I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

When the House adjourned last night I was drawing attention to the pathetic S.O.S. sent out by the Prime Minister at the meeting of the Pact party at Salt River two nights ago. The country has been fully informed on the no-confidence motion what the case of the Government was, and what the case for the Opposition was—and a strong case it was. The country had also had full information with regard to the native bills. Now Langlaagte has given the answer to that S.O.S. appeal.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I just wanted to make passing reference to the Prime Minister sending out an S.O.S. Langlaagte has given the answer in no uncertain voice. I say Langlaagte has given the answer and Langlaagte will give the lead. Now the Minister of Mines and Industries said that the crux was Clause 8: for certain purposes if is, but it is not the only objectionable feature of the treaty, Clause 4 is also a very objectionable feature. What is its effect going to be in time of war, for instance, when we have a war, it may not be with Germany—maybe, say, with Japan, with whom we have a similar treaty—and the Prime Minister has to decide whether he will put into force the doctrine of neutrality he foreshadowed some time ago. Then take Clause 8; the Minister has indicated that a customs agreement would be drawn up under the protocol, paragraph 7, and that that agreement will come before both Houses of Parliament for ratification. I beg to draw attention to Section 7, Act 36 of 1925 [quoted]. There are two things which, under that section, require the full sanction of both Houses of Parliament, viz., an agreement to give most-favoured-nation treatment such as is, for instance, contained in Clause 8 of the treaty, and an agreement as to the rates of customs duty, such as will be in the agreement to be drawn up under paragraph 7 of the protocol. The Minister has suggested that the approval of the legislature will be asked under Section 7 in regard to the customs agreement under Clause 7 of the protocol: it is equally required for Article 8 of the treaty. I also wish to refer to paragraph 3. It was said by the Minister and the member for Bethlehem, Dr. D. G. Conradie, that the British Government will not retaliate, and we can rely in its not retaliating. I quite agree. But when we have a Minister of the Crown and members of his party relying on this I do say that from the point of view of a nation boasting of its higher status, it is a pitiful, mean and discreditable thing for this country to do. But apart from retaliation by the Government you will have to do with the individual consumer in the end. How are you going to get his goodwill? Let we ask producers what they think of the Empire Marketing Board. This Board is advertising in England, making great propaganda for the purchase in England of empire products. It is developing an industrial sentiment there, one of the highest practical value to our producers, because it is meant to induce the people there to buy goods from the empire simply because they are empire goods. [Time limit.]

I can only say that the hon. member who has just sat down and his party are quite welcome to any consolation they can derive from the result of the election they have hailed with so much delight; but I am afraid that from the optimism which is supposed to prevail on the other side there may be a very rude awakening. The outstanding feature of the agitation which has been set on foot in the country and this debate, has been the wild and irresponsible charges made as regards the motives which have actuated the Government in entering into this treaty. This matter has not only been discussed from the point of view of what is in the interests of this country, and what the terms of this treaty should be; no, there have been charges of bad faith and of a departure from the principle of co-operation to which we agreed at the Imperial Conference; charges of anti-British feeling, pro-Germanism and so forth. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) last night stated another reason. He made another important discovery—that the sole object of this treaty, which is of no benefit to South Africa, was merely to placate the malcontents of the Nationalist party who are not content with the doctrine of co-operation as laid down by the Prime Minister, and to which we agreed at the Imperial Conference. Of course, these charges have an object; these charges of anti-British feeling and pro-Germanism. They may have lost something of their former meaning, but it is still thought that they may be of some service in the coming election. After all, the issue is a very simple and narrow one. What is the effect of this treaty insofar as it is germane to the purposes of our present discussion? We hear it described as a treaty according to most-favoured-nation treatment, a treaty under which we not only promised this treatment to all, but under which we also received it. Strictly speaking, that is not correct. There are certain important reservations about which we have not heard very much. In the first place, the existing preferences laid down in the legislation of this country are maintained and guaranteed, and they are very valuable preferences. In the second place, according to our legislation any concessions which we might give as a result of later negotiations will automatically be extended to Great Britain. These are two important aspects of the matter about which we have heard very little. There is another fact, and that is that the principal objection—the only one which might reasonably be argued, and in which there is some substance—that as a result of one of the clauses of the treaty, if we intend to adhere to the policy repeatedly laid down in this country, and deprive ourselves of the right to extend the preferences to Great Britain in the future. That is a question which might fairly be argued, and I propose to confine myself principally to that aspect of the matter. In 1925 I was primarily responsible for bringing proposals before the House to recast our preferential system. I explained to the House the reasons which actuated the Government in putting forward those proposals. I explained that these proposals were in strict conformity with the principles negotiated by the leader of the Opposition before he went to the Imperial Conference. I pointed out that they simply meant a continuance on the old basis of giving rebates to the extent of about £1,000,000 per annum and receiving very little for it, and that it was the policy of the Government that the matter should be placed on a basis more in accordance with the interests of this country, and, further, that the principle should be on the basis of benefits to be given and benefits to be received. I also pointed out that we had discarded the old general preference, but that we had selected a number of articles on which we not only reserved the preference, but increased it. I pointed out, further, that there was still a substantial margin in this connection. Those proposals were adopted by this House. Last year when an hon. member raised the question of the desirability of raising these preferences, I then again enunciated the policy of the Government, and I would like to refer hon. members to what I said at the time. It will be found in “Hansard” of April last year. This is what I said—

A few months later, when this question was again raised by the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, I replied on behalf of the Government, and said—

I refer to this to show what has been our policy in the past, a policy which I enunciated on several occasions, and which is our policy still. Hon. members say: “Yes, but if you want to carry out that policy, you have made it impossible by entering into this treaty to give those greater preferences, if and when the position arises.” I first want to discuss the history of the negotiations with regard to this treaty. In 1925, the Tariff Act was passed, which empowered the Government to enter into treaties on the most-favoured-nation basis, or treaties with other powers stipulating for reciprocal tariff concessions. Soon after that I was approached by the representatives of several countries with the object of our entering into treaties with them. The first point I had to consider was what would be the best policy for this country to adopt, whether we should explore the possibilities of getting tar iff concessions from the various countries on a reciprocal basis, or whether we should confine ourselves to unconditional most-favoured-nation agreements. It soon became evident that, as the result of the very valuable preferences we had already given to Great Britain on a number of articles, and as a result of our protection policy, there remained very few items in regard to which we could bargain with foreign countries. We had taken the principal imports, and given Great Britain the benefit, and what remained, after eliminating our protective tariff items, was not of sufficient importance to enable us to conclude treaties on a reciprocal tariff basis. We very soon came to the conclusion that the only possible way of dealing with these treaties would be to confine ourselves to treaties on an unconditional most-favoured-nation basis. Then we considered what would be the value of these treaties to this country. Even a treaty on those lines is a manifestation of goodwill and friendship, and that counts for something. When, hon. members ask what is the value to South Africa of this treaty, I say that we here at any rate have a visible proof that the old conditions, the old feelings, the old ideas between this country and Germany have disappeared, and there should in future be a feeling of goodwill so that we will not in future discriminate one against the other.

Is that the only advantage?

It must naturally be the only advantage if you cannot enter into a reciprocal treaty on a tariff basis. We concluded that treaty and hon. members now say: “Yes, but as the result of the treaty, you have deprived yourselves of the right to extend the preferences if you in future want to do so.” Hon. members forget that according to the figures I quoted in this House last year, and according to the present figures, a considerable time will have to elapse before you will have the position which will justify an increase of those preferences. The demand of the Opposition is nothing less than that we should now extend the preferences. That is not the policy which we laid down and which was accepted in 1925, and which was the policy I enunciated last year. It was because we were absolutely convinced that a very considerable time would have to elapse before that position would arise that we saw no objection to entering into this treaty, which is only for the short period of two and a half years. After two years the Government will be free to give the necessary notice, and to extend those preferences, if it chooses to do so. There has been absolutely no change, and that is a complete answer to the objections we have heard to this treaty. I have heard of no other objection in which there is the slightest substance.

Then you agree it is window dressing?

No, under this treaty we have a guarantee of good feeling as between this country and Germany, and we hope it will have the effect of extending the trade relations between the two countries. It will have the result of opening new markets, and that is where I find fault with hon. members opposite. What do they say? “We are not against the principle of entering into trade treaties, we are not against any attempt to find new markets for our products, we are not animated by anti-German feeling.” That is typical of the attitude of the South African Party. They are always ready to do lip service to these principles, but never ready to put them into practice. Some hon. members opposite blame ray hon. friend, the Minister of Mines and Industries, because of the manner in which he quoted the remarks of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I think my hon. friend quoted the passages of the right hon. member’s speech that were material, in 1923 the right hon. member was convinced that a one-sided arrangement could not continue, and that we had to look for other markets. It is because hon. members opposite think that because of better feeling between the Union and Germany trade might be developed into other channels than the present one, that they are opposed to the treaty. They are afraid that we may find other markets overseas, as a result of which we might take a larger quantity of German goods than we do at present. That is the secret of their opposition to the treaty.

Ask what the fruitgrowers say.

It is very easy to get up an agitation of that kind. Hon. members opposite have told us what the Associated Chambers of Commerce say, but it is notorious that we on this side have very lew friends in the ranks of commerce.

I am not surprised.

The fruitgrowers are not the only producers, but if they think they are going to suffer they are mistaken. What do the wool or wattle-bark farmers say?

What does the treaty do for the wool-farmers?

Hon. members opposite have referred to the position of the other dominions. During the last three years we have made repeated attempts to try and enter into commercial treaties with the other dominions, but it has been impossible, as the other dominions want to export and to get rid of the very same articles as those which we wish to sell. We are giving very generous rebates to Canada, but the balance of trade is still largely in favour of Canada, not, however, owing to the absence of goodwill on the part of Canada. In 1925 or 1926, I discussed the question with the representatives of the various dominions, and we made an effort to find a basis on which we might extend the trade between the dominions, but up to the present it has been impossible to find any basis. In the case of Australia the treaty was allowed to lapse not because we had cut down the preferences which Australia had to receive, for we still left very valuable preferences, but on account of the political feeling in Australia in regard to the production of our maize by what they called “black labour.” So in the interests of their country the Australian government had to recall the preference. I discussed the question in England with Mr. Bruce, the Australian Prime Minister, and I suggested that we should revive the arrangement under which we would give a preference to Australian wheat if Australia would give preference to Union maize. He replied that that was impossible because he said: “The question of maize simply stinks with politics.” Rightly or wrongly Australia takes up the position that our maize is in a favoured position because it is grown by black labour. The position as regards Canada was also explored. New Zealand is the only country in which the balance of trade is in favour of South Africa. Even there it was found altogether impossible—not on account of a lack of willingness on either side to come to an agreement—to extend preferences. There is not the slightest possibility of extending preferences which would be fair and reasonable to both countries.

Why bolt the door?

We have not bolted the door. The period of this treaty is only two years and after that we shall be free to terminate it by giving six months’ notice.

Will that make for goodwill with Germany?

If we want to terminate the agreement we can do so. We have heard threats of tariff retaliation in this House because of this treaty. The other night the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) referred to the United States, but he should consider what the trade position is between the Union and the United States. In 1927 we bought from America over £11,000,000 worth of goods, whereas America bought from us only £1,309,000 worth; in the previous year the corresponding figures were, £11,394,000 and £1,336,000. It is inconceivable that America would be so blind to her own interests that she would think of retaliation because of this treaty. Retaliation is a game which two can play.

America would come in under the favoured-nation clause.

No. She has a right to clap on a tariff against our products if we give more favoured terms to any other nation, but we should not be without a remedy if she did so. The same applies to the position of Great Britain. Hon. members opposite say Great Britain would not retaliate. I agree, but the British people might. Their own interests, however, will prevent them from retaliating; it is not a question of generosity.

What interests?

The interests of the British manufacturers who find in South Africa a very good market for their wares. What are the relevant figures regarding the trade between the Union and Great Britain? I am not referring now to the position where a large proportion of our produce finds its way to the Continent by way of England. In 1927, the total value of the imports, exclusive of specie, into the Union from the United Kingdom, was £33,000,000, whilst, exclusive of gold and diamonds, Great Britain took from us £15,000,000 worth of produce. South Africa is a very valuable market for the British manufacturer and talk about retaliation would not be an illustration of goodwill.

Why do you exclude diamonds?

We hold a monopoly in diamonds and persons wanting diamonds in Great Britain would still buy them from us. I repeat the crux of the whole question is in the point that members might argue if we want to extend the preference, we may not be able to do so. To that my reply is that under the conditions of this country at present and as they will be for the next two or three years, the occasion will not arise when we should be desirous of extending preferences to Great Britain. When that position does arise, the policy of the Government which I enunciated in this House as the responsible Minister will be carried out. If I had thought we would not be in the position to carry that out, I would not have agreed to the terms of the treaty, and I think that is a complete answer to the objections which have come from the other side. I agree with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) that it is a great pity this question has not been discussed on its merits, and free from party considerations. I think the question is far too important for party advantage to be made out of it. My hon. friends opposite profess to be very anxious for inter-imperial cooperation, and extension of trade, but I warn them they are not going the right way about it. There are those of us on this side who are, and who have been sympathetic to this idea. There are many people in this country who still hold the view expressed by Afrikanders in this House in 1903 when they fought the whole principle of preference tooth and nail. Men like Mr. Merriman and Mr. Burton and others of the old Bond fought the whole principle when it was only carried with a casting vote. That is still a feeling which is very strong in this country, and if hon. members have that cause at heart, they are not assisting it by this sort of agitation and discussion. They are making it exceedingly difficult for those of us who are genuinely anxious for that co-operation which the Prime Minister has spoken about in terms of the Imperial Conference resolution. I again say that in this debate and during the agitation in the country charges have been made of bad faith, of refusal to co-operate, of anti-British feeling, of pro-Germanism—well, I suppose these cries will have to serve instead of the cries at the last election of secession and the flag agitation which they tried to set afoot. Again I repeat what I said in another debate that although they may succeed in stampeding a certain section of the population, an increasing number of people who formerly supported them, English-speaking South Africans can see through this sort of thing and will not be prepared to sacrifice the interests of this country for this sort of agitation.

We are very much indebted to the Minister who has just spoken for giving us for the first time a clear and intelligent statement of why this treaty was negotiated and what it means. I am sorry he went out of his way to drag in all these other matters.

You dragged them in.

By what side have these things been dragged in, these arguments about stirring up anti-British feeling? We have come here to argue the merits of this treaty on the basis of what it means for South Africa.

Read your press.

Cannot members meet us on our own ground? We are here to argue this question as South Africans, and on the ground of what it means for South Africa. Let members meet us on our own ground.

That is not your battle-ground as a rule.

If the Minister and the people behind him can convince me and convince us that this treaty gives more to South Africa than it gives from South Africa we will vote for it. I, and I daresay many of this side and on the other side, have sentiments which are attached to and moved by considerations of how British trade and British development generally goes on, but we are arguing this treaty as South Africans. We are looking to what it means to South Africa, and if members can convince us or even attempt to convince us that this treaty is going to do something for South Africa, something that is worth what South Africa is giving, let them come forward and try and do it.

What is South Africa giving?

South Africa is giving Germany the principle that any preferences hereafter given to British or dominion goods will also be given to Germany. South Africa has given us the principle of trade and cooperation inside the empire. It may be only temporary. The Minister said: “That is nothing. In two years’ time we can give it up.” But the giving up of that principle is regarded by Germany as a most valuable concession.

Did the Act of 1925 not contemplate that?

Nothing happened under that Act until this treaty came along. The concession of that principle is something that Germany regards as very, very valuable, something they would be prepared to give a great deal for, and they have got it for nothing. That is why I say we in South Africa get nothing comparable with what we give up. I suppose what happened was our young men of the External Affairs Department went to negotiate with trained German officials, and they came back—

That is very cheap.

It is going to cost us very dear.

Your own leader said the whole thing was conscious and deliberate.

I want to put aside all these considerations of sentiment, one way or the other. Let us look at this thing from the point of view of what it means to South Africa. A good deal has been said about preference, and how the preference system grew up, and we have been reminded what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), our leader, said in 1923 in regard to this country having to find other markets, and that if the preference given in Britain and inside the empire was not sufficient to provide for our adequate development, we are only too anxious to find other markets and outlets for our products. But the situation has changed a great deal since 1923, and we have preferences for our products in Great Britain which we did not have then. I do not believe there is a single individual who is interested in production, whatever his politics may be, who does not value that preference as a valuable means of getting our products into the European markets. Will we get this preference from Germany, France or Italy? Of course we shall not. We cannot get this preference from Germany, because under her international treaties, whatever advantages she has to give to us she has to give to other nations, with which she has favoured-nation treatment, Great Britain, in making foreign commercial treaties, giving most-favoured-nation treatment, has been most careful to preserve the system of preference inside the empire. She has been very careful to say that any other foreign state—

For example, Persia.

I am glad that the Minister has reminded me of that. I have the British Board of Trade journal, which contains a statement made in the House of Commons by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs regarding the Anglo-Persian treaty, which says, inter alia—

I quoted you the clause from the treaty word for word: I defy you to prove otherwise.

I am only giving this extract from the Board of Trade journal, which is an official document. But let us take the Anglo-German treaty, which is another example of the same thing. When giving most-favoured-nation treatment to Germany, as in the case of other powers, the British Government say they will give them as favoured treatment as any foreign state. By international custom it has been accorded the British Government to maintain and preserve the inter-imperial preference they give to the dominions. We can look forward to the possibility of getting and receiving preference inside the Commonwealth of Nations. We cannot look to do so wi,th regard to foreign nations, because their treaties do not allow of any such thing. I say that for the first time this principle has been broken into by this treaty, and for the first time the British nation and the British Commonwealth of Nations are to be treated like foreign states.

Is that right?

Because the word “foreign” is omitted.

You cannot do it by law.

Does the Prime Minister tell me that apart from this treaty it would be unlawful for this Government to extend preference to Great Britain? It is the treaty that makes it impossible, not the law, and I think in giving up this principle—whether it is right to do so or not, let us put this aside for a moment—we were giving something to Germany which is of the greatest value and for which Germany would be willing to give a great deal, and she has got it for nothing. As the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) said last evening, it is not the usual habit of the people of South Africa, and it is contrary to that of the country from which I come, to give something for nothing; but here we have done it. We could have got all the benefits under the Anglo-German treaty.

Really?

This treaty, as the Minister of Finance said quite fairly will, no doubt, tend to an increase of goodwill between this country and Germany, and, as such, we welcome it. There is not a man on this side of the House who does not welcome it when for the comity of nations treaties ensure, so far as they can ensure, the peace of the world.

Loud cheers.

Loud cheers are not necessary.

[Interrupted.]

The Minister of Railways and Harbours is like his colleagues; they set up little bogeys and knock them down again. They search the press with a small tooth comb, and they get expressions of opinion and say “This is the South African party. When you have knocked that down you have knocked down the South African party.”

They are the leaders of the South African party in Cape Town.

I am always obliged to hon. members who point out somebody or something from whom or from which I can learn something. The Minister told us, perfectly fairly, on the merits of the treaty, that it was a gesture of goodwill towards Germany, and if the time comes when we find the preference Great Britain is giving us is more than equivalent to the preference we give to Great Britain, we will abrogate the treaty and give notice. Well, why make this treaty at all? Are there not other ways of cultivating our goodwill with other nations rather than by making a treaty which it is intended shall be done away with as soon as we are in a position to do so? I think it is a pity that this treaty was made. The Minister has already enunciated very clearly what the policy of the Government is in regard to inter-imperial matters. All I cay say is, do not let us, in making calculations as to what the British preference is worth to us and what it is worth to Britain, look at to-day or to-morrow, or the day after to-morrow. The industries which have been built up in this country under the British preference are young industries. Do not let us try and calculate the value of these industries and of this preference simply in figures. Anyone who sees how the export of South African products has gone up under this tariff can realize quite clearly that you cannot estimate this value. For the purpose of making this treaty, this gesture of goodwill, which will have to be altered as soon as the industries in South Africa call for further preferences, we have given a shock which is bound to work against us. You cannot measure or appreciate these things in figures; they are intangible. The feeling which has been caused by this has not been caused by any agitation, but is a natural expression, coming in many cases from people who do not know the real facts, and the Government should have shirked from causing it unless they were going to get some very tangible benefit. There is another point which I think is important. It is a point which I think should have appealed to the Minister of Defence. The competition that Great Britain has to face in regard to manufactured products comes very largely from countries where the standard of wages, hours of labour and labour conditions generally are less satisfactory than in Great Britain.

