament, and those of them who were not able to stand together in peace must do so in war. A lamer appeal from the leader of a great party has never been made in this country before. What was his cry? It was, “Our slogan at the next election must be to win.” He did not say at what cost. It was merely “to win, to win.” This session has shown the lengths to which that leader and his party are prepared to go irrespective of the interests of the country in order to carry out their great slogan “to win.”

interjected a remark (inaudible).

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) is very vocal on occasion—shall I say the present member for Salt River? What weapon has the Government chosen with which to fight the election? The native question, and I think after the events of the last few days the Government would be glad to bury that issue out of sight altogether. We had in that black manifesto the most disgraceful document that has been issued in this country for many a day. Now we have this treaty. What was the origin of it? This treaty is a surrender by the Government to the anti-British jingoes of the Government party for the purpose of securing their support. This surrender was made when the Government had difficulty in dealing with their followers in October last. That is the explanation of that wonderful letter written by the Minister of Defence in which he talked about “window-dressing.” The window-dressing is not designed for Germany; it was largely designed to square the anti-British jingoes in their own party.

interjected a remark (inaudible.)

I hear the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) making ejaculations. He will have to answer to his constituents. I am very interested to see the uneasiness of hon. members opposite as the debate progresses. The Minister of Mines and Industries endeavoured to justify this treaty, but the hollow sham has been exposed in this House. The Minister of Justice at a Nationalist bazaar said that no word of complaint had come from the leaders of Great Britain, but when questions were asked in the House of Commons it turned out from statements made by the secretary for the dominions that the British Government had drawn the attention of the Union Government to the position under the scheme of imperial preference. After these statements by the Minister of Justice in this House and the Minister of State in the House of Commons, I say that this House and this country are definitely entitled to have information in regard to these communication. Questions were asked by me based op the report of the Imperial Conference, on the first Tuesday of this session. A formula was drawn up at the 1923 conference and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who assisted in drawing up the formula, has never wavered in pointing out that we have the absolute right to make treaties and if we choose we could appoint our own ambassadors, if we could afford such luxuries. The formula laid down in 1923 stipulated that prior to negotiations being opened by one of the dominions with foreign countries communication must first be made to other members of the British comonwealth which are likely to be interested in the matter. When I asked my question the Government refused to put any of this information on the Table on the ground that the information was confidential. I consider that refusal a very serious inroad on the privileges of Parliament.

Why?

The Government are entitled to say within limits that subjects which are matters of State shall be treated confidentially, but if the Government felt any delicacy in putting the papers on the Table they should have obtained permission to do so from everyone of the other dominions so that this country might have had a full and frank disclosure of all the evidence. I ask the Prime Minister now whether he will tell us if he made any attempt—when he knew what the facts were, how important it was that the information should be obtained in order to arrive at a proper decision—of any kind to ascertain from the dominions whether they were willing that their communications should be made public.

Do you want to take your cue from them?

I want to take my cue on the stand of decency and justice to the people of this country who are asked to make an important constitutional decision without the necessary information.

Have you not your own judgment?

I have my judgment, but the Prime Minister, who is a lawyer, ought to know that you cannot form your judgment unless you have the facts. Is that all the answer I can get from him? I have asked him a simple question.

When did the country show that desire?

Where do you get your anxiety from?

There is considerable anxiety in the country. Let me ask the Prime Minister again, did he or did he not ask any of the other dominions to release these documents from confidence? We have our answer. The silence of the Prime Minister is the most damning feature of this thing, because it seems he took no steps whatever to see whether the other dominions were willing to release the documents for publication. As a result, the Government wants us to come blindly to a decision without the information which would be of the utmost value to the country to form a decision. The document was signed in September and released for public information in November, and since then we have had nothing from the Government as to what the document really means until yesterday, when the Minister of Mines and Industries was good enough to favour the House with a torrent of invective, bitterness and racial feeling of the deepest character without one word of information about the treaty itself.

I was demolishing your gigantic smokescreen.

How a smoke-screen can be set up in advance when the Minister was the first to open fire, I do not know, but I must defer to his superior military knowledge. Has the Minister got no other answer than that?

The whole thing is in article 8 in a nutshell, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) admitted, and as you very well know. There is nothing else in this treaty you can discuss.

Oh, yes, there is a good deal in the treaty we can discuss. The point I wish to deal with is the manner in which the country has been treated by the Prime Minister and by Ministers in connection with the supplying of information in regard to this treaty.

After the scandalous campaign which has gone on.

