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

seconded.

My hon. friend, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) withdrew his motion. Have we a right to assume that the scope of the committee will be sufficiently wide to consider the amendment of my hon. friend?

Yes, it is very comprehensive.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

seconded.

I move—

Has the hon. member seen the Minister? It is usual in these cases to obtain the consent of the Minister beforehand.

I ask him.

I am afraid I cannot.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Has the hon. member seen the Minister?

I understand that the Minister was seen by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins).

As the hon. member is absent, it is only right for me to say that he saw the Secretary for Justice, who demurred to the motion being taken as an unopposed motion.

The hon. member must see the Minister.

Under the circumstances, I will see the Minister myself.

May I, with the indulgence of the House, ask that Order No. 14, standing in my name, be dealt with as an unopposed motion, viz.—

1. (a) criminal cases in which public prosecutions have been abandoned before or since the coming into operation of Act No. 39 of 1926, where the decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute has, on legal grounds, given rise to dissatisfaction on the part of the complainant or of the public;
2. (b) the influence which has been responsible for the refusal of the Minister of Justice and his deputies to prosecute in such cases; and
3. (c) the effect upon the morale and efficiency of public prosecutors and police of the non-prosecution of accused persons and of the transfer or discharge of members of the police who have been connected with such cases;

the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Has the hon. member obtained the Minister’s consent?

I have seen the Minister, but to be quite frank, I must say he has not given his consent.

I object.

When I addressed this hon. House on a previous occasion in connection with this motion, I mentioned, inter alia, that the spirit with which this matter had been approached by our friends opposite was typical of their stereotyped attitude with regard to other important questions in our country. Well, if you want confirmation of that you need only refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) last night. He had hardly opened his mouth when out came the truth and the confirmation. He referred to what this Government has done in regard to status, in regard to the flag, in regard to language, and in regard to appointments in the public service. There you have confirmation of what I said. That is the attitude, and it is, therefore, easy to explain the attitude of hon. members on the other side. I am not surprised at it. The leader of the Opposition said I was on the defence. What presumption! On the defence! When the right to enter into this treaty is common cause, and when the desirability of entering into similar treaties is also common cause, and when the right hon. gentleman himself had so admirably paved the way for these treaties by his speeches in 1923. I understood from the remark made by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls)—I have to judge by an interjection of his—that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had changed his attitude in regard to what he said in 1923. Did I understand the interjection of the hon. member correctly?

No, he was perfectly consistent.

The hon. member said he had changed his attitude. The hon. member was on his legs soon after he made that interjection, but he did not think it worth while to explain why his leader had changed bis position. If his position is the same, then all the better for my purpose, and all the more incomprehensible is the present attitude of the hon. member’s leader. I had very little to say on the real point in the treaty, because my friend, the Minister of Finance, said that the whole point at issue lies in a nutshell, and I am not accustomed to dwell upon issues that lie in a nutshell. What I did refer to was the enormous smoke-screen thrown up to befog the issue in the form of ah apparently impregnable fortress. But, of course, it soon vanished. After all, it was only smoke. Another smoke-screen was thrown up. Their press has thrown out a smoke-screen, and every subsequent speaker has attempted to throw out a smoke-screen. But they will all vanish, as the first did. The right hon. leader of the Opposition dealt with the matter as though the onus was on the Government to defend itself. What presumption! If they had only acted on the lines laid down in 1923 by him, and the necessity existed then to find fresh markets overseas for our products, surely the necessity is all the greater five years later. No, sir, I have shown that the onus is strictly upon the Opposition to prove what they allege, and they have not made an approach towards discharging that onus. Where is the empire ring we are supposed to have broken? I deny there is any empire ring that I have broken. I say the Government is not going to allow hon. members opposite to impose the ring fence they are seeking to impose. This is our first treaty; we are dealing with a clean slate, and the right hon. gentleman opposite wants ab initio, ab limine, to put up a ring fence. But we refuse to follow the advice of the leader of the Opposition, who is the exploited mouth-piece of the Unionists. He talks of fairness when he and his supporters and their press are making propaganda right and left. I say that those who bring charges of the nature I am about to cite should discharge the onus of proving those charges. There is no onus upon the Government. I will give you a few samples of those charges, and that is why I used the expression that this was a campaign of calumny, racialism and misrepresentation; and, I add, a malicious press.

Good old racialism once more; the only argument.

I will give you some samples.

On a point of order, doesn’t the Minister come under Rule 90 for undue repetition?