Will you support a tariff based upon those differences?

I am not prepared to support any tariff until I have seen it.

Do you favour the principle?

I am surprised that the Minister never made the slightest reference to this matter. The opposition to this treaty is based upon consideration of what it means to South Africa. When we are dealing with the preference given to us as members of the British empire, we are dealing with people who are our friends, people who are anxious to see our export trade grow, and to send us more of their trade. We take £11,000,000 in goods from America, but they only take £1,000,000 from us, and there is not the slightest doubt, whether you make a treaty like this with them or not, that they will take more.

It is all a question of mutual interests.

My point is that in dealing with countries which can give us a tariff, we should cultivate their goodwill. No matter how many treaties we may make with other countries, you cannot get any tariff preferences such as those you receive from Great Britain. The only defence put up by the Minister of Finance was: “Never mind, this cannot last very long; as soon as our exports require a larger preference, we will give notice to the Germans and to all the other nations.” I say that is not the way to do it. If the Government had negotiated this treaty on the same lines as the Anglo-German treaty, their hands would have remained free, and they would have preserved this ring fence, a ring fence of benefit, and not a ring fence of restriction. We are all in favour of expanding our markets on the Continent, but there is, inside the world markets, a smaller group inside of which we can get something which we cannot get outside, and I say that the Minister, in making this treaty, has for the first time made a breach in this ring fence by setting up the principle that no further preference will be given outside those that have already been given. He has taken a step which is a most important one, and has given to Germany—and I suppose in time he will give it to other countries—this privilege of coming inside our fence, and he has given it for nothing.

Where is the existing fence so far as South Africa is concerned?

It is not a ring fence of obligation, but a ring fence of privilege.

Why cannot we act as circumstances demand from time to time?

What circumstances demanded entrance into this treaty in this way? The system of preferences does not bind us. It gives us every encouragement and every reason for seeking markets outside, but I say that there is this ring fence of privilege wherein we can get something that we cannot get outside. Why throw that away? That is my argument against the treaty, and when I hear it justified on those grounds, I am prepared to oppose it.

The Minister has just interjected that there is no obligation to prevent us from breaking this ring fence. Right through the discussion it has been admitted that this treaty is within the rights of the Union of South Africa, but I would remind the Government of a saying of Saint Raul that all things are lawful but not all things are expedient. That is one of the points that have to be considered in dealing with this question. We have had it from the Minister, and from the Minister of Finance, that there is no particular value of any kind in this treaty. It is simply entered into with the object of showing a friendly gesture to Germany. If that is the only object, it is surely a mistake to enter into any arrangement for the purpose of showing a friendly gesture to Germany which might be construed into a hostile gesture towards the nations of the commonwealth to which we belong. The discussion of this question is bringing about an increase in racial feeling in South Africa. We on these benches have always stood for the idea that we should keep away from racial passions in this country, and deal with economic questions with a view to our having a united people, unitedly standing for the British commonwealth of nations. Here we have racial passions being aroused for something which is admitted to be of no value. I am not one of those prepared to exonerate the South African party. Racialism is being introduced info this question, but a very bad example has been set by the Minister of Defence in that letter which he wrote. There it is definitely pointed out that there is not a pennyworth of difference in the present position as a result of this treaty, but, he said, it was window-dressing. Who was the window-dressing for as far as he was concerned? It surely was not for the English population. The only inference is that it is window-dressing for the rural Dutch population of South Africa, to show them that something is being done which will please their sentiments. That is an introduction of racialism into this matter, and I cannot possibly imagine that this question can be dealt with without the introduction of a certain amount of sentiment. The English-speaking people, however much they might like to get away from sentiment, cannot altogether get away from it. It is only left to a single man like the hon. the Minister of Defence to be able to look at this matter in such a way that he can extricate himself from his traditions and his race. The same thing applies to my friends on the other side. I do not expect hon. members on the other side to have exactly the same sentiments as members on this side. It would be unnatural, and so I think it is a tragedy for South Africa that the Government, whoever advised them, should have taken the advice of entering into the matter at the present stage, thus arousing race passion in the country. I want to look at the matter purely from the question of what economic advantage is going to accrue to the people of South Africa by entering into this treaty. There we are at once faced with the position that it is unnecessary to argue that there is no economic advantage in this treaty, because Ministers have definitely admitted that there is no such advantage, and that, as far as we are concerned, we are not going to benefit, Germany is not going to benefit, and, as far as Great Britain is concerned, no difference will be made. As a matter of fact, on that point there is a difference of opinion which might be cleared up, because the Minister of Defence in his letter to his supporter at Greyville stated that, in spite of this treaty, the present preference accorded to Great Britain could be increased.

Quite right, too.

The Secretary for External Affairs, who presumably knows something about the matter, takes up an entirely different line, and says there can be no question of increasing any preference to Great Britain, and the Minister of Finance indicated the same thing.

Although you cannot alter the items, you can change the degree of preference.

If the interpretation of the treaty given by the Minister of Defence were the correct one, it would be such a strong argument in the Government’s favour that every other Minister would have hammered away at it. I do not suggest that in writing his letter to his supporter at Greyville, where British feeling is very strong, the Minister of Defence might have given an unjust interpretation of the treaty, but he has given an ignorant interpretation which is apt to mislead the people of Greyville. What benefit is South Africa, going to derive from this treaty? It must be remembered that Germany is in a peculiar position—it has virtually been brought up by the United States. German industries and practically everything that goes to make up the re-industrialization of Germany are in the hands of American financiers, so Germany is bound to earn money, not only for the payment of reparations, but to pay interest on the huge loans she has had from America. That being so, Germany has had to embark on a policy of industrialism which has reduced the standard of living and lowered the position of the working classes almost to that of the coolie. The “Labour Monthly,” a communistic newspaper published in England, points out that conditions in Germany have been so reduced that unemployment has become rampant. Wages are low and the cost of living is high, so that it is imperative for Germany to sell her goods at the lowest possible figure in order to obtain the necessary money to pay interest and reparations. This being so, can you conceive of Germany being in a position to buy more of our goods? Its buying capacity has been restricted as the result of its present financial state, and, on the other hand, what little Germany does buy she has to buy from her creditor country—America. Germany cannot be expected to spend any more money in South Africa than she does at present. What advantage, then, do we get from the treaty? The sale of our goods will not be improved in any way as far as Germany is concerned, but Germany will be in a position to sell more goods to South Africa than she has done in the past.

Our trade with Germany has grown within the last four years.

But Germany is buying only what she is compelled to buy in South Africa. That being the case, all that can arise from the treaty is that Germany will be in a position to sell its goods in South Africa to a greater extent than it has been able to do in the past. That will be an advantage, it is true, to Germany, and also to the United States, the surplus capital of which is invested in Germany and Czecho-Slovakia, where production can be carried on at a cheap rate. What will be the effect of the treaty? It means that if in future more preferences are given to Great Britain, they must also be accorded to Germany. I am in favour of protection for the encouragement of our own industries, but not as a means of raising revenue. Instead of being able to buy a particular article at a lower price because of the rebate which the British manufacturer gets, and the benefit of which the South African purchaser indirectly shares, in the future instead of that we shall have to pay the full tariff price to Germany or England, as the case may be. Further, the people of South Africa will not be able to utilize this treaty for the establishment of industries here, but they will be additionally taxed, because they will be paying more for their purchases than they do under the existing system of British preference. One result of the treaty, however, will be that the British manufacturers will be compelled to pay lower wages to their employees, and thus reduce their standard of living. The workpeople will be told that because the hours of labour in Germany are 60 or more a week, and wages in Germany are very low, therefore the workers in England or South Africa must also reduce their standard of living, or go without employment. Thus we shall be depressing the conditions of labour in England and incidentally in South Africa as well, because the treaty will make it more difficult to establish industries here, and also because the people of South Africa will be mulcted in the difference in price between that prevailing under the normal and the preferential tariffs. From the point of view of the workers of South Africa, not only is there nothing to be gained, but there are great disadvantages in this treaty. I am surprised that in spite of the fact the Minister of Defence has left his party, has run away from them, he has not considered these implications and placed them before the Government.

What part did you play, Creswell?

I am not going to deal with these family matters now, but I did not know there was one standard of ethics for a Minister of the Crown privately, and another publicly.

Do you suggest I deceived anyone?

I say you deceived your colleagues. You did not do your duty to your colleagues. What a Minister will not say publicly in connection with such matters he has no right to say privately. I go further on that point, and I say this, that the Minister of Defence has always been telling the public of South Africa that if you stood behind the doors of the Cabinet you would not be able to tell the difference between Labour and Nationalist. As a matter of fact, that has been one of our complaints. Now, judging by that letter, they were not such a happy family after all. Even while the Minister of Defence thought Great Britain could get extra preferences he was annoyed. How much more annoyed must he now be when he knows they cannot. We have heard references to Rhodesia being annoyed in connection with this treaty. I do not know whether it is the case, but I do say that knowing the majority of people in Rhodesia are English-speaking people their sentiments and their ideas are probably opposed to the implications of this German treaty, and I do believe that our practical duty in South Africa is not to estrange or alienate Rhodesia, but to do everything we can to work towards the object of getting her into the Union. I take another implication. Germany, shattered as she was after the war, resentful as she was and must be, was unable to develop. But now, under the new industrialization, the new trustification, the new organization of industry, the German people are beginning to think they are entitled to something more than they have at the present time. I do not blame them from their point of view. Those who have followed the trend of events are saying that the colonial aspirations of Germany are growing daily. Germany to-day is again beginning to look for mandates. That feeling is growing daily in Germany, as a result of the development that is taking place. I believe the feeling is growing largely in Germany in favour of South-West Africa being mandated to her. The matter was raised actually. I believe anyone who has been in South-West Africa will know that the German population in South-West Africa to-day is more violently antagonistic to our Dutch fellow-citizens than even to our English fellow-citizens. The bitterest opponents of the bringing of the Angola Boers into South-West have been the Germans in South-West Africa. Everything that we do to enable them to develop economically—the Minister said we want to be friendly with them—will all tend to the result that you will increase the demand for having the territory mandated to Germany, and the time may arrive when this question of the mandate of South-West Africa may be a very serious one when it is considered by the League of Nations. From that point of view I submit the German treaty is likely to be inimical to the interests of South Africa, because, apart from the fact it will not help the industrial development of the country, apart from the fact that it may levy additional indirect taxation on the people, and that it may retard the proper union of South Africa, it may bring about a state of affairs in which you have an attempt by an enemy country to be on the borders of South Africa, and the Minister of Defence will have to give much time and energy to raising a bigger defence than he has at present. Every thing should be done not to retard, but to hasten the day when a united South Africa will be developed in the interests of this country and not of people overseas. You can only do that by strengthening and not weakening the ties of the Commonwealth of Nations.

What about Russia?

When are you going to give us your views on this treaty?

I am discussing the political and economic interests of the Union of South Africa. The only other defence put forward is that, whereas our most-favoured-nation rights under the Anglo-German treaty are subject to two months’ notice, in this treaty it is two years. The Minister of Mines and Industries implied that the effect of a two years’ period will be to benefit us, but the Minister of Finance said it was only a short period in which we could reconsider our position. In any case, it takes more than two years to develop industry. The benefits we are getting under the Anglo-German treaty are not so flimsy as they are made out to be. As I read the position, Germany could not denounce the benefits in favour of South Africa by giving three months’ notice without denouncing the whole of the treaty as far as Great Britain is concerned.

Certainly not.

And that is sufficient guarantee that she will not denounce it in three months.

She will denounce it separately as regards any dominion. Of course it is so.

I fail to see why the Government, having a record, which I submit is a good one, on which it can go to the country, should have thrown it away and diverted attention from the things that matter to the things that do not.

The few remarks I have to make on this are directed to the question of the export of fruit and wine and how these will be affected. A great deal has been said on the other side, by the Minister, amongst others, but there has not been one word about how this treaty would benefit South Africa. Even if they tried they could not say what benefits there are. They say it will give a bigger market, but Germany has now an open market and can buy as much as she likes here. Germany buys per annum about 2,500 tons of dried apricots in California, but not a box full from us. She buys about 8,000 tons of sultanas per annum in California, and not a box from us. The treaty will be of no value to the fruit growers and wine growers here, and we fear that, by the friendly gesture the Minister is making to Germany, he will imperil our market. We send our produce where there is the best market for it, and we know the value of our imperial preference. We wine growers and fruit growers will be ever grateful to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and those who assisted him in the 1923 conference for what they got for us. I would ask what has the present Government done for winegrowers? If they have not done any good to us, let me tell the Government that they are doing us untold harm by this treaty. As far as the actual money value of the preference is concerned on the 1928 reports amounted to £40,000, which means that the producers have put £40,000 more in their pockets than they otherwise would have had; in 1926 we sold £226,000; in 1927 £267,000; and in 1928 £342,000, or an increase year by year, owing to the preference given. New Zealand also gives us a big and substantial preference, not only on our dried fruit, but also on our wines. Our dried fruit goes into the New Zealand market free of duty, but California has to pay 4d. per lb. Although California is nearer, we have the market in New Zealand, and in this connection I wish to read a cable from Auckland, which our office, the South African Dried Fruit Corporation Coy., received a few days ago—

The Government should take notice of this, as it is from our (the South African Dried Fruit Company’s) business correspondent on the other side. If New Zealand is anything, she is loyal.

Not to us.

They are loyal to us and to the other dominions; that is why they have given us preference. What are we giving them in return? Do not offend them, or they will withdraw the preference they give us, the same as was done in connection with the maize preference by Australia. I will now give a few figures with regard to wines, to show that our export has grown rapidly on account of preference; and without it you would not have had any export at all. The preference on the 1926 crop sold amounts to £38,250, on the 1927 crop it was £65,650; on the 1928 crop it was £134,500, and on the 1929 crop it will be £208,660. That is only the preference on the wine exported by the farmers through their co-operative associations. If we did not get this preference there could be no profitable export. It will be seen from the figures I have given that since 1926 the preference has increased by over £170,000, while the quantity grown has increased from 1,250 to 7,600 leaguers of wine. Importations of wine into Great Britain total 18 and a half million gallons per annum, which is equal to 145,000 leaguers. From this it will be seen what immense scope there is for our imports into Great Britain to grow under a system of preference. We, as one of the co-operative societies, met together and passed a resolution to be forwarded to the Prime Minister, accompanied by a very courteously-worded letter. The letter asked for an information, because we were afraid that this treaty would do us harm, and we could not see how it could do any good to us or to any other producer in South Africa. The letter did not contain anything political. All shades of political opinion were represented at the meeting, the association being quite non-political. There was more than one Nationalist present. One of those present was Mr. F. S. Malan, brother of the Minister of the Interior, and another was Mr. John Morkel, of Stellenbosch, both prominent Nationalists, and both the letter and the resolution had their concurrence. As I have stated, the letter was posted on 18th December, and by the 14th January we had not received a reply. We asked the Prime Minister if future preferences were being endangered in this treaty, and whether he would allow us to interview him. On the 14th January we wrote him again, and it was not until the 11th February that we received a reply. In the meantime we saw what was in the treaty, and also read what was stated by the Minister of Defence about its being mere window-dressing. Therefore we did not think it worth while to ask again for the interview with the Prime Minister.

What was in his reply?

The answer simply told us what we already knew, namely, that the existing preferences were not endangered. A good deal has been said by the Minister with regard to opinions expressed in 1903. Why did he not go back to 1803? Have we stood still since 1903? What surprises me is that the Minister of Finance should follow suit in this, because he, at any rate, ought to have known that things and circumstances and times have changed since then. The change has been in the direction of inter-dominion co-operation assisted by preference, and that is what we do not wish to hinder in any way whatever. If the Minister, in making a friendly gesture in this treaty, had not made an unfriendly gesture towards the commonwealth, there would have been no reason for complaint.

I do not, of course, approach the consideration of this treaty from the commercial point of view, and equally, of course, I do not discuss it with a trained legal mind, my attitude is other and different. I view this treaty from a broad point of view, and claim to represent the views of many men who think about these things. I have been very much disturbed by the inimical tone that characterizes certain members of the Cabinet. Before our side had an opportunity of more than hearing the introductory speech of the Minister of Mines and Industries, we were abused by him for our attitude to the treaty. He assumed that we were inimical because this happens to be a treaty with Germany. What he said has been closely endorsed by the member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) and the member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), and when I listened yesterday to the hon. member for Winburg, and saw the pain with which he ground out the word “empire”, I began to fear that he would have an apoplectic seizure. The whole tone of his speech, and of those hon. members opposite, is that we are opposed to this treaty because it is with Germany. We British people are slow to go into war; we are tenacious in war. We may lose every battle but the last, but when the war is over it is altogether foreign to our nature to cherish animosity against our late opponents. There are men opposite who know it; there are men on this side who know it. We have fought against gallant foes, and when the fight is over we have been eager to extend the right hand of fellowship. No nation rejoiced more at the coming of Germany into the League of Nations than the nation of the men I represent. Britain suffered in the late war in a way impossible to most members on the other side of the House to enter into or understand, and we have come to the conclusion that war is a hateful thing, and we hope that the work of the League of Nations will prevent a recurrence of war. There was acute danger of future war if Germany were excluded from the League of Nations or excluded herself. Therefore when Germany came into the League of Nations those for whom I claim to speak rejoiced that the coming in of Germany has put a seal on general peace throughout the world. Yet we are accused of being animated by hatred of Germany. It is a striking illustration of paucity of thought on the part of hon. members opposite when they fall back upon statements like that. I have been very much pained that the Prime Minister, though not in a set speech but in frequent ejaculations, has endorsed the statements to this effect of his followers. We do not hate Germany. We are willing to be friends with Germany, but our first allegiance is not to Germany or to any foreign nation, but is to that commonwealth of nations which spells perpetual peace and safety to the most republican of those on the other side of the House, the commonwealth which in itself is a guarantee of peace and brotherhood and quiet security! We repudiate these wrongful accusations and insinuations that in objecting to this treaty, we were animated by hatred of Germany.

I thought that it would not be necessary to take part in the debate, but the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) has so opened his heart here that I think it is a good thing for us for once to speak straight from this side. I have very great respect for the sentiment of the hon. member for East London (City), but I should also very much like him to respect ours on this side. We can understand that the hon. member, and a large number of members of that side, cherish that sentiment, but I want to appeal to the hon. member for East London (City), who surely ought to preach peace, to also show respect to us. The hon. member stated that they were not against Germany, but that their first sentiment was towards England. Let me point out to the hon. member that that is the great difference between him and us on the Government side. We have only one father-land, South Africa. From the nature of the case we, on this side of the House, whose slogan is: “South Africa first,” will do everything in our power to advance the welfare of South Africa. That is the difference; he forgets South Africa, and when the empire and Germany are spoken of, it is like a red rag to a bull to him. Let me tell the hon. member without getting excited, because he is an old man and ought to be a preacher of peace, that I did not expect him to be so’ bitter about the matter. It is fortunate that the opposite side chiefly consists of grey-headed men, of old fire-eaters.

And your side of rebels.