I would particularly like the Prime Minister to tell us whether the Government of Southern Rhodesia made representations in terms of the Imperial Conference report. Will he answer that? The Prime Minister is very fluent on occasion, but when it comes to an awkward position—

What have I to do with Southern Rhodesia?

In the first place, it is a fellow component part of the British Empire to which you in that document you signed in 1926 gave full recognition. Now we have had no case put up by the Government in defence of the treaty. I refuse to call the speech made by the Minister of Mines and Industries a case. It was a series of diatribes, a series of fictitious arguments were put up to be bowled over, which did not meet one of the serious objections raised to the treaty. No enthusiasm was evinced by hon. members opposite until we got to the bitter racial speech of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow). That was the first thing that aroused enthusiasm on that side. It was typical. The pitiful thing about it is that the Prime Minister either does not know or will not see, the dangers of the course ne has been following for the past five years in exacerbating feeling in this country. What has been the reception of this treaty in the country. It has been almost unanimously hostile. First of all, it had a hostile reception from the chambers of commerce all over the country, from the South African section of the London chamber of commerce, and from the Bulawayo chamber of commerce.

All importers; all buyers of German goods.

The country is going to judge these futile answers to serious points like this, and it will do so in no uncertain voice. The Minister said that these objections were worth nothing because they came from importers. But what about the exporters? Has a single body of producers come forward to support this treaty? You have the whole of the Western Province producers in October last meeting, and representing wine, fruit and tobacco—every one of the important industries of the Western Province—members of the South African party and of the National party; and I should not be surprised if the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) was there too; pointing out what the effects of this treaty are going to be in relation to the export of their own produce. I would like to know what answer the Minister of Mines and Industries would give to that. He has dealt with the chambers of commerce in that cheap, sneering way of his as if they have no patriotic feeling for the country. When the Minister sneers, makes an attack and charges representative bodies in the country in the way he has done, we can only regret for the sake of public peace, and public manners, that he should be allowed to do it in this House. I ask him what businesses have supported this treaty? We have the curious fact that at the very time when the Minister was negotiating this treaty with Germany, the Minister of Finance was addressing the South African Association of Chambers of Commerce in congress. The hon. the Minister is departing from doing it as long as this treaty stands.

That is the policy of the Government. I have already laid down the terms under which it will be done.

Well, all I can say is, one has never heard a lamer excuse than that—that there is no necessity for doing it. The document we are asked to sign makes that policy impossible. We have heard a great deal about this treaty being only for two years, but what is provided is that the treaty shall be binding for two years, and that it shall remain in force until the expiration of six months from the date on which either of the contracting parties shall have denounced it. Therefore, the Minister has misled the House.

Let us say two- and-a-half years.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister does he propose at the end of two years to give six months’ notice?

I am not proposing anything at the present moment.

Therefore the treaty stands for two years, and thereafter until such time as either of the parties gives notice. Is the Prime Minister likely to give notice? Is Germany likely to give six months’ notice? No, this is sheer running away from the point at issue. We have heard a good deal about Canada. In 1924-25, Canada negotiated a treaty with Germany, and on that occasion the leader of the Senate stated that the different parts of the Empire remained in a class by themselves. That was the policy intended in the report of the Imperial Conference commission, but how can it be said that we are carrying out that policy? I would refer hon. members to page 6 of this report. How can this treaty be said to be anything but the opposite of co-operation, when the Prime Minister is not willing to lay before the House the way in which other partners in the Empire regard this matter. The Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference entered into solemn obligations which he should honour to the full. Is the Prime Minister willing to lay on the Table any correspondence that passed between the Government or any department or the Board of Trade with reference to that reply of Mr. Gundelfinger’s? Then we have the interference of Mr. Renner, the consul for Germany in this matter. Has the representative of a foreign power the right to interfere by argument in public in our domestic concerns? I ask whether the German Consul, who gave an interview to a newspaper, has been asked for an apology. I also ask the Prime Minister whether he approves of the conduct of the High Commissioner, Mr. Eric Louw, in giving an interview to Reuter’s expressing views in the way that he did. Reuter published in yesterday’s paper an interview with Mr. Eric Louw, who said according to that interview that the people in Britain did not regard the treaty as really serious until the South African Party politicians put the idea into their heads. Does the Prime Minister approve of our accredited representative in London expressing—

He has a right to say what is correct.

Does the Prime Minister approve of a representative such as the High Commissioner giving expression to political views, whether they are correct or otherwise? It all depends apparently upon what views are correct. If he expresses views that are palatable to ministers then we can rely upon it that a man can go very far, no matter what his position may be.