The first sample is that we deliberately chose Germany. I am going to deal with this specially. I had hardly opened my mouth when the question was put by a prominent member opposite. Is the onus on us? The next sample was that this was a deliberate slap in the face for Great Britain. Another sample of the onus they are seeking to impose upon us was that this was due either to my incompetence or to the Government being an accomplice of Germany. Another sample was the charge of ingratitude. Another was that this was a calculated blow, that it was dictation from Germany: that it was malevolent anti-British feeling and a nullification of the solemn assurances of my friend, the Minister of Finance, a gross breach of faith, a desire to hurt and exacerbate the feelings of the British. There you have it. They have the temerity—I don’t want to us a stronger word—to say that the onus lies on us to show that we are not guilty of these charges. We have had distortion of the treaty’s import, especially of Article 8, a constant removal of a portion of the picture, and then we have been asked to look at all the rest. Then we have it from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that we are making Germany a part of the British empire, and cutting out England and putting Germany in its place in the British empire. Can absurdity go further? I want to ask the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), whose questions are so few in this hon. House, whether they said this about me—

Is that true?

That is precisely what I was told by people who heard the hon. gentleman speak in Canada.

Did the hon. member say that publicly or privately?

I was told it.

I deny it absolutely in toto, and I challenge the hon. member to adduce an iota of proof of it. That is the way the minds of our British fellow citizens are being poisoned.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us what he did say?

It is like telling a man: “You are a thief,” and when you cannot prove it, then you say: “What are you then?” And these are the people who talk about the onus of proof, and of our being on the defence. This is the second statement—

Did the hon. member say that to the Natalians publicly or privately, either the hon. member for Zululand, or my good friend the hon. member for Illovo?

I was there and heard you.

And the hon. member for Illovo had the hardihood to say, because I had put a question at this conference as to whether international economic co-operation was not the better thing, that that was poisonous stuff. I say that a statement like that of the hon. member for Zululand on mere hearsay is a good example of the poisoning of the minds of our English-speaking citizens.

I took your own words down verbatim.

I give an absolute denial to what is imputed to me by the hon. member for Zululand, and I challenge him to produce an iota of proof.

If I have used words against the Minister which I am not justified in using, I apologize, but I only used words which I believed to be true.

Then we have the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) bringing in the old, hoary charge of cutting the painter, and secession and he said that I have never in my life said a kindly word about England and the empire. First it is untrue, and, in the second place, it is another instance of trying to poison the minds of our English-speaking fellow citizens. Then we had the old charge that we are attempting to placate by this treaty our people who are secessionists and republicans.

You bragged about it.

It is said that I failed to explain the treaty, or that our side failed to explain the treaty. Again, my answer is that the whole issue is in a nutshell. It is an entire falsehood to say that the communication to the press by the Government was misleading or intended to mislead. I will prove that in a moment. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who, after all, has a very keen business and commercial instinct, at once recognized that the whole issue in the treaty revolved around Article 8. If we had worded Article 8 as it is, then it logically follows that we should leave out the word “foreign” from the treaty. The hon. member rather naively said that if we had only in Article 8, instead of making the reservation or exclusion partial, made it general and absolute, there would be nothing to be said further. There you have it, and under the circumstances, hon. gentlemen say that the treaty remains unexplained. Then one of the great points they sought to make was that we had not indicated the advantages of the treaty. I pointed out that, in the first place, it was a friendly gesture. It was in accordance with what was contemplated. It is in accordance with what the right hon. gentleman contemplated in his speeches, and, in the second place, I pointed out that our trade with Germany had increased materially. Our trade with the outside world over a long period of years has increased materially, and our trade with Great Britain—I further pointed out—had fallen off appreciably. Surely these facts are very important in making treaties of this kind desirable. Under this treaty we become entitled to the benefits of the conventional tariff quite apart from an specific concessions which may accrue by virtue of Article 7 of the protocol. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) says we have got it by virtue of the Anglo-German treaty of 1924. Quite right, but that treaty is subject to termination at three months’ notice. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is under the misapprehension that if Germany gives England three months’ notice thereby Great Britain would become entitled to terminate the treaty with Germany if Germany wished to eliminate us. The treaty is for five years certain, and I think is subject to twelve months’ notice. What then did the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) expect in 1923 with his contemplated treaties with foreign countries other than those very advantages I am getting now? If we should come to a tariff agreement with Germany there are these things that we can bargain about: Lemons, under the usual tariff, would pay 12 Reich marks; under treaty tariff they would be free. The corresponding figures for other articles being: Oranges, 20 marks and 2 marks 50; other citrus fruits, 12 marks and 2 marks; peaches, 50 marks and 5 marks; grapes, 30 marks and 15 marks, etc. These are seasonal advantages for which we could bargain.

What about hominy chop?