But unfortunately, those old Saps, are disappearing like dew before the sun. We on this side represent young South Africa, and we do not allow ourselves to be frightened any more by that kind of imperial talk by the hon. member for East London (City). Our slogan is in the first place the welfare of South Africa, and in the second place friendship with the outside world, whether it be Germany or another country. If we can get the bonds of friendship and preference, do not let us take any notice of the crying and whining on that side. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that we do not receive benefits through the treaty, but the statistics show that Germany takes about twice as much from us as we do from her, while England exports about twice as much to South Africa as we do to England. Notwithstanding all this shouting from the opposite side, we shall continue in the interests of South Africa and get as many markets for the South African producer as we can. Hon. members opposite want very much to whip up public feeling again. In the past they have sometimes succeeded in doing so, but nowadays the public knows too much; they can no longer be whipped up as easily as in the past. Hon. members opposite have found this out, especially the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), because there is an old saying: “You can fool some people sometimes, but you cannot fool all people all the time.”

The speech of the Minister of Finance has somewhat clarified the position, but if the Government thinks that the treaty is meeting with opposition only from the South African party, it is quite wrong. Recently I travelled throughout my constituency, which is a very large one, and although I heard expressions of condemnation of the treaty from one end of the constituency to the other, I never heard one word in praise of it, and I mixed with supporters of both political parties. The Ladysmith and District Chamber of Commerce, the membership of which I presume includes supporters of both the big political parties, has unanimously adopted a resolution urging that the treaty should be opposed by every possible means and hoping that Parliament will not ratify the treaty. The resolution reads as follows—

I was very interested to hear what the Minister of Finance had to say as to the motive for entering into this agreement. The only motive, apparently, is that he wishes to create a feeling of goodwill between Germany and South Africa, that is a gesture of goodwill to Germany, but that no material advantages are likely to accrue to either country as a result of the treaty. It seems very extraordinary that the Government should have taken this very serious step, which will inflict harm on South Africa, just for the sake of establishing a feeling of goodwill between the Union and Germany. It must be plain to hon. members opposite that even although the agreement is for two years only, a great deal of damage can be done to South African trade before the expiration of that period.

In what way?

We have the Empire Marketing Board working to create and extend our markets in Great Britain, and yet we are entering upon this treaty which will antagonize the British consumer, will alienate him and destroy that spirit of goodwill and co-operation which is indispensable if the Empire Marketing Board is to make a success of the scheme. This treaty will hamper the work of that board. In that way there may be a substantial falling-off in the demand for our produce. Then for two years the question of extending the British preferences will be suspended, and should any proposals be made by Great Britain during that time for an extension of existing preferences to South Africa, we shall not be able to enter into negotiations to achieve that desired end, because of the existence of the German treaty. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this treaty is not a departure from the principles agreed upon at the Imperial Conference of 1926? It seems to me that the principle laid down there, which is as follows—

has been departed from. Putting this embargo on any future preferences and placing Great Britain on an equality with foreign nations is surely breaking away from the principle agreed upon at that conference. Are we acting in good faith with the empire? The argument has been advanced by the Minister of Finance that we are not likely to have any proposals for the extension of British preference within the next two years. That is the argument, but that argument is not supported by the view of Sir Benjamin Morgan, who says—

Sir Benjamin, in this interview, thus strongly emphasised the point which I have often made —that there is a danger of alienating the British consumer through this treaty at a time when the hold of South African products, especially fruit, is becoming so strong on the British market. Efforts are now being made in every direction to extend the British preferences system. What would be the position if a proposal came forward from Great Britain during the currency of this treaty for extensions on a reciprocal basis? South Africa could offer no special rebates on a reciprocal basis without being compelled to give them to Germany also. We should in that way, by having tied our hands, lose opportunities of negotiating trade arrangements from which we stood to benefit without being compelled to conclude arrangements by which Germany would benefit without being under any obligation to give South Africa corresponding advantages. We should have to wait until the expiration of that period before we could deal with any proposals. Another aspect is this: supposing as a result of this treaty we succeed in opening up markets in Germany. Are you going to cancel the treaty in that event after two years? Will the Minister tell us whether that will be the result or not? Will he give an undertaking that in any event after two years he will terminate this treaty?

I think I have enunciated the Government’s policy very clearly.

I think the Minister went on the assumption that there would be no markets opened up, but I am arguing on the assumption that there may be

The opening up of markets has nothing to do with this question of the extension of preference.

Then what is the motive underlying this treaty, and what is it hoped to gain in entering into it if it is not to promote trade? I understood the Minister to say he hoped to develop markets in Germany as a result of the treaty.

But we do not give anything specific.

We do not know what you are going to give them.

If we do, it will go to England.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that this treaty will only last for two years?

No. I have told the hon. member that the Government’s policy stands, that if our trade expands to such an extent that the difference which is made up with the quid pro quo basis justifies an increase of preference, the Government would fulfil that undertaking and I have said there is no possibility of that happening within the term of the present treaty.

That is not answering the point. I asked the Minister will he cancel the agreement. If this treaty is to endure for two years, a good deal of damage may be done to the producers of this country during that period, and considerable damage may be done by the consumer overseas, who may take umbrage at this agreement and boycott our exports. I am not satisfied that even if it is for a period of only two years, it is in the best interests of South Africa. We are mortgaging to Germany our fiscal independence for two years without receiving anything in return in a material sense.

The Minister, in introducing the motion, stated several times that the farmers of South Africa had no objection to the treaty until the newspapers and other people gave them ideas. I wish the Minister and his farmer friends on those benches would realize the farmers were the first to find they were very likely to suffer if the treaty went through. Long before any newspaper campaign, the producers of perishables immediately got together in various parts of the country. What happened in the Western Province happened in the Eastern Province, and wherever citrus and other fruit growers are to be found. As soon as knowledge of the treaty having been completed was made public in the Eastern Province, I was approached right and left by producers who wanted to know what stand we were going to take against it. I have a sheaf of resolutions passed by farmers’ associations —people who do not bother about party politics —for farmers are not so hide-bound politically that they are going to allow their interests to suffer because of party politics—I have these resolutions from producers urging that this treaty is going to do damage and urging the Government to desist from pushing it through. There are also resolutions from chambers of commerce and the opinions of individual farmers; so you cannot say that good and timely warning of objection was not given. I say that the outburst against this treaty was absolutely spontaneous and not instigated and not the result of a press campaign. I was at the Rosebank Show, where I met two of the most prominent dried-fruit producers in this country, and was assured by them that the preference which they get on dried fruit alone in the United Kingdom meant £23,000 and in New Zealand on dried fruit £16,000 per annum. It is not a magnificent sum, but it is a beginning, and it shows the goodwill of New Zealand. They have received a cable to which the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has alluded with regard to the probable withdrawal of the New Zealand preference if the treaty is ratified. The preference of 4d. per lb. on our dried fruit in New Zealand is a very valuable one when you consider the selling price, and it is of material assistance in making fruit-growing worth while. Take the other side—Great Britain—one of our leading people went to one of the largest concerns handling fruit in England, either in Manchester or Hull, I forget which, and asked how South African fruit was selling. He was told: “I am compelled to remove the South African wrappers from the fruit before I can get the public to buy it.”

Since when?

A few months ago—since we have been purchasing from and placing orders with other countries.

Because you people cry “stinking fish.”

The hon. member and his friends are trying to foist a “stinking fish” on this country. The answer was perfectly clear and categorical, and the reason was then not so much because of this treaty, but because, with the unemployment, poverty and closing-down of the coal mines, these people were bitter when they found that we, South Africans, brothers in a community of nations, were placing orders in other countries, and they said they refused to buy our fruit. I am not so much concerned with the monetary value. Germany buys from us the things which she must have, and Britain many things she can do without. It is very pleasing to hear this laughter on the other side; on all fours with it is this treaty. Both show lack of thought. Britain can still carry on without purchasing our “luxury” products. To my mind, it is a very grave state of affairs that our trade mark should have to be removed in order to sell our fruit owing to our action of the past few years in placing orders abroad. The point whether our merchants buy their stuff in Great Britain or elsewhere is beside the point, The point is whether we, as South Africa, a member of the British commonwealth of nations, are going to play the game, or going to treat our blood-brothers as foreigners.

Must we pay for it?

What do we not get for the small amount we pay? The Minister and others said that Britain will not retaliate; because that is the case, must we treat them in this way? If we intend to take advantage of that magnanimous and generous spirit in this way, help us in the future!

Whoever suggested taking advantage of that spirit?

You do it.

You have to take our standpoint and judge our mentality, it is a very unfair argument to use.

I do not want to take advantage of the Minister, but I am speaking, not as a lawyer, but as a plain man, a “man in the street,” and an ordinary citizen of South Africa, and I can only see that there is a deliberate and distinct attempt to create a feeling which should not exist amongst us in a common brotherhood. A prominent woman, I was told, quite recently went into Harrod’s Stores, and, in ordering fruit, said: “I will not have South African fruit.” The salesman said: “Why not, it is the best fruit.” She replied: “My husband’s workmen are working short time, and I will not have South African fruit because of the terms of the treaty which they are making with Germany.” What about the value of goodwill at which the Minister sneered contemptuously? We have lost the goodwill of people in the north of England by losing the goodwill of those who buy from merchants who buy large quantities of our fruit, and our attitude is also losing us the goodwill of many friends elsewhere. I am looking to the future. I do not want to see our trade lost and ourselves regarded as a people who have no consideration for other parts of the commonwealth. This treaty looks like a deliberate attempt to break the circle of the empire. What I have said already shows that very deep feeling is engendered in the people of this country regarding this matter, and nothing has been said on the other side of the House to prove that the standpoint of hon. members on this side is wrong. The Minister also referred in the most sneering way to “voluntary preference.” But unless people who buy our stuff have our goodwill, and we have theirs, they cannot be forced to buy our produce.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has given you an answer for that.

What is that?

Buy in the best market.

What he said was: “Buy in the cheapest market.”

I am not speaking as a hair-splitting lawyer, but as a plain South African citizen. The Minister wants to know why we should not make treaties with outside countries. No one objects to that, but in doing so, there is no need to depart from an honourable agreement entered into voluntarily by us and gladly accepted by the whole comity of British nations. Do not let us do anything that will injure the foundations of that structure. The men who came to this country to negotiate this treaty were far-seeing. They knew that if the treaty was made, a breach would be made in the British preference. Once make an arrangement like this, and we can never be as we were. We want to be quite friendly towards Germany.

You don’t mean that.

I must ask the hon. member, who is an old friend of mine, to withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

Certainly we can make treaties with other countries, but we should not look upon them as being in the family circle, but as foreign countries. I was discussing the question of treaties with one of the consuls— I will not say to which country he belonged— and I was informed that negotiations had been taking place between the Minister and five or six other countries with a view to making treaties similar to this one. If it goes through, I should like to ask the Minister if that is the case.

They were not five or six—I will give you the names.

One would like to know what countries they were, and also why no action was taken in respect of them. If our markets are being circumscribed as alleged, I would very much like to know why this is the particular country with which the first treaty has been made, and why nothing was done in respect of any of the other countries, although the Minister informed the House that negotiations had been going on for about two years.

Where did it originate?

It may have something to do with the Minister’s visit to Germany some time ago. An old saying refers to “belling the cat.” I consider that in the present instance Germany has been used to “bell the cat.” I know of a certain small state which has been trying for two or three years to get a treaty like this. That state has a very wise man in charge of its affairs, and he said: ” Don’t press for this treaty, let some other larger nation do it first.” In other words, let some other nation “bell the cat.”

What is there wrong in making treaties with other countries?

I have already repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong in doing so, as long as they are differentiated as foreign countries, but do not treat them as your own blood-brothers politically.

Then why put them in the League of Nations?

There is something sinister lying behind all this, and that is that we have to treat Britain and the dominions as foreign countries, and yet more than half of South Africa says they are not foreign countries. I have also discussed this question with a foreigner, a man from the continent of Europe. I said to him: “Your country has colonies. Would you expect me to look upon it as an affront if your home land made a close and special agreement with your colonies? Would you expect me to look upon it as unfair?” He said: “No, certainly not.” I said: “Do you object then to our having an especial agreement with our sister dominions?” He replied: “Britain is getting commercially stale, and wants gingering up, and an agreement like this treaty with Germany would do that.” My answer to that was: “We dominions are the best judges as to what course we should adopt in the best interests of our trade.” The other night the Minister said that our objection was to the country and not to the treaty. We have tried to show that there was no such feeling against Germany. He followed that up by saying that the Afrikaans people also had their feelings about where they make their purchases. I am not quarrelling with that in itself. Does the Minister mean one section only in speaking of “the Afrikaans people,” or the whole country? What does he mean by the expression “Afrikaans people”?

If the hon. member will allow me I will explain. I regard everybody in South Africa, whether he is born here or not, whether he has been here three months or three years, as an Afrikander, if he has adopted this country or has been born in this country, if he has adopted this country as his permanent home and country for himself and his wife and children and their children. I always refer to the Afrikaans-speaking people when I speak of the Dutch people, and I refer also to the English Afrikanders when I speak of the Afrikaans community. Is that clear?

When the Minister now says that “the Afrikaans-speaking people also have their feelings” with regard to where they should buy their stuff, I join issue with him. I do not think that merely because you are Afrikaans-speaking you wish to buy your stuff elsewhere than from Britain.

The last words I did not use.

You said they “have their feelings.”

I never said the words about where they bought their stuff.

It means the same thing, even if you leave out the four words, the implication of buying and selling is there. During this debate we have had a long and amusing homily on “hominy chop.” The other night the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow), who is a leading K.C. and a leading light politically, gave us an interesting lecture on hominy chop. I, for one, although I am a farmer, did not know what hominy chop was. I consulted a miller, and he told me that hominy chop is a by-product of maize, small stuff, dirty stuff, that you cannot do much else with, and you make hominy chop of it. It is not a food for man; it is feed for cattle. Hominy chop we must sell! If we do not get rid of our hominy chop to Germany South Africa is on the rocks financially!

The Transvaal farmer will not appreciate sneers against hominy chop.

The Transvaal farmer will be better occupied using his waste mealies feeding stock. My point is that this is a poor reason to be given in support of this treaty, although it was the only material advantage put forward in argument. Last night, when the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) was speaking, the Prime Minister interjected: “What have we to do with Southern Rhodesia?” I think that was very unfortunate coming from the quarter which it did. Nine-tenths of us are agreed that South Africa cannot progress if it remains isolated. Southern Rhodesia is our neighbour; our interests commercially, politically and ethnologically are closely allied with Southern Rhodesia, and we have everything to do with Rhodesia’s goodwill.

But we do not want her to tell us what treaties we must make.

I would resent that too, but I think the Prime Minister misunderstood Rhodesia’s attitude.

That is what the Prime Minister thought.

If we consulted any country at all in this matter, we should have consulted Southern Rhodesia as a member of our family. Consultation is not dictation. In the Mozambique treaty entered into recently by the Union, any further future dominion preference is safeguarded. Why could we not have done that in the German treaty? Would it not have been more generous and more in the spirit of the imperial conferences to have inserted safeguarding words in the German treaty, which would then have gone through without a moment’s discussion? Let us discharge fully the terms of the resolutions of the 1926 Imperial Conference, that “gentleman’s agreement,” to which the Prime Minister set his signature. Let us scrap the treaty rather than raise the trouble that is going to follow its adoption.

You would be sorry then.

If the treaty is ratified, but is denounced in two years’ time, unfriendliness will be created which does not exist today. Had we taken the stand that we have a right, as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, to make special tariff arrangements amongst ourselves, no foreign country could have raised any objection. Sometimes I think the Cabinet is rather like a carpenter at work at his bench. We have a good stout plank-— the commonwealth of British nations, on which the welfare of the Union depends, but first one and then another of the Ministers takes shavings off the plank. The German treaty is going to cut deeply into the plank, and the Cabinet will cut the plank so thin as to make it very difficult to carry the weight. Whether it is intentional or unintentional, let us consider very carefully and thoroughly before we go on taking shavings off the thing which means so much to our future as a country on the continent of Africa.

I think that this is possibly the right time for me to say a few words, especially as a reference has been made here this afternoon to something I said, viz.: “What have we to do with Southern Rhodesia?” Let me say at once that I have always held the view that we ought to treat Rhodesia in all respects and regard her as a province of the Union, although she is outside it, i.e., we ought always to show the most friendly attitude to Rhodesia. I think this Government has always gone considerably out of its way to show that, but if a question were asked me in a manner as if Southern Rhodesia can have a say here in a matter of this kind, then I say that she cannot prescribe what we ought to do, and then I ask again: “What have we to do with Southern Rhodesia?”I am sorry that Southern Rhodesia has been dragged in, because I do not doubt that it is against its wish that it has been dragged in by hon. members opposite, who are only too eager to show that the whole world is against us on this treaty. We must be aware of the fact that we have here again to do with a matter about which we knew where we would find our jingo friends. They have never agreed with us on such matters, and here again we have the old cry: “The empire is in danger.” They have already so often seen the empire in danger that it still resounds in our ears how they always shouted it out in the past. But before I proceed, I want to answer a few points raised this afternoon. I must say that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) acted more illogically here this afternoon than I have ever yet heard anyone in the House. He was engaged in attacking this treaty, and what was one of the reasons which he gave against it? It was that he has heard that in England they have already gone so far that when they want to sell our fruit they must first remove the paper coverings so as not to show where the fruit comes from.

They did that.

Exactly, and the reason was that we are buying in other markets. Understand well, under the treaty which is not even yet confirmed we are already buying in other markets. I am prepared to accept that what my hon. friend says has actually happened, but the question is if it is not a thing which calls us to put our ear to the ground to ascertain what is behind the thing, and how dangerous it is for us. If there is a danger that we in our trade with Britain are dependent on the exigencies of the day, and on the jingo shouting which is taking place there, and going from here over there, then I ask whether it is going to be in our interest—as a country which still has a future, and will have to develop its trade and have markets—to bind ourselves down to one market. That is precisely what they want, that we should not go to any other market, that we may not go outside the ring fence, that we may not have friends outside of England. No, we may not conclude any treaties with other countries, because then we find markets outside the ring fence. There is only one man amongst hon. members opposite who has acted in the interests of the farmers of South Africa. We have heard all hon. members opposite, but, however we may differ otherwise from the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), I must give him credit for confining himself to the farmers’ interests, even if it was very narrowly, while the other members all shouted about imperial interests. The hon. member for Worcester asked this afternoon what would become of our fruit farmers, and he said we were endangering them. Does he want us to put all our eggs in one basket? What will happen if a Labour Government comes into power in England to-morrow?

That will not frighten us.

My hon. friend however, was frightened this afternoon—

Of you?

His whole argument was that he was afraid that the dried fruit would be affected. Now I ask him again: what if a British Government takes office which is opposed to the preference? We know quite well that more than half of the British Government are to-day opposed to the preference, and that the preference which is given to-day is given in spite of assurances which have been given to the contrary by the Government of the day. Do not my hon. friends opposite know it? Suppose that another British Government came into office to-morrow and that it said that the preference would not be continued. What will the hon. member for Worcester do then? Where will he be then with his dried fruits? Let me tell him something else as well. I have always so far testified that I had the deepest sympathy with the fruit farmers of the Western Province, and I think the whole Government can boast of what it has done in the past, but I ask you? The fruit and raisin farmers are not the only farmers in South Africa. What about the wool farmers, the cattle farmers and the maize farmers?

Is their position improved by the treaty?

Yes, hon. members opposite want to lay down to the farmers what they ought to do. No, I shall then say that the farmers must improve their fruit so that they can get a better sale in South Africa and abroad. The fact is that the other farmers in the country have just as much a claim on markets as the farmers in the Cape Province have. We are not going to follow the example of the Government which merely governs for classes and for certain persons. Oh no, we are trying to allow every section of the people to get its share. Will any person dare to deny that we need markets throughout the world? What, however, is all the whining and shouting in the House since yesterday? What does it all mean? It is only one thing, namely, that you must look after your empire. As I said before with regard to the empire, I verily believe— and we are acting on this basis—that the best thing we can do is to see that our co-operation is as intimate and friendly as possible. I say, however, that when hon. members opposite want us to strive after the friendly relations within the empire, and co-operation in a way which will exclude the whole of the outside world and make enemies of them, then I simply refuse to do so. Since the time that the hon. member for Standerton expressed those foolish ideas about a super empire, I pleaded, and will continue to plead, for the Commonwealth of Nations, and will regard it as one of the best things we can hold on to to-day and for long years. But I am not departing from the principle we have always hitherto stood by on this side of the House, that South Africa stands in the foreground of everything. I say to my hon. friends opposite who shout so much about the empire that they are only thereby rendering a bad service to the empire just as they did on former occasions, and before 1926, when they also shouted so much and wanted to force the empire on to us.

We are talking about the moral obligations which you assumed by the declaration of the Imperial Conference.

There it is. Those are the great super patriots as they are rightly called. They still have, and especially the hon. member who has just interrupted me, that pure Crown colony complex. Such a thing as South African patriotism he does not know. If it is mentioned he nearly turns pale and quickly mentions the moral obligations assumed at the Imperial Conference. Because we agreed there to co-operate, to intimately co-operate, and co-operate honestly and honourably, we may not enter into any treaty with other nations! Just imagine, and then it is said that we are going outside the ring fence. Those hon. friends with all their friends wish we and the public had already forgotten that when in 1926 we made that agreement, when the policy was accepted that Great Britain would be entitled to a preference on certain articles, that then other articles were left, which, according to the agreement, could be used on a quid pro quo basis in treaties with other countries. It was generally known, it was the policy laid down by this Government and the policy was even approved by the Union Parliament, and an Act put on the statute book. The hon. member forgets that, and if that is so, we conclude this treaty in accordance with the law of which they all knew, according to the Act which was approved by Parliament. What about the moral obligations now, what remains of them? No, this is idle shouting by the super-patriots, they know the empire, and when they talk about the empire they, of course, mean Great Britain, and for her they have a feeling of patriotism, but they have never yet had a proper appreciation of the interests of South Africa, and the people of South Africa, because they made it subordinate to the interests of the empire, of Great Britain. That has always been the position, and the whole debate was based on that view and nothing else. This afternoon the remark was made: “We deny that hate against Germany is influencing us.” I accept that. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) was the last to protest against it, but the man who protested most was the hon. member for Standerton, who says that he has never yet said it. He indeed admits that he said at a dinner the other day: “In supping with the devil you require a long spoon,” but that he said it of all the countries with whom we still thought of concluding a treaty. Precisely, I accept that from the hon. member. But what does it prove? Certainly in the first place that the hon. member for Standerton has not too much friendly feeling towards the other countries. “Supping with devils,” he says, is a dangerous business. He is thinking of the whole world outside the empire as all enemies who are only waiting to destroy us. But now I want to say another thing—the hon. members for Albany and Standerton are right, I admit, and the others who protest are right, but there are quite a number of people in South Africa, nearly all followers of theirs, who cherish a bitter hatred of Germany. They know this, and they know another great thing, namely, that this treaty is, unfortunately, a German treaty, and now they are making a clever use of the German treaty with the haters of Germany to catch their votes. That is what they are doing. The hon. member for Albany is quite right.

It is regrettable for you to say it.

But it is true, and it appears from the tone the South African party newspapers took up in connection with the matter.

It was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Albany that Great Britain buys some of our products she does not need. Well, I take it that the hon. member and other hon. members opposite know better what takes place there than I do. I therefore accept the accuracy of his statement in this connection, but then I want to point out that we could not have a more unhealthy state of affairs. It would mean that the Union of South Africa is getting rid of its produce, which it produces to so great an extent that we have to export to Great Britain merely because the people there are philanthropic. Then it proves what we said, namely, how highly necessary it is to get other markets. Understand clearly we are going to produce articles in order to live at the mercy of another. What does the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) say? Are some of his sultanas possibly sold on that condition? Is there possibly some of his other products sold similarly?

No, but that is a distortion of what the hon. member for Albany said.

He meant luxury articles.

Why did the hon. member not say which luxury articles.! And if they are luxury articles, must we not get markets for them also?

Who finds fault with that!

I say that we ought to take steps to find markets other than within the empire.

That also is all we say.

Yes, it is also what they say, but there is one thing of which they take good care, and that is to see that we do not get those markets. This whole treaty has come about so that we can get markets, and at the same time the hon. member for Worcester and his colleagues have been whining and crying about this treaty for the past two days.

How is our position improved by the treaty?

It has even this afternoon been so clearly said that they want markets, but they take good care that they are not outside the empire. To show that that is their attitude, I need only refer to the opposition against this treaty, and to the debate during the last few days. Now I just want to point out to the hon. member for Worcester who is acting as the champion of the fruit farmers in the Western Province, that South Africa is one of the countries which in the first place must rely on tropical and sub-tropical products. We talk a great deal here about the great prospects of South Africa, especially in the development of farming. It is constantly said that the country must be developed, that it must produce and still produce. We also know that production is going on, and we know as well that the citrus farmers in the north are thinking very anxiously about the future, and asking themselves where they will find markets. We know that in a short time the market within the empire will not be large enough for the supply. In addition there is the fact that the empire of Great Britain owns the greatest extent of territory in Africa for the very purpose of delivering tropical and sub-tropical produce. That area has hardly commenced to develop and it stretches from here to the Mediterranean. No one can clearly see what will happen in the near future, but that point is of great importance to our producers. There are numbers of farmers who to-day do not want to go any further in planting fruit trees because they do not know where they will find a market. That is true of numbers of people in the Transvaal. I then want to point out to the hon. member that Germany to-day is the only large European state that has no territory in Africa. That is a country to which we are referred as a market for the future as regards tropical and sub-tropical produce. Now hon. members come and not only try to frighten us with the treaty, but also to render that market which we want to get for our produce hostile in anticipation. It was asked what the benefit of the treaty is, what use we shall get from it. There sits the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for whom there is only one country where we can get salvation, and he cannot see that we ought to get anything anywhere else, that is the sort of spirit with which hon. members opposite are obsessed. They are afraid of everything outside of the empire. May I put the hon. member for Yeoville at rest and give him the assurance that the British empire will go ahead and flourish long after we have opened other big markets. Then I admire the British statesmen—not the imitation British statesmen in South Africa—who are really not afraid. They never yet were so petty as to be afraid.

I am not afraid either.

Then why are you so worried about the treaty? Yesterday evening the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) told us that he saw great danger because this treaty will create a precedent and will isolate South Africa. Isolation is an expression which the Opposition has used incessantly during the past two days. The complaint and fear of the hon. member for Standerton were that we would break through the ring-fence. The hon. member for Yeoville now says that he is not afraid, but that was just his plea.

I am afraid for us, and not for the empire.

On that I have just as good a right to speak as my hon. friend opposite, and now it is a question of giving reasons. Hon. members opposite protest against the conclusion of the treaty, and one would therefore expect them to give their reasons for thinking the treaty a bad one. They say, however, that we have not shown its benefits, and that they therefore are justified in opposing it. Have I not then the right to say that I am entitled to the view that they want to see whether they cannot get a little advantage at the poll? I have no doubt that that is so. Now I come to the question: What are the benefits? By this, hon. members opposite mean: What are the material benefits which you can point to as a result of the treaty? Now I want hon. members opposite to tell me whether that is actually the method they adopt in arguing. Here we have to do with a treaty which does not aim at any immediate material benefit. No, it is nothing else than a treaty of friendship, and this is the very point on which hon. members opposite have misunderstood things from the beginning. They thought tariffs for certain articles would be laid down in the treaty beforehand. You can see that from the criticism they made from the beginning. They never looked at the law and the treaty to see that all we are agreeing upon with Germany is that we shall mutually treat each other in trade matters in the most friendly manner, so that no discrimination will be made by us between her and other countries. Now I ask what benefits you want besides that? It was said this afternoon that we admitted that the treaty was of no benefit to us. That is an absolute untruth. We are getting the greatest and most important benefit from it, and the use and benefit is that in the future we shall be put on a basis by Germany that she will not dare to put us behind any other country, but will treat us as her best friend. Anything that another country gets with regard to importations into Germany we shall get under the same favourable conditions. Is it of no value that we should succeed in having ourselves treated by a country like Germany, which practically holds out a bigger market for us in future than any other country, as one of her greatest friends? Does that mean nothing? If it amounts to nothing then I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members opposite who state so volubly that it amounts to nothing, why they are complaining and are so very frightened that England will punish us. If friendships and goodwill mean nothing, why then should we try to get them from England and refuse them from Germany? No, it is nothing but clever talk. They know it is otherwise, and that there is nothing between nations which is worth more than friendship. The poor people—the ultra patriots in South Africa—are, of course, afraid once more. They do not want us to be friendly with other countries. They are, of course, afraid that we shall get outside the ring-fence and that your empire will go to the moon again. That is the kind of argument we have had during this debate. I do not know how many members of the Opposition have already spoken, but each one has his own story and objection to this treaty. Can hon. members mention one objection which was made by the opposite side, and which can stand as a South African party objection binding that party. No, everyone tells his own tale, and then has his own variations. Everyone practically spoke for himself. It is clear that one again finds the proof here of a superficiality which shows that all the opposition is not meant, or which again shows that lack of unity in the South African party which has not yet made anything else of that party except so many individuals who come and make clever speeches here, but have never yet come forward with any definite policy on anything. They are again showing exactly how powerless and impotent they are.

What about Langlaagte?

Just imagine! Langlaagte is a proof of their capacity! We want this proof in practice and they must give it here in the House. All we have heard from them the last few years is that they are always running away. Where is the hon. member for Standerton to-night? It is peculiar that there is no longer one great national question from which the hon. member has not run away. [Time limit.]

I move that the Prime Minister be allowed to continue.

I am obliged to the hon. member for his motion, but I refused this afternoon to allow hon. members opposite to continue, and therefore I do not wish to continue any further myself.

This session has been one of half-baked measures. First of all we had the extraordinary so-called black manifesto by the Prime Minister. We have just heard him telling us in very fine terms that goodwill between nations is one of the greatest things, and that the object of the Government is to establish goodwill with Germany. We all agree with him; but I wish he would apply his principle a bit nearer home. That so-called black manifesto, I take it, was his method of showing goodwill to our immediate neighbours in the north. He characterized our neighbours as black and kaffir states, and I ask him, where did that goodwill come in? Then we have the Prime Minister’s Native Bills, which, I understand, we are not entitled to discuss, but I merely want to point out that the main attitude of the Prime Minister throughout was to ask us to come and amend them. We have listened very carefully to the Minister of Mines and Industries when he made his statement on this treaty, and the impression I got was that he was even more hesitating and unconvincing than the Prime Minister on the native and coloured Bills. We had the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister himself, and we have listened in vain —I have, at any rate—for one word telling us what economic advantages we are going to get under this treaty, because that is our main interest. Goodwill with Germany is very valuable and we welcome it, but we want to come to bedrock and to know what good we are going to get out of it. The Minister of Mines and Industries and practically every speaker on the other side of the House has accused us or having an anti-German bias. The Minister of Mines and Industries said not one word in defence of the treaty itself, and even “Die Burger” had a veiled apology in its issue yesterday, and I daresay it will have to issue apologies to-morrow for the three Ministers who followed. Let me give the House the assurance, and we have given it over and over again, that we are opposing this treaty, not because it is a German treaty, but because it is a bad one. We are not like the Nationalists; when we have been fighting a brave enemy, whether we win or lose we make friends afterwards; if we win we do not go bragging about it, and if we lose we do not go whining about it for thirty years. We do not say that thirty years ago our enemies poisoned our food and put fish hooks in our meat. We oppose this purely on its economic aspect. I do not say that there is not a sentimental aspect about this treaty; but we look purely at it from a business point of view, and we see not a single merit in this treaty. We say it is a deliberate blow in the face of our best customer, and a distinct menace to our best market. Good markets are hard to come by, and are easily lost. I need hardly remind hon. members what happened in connection with our maize export to Australia. We were building up a very flourishing export trade at 2s. a bag preference when the Government started bungling, and Australia retaliated with a duty of 3s. per 100 lbs.

That is not true.

I am trying to show how easy it is to lose a market. In 1926 our exports of maize to Australia amounted to 58,000 tons; in 1927 they had dropped to 11,000 tons, while in 1928 we did not send Australia a single bag. Fruit and wine continue a far more sensitive market than maize, and our market in England is therefore a very delicate one. It has been built up with amazing rapidity, and very largely under this preference, together with a voluntary, or sentimental preference at which the Minister of Mines and Industries is so inclined to jeer. That sentimental factor will never enter into any market outside Great Britain. It is only necessary for a member of the House of Commons or a few newspapers to say that this country is lacking in fairplay and generosity for the bottom to fall out of our market in Great Britain. The attitude of hon. members on the other side of the House seems to be “Keep quiet about it; you are the people who are queering our pitch, if this is a bad treaty, shut up about it.” That is the attitude of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) who accused us of spoiling the market, when the fact is that the Government wants to make a bad treaty, and then expect us to say nothing about it. We are opposed to this treaty because of its inherent unsoundness. I should like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the opinion expressed by a prominent Nationalist, a Free Stater, Mr. George Kolbe, who is a prominent exporter.

What does he export?

Wool. He made this statement before the agitation regarding this treaty started, so that he was speaking as a farmer, and without any political bias—

Here we have a prominent Nationalist who tells us that South Africa’s first duty is to increase our best market in London. I do not think I need read the whole of this article. As I have said, here you have a 100 per cent. Nationalist, who figures prominently in agriculture, condemning what it is proposed to adopt in connection with this treaty. Here we have our best market imperilled for the sake of permitting Ministers to indulge in a mere childish gesture of bravado, what the Minister of Defence has called window dressing. As far as I can see, it is a case of being able to go to the rural areas and saying to the people there “See what fine fellows we are.”

Why in the rural areas?

I am quite sure of that. If this Government gets in again, the Nationalist party will be like one of those American armies we have read about—more officers than men. I would like to ask the Minister of Defence, who has written a letter to Durban condemning this treaty—his duty was not to write a letter, but to stand up in the Cabinet and condemn this treaty—I want to know why he has not done that. Twice he has failed the country in matters of great national importance. Two years ago he had it in his power to squash the wicked flag business. The country knows it. This flag business was foisted on the country owing to the Minister of Defence not objecting to it. He supported it, and it was owing to him that it disturbed the peace of the country. And here again he has failed us. We know that he has condemned this treaty, but he and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should have stood up in the Cabinet and squashed it. But they came to heel. I hope the country will realize that just as the Flag Bill was foisted on the country by virtue of their allowing it, so this treaty, if it goes through, will go through owing to the part they are playing. Not one of the Creswellites except the Minister of Defence have told us what they think of this treaty. Will the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) tell us his views?

Do you want to read my private correspondence?

We want to hear you in this House, and not to read your private letters. What about the hon. members for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux), and Brakpan (Mr. Waterston)? Why don’t they tell us something about this matter? The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has not yet enlightened us as to what he thinks of the treaty. The hon. member is very busy currying favour in certain quarters. I understand that he came down with two speeches from Bloemfontein quite prepared to deliver one against the Nationalists or to deliver another in their favour, according to the amount of support he got.

I would not say too much about Bloemfontein; they kicked you out.

Bloemfontein will kick the hon. member out. I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Industries, who signed two treaties, one the German treaty and the other with a friendly neighbour, why in the German treaty the ring rence is broken down and in the Portuguese treaty it is not. How is it he does not explain this discrepancy? The only difference, according to the Minister of Finance, is that one treaty is for two years and the other for a bit longer. It is a very serious state of affairs to treat our neighbours in so niggardly a fashion. We carefully exclude them from this special treatment, but the German Reich gets it. Surely the explanation of the Minister of Finance is not satisfactory. The Minister of Mines and Industries was quite frank on the subject. He told us that he is out to break the ring fence.

Am I not always frank?

No, not always; you were not very frank about the Persian agreement. The word “foreign”—

The word “foreign” does not occur.

I say it does occur. I repeat that the hon. the Minister was considerably less frank with regard to the Persian treaty. The Persian treaty has that clause.

The Persian treaty has not the most favoured “foreign” nation clause.

Yes.

That is not so.

Lay it on the Table. The Minister says he is out to break this ring fence around the empire, but the Minister of Finance says he is not out to break this ring fence. According to him the moment the balance of trade has been restored he will increase the preferences. The Prime Minister tells us this is merely a gesture of goodwill, the Minister of Mines and Industries says it is an attempt to break down this ring fence, and the Minister of Finance tells us another story altogether. We have three different explanations from three different Ministers. Where are we? We do not know where we are. Another Minister tells us it is “window-dressing” and eye-wash.

Window-dressing is not eye-wash.

It is the same thing as far as I can see.

Window-dressing is advertising.

Three different Ministers have given us three different versions of why they have entered into this treaty, and I hope before the end of the debate we shall have something more satisfactory. I would like to repeat that we are not opposed to this treaty because it is made with Germany. The German people in this country and in Germany know that we do not cherish rancour. The Germans in their heart of hearts know who have been their friends, and they know that the South African party have been better friends than the Nationalists have. No Government has treated a defeated opponent better than the South African party did the Germans, and from neither the Union nor German South-West Africa were there deportations or confiscations. The German citizens of this country have by now taken the measure of the Nationalists, and they know that all the protests of sympathy they had from the Nationalists during the great war were simply a question of the Nationalists making a convenience of them for party purposes. We remember how, when the German West expedition was decided on, the Nationalists made the rafters ring with their denunciations, calling us plunderers and thieves, but immediately after the Nationalists came into power—

The hon. member must confine his remarks to the motion.

We have been accused of being anti-German in our opposition to this treaty, and I am trying to show that we have been better friends to the Germans than have hon. members opposite. When the Nationalists came into power they flooded German South-West Africa with their own nominees; they allowed us to take the country and they got the benefit of it. They eagerly seized on the German money in the enemy property fund and distributed it.

How was it distributed?

No German got any of it.

It was distributed to pay your Government’s debts.

The Germans were told that when the Nationalists assumed power, they would be compensated. What compensation have they had? The men who pretended to be the friends of the Germans have given South-West Africa the stingiest and most miserly constitution ever conferred on any country. That was what the Germans got from their great friend, the Prime Minister. A good deal of propaganda has been proceeding in order to make it appear that we are attacking Germany in this matter, but after the great war no two men did more to try and mitigate the terms offered to the Germans than the late Gen. Botha and the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). From what I know of the Germans, they prefer an honest opponent who bears no rancour when the fight is over to these men who made a political convenience of them in the time of their adversity and who plundered them when it was safe to do so. I ask the Prime Minister if he is going to submit this treaty to another place, and, if not, why not? The other place is a house of correction, so to speak. As the Prime Minister does not reply, may I put the question to the Minister of Mines and Industries’ I do not think in our whole parliamentary history that a single treaty has ever been placed before this House without being submitted to the other place. If this treaty is not submitted to the other place, we and the public will want to know the reason why. I understand that we are not allowed to move amendments, otherwise I should like to propose to reinsert the word “foreign” in this treaty, wherever necessary. If that is not done, the public will draw their own inferences.

What inferences will they be?

The public are drawing inferences now. We want an explanation why the Minister has deliberately expunged the words “foreign nation” throughout the treaty. As the Minister of Mines and Industries and the Prime Minister evade that question, perhaps the Minister of Defence will explain, seeing that he has condemned the treaty. The Minister of Defence fails us once more, but the public will be entitled to draw very damaging inferences.

What are those inferences?

I am asking for information. This treaty is modelled on the Anglo-German treaty, but in this important respect it has been altered and we are entitled to demand an explanation. Our interests are at stake. The Government has been full of reticences over this treaty. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) tried to draw information as to what our sister dominions had to say on the treaty, but there again the Government have refused to give us information. Why all this secrecy? We will leave it to the public to judge.