That is free. We come to fresh fruits sent by post: General tariff, 30 marks, convention tariff, 5.50; fruit otherwise imported in receptacles: General tariff, 45 marks, convention tariff, 7 marks.

England lets our fruit in free.

These are advantages we can get—

You can get them under the Anglo-German treaty.

Why should we not have a treaty direct? Hon. members opposite say we are treating England as a foreign country. That is absolutely untrue. You are shutting your eyes deliberately to one part of the picture; you cannot deal with these things in water-tight compartments. You must look at the special reservation and Article A as a whole. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) made a big fuss about the treaty not providing for the future, but we have made a special reservation dealing with the future in Article 8. We provide that the present position shall be maintained for the future. Are you demanding more preference to-day?

No.

Then where is your grievance? You want us to bind ourselves to England and the rest of the commonwealth when no necessity has arisen, and our policy covers the whole field.

It does not.

We deal with the matter according to the evolution of the thing. Every indication shows that there is not the least likelihood—in fact, you can say it is certain—that nothing of the sort will arise within the next two-and-a-half or three years. Another great point of the hon. member’s was that we have abandoned empire co-operation.

As far as the future is concerned.

Has the hon. member any proof of that?

Of course.

Where did we ever say, or our predecessors say, that we will co-operate and never deal with the outside world? Is what we are doing to-day in conflict with empire co-operation? Of course not. What did your leader mean in 1923? I would like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) to explain why his leader, in 1923, protested against exclusive preferences for England or the commonwealth. Was the right hon. gentleman in favour of empire co-operation in 1923? The greater part of the speech to which the right hon. member treated us the other night was not founded on fact. Was the right hon. member in favour of empire co-operation in 1923? Then why, in the same breath, did he object to exclusive preferences to the British commonwealth? It is pretty hopeless the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referring me to the leader of the Opposition, because, as usual, he will run away from a straight question. He has always done it, and he always will do it. It is part of his nature. It was said the other day that Lord Melchett had said: “If we only had courage to put a ring fence round the British empire,” and Sir Benjamin Morgan said: “We want free trade for the British empire and a tariff for foreign countries.” These very statements show there is no ring fence of the kind members over there want, and are trying to impose upon this Government. Much has been said about the Empire Marketing Board. Let me show what the “Statist,” a responsible and reputable paper in England said about it. I have never opposed the board, but I have pointed out there are certain defects in it. I recognized certain merits of the board publicly at the banquet in the Queen’s Hotel.

You sneered at it.

I did not. The “Statist,” on the 22nd July, 1928, said this—

That was my criticism. As regards the million pounds, we all know the explanation of that. Owing to political occurrences and exigencies in England, the preference that was contemplated could not be granted, and this was given as compensation.

Why have you not included it in your quid pro quo?

I refer you to what Mr. Amery said in the House of Commons the night before last. Another statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)—and it is very significant—was that the imports by Britain in 1927 of raisins, currants, wines and that sort of thing amounted to about £49,000,000, and only a quarter came from the empire. Well, now I put the question that was put by the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay)— why? The English purchaser purchases in what he considers the best market and in spite of preference we have this position, and, of course, it shows that the English purchaser is actuated, not by sentiment, but by hard business principles, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is in purchasing his goods from Germany. That also answers his criticism when he says Britain will get a preference which will go automatically to Germany. The whole political situation shows she will not have the opportunity of offering further preferences in the immediate and very likely the long future.

Nonsense.

The hon. member, while I have a great regard for him, is sometimes extremely dogmatic, and he does not realize that even his great commercial experience may be fallible sometimes. He told me I was ignorant about these things, and said practically I did not know what I was talking about, and the amusing part was that immediately after he made a reckless statement that Rhodesia was being injured, but when pressed why and how, he had not the information to answer.

I said nothing of the kind.