The opposition members who have spoken on this question have all been at great pains to try and show the House that they are not against the treaty because it is a German treaty, and I think in that they do protest too much. In regard to the famous “devil” speech by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) he says that when he used the term “supping with the devil” he was not applying it to Germany but to all the nations. I have the speech and I want to read it—

If the right hon. member did not mean this to apply to Germany alone I say he was most unfortunate in the choice of his words and most unfortunate in the arrangement of his speech, because the impression made on his audience was that without any doubt he meant to refer to Germany. There was loud laughter after it. Would they have laughed if he had called France the devil? His speech was intended to inflame racial feeling against Germany. If ever a speech was so intended those words were. I stand by that and every impartial person who reads those words must read that meaning into them. I think the disguise they have put up is very flimsy. When the Minister of Mines was speaking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) shouted: “Why did you make this treaty first with Germany?” That let the cat out of the bag. It is a great pity that a matter of this nature, which should have been kept within the bounds of business and economics and pounds, shillings and pence, should have been dragged through the political arena and through the arena of racial feeling. The result is that the majority of those, especially outside the House, newspapers and others who oppose the treaty, are not discussing it upon its merits but have condemned it straight away because it is a German treaty. We have had experience before in this country where this feeling has been used against the party sitting on this side. The grandson of Queen Victoria, his imperial highness the late Kaiser of Germany, has been dragged through the political arena in order to frighten people against voting for this party in true Lloyd-Georgian style. The same thing is being done now. One of the local papers had a clever cartoon depicting the Minister of Mines and Industries as this very same grandson of Queen Victoria minus the moustache. I must admit it was a very clever cartoon indeed and everybody who saw it grasped the implications very clearly. Why should they at this juncture represent the Minister as the German Kaiser? The implication is very clear. The opposition and their press have stampeded the people of this country against this treaty. I use the word “stampeded” deliberately. Let me give one outstanding example of how it was achieved. I take the example of Mr. Sturrock. He gave an interview on this treaty and he is now repudiating it. I want to read what he said—

Why quote that now?

To show you how your agitation has stampeded the people of this country. He says—

That was in November. I know he is supposed to have repudiated it now after you have frightened him. Mr. Sturrock makes two points which we have made in the last few days. He says there exists no danger to British trade and in the second place there is a probability of our export trade with Germany being considerably improved. Hon. members have asked what benefit this will be to South Africa. There is the reply. One could have granted some indulgence to the opponents of this treaty if one only knew they were sincere, that they would practise what they preach. They say “buy British”. The Minister has already told them that they are the big importers: why don’t they import British goods? No, they choose the cheapest markets which will provide the greatest amount of profit. We had the example recently of the motor cars bought by the municipal councils of Kimberley and Johannesburg—not Nationalist councils— and even little Durban has been buying German goods. Let me just read a news item which came to this country from Australia. I have been trying to find this report in the local English papers but failed. It is where the Minister of Railways of Australia says—

These people also buy where they can buy best. My hon. friends seem to think that if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) buys German goods without the treaty, he is doing right, but with the treaty he is doing wrong. A few days ago I walked into the shop of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I always thought he sold British goods. Feeling uncommonly loyal that morning, I asked for something, and the man behind the counter said that there was something better, which I purchased, and when I got home I saw that it was made in Germany. I thank the hon. member; for it was very good stuff too.

What was it, a German sausage?

No, I will not tell you what it is, because if I do there is a danger that the hon. member for Newlands, in a fit of loyalty, may remove that something from his business, and it is good stuff. I would not like to have it removed—I might run short of it. Much has been spoken of Rhodesia, but this loyal little Rhodesia also buys things from countries oversea, and in 1927 purchased from the United Kingdom £3,400,000 worth of goods, and foreign £1,744,000—a fair percentage—or about 25 per cent, bought from countries outside the United Kingdom. When an hon. member on this side spoke about imports from Germany in order to show that we are actually carrying on a good trade with Germany, it was shown that in 1927 we had £5,334,000 of merchandise from Germany, and one hon. member, I think the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), shouted out “Government purchases”, The fact is that only £782,000 was on Government account, and the rest was bought by these loyalists, who then come to the Government and say “You are disloyal, because you buy from Germany”, They have no prejudice against German goods—if they can make a good profit out of them—or if they can find a stick with which to beat the Government. If the Government imports from Germany, then there is a row. I will quote the percentages of our imports to show in what way our trade is going. In 1927, 44 per cent, of our imports were from the United Kingdom, and the foreign total was 40 per cent. The total for the empire was 59 per cent. The figures for the United Kingdom have gone down from 56 per cent, in 1922 to 44 per cent, in 1927, and foreign have gone up from 31 per cent, in 1922 to 40 per cent in 1927—not all Government purchases. When we in this country buy what is known as British goods, are these really British goods? In 1927 the United Kingdom exported only to British countries £22,000,000 of merchandise which it had imported from Germany and the U.S.A, amongst others; and these are known as “British goods” when they come here. To South Africa she exported £1,500,000 of merchandise which had been imported from foreign countries. I take one example at random. We have been asked in this country to regard the manufacture of optical goods in Great Britain as a key industry there, and as one of the articles on which they like to have preference. In 1926 the United Kingdom exported to South Africa £26,000 and the foreign was £5,000, so that almost 20 per cent, of what was exported to this country of this key industry was foreign goods they had imported from other countries. A case has come to my notice of a certain article manufactured in Germany for which the price quoted was £16 5s. When a prospective buyer wrote to the German firm to buy this article, they said “No, a British firm handles it in London, and you must buy it from them; this is the agreement between us.” He was charged £28 in London for the same article, or almost 100 per cent, increase.

Quite clever!

Yes, and we have to pay the piper. Another example happened in Cape Town, of a certain scientific clock which was imported. On the casing outside was the name of a well-known British firm, and it was also stated “Made in England.” When the wooden case was taken off, the words “Made in U.S.A.” were found. I also know of the instance of a piano, supposed to be of British manufacture, and on it having to be tuned the words “Made in Germany” were found inside. Let me now come to exports, and I shall deal with Mr. Kolbe and the Fruit Exchange. I see in a pamphlet issued by that exchange that “Great Britain absorbs 70 per cent, of all the products exported by us.” Of course they base their condemnation on that assumption. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) the other night said “The South African party know that practically all our products in our country—certainly the major portion—find a marked in Great Britain.” Mr. Kolbe also talked about the wonderful London market. Let me again deal with the figures in connection with our exports. It has been stated here that the actual percentage taken by England is 70 per cent., but the actual figure is 54 per cent. According to Mr. Elmslie, the British trade commissioner, the figure includes gold and diamonds, and he says that the greater part of the diamonds consigned to London are shipped without a customs entry from the United Kingdom to the Continent for cutting, but still they are listed as exports to Great Britain.

Which do you say is our best market?

I am dealing with our produce.

Great Britain takes 90 per cent, of our fruit.

Do you think the whole future of South Africa hangs upon your bananas? Excluding gold and diamonds, the figure given by Mr. Elmslie for 1927 is 43.5 per cent. Then what about this 70 per cent.? The whole position upon which these gentlemen have based their assumption is fallacious. And according to figures quoted in this House Great Britain again exports about 50 per cent, of her imports from South Africa to foreign countries.

Why should you arbitrarily exclude gold and diamonds? Someone has to buy them.

Wouldn’t India or America or any other country like to take all our gold and diamonds? You cannot class them as ordinary products. Mr. Elmslie says: “The figure excluding gold and diamonds gives a truer picture of the value of any country as a customer of the produce of South Africa. In regard to the fruit exchange, they have been stampeded into taking this attitude, because they have been told that the preference on fruit is to be discontinued. Is there one single member opposite who will say there is the slightest danger of that preference being removed? No, not one. Some of them have actually admitted that there is no such danger. These fruit people have been frightened into taking up this attitude.

Can you explain away Mr. Kolbe’s statement?

I have already shown that the question as to whether this treaty will be in the interests of South Africa has been answered by Mr. Sturrock, of Johannesburg.

He said that before he had seen the treaty. He relied upon the Government’s version of it.

No, Mr. Sturrock was also stampeded. In connection with imperial preference, we take up the attitude that there must be some quid pro quo. Whereas we asked Great Britain to pick out those articles on which she wanted a preference which would be to her greatest benefit, would she give us the same right and ask us to make out a list of goods on which we want a preference? Will she do it?

Yes, of course.

I challenge her to do it. Everybody knows that no British Government will do it. Will she allow us to choose a preference on our wool and our maize? No, certainly not. We treat her better in that respect than she treats us. I should like to point out * in regard to sheep-skins that Germany is actually buying twice as much from us as Great Britain. Then again, take wattle-bark, of which Germany buys more than Great Britain.

In what year?

In 1927. The figures are as follows: Great Britain took £356,000 worth of merino sheep skins, while Germany took £713,000. As to wattle-bark, £180,000 worth went to Great Britain and £181,000 to Germany.

How many mealies did Australia buy?

Where is the quid pro quo? As a party, members on this side have accepted the principle that as far as possible we must have a quid pro quo, and we are not getting it. Will the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) say that he is in favour of granting a preference to Great Britain without any quid pro quo? Will the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) say so?

I don’t know what you mean.

Giving them all for nothing. These hon. members are prepared to give Great Britain any amount of preference in this country, but when it comes to asking for preference for our products, then they run away. We, on this side of the House, are not in favour of placing our economic development in a straitjacket.

That is where you ought to be.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is the most offensive member in this House. When he says anything offensive I take it from whence it comes, Let us do what we can to develop our trade with other countries. Speaking as a Dutch-speaking South African, in reply to what the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) said this afternoon, when he misrepresented what the Minister of Mines and Industries said, I wish to say that we on this side of the House, other things being equal, are prepared to buy British; but we have to face the facts, and take steps to find new outlets for some of our products. Where we see other countries taking more of our products than Great Britain, we must see that the roads for our products in other countries are kept open. I hope the Government, if it again comes into power, will go on with this policy, in spite of all the raking up of racial feeling by the Opposition, and I hope the Government will find the best possible markets for us overseas, no matter with what country, so long as it deals fairly with us.

The speech of the hon. member who has just spoken will not carry us much further; but there are one or two remarks he made which deal with the Minister. First I wish to read a telegram I have here from Mr. Sturrock, in which he says—

Have you seen the statement made to the press?

I have read the telegram from Mr. Sturrock, which was received to-day. I want to deal with just one other aspect of the hon. member’s speech, and that is the figures he quoted in reference to our exports to other countries. I wish to refer him to the report of the Union trade commissioner on the continent of Europe, his general report of 1927. The hon. member mentioned wattle bark. The trade commissioner says—

What then is the value of the statistics the Minister has so freely quoted?

The Union figures are as reliable as any in the world.

This document I have quoted from is a Government publication, and if the statements are untrue, it was the duty of the Government to see that they were not published. What reliance are we to place on any Government statistics if they deny them two years after publication? The Minister of Finance, in his speech, explained that after the Imperial Conference in 1926 several dominion Governments approached him in regard to entering into trade agreements, but he found that he had nothing to barter. The British preference applied to so many articles that very little was left over on which to offer a preference to Germany. Having nothing else to barter, he then offered Germany the British connection. That is precisely what happened. Germany, in order that South Africa should give up the British connection, entered into a most-favoured-nation treaty with us. The only explanation given us by the Government is that the present preference which Great Britain receives is safeguarded under the treaty. But there is something much more at stake than the future preference. The treaty provides that the nationals and ships of any other part of the empire are on precisely the same footing as German nationals or ships.

Do you advocate discrimination?

South Africa was not the only dominion that was approached by Germany to enter into a treaty. Canada was also approached. The Canadian Minister of Finance, speaking in the Dominion House of Commons on May 22nd last, said—

Did Germany also ask Canada to give up the British connection in exchange for a trade treaty, as we have done? It is clear that what we are willing to give to Germany, Canada was not willing to give. Yet Canada was in a very much better position to bargain than we were, because Canada has an intermediate tariff, with which it bargains all its most-favoured-nation treaties. Even with its intermediate tariff, Canada found that what Germany was giving was not advantageous to Canada. I take the view that in order to enter into a treaty with Germany it was not at all necessary to destroy the principle of imperial preference. Throughout the whole of this debate hon. members opposite appear to imagine that we are fighting England’s battle in this matter. What we are fighting for really is South Africa. The Minister is offering up splendid markets we already possess for the products of this country on the altar of his political prejudices. It has been argued throughout the debate that Great Britain is a free trade country. The fight that has been going on for preference has not been put up by Great Britain, but by the dominions in their effort to get Great Britain to depart from free trade. The idea is that there exist opportunities for all the dominions to sell their goods with greater profit to Britain instead of allowing foreign countries to reap all the benefits of the trade in Britain, and the dominions are, therefore, trying to get Britain to depart from its ancient principles of free trade. They are quite right to do that—the Minister smiles—

I do.

A good deal has been done since the war to convert Great Britain from free trade.

What about the pledges given by all parties in the British House of Parliament?

One of (the strongest opponents of the old principle in England was the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and at the Imperial Conference in 1923 he did most to secure the British preferential market for our primary products. In assaulting the British principle of free trade it was our goods he was seeking a market for. He knew that we had barely touched the fringe of the British market, and he wanted to see dominion meat purchased instead of Argentine meat, our fruit purchased instead of Californian fruit, and our tobacco bought by England instead of American tobacco. The right hon. gentleman obtained these preferences.

How much tobacco are we selling to Great Britain to-day?

A campaign has been going on in order to obtain a larger share of that market, but the fact that we have not a greater market is very largely due to the inactivity of our Government and to the ineffective assistance which it renders. Our Government went to the last Imperial Conference to discuss politics, but the other dominions went there to debate economics. When Mr. McKenzie King returned to Canada, he said he did not know that the constitutional question was going to become one of the most important factors at the conference. It was our Prime Minister who insisted on dragging in the higher status to the exclusion of anything else. This was what our Prime Minister said at the Imperial Conference—

Thus bread and butter politics were sacrificed entirely to the politics of our Prime Minister. Whatever the constitutional gains may subsequently have been, there is no doubt the intermarketing of our goods is very much sacrificed to the political position taken up by the Prime Minister. It is a commentary on what the Minister said about our tobacco that Rhodesia is selling £670,000 worth in Great Britain, while tobacco from the Union realizes only £116,000 in Great Britain. It merely shows that Rhodesia in marketing its products in Great Britain is taking far more advantage of this helping co-operation than our Government seems prepared to do. Throughout the whole of this argument, the Government has based its case very largely upon the quid pro quo policy adopted in 1925. In support of that policy, they have quoted certain figures of the balance of the preferences between Great Britain and South Africa. Those figures are not correct. Possibly they suffer from the same defect as the other figures spoken of by the Union trades commissioner on the continent of Europe. I have here the official statement in respect of sugar alone, and this shows that in 1923 we exported 42,700 tons, and we received £149,700 in preference from the United Kingdom, whereas the total preference shown officially for that year is only £145,000. I want to take the Minister to 1925, and to show him that from the official figures of the preference, we are supposed to have received on all goods £127,000, while the total sugar exported was 65,300 tons, and the total preference was £228,700.

Do you challenge the general statement of the balances?

I do.

Did you see what Mr. Amery said yesterday?

I have not seen what Mr. Amery said, but I do challenge them. Let me take another figure. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has told us the preference balances on wine and fruit, and I believe his figures are accurate. He has shown that in 1927 there was £85,000 in wine and fruit alone, and there was £216,000 in sugar, a total of £301,000 for the balance of preferences in that year. The official amount is shown as £274,000, and yet it is upon these figures that the Government bases the whole of its argument.

They are quite correct.

What can you do with a Minister like that? I assure the Minister the figures I have given on sugar are absolutely correct. They are obtained from the official records of exportation, and you cannot go wrong with sugar, because every ton is excised and has to be paid on. There is no faking about that. There is another aspect of this question which the Minister has completely ignored. I consider the Minister was utterly unfair when he counted in his quid pro quo basis solely the money coming through customs by way of preference rebate. The Minister must know that in 1923 the Imperial Government engaged to give a preference on other articles than those legally adopted. Finding subsequently it was unable to carry out this engagement, it sought some other means of keeping faith with the dominions. This is what Mr. Amery said about it in the presence of the Minister at the last Imperial Conference—

I think the dominions would have preferred the preferences.

You might have preferred it, but the fact is that money was given and that money was spent by the British taxpayers.

A very remote benefit, so far as South Africa is concerned.

Could one imagine a more ungrateful speech made by a responsible Minister for benefits conferred on this country? It is very tragic to see how responsible Ministers take this so light-heartedly. A million pounds given in lieu of preference does not touch them in the slightest. When they come to count up their quid pro quo basis, not a farthing of this million pounds is considered in the allocation of preferences. Two-thirds of this amount given to the Empire Marketing Board in lieu of preferences is spent in advertising empire goods in England. It is used for the sole purpose of selling our goods and other dominion goods in Great Britain and for no other purpose except the purpose of encouraging research work, etc. This is what Mr. Amery said at this conference, also in the hearing of the Minister of Finance—

I say that the response to the Empire Marketing Board is one of the most wonderful things that has come over the face of Great Britain, and I can bear personal testimony to the efficiency of the work. To get a just appreciation of all that the board is doing, it would be necessary to imagine a reciprocal movement here in South Africa. You would have to imagine every public man, from the Governor-General downwards, going on to public platforms in this country and telling the people the most patriotic thing to do would be to buy British goods. You would have to imagine the Prime Minister saying: “The clothes I wear were manufactured in the looms of Lancashire,” and the Minister of Finance saying: “The motor-car I am riding in came from Coventry.”

I only wish we could do that. It would help a lot.

This is actually taking place in England every week.

How can you expect to set an example when your friends buy German goods?

You have to imagine the teachers in all the schools teaching all the children that true patriotism lay in buying English goods. You would have to imagine pamphlets circulated in our towns asking people to buy English goods, shopkeepers, or a large number, going in for British shopping weeks and exposing for sale in window-dressing competitions goods manufactured in Great Britain. You would have to imagine an intense desire to create a will to buy English goods. That voluntary preference built up by the Empire Marketing Board is of infinitely more benefit to South Africa than a similar movement in South Africa would be for Great Britain. This is not all the board is doing. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) could tell you that during our journey through Canada we had numerous discussions on the work of the board, and we had on that tour a prominent member of the board, one of the Labour members—the editor of “ Forward.” The plan of the board is to expand its functions to ensure the better selling of our products, and not merely to advertise them; to try to insist, when the Government gives out contracts, that there should be a clause compelling the purchase of empire goods; to see that mail steamers carry on board empire goods as food for their passengers, and to see that wines manufactured in the empire are always found on board. Here is a sphere into which the Government could enter for the sale of our products, which would benefit our primary producers enormously. I want to come to another phase of the treaty, and that is the clause by which we contract ourselves out of the empire. I want to refer the Minister to Clause 3, one which has be’en so much debated, and in which the word “ foreign ” is left out. I want to refer the Minister of Defence to this, because he raised the question. [Clause 3 and Article 9 of Protocol read.] It means, without the slightest doubt, to my mind—I am not a lawyer, and perhaps the Minister will put us right on the matter—that any favours, privileges or immunities granted to any ship other than those registered in South Africa, must immediately and unconditionally be given to Germany. The Minister of Defence said there are no such favours, privileges or immunities which can be given to ships of any other country which are not given to the ships of South Africa or British nationality—there is no discrimination whatever. I would like to refer the Minister to the British Merchant Shipping Act, Clause 72—

You may not grant to a British ship which by this treaty becomes a ship of a foreign country, any privilege and favour which you do not grant to a German ship. I think it is fairly obvious that as far as Simonstown is concerned, the British navy enjoys privileges and immunities in the dockyard which, under this treaty, could be granted to German ships.

You are entirely off the rails; this treaty does not apply to men-of-war.

I do not see how the Minister can make this out.

It refers to merchant shipping.

It refers to navigation; it is a treaty of commerce and navigation. When this treaty between Great Britain and Germany was originally entered into the annexure to that treaty contained many things which did not have anything to do with trade and commerce—such as reparations, Belgian priority and payments due to the United States of America—and many things that had nothing to do with trade and navigation; and also this treaty itself refers to other things; for instance, we have many clauses which have nothing to do with trade or commerce. It is taken word for word from a national treaty of one great maritime power with a foreign country, with this serious alteration; and, therefore, I submit it requires explanation. That if Germany, by virtue of this treaty, said to South Africa: “ You are giving British warships favours and privileges in Simon’s Bay that we demand,” you would then have to provide the same favours and privileges for the warships of Germany. I should like the Minister to explain this. In the original treaty there can be no doubt about it, because it provided that there should be discrimination against ships of a foreign state. That was the principle of the old agreement. If we were engaged in a war on our own, and the fleet of ours went to Great Britain two years ago, it could have obtained privileges and favours which Germany could not claim. If this treaty is entered into, any favours granted to the ships of Great Britain must be extended unconditionally to the ships of Germany. The Minister will thus see the far-reaching nature of this treaty, which not only refers to our trade, but goes right down to the roots of our constitutional position.

This afternoon, when I was looking at the members of the Cabinet opposite —and I may say they all looked somewhat dejected—I was reminded of the title of one of Handel’s choruses, “ All we like sheep have gone astray.” Let me say that I resent the way in which comparisons of money values have been brought into this matter. One does not value one’s family in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. I do not expect from the Prime Minister the same feeling for the British empire that I have, but I do expect common sense and fair dealing. We have heard a great deal about money values, and I am not so sure that I could not show that in the last ten years a great deal more has been extended to South Africa by Great Britain than has been extended to Great Britain by South Africa. We have heard about sugar, but let me remind hon. members that during the great war we exported coal from this country, presumably at the ordinary price. There was a heavy premium on gold, but the whole of that premium was returned to South Africa and the other dominions by Great Britain. That represented many millions of money. Every member present in this House and those outside of it are just as much members of the British empire as I am. If any sentiment had existed when the Prime Minister went to England in 1926, if he was influenced by the imperial spirit, he would have immediately undertaken to restore all the articles taken away from Great Britain in 1925. I think the Minister will admit that the port of London and other large British ports are the best for European trade, and I think it will also be admitted that London is the best port for the distribution of goods. It is also a very big financial centre, and exporters very naturally sell their goods through London.

Why?

Because it is the foremost port of the commercial world, because of the integrity of its bankers, and also because of the incorruptibility of its judicature. We do not send goods to Great Britain to help Great Britain. We send them there to help ourselves, because we know it is the free-est port in the world, and that it is there that we shall get a square deal. South Africa knows quite well that it would rather trust the gentleman it knows than the gentleman it does not know. If you had the choice of sending goods to Amsterdam, Italy or some other part of the continent, you would unhesitatingly send them to London. I want the Minister to realize that this good feeling which has been referred to has existed for many years. By-and-bye, when the balance is, perhaps, quite on the other side, do you think Great Britain will say: “We are going to reduce your preference?” No. Hon. members know that such a thing will never happen. Great Britain has been looking after us all these years, and is going to look after us to the end of time. The time must and will come when South Africa will realize that Great Britain is her best friend.

An hon. member rising at this stage of the debate does so at a great disadvantage. In the first place, he is liable to be pulled up under Rule No. 90 for irrelevance or undue repetition. A very considerable latitude has, no doubt, wisely, been allowed the speakers on the other side, and perhaps I may be excused if I am compelled to emphasize some of the points that have been already made. I would ask the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries to adopt a different method in introducing a motion or a Bill. Nobody knows better than yourself that when he has a weak case he invariably falls back on the racial issue. That is a very poor compliment to his supporters. He must have a very mean opinion of their intelligence, if he thinks that device used time after time will continue to be effective. He reminds me of the veterinary surgeon, who, when he did not understand a case very well, used to say: “I don’t know what this is, but I have got a medicine here that will turn it into bots, and I can cure bots.” The Minister uses the racial issue in the same way. Farming members will know something of the larvae of the bot fly, and that horses are very liable to be affected with the disease. Curiously enough, these appeals of the Minister to racialism occur at almost mathematical intervals in his speech, according to the newspapers. But there is another aspect which has been alluded to, though I do not think it has received sufficient attention. We have heard that this is one of many treaties projected in different parts of the world, but we have not heard what effect the attitude of the Government, of the different members of the Government, will have on other nations. Let us suppose that the Government wishes to conclude a treaty with, we will say, Ruritania. We can imagine the Minister of Ruritania writing to the consul-general in South Africa and asking: “ What sort of people are these? What sort of Cabinet have you in South Africa?” The consul-general would reply: “In our Cabinet we have a body with j not only individual, but with collective, responsibility, so that when one member of the Cabinet I speaks he is speaking not only for himself, but for the whole of the Cabinet.” They would, perhaps, inquire: “Has any other treaty been concluded?” The consul would reply: “Yes, a treaty has been concluded with Germany.” “Well, what was the effect of that treaty?” “Well,” the consul would say, “curiously enough, before it was concluded we had a Cabinet Minister writing not privately but to a branch of his party saying this treaty was all nonsense, and that there is nothing in it.” The enquiry would then be made: “Who is this Minister?” The consul would reply: “He is a very important man; he is the leader of a party through whom the Government remains in power.” “Is he a man to be trusted?” would be the next enquiry. “Yes,” would be the reply, “he left his party in order to stick to the Government.”

Was he not kicked out by the party?

I am putting it nicely. He left it. However, that is not the point. “Well, then,” they would say, “is this the sort of Government that we can reasonably conduct a treaty with, when we have a Minister practically describing a treaty only just concluded as a scrap of paper.” We can imagine how the Government of South Africa would be regarded under such circumstances, and I don’t think that the conduct of the Minister of Defence is likely to lead to the conclusion of other treaties, advantageous or otherwise, with other states. The Minister of Mines has accused the opponents of the treaty of being actuated by an anti-German spirit. He forgets that we, too, are largely of Teutonic stock, that half the words in our language, and all the homely ones, such as God, father, mother, flesh, blood, kindergarten, are of German origin, and that such customs as Christmas trees have come from Germany. How, therefore, can the Minister accuse us as a whole of being actuated by racial feeling? We delight to work amicably with people with whom we are proud to claim a measure of common descent, and we are anxious to have treaties which will develop our trade with them, so long as those treaties are on proper lines and will not injure those who are nearer and dearer to us. I have a letter showing that the treaty has caused great concern among the small producers of the Union, especially the fruit growers. They fear that the market they are building up in England will be seriously damaged by the treaty, because it will tend to diminish that preference of the individual for our products, more especially such things as tobacco, wine, sugar and dried fruit. Many people have on the strength of the preference we have enjoyed from Great Britain invested considerable sums in land, packing sheds and in arranging to produce on a larger scale those products which get the preference. The Minister’s figures in regard to the balance of preference are utterly fallacious, for the preference Great Britain grants to us is limited only by our own production. If we produce the articles on which the preference is given in larger quantities, they will certainly add to the amount of the preference. The Minister omitted a great many other things. He forgot, for instance, to tell us that after the great war Great Britain gave us a present of over a million pounds’ worth of warlike stores of great use to us, and that our air force was practically equipped by gifts from Great Britain. The British Government also handed over to us large areas of ground and much valuable stores. All these things show that the value of goodwill practically as well as sentimentality is very considerable. There are several ways of showing goodwill. Our Government has already gone out of its way to show goodwill towards Germany. What about those unsuitable railway engines? The negotiations before and after the signing of this treaty will not tend to enhance our reputation in the world. We want to have a reputation for straight and fair dealing, more especially in international matters. Can hon. members imagine the furore that would be created if the British foreign Minister concluded a treaty and afterwards explained that the whole thing was window-dressing and eye-wash. That would have produced international complications at once, and I am quite sure the Ministry have been very ill-advised indeed in not repudiating—if the Minister of Defence did not speak in their name—his words. I submit the Government have made opt no case whatever for this treaty. On the contrary they have not dealt so far with any of the solid arguments against it, and I hope the Minister, when he replies, will adopt quite a different tone from his methods when he introduced the motion.

When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were in England at the imperial conferences of 1926 I was in Australia as one of the empire parliamentary delegates. The Minister of Finance in his speech mentioned his intercourse with Mr. Bruce with regard to the adverse tariff against our products in Australia. Being a maize-grower myself it was only natural that I should be alarmed and try to find out why this adverse tariff was put up against us. My two colleagues and I were the private guests of the Acting Prime Minister of the Federal Government, Dr. Page. I went fully into this matter with him and his colleagues and he was very interested and he showed us the maize-growing districts of New South Wales, which are very limited. The outcome of my investigation was this, that the tariff was not raised because our maize was grown by black labour, but because this Government was tinkering with the preferential tariffs. That was the reason. Our maize has been raised by black labour ever since we exported maize. South Africa has lost a valuable market for her maize and her wattle-bark through the tinkering with the tariffs by this Pact Government. I will give the figures. In 1921, the value of our maize exported to Australia was £731 sterling. In 1926 it was £378,490 sterling, and in 1928 it was not a single bag. This is a great loss to South African farmers. As long as we have this market we could always rely upon 1s. 6d. more per muid than we could get in the best European market. And then there is wattle-bark. It is now a staple product of South Africa. Our export amounts to a million pounds per annum. Australia’s supply to-day has diminished to such an extent that she has to import, and here again the tariff raised on bark in 1926 was from £1 to £3. It cannot be said that it was owing to black labour. In 1921 it was £16,482, and in 1926 £30,629, and since these duties became inoperative in July, 1926, we are shut off from that market, both in maize and wattle-bark. Australia has shown that it is not due to the employment of black labour.

That is an absolute fact.

I was in consultation with the Ministers of the Federal Government.

How did South Africa tinker with the Australian tariff.

With the imperial tariff. Another thing Australia was angry with South Africa about was the controversy on the Flag Bill, and the hon. member knows that. It points to this Pact Government. It was said in this debate that we are opposed to the German treaty on this side owing to racialism. This has been mentioned by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow), who referred to the anti-German riots motion I introduced in 1925. He said I did so in vote-catching manner. How can he say that, when there was no election pending then? We had just gone through an election. I introduced the motion so that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice could redeem their written promises that compensation could be paid. In 1916 the Prime Minister wrote a letter, and the Minister of Justice in 1920, saying that the Pact Government when it came into power would see that justice would be done. The Government had the opportunity, and there was the Custodian of Enemy Property Fund of £3,500,000. It was not only the Germans who were receiving compensation, but there were Britishers who had lost far more in sterling value than the Germans. The motion was turned down, and that in such a peculiar manner. It had every chance of being passed in this House. We had gone home for the Easter recess, and we were returning by the first train after the Easter recess, in which were a number of Transvaal and Natal hon. members, including the mover and the seconder of the motion. The train was two hours late; I never found out why it was late, and I do not know to this day. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) was responsible for moving the death of that motion, and it was carried in the absence of quite a number of hon. members who would have supported it. I do not think that the charge of racialism can be levelled against this side of the House. We have proved that we are better friends to the German people than hon. members opposite.

Do you disagree with the previous speaker that we are favouring Germany too much?

I am referring to the charge of racialism, and proving that it was a false one. Every member of the South African party supported the motion I have referred to in connection with the German riots. This treaty not only destroys inter-dominion trade, but also goodwill. Hon. members opposite representing Natal labour will blindly vote for it well knowing that they are voting against their convictions.

I propose to traverse some of the remarks made by hon. members on the other side of the House. The statement has repeatedly been made that this treaty was entered into purely as a sign of friendship towards the Germans. That may be so. I accept that statement, but we have had another statement to the effect that, previous to this treaty, negotiations were already proceeding between other countries and the Minister of Finance. If such was the case, why were these negotiations transferred to the Minister of Mines? It makes me rather suspicious. It has been suggested that the Minister’s trip to Germany may have had something to do with it.

Has it never dawned upon you that I am an accomplice of Germany?

I never knew it, but I accept the statement. I always thought the Minister was acting in the interests of South Africa. That may be a frivolous interjection, but it weighs with a large number of people. We certainly thought that in entering into this agreement the Minister was actuated by the interest which he professes to have for South Africa. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) had something to say in reply to my hon. friend, the member for East London (the Rev. Mr. Rider), whose valuable contribution to this debate was purely actuated by a desire to show that there was no ill-feeling against Germany in this matter. He gave us substantial reasons in a very short but eloquent speech why this treaty should not be entered into. What was the burden of the speech of the hon. member for Hoopstad? Stripped of verbiage, it was “South Africa alone.”

I never said that.

That is my interpretation of it. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Tielman Roos) was the first who said “South Africa alone,” and he has since thought fit to explain it away. What would it mean if South Africa stood alone? All I can say is that I should be exceedingly sorry if she got into trouble. We have to thank Admiral Sturdee for having arrived at the proper moment at Falkland Islands to stem the German tide from over-running South Africa. Does the Minister really desire to continue to preserve the friendship which exists between Great Britain and this country? Now with regard to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), I admire his candour, and I admire him for many of the expressions which he has thought fit to give utterance to in this House. One can to some extent follow him in his reasoning. He is a born republican. He finds it difficult to swallow the British connection. I do not know whether he fought in the war, and as to the members of the Cabinet, I should like to ask how many of them stood up in the war to defend the little republics.

Will the hon. member confine himself to the motion.

We have listened to a lot of irrelevant matter.

We have listened to agreat deal on both sides.

That is a justification for my departure. If any doubt existed at anytime as to whether this treaty should be entered into, those doubts would not be removed by the Minister of Finance. The deduction is clear enough from what he said that this treaty has only been entered into so that this Government may be able to say that their hands are tied, and they cannot give any further preference to Britain. By this treaty the Government has tied its hands deliberately behind its back, and if Great Britain at any time proposes any further bargaining, the reply to Britain will be “Do not you see that we have a treaty with Germany, and if we give further preference to you, we must give it to Germany too”. It would have been interesting if one could have sat behind a screen, and listened to the negotiations as to future privileges to be granted to Germany. If the hon. the Minister and his colleagues are so desirous of doing something for the Germans, well, let them do justice. They took three and a half millions from these unfortunate people, who had assets in South Africa when the war broke out, and when the war was over there was not a tittle of justification for keeping their money. The treaty states that his Majesty the King appointed as his plenipotentiary the hon. Frederik William Beyers, K.C. I wonder how much his Majesty saw of this document before it was actually signed?

You don’t suggest I forged it?

Certainly not, but I would like to see your authority all the same. The hon. Ormsby-Gore speaking in the House of Commons on December 4th last, said that—

It is perfectly clear to me that the Minister knew that the Imperial Government objected to the terms of the treaty. Is that the reason why the papers were not laid on the Table? What is the object of this concealment? The reason for the refusal to do so was that it was in the interests of the public. But we are here to see to the interests of the public. In his speech the Minister of Mines reminded me of a lawyer, who, finding that he had no case, immediately started to abuse his opponent. He did not tell the House what was in the treaty, which is a most complicated document. The Minister says he has been accused of racialism, but I do not think so, and I will remind the House of his famous speech on the Cullinan diamond delivered in the Transvaal Parliament, on August 19th, 1907.

What has that to do with the treaty?

I want to show how loyal he was.

He has always been loyal.

In the course of his speech, the Minister said—

I abide by every word of that.

I knew the Minister as a brilliant young man, but I cannot help characterizing his action now as that of a foolish man. He has never given us the slightest inkling of what benefit this treaty will be to South Africa. In effect he said, “Tie my hands behind my back”—

Give us some treaty.

Don’t be stupid. He says, “Tie my hands behind my back, and then I can say to my enemies when they come and ask for something, ‘I am sorry, I cannot give it to you, for if I do I should have to give it to Germany too’”. I should like to refer him to a letter or a book written by Senator Mr. Langenhoven, in which this appears—

I really must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the motion.

I thought that would be interesting. I would have liked to have made a deduction from this. However, if it proves of no interest to the House, I would recommend individual members to consult the “Argus” of the 25th April, 1918, where they can read about it.

These are not matters under discussion at present. The hon. member would do better to confine himself to the motion.

The Minister, when introducing this, said in regard to negotiations with other countries that they have said, “Thank you for nothing”, If there is really no more in this treaty than the Minister and his colleagues have endeavoured to show us, Germany would also have said, “Thank you for nothing,” but, if it is the forerunner of something else to come, that forerunner ought to be placed before us. The language of the treaty is very strong. I lay down very strongly and I am supported by thinking men all over the world, that this treaty is not going to redound to the credit or benefit of South Africa, and I intend to quote one or two authorities on the subject. The “Commercial Bulletin of South Africa” in February, said this—

Mr. Wallach, chairman of the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, says—

Mr. Harold Mosenthal, in London, who had recently visited South Africa, said he took a very gloomy view of the trend of events in the Union, and that he could give a lot of figures to prove that. He said—

Then he condemns this treaty. What did the late High Commissioner, Mr. Smit, say in London? We find the following in the “Sphere”of the 26th January—

How is he going to do that if any advantage granted to Great Britain’s manufacturers is also to be granted to Germany and other countries? Mr. R. IT. Henderson, formerly a member of this House, and vice-chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, Johannesburg, has also strongly condemned this treaty as not being in the interests of the empire. It does not seem to have struck hon. members opposite that to keep British manufactured articles out of this market means we are damaging the workers of Great Britain too—men who are dependent to a large extent for their work on the orders from overseas. Those who profess to take a great interest in the workers—and I am surprised at the attitude of members of the Labour party—are entering into a treaty which will make their friends overseas suffer, and concede to Germany that which we ought to give to Great Britain. In England you see barrows of oranges in the streets. How can the workers buy them if they have no money? I would be glad to sit down if the Minister tells us he will withdraw this treaty. He knows he has a bad case. He knew very well and anticipated the possible attacks that would be made. I do not think the Minister is a gentleman who knows much about commerce, and he is unable to see sufficiently far the injuries he is doing to working men. I quite agree that agriculture should be the backbone of the country, but the labourer is the man on whom business largely depends. Finally, I would like to deal with the Minister of Defence, who expresses contrition and regret for having written that famous letter of his. The Prime Minister should have said to him, “You have done the same thing another Cabinet Minister, recently deposed, has done, and you will be dismissed from the Cabinet.” The Minister of Defence gave us really an insight into the whole matter. He mentioned window-dressing in his letter. For what purpose was that window-dressing? I wish the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) had spoken and I am disappointed he has not done so. Was ever a nastier attack made than that by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) on his former leader? The country outside is watching this Government, and has already shown what the Government can expect at the next general election. [Time limit.]

This treaty can be considered from two aspects: the Imperial aspect and the economic. As regards the imperial, political or sentimental aspect, one cannot dissociate this treaty from the general policy of the Government, from the first day on which it took office. It has followed a consistent, unchanging policy all working to a definite end. First, we had the fight for the higher status and what the Government secured at the Imperial Conference; then we have had the hauling down of the Union Jack and the new nationality, then there has been the method of their handling of the language question in the public service, then came the withdrawal of the imperial preference to a certain extent and the limitation of Great Britain’s imports into this country and the transference of orders to continental powers, and it has culminated to-day in this treaty. This policy has had a definite effect on the trade and prosperity of the country in many directions. We have had, as indicated by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), the loss of the trade between South Africa and Australia in maize. It is true the official reason given by the Australian Government was that it objected to maize being imported when the work of cultivation had been done by black labour in South Africa. But this maize has been going to Australia for years, and it was not until the three per cent, duty was removed that it was found necessary to raise the point about the employment of black labour and so the 7s. 6d. duty imposed by Australia came upon us and with this effect: In 1923, 2,467 tons of maize went from South Africa to Australia. In 1924 this figure rose to 11,000 tons, while in 1926 it increased to 58,000 tons. Then the three per cent, preferential tariff was removed, and in 1927 the trade fell to 8,000 tons, while last year the official returns indicated that not one single bag of mealies was exported to Australia. Our trade has been absolutely ruined by interference with the preferential tariff. It would be futile for the Minister to say that this is due to the fact that the mealies grown here were cultivated by black labour. At the time that this preferential tariff was removed, the New Zealand newspapers were full of warnings to South Africa, and pointed out that while New Zealand did not sell £500 worth of goods to South Africa, that country (New Zealand) was among South Africa’s very best customers for our wines and that if South Africa indulged in such things as removal of preferential tariffs, it would likely lead to reprisals and the reprisals have come. After we lost Australia, we turned to New Zealand, and I have here a letter from New Zealand, dated February, 1929, intimating that an import duty has been placed upon our mealies and they can no longer buy; so we are gradually losing one market after another as the result of the Government’s economic policy. The letter I have referred to states that a duty of 4s. per muid is payable, and that there will never be the same opportunity for trading under the most favourable reciprocal arrangements. This is the damage the Government has done and it is a permanent damage done to the farmers of this country. They have reduced the value of mealies by 1s. 6d. per bag throughout South Africa, because that was the extra price paid always in Australia, and the only markets we have left are the European markets. I have taken the trouble to explain to Nationalist supporters that as long as they support the present Government they must understand that they are supporting a luxury, and that this is the price the mealie farmers are paying for that luxury. Now the Government are out to damage the fruitgrower and the winegrower, as well as the producers of the other commodities which we sell to Great Britain. The Minister has quoted from the speeches of Sir Benjamin Morgan, but the Minister did not go far enough. Sir Benjamin Morgan also stated that if this proposed treaty was passed in its present form, it would so influence public opinion in Great Britain as to make the further extension of preferences impracticable. He also stated that he had been fighting for the free entry of empire sugar, and that such a concession would immensely benefit the sugar industry in Natal. Further, that they were making representations to the Government to increase the preference on wine. In the face of all this, the Government is doing all it can to alienate the sympathy of these people. I have had a letter placed in my hands written by one of the largest exporters of oranges in Natal, at Muden, who states that they view with great concern the conclusion of the treaty which seriously prejudices the interests of the citrus farmers, and they respectfully ask the Government to reconsider the terms of the treaty, having in mind the serious injury it will cause to the citrus farmers if it is ratified in its present form. I say to the Government, have some mercy on these people, to whose interests you are showing such callous indifference, remember the difficulties they have had to overcome and the difficulties which are still before them. There has not been one serious speech made on the other side of the House combating the criticism made on this side of the House. Members on this side have dealt with the matter as a business proposition, and maintain that from a business standpoint it is a bad thing, a thoroughly bad thing. You are giving away something of the greatest value to us, you are destroying something which we have got, and you are getting nothing in return. I will read the covering letter in which the resolution I have just read was enclosed. It is written by Col. Maurice, also of Muden, who is one of the authorities on citrus-growing and packing and export in this country and a big grower himself. He says in this letter that a good deal depends upon the goodwill of the buyers. If they are imbued with the empire spirit they buy South African oranges, but if they get it into their heads that South Africa is letting the empire down nothing will induce them to buy South African products. Is the British manufacturer, Col. Maurice asks, going to allow his money to be spent in advertising South African exports if this treaty goes through? The Minister should remember that the actions of the Government today are being closely watched by the people of this country, by the producers of this country, and you may do them an injury, and do it deliberately, but you may rest assured that that injury will be paid for in votes against you at the next election in 13 or 14 weeks’ time. Many hon. members opposite are going to lose their seats, and they know it and they deserve it. They have had a magnificent opportunity in this country, and they have thrown it away. Never has there been a fairer or more helpful Opposition, and when it is compared with the last Opposition in this House it is difficult to realize that the Government have had an Opposition at all. They have had wonderful assistance from this side of the House and they have never appreciated it. Now this treaty does away with all the advantages which hon. members opposite boasted of having secured at the Imperial Conference in 1926. They told us that they had practically secured sovereign independence; but in this document they are trying themselves to the chariot wheels of Germany and their freedom of action is passing from them for ever. This treaty violates the spirit of co-operation of the 1926 Imperial Conference. Where is the co-operation? The co-operation is such that they dare not lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between themselves and Britain and the dominion Governments. Again, it places the British dominions in exactly the same position as foreign powers. It is interesting to wonder what the Minister of Labour has to say about this; the Minister of Labour, who was put there with his colleague, the Minister of Defence, to defend these very principles and promised to do so. If any persons have given their side away it has been these two men above all others. We do not condemn the Minister of Mines and Industries in the same way. He is bred that way; it is in his blood; it is in his very gall, he can’t help himself. This treaty offends our best customer, it gives a foreign power tremendous powers of intervention in matters which are purely domestic. From now onwards you cannot give any member of the British empire an additional preference without first consulting Germany. How different is the attitude of the British Government. I would like to read a speech by the Prime Minister of England delivered when he visited Montreal 18 months ago. He was referring to the British Empire Marketing Board, which had come under discussion—

While Great Britain is trying to imbue this into the minds of 48,000,000 of our customers, we are out to alienate the sympathies of 48.000,000 buyers. It is absolute insanity. At the Imperial Conference in 1923, a resolution was passed approving of the principle that Great Britain should maintain its navy at a strength equal to that of any other power. South Africa was a party to that resolution. This means that Great Britain has to spend for our protection £60,000,000 per annum, which is very nearly equal to the whole of our revenue. Forty-eight millions of people in Great Britain have to bend their backs in daily toil to compete with 100,000,000 people in the United States, who have bulging bank balances, while England has nearly 1,500,000 people out of work.

Three cheers for Baldwin. Who is to blame for that?

No one will be more to blame than the hon. member and his friends who are voting for a treaty which is going to make the work of these people still more difficult to get and transfer what work there is to countries where sweated labour and long hours are followed.

Yet British firms here send their orders to Germany.

The South African contribution to the navy here is negligible. We have the Zonnebloem, the Immortelle and the Protea, a sloop and minesweepers. I venture to think that the first time these men-of-war put to sea for a long voyage will be for the purpose of visiting the Kiel Canal to show our flag to our new allies. I believe the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) suggested that this treaty would provide us with further markets. Now let us look into that. First of all the Minister has not even bragged it would supply us with further markets. He knew it wouldn’t, for when he suggested that Germany should give us a quid pro quo he was told he would get no more quids for his quo. Germany had already some experience with Canada which was not prepared to deal with Germany because there was nothing doing. The Minister knew there was nothing to be got in the way of increased markets, but still he might have done us a good turn. When he was busy giving the British empire away he might have taken some little trouble to get something for it. It is not everyone who can sell the British empire on his own, but this Minister actually had the chance, and instead of getting something for it he gave it away. One great anxiety of the farmers in this country to-day is the question of surplus cattle. We do not know how we are going to get rid of the cattle on our new northern farms. But supposing the Minister had taken the trouble to stipulate that in return for the British empire which he was handing over to Germany that South Africa was to be allowed to send her surplus meat to Germany, where it is needed, he would then have been doing something really useful. I wonder the Minister of Agriculture did not wake up and make that suggestion to him. What is the position in regard to Germany and the meat trade? Germany will not allow a single pound of meat into her country under a duty of 2½d. a pound, but she does allow fifty thousand tons of frozen meat to come in under certain conditions. It is in the hands of a few operators. The conditions are such that the Argentine gets the whole trade and we get none. While the Minister was dishing out Great Britain, if he had got us that fifty thousand tons order he would have done something for us. But he has done nothing. He said in practice, “What do I care about the farmer or the fruit grower or the wine farmer.” It is the British empire’s life I am after”, I do not know whether the Government are going to send this treaty to another place or not, but if they force this treaty through, the country will turn and rend them and throw them out of office, and that is the price they are going to pay for selling the British empire.

During the last two days we have listened to hon. members on the other side. The opposition of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to the treaty was supported by two arguments. The first is that the word “foreign” does not occur, and the second that, just as was said in the Reichstag, the treaty violated the preference system of the empire. I have studied the Anglo-German treaty very closely, and see that our treaty mentions the most favoured nation, while the English treaty mentions the most favoured foreign nation. This is our great sin, that we omitted that. In my opinion the sin is very small, and I believe that we are quite entitled to speak of the “most favoured nation”, The hon. member for Standerton immediately condemned the treaty and said that it was the first treaty we were concluding and he hoped it would be the last. Another instance of the superiority complex. He imagines that no one else can do anything good. Only he can do anything. Will he be prepared to agree to the treaty if we put “foreign” into it? The hon. member knows what he can do. He tried to settle the Indian question, with the result that passive resistance was resorted to. He once dealt with the native question. The result was Bulhoek. He had relations with the strikers, with the result that bombs and guns were used. He worried with the protestors, and the result was death and destruction. He has always failed when there was something to be done. The Opposition have made a great fuss about what was said in the German Reichstag in connection with the treaty. But who said it in the Reichstag? It was not a responsible Minister, but a Nationalist member. He was the only one who said it. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) said that it was the truth, and nothing but the truth. He simply accepts everything as truth that is said ill the Reichstag. Does he always accept everything the Germans say? I doubt it. When the causes of the war are debated in the Reichstag does he then also accept as truth what the Germans say?

You have read what was said.

Certainly, but we do not accept it as absolute truth. I deny the truth of what the member of the Reichstag said. When it suits their book hon. members opposite take pleasure in using what is said in the Reichstag, but otherwise the Germans always speak untruths if England is concerned. Then they are called Huns and other things. It was strange to see the hon. member for Pretoria (West) sitting next to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), a splendid combination, which is gradually arising, the hon. member for Standerton and his opponent in Pretoria (West). I was reminded of the “Heavenly twins”, and in connection with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) when he sat there so lovingly with the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and Standerton, I was reminded of the words, “How are the mighty in Israel fallen” in the case of the hon. member for Pretoria (West). Then I come to the kraal wall round the commonwealth. It seems to me that hon. members want to build a kraal wall about South Africa, and the other parts of the empire may remain out. What has Australia done? We had a favourable tariff on our maize. Then the Australian maize farmers agitated strongly for the abolition of the preference, and 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs. was put on our maize. What do hon. members opposite say of Australia’s attitude towards us? Questions were put in the Australian Parliament, and from them it appeared that for a long time the Australian Government had intended to get rid of our favourable conditions, and then the duty was put on Our maize, and the reason plainly given in the Australian Parliament was that our maize is produced by black labour. That was the reason why we could not export maize to Australia any more. It is the same with our sugar. It is also produced by black labour. Can the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) produce sugar without black labour? Formerly we sent thousands of bags of mealies to Australia, but then it was stopped. What do hon. members opposite say of the attitude of Australia? We see what happened in the Australian Parliament. It can be found in the Australian Hansard, 874-885, of 1926. This is then the brotherhood in the commonwealth. What becomes of our maize farmers is of no importance. What is the position in England? Every day we hear that England does so much for us. Let me go into the figures. In eight years the Union has received as preference from the United Kingdom £1,528,229, and has given to the United Kingdom £4,795,331. Thus the Union has given England £3,267,102 more than we have received. The Opposition talks so much of the dear motherland. A loving mother that is who cares for her child so well that she gets £3,000,000 more than the child. It is the most stepmotherly mother I have ever yet heard of. That is a loving mother, who, as her child leaves the house, says to him: “Here is £100, give me £1,000.” I should not like to be the child of such a mother. We see that to an important extent England is a commission agent. Let me give a few figures concerning imports into England. In 1921, of foodstuffs, drink and tobacco, £6,508,093 worth was imported from South Africa. Of that England kept £5,000,000 and exported again £595,000 worth. Of raw materials in 1921 England imported £12,000,000 worth, and kept £5,000,000 and exported again £7,000,000. Naturally profit was made on it. Why cannot we export the £7,000,000 straight to Germany instead of via the exchange market, England? Ln 1923 the import of raw materials was £10,000,000; of that £4½ millions were kept and £5½ millions again exported. In 1927 the import of raw materials into England was £17,000,000, of which £5,000,000 was kept, and £12,000,000 again exported. Where is the love in what we receive from England if we keep these figures in mind. I have not even included gold and diamonds. If we take our gold export for a month, e.g., February, 1928, then we find that we sent £870,000 worth of gold to Britain, of which France took £854.000. Britain only kept £16,000. Why cannot we put our gold direct on to the world market? We have Australia who will not take our maize, and England who acts as an exchange and makes a profit out of it. Take Canada for example. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has changed so much since he went to Canada because he saw there how loyal Canada is and how unhappy South Africa is. If, however, we take the figures into account we find that in one year Canada imported articles worth 158,000,000 dollars from Britain, against an import of 719,000,000 dollars from the United States. Canada loves Britain very much, but imports nearly 600,000,000 dollars worth more from the United States. From South Africa Canada only imports articles to the value of £59,000. Hon. members opposite talk of a kraal wall round the empire, but the kraal wall is only round South Africa and not round Britain and the other dominions.

You have omitted diamonds to the value of £3,000,000 from the export figures to Canada.

Diamonds are an article which other countries are just as ready to take. We have now once for all accepted the principle of quid pro quo in our preference system, and we are going to remain by that. If we look at the German trade then we find that German imports from South Africa are as follows: 1924, £2¾ millions; 1925, £3¾ millions; 1926, £2½ millions; and 1927, £4¼ millions. Notwithstanding these figures we may not, according to hon. members opposite, conclude a trade treaty with Germany. Excluding Government stocks Germany exported to South Africa; 1924, £2,208,000; 1925, £3,292,000; 1926, £3,228,000; and 1927, £4,552,000. From Canada our average yearly imports are about £2,000,000, while Canada takes from us less than £60,000. With other dominions it is a matter of their own interests, and the time has come for us to look after our own interests. Hon. members opposite have said that Britain will retaliate as regards gold, asbestos, and other articles, but those are raw materials which we can export to other countries, because other countries will be only too glad to get them. Does Britain give our mealies a preference? No, we are put on the same footing as the Argentine. I am sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is not here, because yesterday he attacked the Ministers in the House and said that they are the bitterest.

That is true.

The hon. member can speak with authority because he is so moderate and one of the most amiable members in the House. When he talks then honey and syrup pour out of his mouth!

I am not a Minister, a man of peace.

We know what the hon. member’s attitude is. The hon. member for Caledon spoke in his resounding voice of the Ministers, the preaching elders, but in his speech he forgot that he is an active elder. What is the difference? I am sorry about the bitterness which he, as an active elder has displayed. Hon. members opposite, amongst them the hon. member for Standerton, talk of their great friendship with Germany, but if we go to the hall of mirrors at Versailles then we see the great friendship when he signed the peace treaty. We see it also in the burning of German property under the South African party Government. When he had the chance of helping the Germans and helping them to recover, he waited until a proposal came to repatriate them. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) also contended that the treaty is being made to satisfy the “backveld,” but that was an idea which he took over from his Bible, the “Cape Argus”, which talked of the pacifying of the republican sections.

Are you a republican?

I was born and educated as a republican and I am still one at heart. With us on this side of the House it is however not a question of race hatred because that is a feeling which is exhibited opposite. They talk of friendship and brotherhood, but when we try to carry out the resolutions of the economic section of the League of Nations in practice they are strong opponents of us. In 1922, four years after the world war, I was in Germany and met a Cape Town merchant in Berlin. I asked him what he was doing in Berlin, and said: “I thought you would not again buy goods in Germany.” His reply was: “I cannot get it elsewhere than in Germany hence I come here.” The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) said that the fruit dealers in Britain had to take off the papers from our fruit to be able to sell it, but I wonder whether South Africanse must go then to the shops of the hon. members for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and say that we will not buy from them in future because the former sells American motors, and the latter German toys. I want to ask them if they are in earnest in their statements that the man in the street in Britain knows that we are importing, e.g., German engines. I know London well, and I know that the ordinary man knows nothing about what is happening here. During the second war of independence they were surprised to hear that we were not black. I say that it is far fetched to say that the man in the street will differentiate against us. Our trade is mostly in the hands of English-speaking people, but when you enter their shops they will always have German goods in stock to offer their customers. If it is for their benefit they are quite prepared to buy in Germany. We find that hon. members on this side of the House have English-speaking people as their best friends, that we read English newspapers and know everything that is going on. We possibly know more of England than hon. members opposite. What do they know however of the Afrikaans language and of South African conditions? To say therefore that we are preaching race hatred, and they are not, is the greatest rubbish in the world. Now we find that they oppose a treaty which is advantageous to South Africa and its farming population.

I have listened with great interest to everything that has been brought forward by Ministers in justification of this remarkable treaty, and it seems to me that the most that can be said for their claim is that they are trying wrongly to do right. The labours of Ministers to try wrongly have been apparent to all. Their good intentions —and we have heard of the avenue paved with those—have not been so obvious though so often re-iterated. I wish to take hon. members back to the spirit that animated our representatives at the Imperial Conference, and I can best do that by quoting from the final resolution that was adopted when that great conference dispersed. At the conclusion of its final meeting the conference agreed upon the following address to his Majesty the King—

This spirit—let me draw attention to the words “co-operation in promoting the prosperity of the several parts of the empire” showed that not only the sentiment but the economic welfare of the people received consideration. I cannot absolve the leading members of the Cabinet from responsibility for the way in which they have departed from the principle expressed in this striking resolution. Let me first of all deal with the author of this treaty, the Minister of Mines and Industries. Let us pause and consider what has been his attitude towards this principle of co-operating in promoting the prosperity of the several parts of the empire. Not long ago we had the chambers of Commerce of the British empire meeting in Cape Town, and their congress was opened in the presence of H.E. the Governor-General, who spoke very favourably in support of the work of the Empire Marketing Board. I quote from the official report of the conference. On that occasion the Minister of Mines and Industries said—

He preached the same sort of poisonous doctrine in Canada, and it is clear that this bad doctrine is the root principle of the German treaty. There is nobody more responsible for it than the Minister of Mines and Industries.

If good Britishers can preach that doctrine why should not I?

I am not challenging the good British citizenship of the Minister. I am merely dealing with him for his sins against the light. The Minister has also on another public occasion attributed to the Empire Marketing Board an ulterior object As far as the Prime Minister is concerned I shall not say a disrespectful word. I speak of him more in great sorrow than in great anger. I am sorry that the Prime Minister should have disappointed those who felt that when he came back from England after the Imperial Conference, be was going to be a great influence for good, that he would expiate the mistakes of the past, and work devotedly in the interests of a united South Africa. Some of us believed that, but we are disappointed at the way in which he has betrayed the confidence and trust we reposed in him. The Minister of Railways and Harbours, who doubtless at this witching hour is snatching a few minutes of rest in some quiet corner of these premises, went to Germany on a mysterious visit. When he returned my colleague the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) asked him where he had been.

Supping with the devil, I suppose.

No. Nor had he even “been to London to see the Queen” apparently. The hon. member for Newcastle asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours how many German locomotive factories he visited during his recent trip to Europe, and how many British locomotive factories he inspected on the same occasion. This mild and inoffensive question was almost like a red rag to a bull. The Minister of Railways and Harbours with the fine passion which he affects when on his high horse said the visit was entirely a private one, and he saw no necessity to furnish an account of his movements to the hon. member. On the same afternoon my colleague of Zululand asked him a pertinent question with regard to a report in the press of a lecture delivered by a Berlin engineer, Dr. Sell, who had expressed gratification at the British leaving South Africa by the thousand and at the securing of Union Government contracts by Germany. My hon. colleague asked the Minister whether he had met this engineer in Germany. To this, and to my further question whether the Minister gave this engineer reason for his statement that the Union Government was showering orders on Germany, much to London’s disgust, the Minister replied that his visit was entirely a private one. To show how savage a blow the Minister of Mines and Industries aimed at the idea of empire co-operation, may I state that at a subsequent stage of the 1928 session the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) drew attention to the fact that at the request i of the Commonwealth Government a mission I was being sent to Australia, from England,! with the object of promoting mutual trade between Great Britain and Australia, and he asked whether the Union Government would invite a similar mission to visit South Africa. The Minister replied in one brutal word “No.” We contrast these unaccountable actions of the Union Government with the actions of the Government of Great Britain, which appointed a body of experts to act as an Imperial Economic Committee with a view to translating into practice the principle of co-operation in promoting the prosperity of the several parts of the empire. Not content with letting us down lightly in regard to the navy and imperial defence, realizing that we were not strong enough to do a very great deal in those matters,; the British Government went much further by securing preferential markets for us in Great Britain; and I hope to show later that the Empire Marketing Board has done a great deal more to make our citrus industry profitable than we have ever done ourselves. The origin of this Imperial Economic Committee was a promise made by Mr. Baldwin to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) when he was Prime Minister. I am almost ashamed to have to sit in this House to listen to the petty, paltry, capricious criticism that has been levelled at the leader of the Opposition for his attitude before he went to that conference. Every speaker on the Government side has deliberately closed his eyes to the fact that when my leader went to the conference in 1923 he secured the advantages he had set out before his departure, and that the circumstances to-day are entirely different from those when he made his speech in 1923. When he went to the Imperial Conference he obtained a promise from Mr. Baldwin for certain preferences for Union products, but when Mr. Baldwin found that he was unable, because of his election pledges at the intervening election, to carry out the promise, he proposed to the British Parliament that it should vote a sum equivalent to the advantages which would have been conferred on the Dominions had the preferences been given, and that the money should be devoted to developing markets for Empire produce. This generous offer has been interpreted in this House in a niggardly and ungenerous fashion. The Imperial Economic Committee called into being the Empire Marketing Board, Mr. Baldwin saying that Great Britain wished to encourage empire products at the expense of foreign producers and not at the expense of domestic producers. The economic committee came to the conclusion that the time was ripe for a national effort to stimulate the consumption of empire produce in the United Kingdom—should that not bring a thrill of kinship to every one of us who is seeking to earn his living in the far-flung portions of the empire?—And this could best be effected by a form of voluntary preference. The scheme rested on the free will of the individual citizen as a consumer. There were three things to make this voluntary preference effective. One was that the consumer should lie induced to take empire goods; secondly, that he should be helped to recognize empire goods; and, thirdly, that empire goods should be of good quality, adequate in quantity and reasonable in price. There is a whole net work of forethought, an enterprising scheme of publicity effort calculated to stimulate in the shopping public of Great Britain the will to buy empire products. There is not one of us who cannot partake in this idea, who cannot see that in the British workman and the British workman’s wife, shopping in Great Britain, we can win helpful and faithful allies. This is a co-operation of kinship and fellowship with the people who belong to the empire, and who have no lack of desire to help over the stile those who, God knows, suffer enough in the way of hardship and loss and disappointment,—the producers of this country. I claim that every producer worth his salt in South Africa is on our side and not a single speaker on the other side has quoted any man worthy of mention who is in favour of this treaty. I challenge anyone on that side to produce the most frouwsy and backward producer who will support this treaty. And why? The producers are unable to support it because they know it is a betrayal of the position of the producer. In this matter people of all nationalities are on our side in this country. I defy the Minister of Agriculture to quote any producer not in this House who will support the carrying out of this treaty. Mr. Kolbe has been referred to. He is a man of German descent, a large-hearted South African, a man who was big enough to give the opinion that had been quoted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). He makes an appeal that there should be more co-operation with Great Britain. He says—

How does that coincide with the attitude of the Minister of Mines and Industries? Mr. Kolbe spoke in this way because he realized he was speaking for his fellow-producers in South Africa. I want to show to the Minister of Agriculture what has been done in the interests of the citrus industry in this country by the Empire Marketing Board. I should first like to remind him of a statement in the Land Bank report. It refers to the wonderful future of the citrus industry in this country, and they use a phrase which is very appropriate—“The citrus industry constitutes new wealth.” That is what we want, and in the light of that phrase I look upon the Minister as not fulfilling the great role which he should as Minister of Agriculture. The report goes on to say that the industry hopes in 1930 to reach the point at which we shall have 6,000,000 boxes of fruit for export, 545 trainloads, equalling one ship every 48 hours to carry them away. What is the report of the Land Bank as far back as 1926 upon this subject? They said—

This unfriendly act took place during the regime of the present Government. That is the friendly gesture we get from Germany when we go to the trouble and pain and humiliation of having a Nationalist Government in power, and that is all the gratitude they show. The Empire Marketing Board have captured the custom of the thousands who have attended every shopping week in Great Britain, and have taught school children to dream of the fruit which comes from Africa. Every town of 50,000 inhabitants and over has been plastered with posters, and whether these posters are correct in detail or not, they have a propaganda value from day to day. I will exhibit some of these posters to this House. One of them says—“Buy South African oranges.” The treaty, if passed, will go far to provoke in the minds of Great Britain’s people the slogan “Don’t buy South African oranges”! The Empire Marketing Board recognizes that every one within the folds of the empire has not the same sentimental view of the empire, but the economic view is very much the same, whether people are of English, Dutch, French, German or Irish origin. We have this sort of poster which I now exhibit, one of whose many little texts is, “The seas but join the countries they divide.” Here you have a special edition for the South African citrus grower, showing an extensive citrus plantation in South Africa. Then we have a poster showing oranges growing at the foot of Table Mountain. Even this slight error will draw attention to the poster. South Africans who know that oranges are not grown there will be ready to impart their superior knowledge to others. Another poster shows a hardworking farmer, a former burgher, climbing a rickety ladder and picking oranges. It states, “There are over 3,000,000 orange trees in South Africa.” The next poster depicts the grain elevator in the background, but is intended to show the loading of oranges in Cape Town docks, all done decently and in order. Another shows the buying of the oranges—the good friends who buy them in spite of the German treaty. We come to this rather sombre-looking one showing how the number of boxes of oranges sent from South Africa has increased. Then, finally, we have a cubist sort of picture of the good lady who is carrying home the oranges with a basket under each arm. I am willing to lend these posters to “Die Burger,” that Imperialist journal which never ceases to recommend the attachment of this country to the British empire. The Empire Marketing Board has sent round the world Prof. Clarke Powell of the Transvaal University College, a distinguished horticulturalist and a professor of the University, who has gone round on a world tour for the benefit of the citrus-growers, and nothing has been more for their benefit, brought more confidence to the industry, than the publication of his report on which the Minister of Agriculture has not spent one penny. I asked the Minister the other day, who was standing the expense of the journey, and in a very curt reply, he said he was not—what we might have expected. But we are reaping the benefit. One million a year is spent on behalf of the dominions by the board in promoting this movement of voluntary preference to secure preferential markets for our products. [Time limit.]

I do not want to enter into all the arguments of the Opposition, but just as a farmer to rebut a few statements. Listening to the speeches of the Opposition one must infer that we are declaring war against England, withdrawing all preferences, and that in future there will be enmity between England and ourselves as a result of this treaty. The other side say that the farmers will be damaged by the treaty. That was one of the great arguments against it, but they forgot to say how the farmers were damaged during the South African party Government. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) spoke about the maize export to Australia, but the speaker before me has already shown that the arguments they used are quite untenable, and that Australia would no longer admit our mealies because they were produced by native labour. What did the South African party do for the maize farmer?

Built grain elevators.

Elevators that were failures. I am a mealie farmer and I am particularly keen on the elevators. They assist in classifying, but that can also be done in other ways and often we are better off without, than with them. We hear from overseas the statement that maize which has passed through the elevators often arrives so broken that it can no longer be used for the purpose it was intended for. Hon. members opposite have possibly also conveniently forgotten how the last Government laid an embargo on our mealies in 1920 and prevented the farmers exporting it. The big men, a group of people, had first to have the opportunity of buying up the maize in the country and it cost the maize producers about £1,000,000 owing to their not getting the price they could get in the world market, but the price which was created here by the embargo. To-day hon. members want to get up here and champion the maize farmers. The farmers know better and will show it shortly. The hon. member for Weenen talked of the meat market we shall get in Germany, but he said that we ought to go to work differently. In other words we ought first to declare economic war on Germany and then go and look for the meat market. I fear we shall not succeed very well. In my young days I learnt from political economy that one must look for a market for produce, and that the market fixed the prices, that a group of nations could not fix them. An attempt is being made on the opposite side to prevent the middlemen from being eliminated, to prevent the consumer being brought into direct communication with the producer. That is the sort of policy which this side of the House does not want to follow. Mr. Colwer has often been quoted here as a farmer who has spoken about our markets in the empire, but not a single quotation has been made where the treaty was rejected as wrong. The other day there was a bioscope exhibition here of what is being done overseas for the advertising of our produce. Who is opposed to that? We all admit it, but the preferences which existed went to England. The plum went into her pocket, and it is merely with the few plums that are over that we can win other markets. We must extend our markets. In this debate we are not really concerned with the great struggle on the other side for the farmer and the manufacturer, but with the old struggle commenced in 1912, and that is about the principle, “South Africa first”. Since 1912 the South African party have opposed the principle, and the debate to-day again proves that the Opposition are always against the principle of “South Africa first”, In 1912 Sir Thomas Smartt made the first speech against it and advocated “empire first” and then South Africa, but the man who had to suffer then for the sake of the principle is now Prime Minister of the country and we thank God for it. I hope that the people of South Africa will send him back much stronger. He has thoroughly proved that he is carrying out the principle in practice that it is not merely all talk with him. I can congratulate the Minister who had the courage to sign the treaty that so far as my supporters are concerned—all Transvaal farmers—we welcome it and congratulate him. I want to ask hon. members who are shouting so much to think a little further back of the advice Mr. Amery gave them when he was here. I think he felt the necessity of saying it and he said that the “little Englishman” meant nothing, either to South Africa, to the empire, or to England, and that they only did harm. If harm has ever been done to the happy co-operation between the two sections of the South African people, then it is the language coming from the opposite benches. It will, in the case of people who have no exact hostility to England but who put South Africa first—(No quorum). The “little Englishman” is the new term which Mr. Amery left here. The people he referred to were formerly known amongst us as uitlanders. To judge by the economic explanation of this treaty by some hon. members opposite I must say that apparently the old uitlander spirit is still prevailing opposite with respect to South African trade. South Africa does not want to restrict itself by a ring-fence, she wants to extend and have a world market for her produce. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) said that it was well known how simple the farming population were and how little they knew of economics and treaties like this. And then he turns round and says that there was a spontaneous outburst against the treaty. If the farmers who pass those resolutions do not understand the treaty I can appreciate the spontaneous outburst. This dominion is not the only one which concludes treaties with foreign countries. We find that Canada has entered into no less than 10 trade treaties abroad, while we have been asleep. Now the Opposition— the wag-’n-bietjie party—wants us to wait until Canada and the other dominions have concluded all the treaties and is ahead of us with the best tariffs in the best markets. No, I think that the Minister who is responsible for this treaty has done much for South Africa and that the people will be grateful to him to the end of time.

I won’t keep the House for more than two or three minutes, but I think the voice of Langlaagte has been too pronounced of late to let this opportunity pass without a word or two being said on this important matter. I have listened very attentively to the debate on this treaty, and I have been puzzled at the definition of hon. members opposite of the word “preference.” It has carried me back to the United States, which I visited 40 years ago, when I heard an argument on free trade versus tariff reform. One of the speakers, in defining the word “preference” used the word “reciprocity” and said it meant “I hit you, and you hite me back again.” After listening to the discussion in this House, it seems to me that all the hit is on one side, if one is to accept the statements of hon. members who favour the treaty, and that Germany is not going to hit back again. I fail to understand why members on the other side of the House are underestimating the intelligence of Germany, and why they should think Germany is going to take all we send to them, and will not send anything back. If this treaty is ratified, the German people are going to see to it that we take something in return for what we send. They intend to send something back, and they will send manufactured articles. This country will be compelled to take—I may not be right in using the words—cheap German goods; at any rate, the articles will be in competition with what we are manufacturing in this country, or what we are hoping to manufacture. I am interested in industries, and I was interested in the statement of the Minister of Mines and Industries during the discussion on the motion of no confidence, when he dealt with the industries which are established in South Africa, and those which are going to be established. He built a little idol in front of my eyes, but after this debate that idol has been shattered into a thousand pieces. What will be the position of this young country if this treaty is carried into effect? We shall have manufactured goods sent here from overseas to compete with our own manufactures. I have been disappointed at not hearing from the Minister of Defence and his Labour colleagues in the Cabinet some statement on the treaty from the Labour point of view. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) stated that in some cases the German working man works 12 hours a day.

That is not true.

What is puzzling a good many people is the inconsistency of the Labour members on the other side of the House in not raising their voices against this very obnoxious treaty for by their silence they are not playing the game with their fellow trade unionists in this country or in Great Britain. It has been said from the Government benches that the country has not protested against this treaty. Well last night I had the following telegram from Langlaagte: “Debate on German treaty working wonders; you will get a surprise tomorrow.” The surprise I got this morning was the following—Mr. Strauss (S.A.P.), 1182; and Mr. Perreira (Pact), 682. What has happened at Langlaagte will be repeated all over the country if the Government carries the German treaty into effect.

I would not have spoken but for the Prime Minister twitting this side of the House with not speaking from the producers’ point of view. The constituency which I have the honour to represent grows some of the finest citrus produced in South Africa, and I am not talking from an Imperialistic point of view, but from the point of view of “South Africa first.” I have here a resolution from the Uitenhage District Citrus Growers’ Co-operative Company, Limited, stating that it views with great concern the proposed conclusion of a trade treaty with Germany which in its present form seriously prejudices the interest of citrus farmers. This company, representing producers who depend almost entirely on the consumers of Great Britain for the profitable marketing of their produce, ask the Government to reconsider the terms of the Treaty, bearing in mind the serious injury which will be caused to citrus farmers of South Africa if the treaty is ratified in its present form. In forwarding the resolution they say splendid work has been done by the Empire Marketing Board in Great Britain in the interests of the South African Citrus Industry and mention Sir Benjamin Morgan has stated that Great Britain is seriously contemplating the granting of a preference of 8 per cent, in favour of empire citrus fruits.

We would like to see that materialise.

So would I. I am glad to see that on one point at any rate that the Minister and I are of the same opinion. That would mean at least £100,000 more into the pockets of the South African citrus farmers for the coming season. I hope the Minister will consider this treaty from a producer’s point of view, because evidently a large and deserving body is very seriously perturbed in regard to the harm this treaty will do their products on the other side, if it be carried out in its present form.

When the hon. member for lllivo (Mr. Marwick) this afternoon asked the Minister whether he was prepared to receive a visit from the commission representing the Empire Marketing Board, the reply was a curt “no.” We have heard two reasons advanced for entering into this treaty with Germany. One was that we should be extending the hand of friendship. Another was the tender care which the Minister had for extending the markets for the products of South Africa. Was that “no” indicative of a hand of friendship extended to Great Britain? Was there any tender care for our products in that brief “no”? It seems to me that the Minister is utterly inconsistent. We heard a deputation from Germany was here to discuss trade matters. They were not received with a curt “no.” They were welcomed with open arms, and that apparently marks the inception of this treaty. It was conceived in sin and it has been condemned by every right-thinking person in this country. We have not had a single fact produced from that side in support of this treaty. The very men who should have told us what were the benefits of the treaty have been discreetly silent, because there are no benefits and they know it. Instead of adducing reasons for the acceptance of this treaty, of enlarging on the benefits which the producers of the Union would receive, hon. members opposite have contented themselves with hinting charges of racialism, anti-German feeling and electioneering propaganda at us on this side of the House. You have not had a single voice in commerce raised in defence of this treaty.

What about Gundelfinger?

Is that the best you can do? Clever little fellow! One or two of the fruit-growing districts have returned Nats. Why have they not told us the views of the fruit-growers? I have not heard a single word from the member for Ceres (Mr. Roux.) Those members who represent the fruit-growers on that side have funked the issue. Take the farmers. Has a single farmer got up and given us a valid reason why we should accept the treaty? The Minister of Finance talked about the woolgrowers. What on earth are they going to get out of it? The farmers through their organised bodies have expressed repugnance to this treaty. They feel their best interests are served by an extension of imperial preference and not by its curtailment, as will be done by this treaty. The Minister of Defence has condemned it, and it seems strange that when the farmers, the commercial men, the producers and even a member of the Cabinet have condemned this treaty and yet the country is asked to swallow it. It has not got a friend. The Prime Minister says we are extending the hand of friendship to Germany. That is all we are going to get. What are we giving? We are giving up any extension of Empire preference system. Something of infinitely more value, something almost priceless. If the Minister could not make a better bargain than that I don’t wonder he has very few friends among the commercial men of South Africa. I never heard of such a one-sided bargain in my life. That a Cabinet who call themselves business men should bind the country to a one-sided treaty of this sort, passes my comprehension, and they have fallen very much in our estimation, and that of the country in general. A sneer flung across the floor is that business men buy German goods. It seems to be the stock in trade of members over there.

It is your stock in trade.

Where is your argument? Because one-eighth of the goods bought are German, that sneer is flung across and at the same time you are lauding to the skies the idea of increasing German trade with this country. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) seemed very concerned that Britain, besides being a buyer of our products, also acted as a middleman, but as long as London pays, I do not care whether London is a middleman or not. I fail to see why the hon. member should consider it is a crime for England to act as middleman. The Minister said he would break down the ring fence around the empire.

I said nothing of the kind; I said you want to erect a ring-fence.

If protection for our products and a ring-fence round South Africa are good for this country a ring-fence of preference and protection for the empire is equally good. I hope that the Minister of Labour, who has interjected, will be man enough to tell the House what his honest opinion is, and let him tell Durban.

I will tell Durban and Greyville too. They will know all about it.

We are not afraid to go to the country on this treaty. The Government is struggling and floundering; it is trying to snatch at a straw for the next election. A more sick and sorry crowd I newer saw. This treaty, which is not for the good of South Africa, and not so in the interest of the Empire has been introduced for propaganda, and is going to be another bull-rag and a worse one than the last. It will be another damp squib. The country is going to judge on this matter whether the sound lines for the future developments of this country are to be within the empire, with all the markets and benefits which that offers, or outside the empire with no friends; if so, then Heaven help us.

I did not intend speaking, but after the remarks of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) on wool farmers and as I actually represent a wool district I must say a few words. We hear from the Opposition and on platforms outside that they stand for “South Africa first,” but as soon as one puts it to the proof one finds that they are not in earnest. Actually they fight the slogan tooth and nail. The hon. member says that we get our best wool prices in Britain, but according to the “South African Produce Review” of Port Elizabeth, France and Germany are our best buyers. The report on the Durban wool market says that the German and French buyers do not allow the good wool to pass, while Bradford only buys the average wool. We can therefore see what it will mean if Germany goes out of our market, because then the French buyers will be able to buy our good wool without competition at low prices and then large quantities of our wool will also go very cheap to the English speculators, to then dispose of it at a big profit once more. That is apparently what hon. members opposite want. In Britain there are 600 millionaires and it is said that half of them have made their fortunes out of wool speculation. If we say “South Africa first” and look after our own country in the first place it does not mean that we are hostile to the British Empire. We are not, however, going to send our goods to the British middleman at South Africa’s expense. With few exceptions hon. members opposite are enemies of South Africa in their policy. If the trade treaty had been concluded with China, Japan or Persia they would have raised no objection, but because we have done so with Germany they object strongly. They say as a matter of fact that they are not inimical to Germany but in their hearts they continue to feel that the Germans are barbarian Huns. It is the duty of the Government to protect the interests of the South African people and to extend our overseas markets, but we now find that the South African party in its opposition is more imperialistic than Britain itself.