Then we have this absurd statement by the leader of the Opposition that this treaty is both gratuitous and unnecessary. Again I ask, why did he say these things in 1923? This opposition emanates mainly from this coterie of purchasers and importers of German goods and “make-snuggers.” They have got the position in the hollow of their hands. If they want to be so loyal towards England or any other member of the British empire and to do business on sentimental lines, let them stop importing German goods or the products of any other country with whom we may conclude a similar treaty. It was an amusing contrast, the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) compared with the utterances of 1923, and the utterances of the leader of the Opposition on this occasion compared with his utterances in 1923. Anybody can detect the palpable difference. Then we had the fallacy that England is our best customer, and, therefore, we should not conclude this treaty. What an absurdity! Was not England our best customer in 1923, when the leader of the Opposition told the Imperial Conference that the matter was a very serious one? Do not you see the absurdity of the argument? If a man takes 51 per cent, of your products, then you must keep on selling the rest to him because he has got 51 per cent., more than half! These sort of futile puerile arguments are hobby-horses. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) dealt with the treaty and, of course, he also, in his argument, wants what they want— the absolute ring fence. To-day we are giving these preferences, which are very substantia], but what members opposite want is an absolute ring fence, and this Government is not going to do that. I want to deal with the statement of the hon. member for Hanover Street that a ring fence round the empire is impossible. All the more reason that we should reject the criticisms of the Opposition, because they are attempting the impossible. Oh yes, you wanted a ring fence, you wanted the whole of the British empire excluded from Article 8, and that is the absolute ring fence, and not one of them had the courage to suggest what sort of treaty we should substitute for this. The only suggestion came from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), and that was the absolute ring fence. I come to the observations of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), who said that I unjustly quoted and cited the right hon. gentleman’s speech of 1923; so far from doing so unjustly and unfairly, the citation was “hear, heaved ” by hon. gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. leader himself assented to it; I defy him to deny these features of his speeches. The first was that he objected to exclusive preference, that is, preference being confined to the British empire; he asserted that the whole position was one-sided, and it was necessary for the Union and a very important and urgent matter that the Union should have foreign markets; that we should keep our hands clear and stimulate our trade with other foreign markets. Can he deny these simple facts; if he cannot, where have I quoted him unfairly? Do you deny in substance these were his points?

Give his whole speech.

That is too absurd for words. Constantly hon. members are quoting from “Hansard.” and is it the suggestion that I should read the speech from A to Z? It is an absurd suggestion. I now come to this objection with regard to the U.S.A.—I come to the point as stated by my hon. friend opposite. That was explained by the Minister of Finance. Take the Cape delegates’ conference of 1903; the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) took exception to what I stated. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) cited from “Hansard” what was the feeling in the old Cape House—the feeling of Mr. Merriman, Mr. Burton and these people was in substance what I said—what I said was correct. The hon. member said we were further abusing the goodwill of England. That is untrue; time will show. We had a member who quoted the “Manchester Guardian,” which shows that this objection comes only from a section of the people. The hon. member admitted that these treaties are desirable; I challenged him to say what he would substitute for this, and as usual he ran away from that question. A treaty such as hon. members desire is practically an insult to such countries as France, Italy and the Argentine. They have to give us full most-favoured-nation treatment and we are asked to give them most-favoured-foreign nation treatment after cutting out the whole of the British empire. Is that a quid pro quo? We have shown our goodwill and sympathy and carried out the Act of 1925 both in the letter and spirit, and we are continuing that policy as is shown in Article 8 of the treaty. Then we come to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and his Rhodesian tobacco five times that of the Union. Does he not know that it is due entirely to the fact that Rhodesia produces Virginia tobacco? Then I come to deal more particularly with the points raised by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who does not profess to take notice of the things he said. He abused the occasion at the Rosebank Show the other day and made propaganda in connection with this treaty. His speeches are, of course, very specious and plausible, but when you examine them they have little foundation in fact. I admit it is the specious and plausible things of his speeches that make them worth listening to, and why they are so eagerly listened to by his followers. He had this cheap argument that with reference to what I said about the covenant of the League of Nations that it never contemplated by its provisions in Article 23 the abolition of preference; whoever said so? He has a marvellous capacity for making the worse appear the better reason and a wonderful capacity for closing his eyes to facts which are palpable and clear. He protested, and it was too amusing to see how he was followed by almost every other speaker on that side of the House, that it was not because they were against Germany, but because they were anxious about the interests of the Union. He said it was not only Article 8, but other important articles in the treaty. He did not take the trouble to point them out, except Article 3, and it was the same fallacy the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) fell into—they are constantly confusing the word “foreign” with something else. The logical reservation of Article 8 leads to the omission of the word “foreign.” When we have stated the problem under Article 8 of the treaty, we have done so throughout. The omission of the word “foreign” is only another aspect of the very same problem. The right hon. leader of the Opposition also said that I was out to break the circle of the British empire whatever that may mean. W’e are now entering into a treaty for the first time, and there is no circle to break. Where is that circle? Where have we bound ourselves? Look at the Act of 1925, and even there is not a circle, and if there ever was one before, that it was broken by the Act of 1925, because you will find in terms of that Act there was no automatic accrual of benefits, granted to foreign countries by the Union, to any of the dominions, but only an automatic accrual there to Great Britain herself. I do not admit there is any circle, and, therefore, I resent very deeply the attempt to impose this circle. Another statement made by the right hon. gentleman was that we were hanging the sword of Damocles over the producers of the Union. What an absurdity! I remember having read that Mr. Woodrow Wilson stated that on certain occasions “Smuts spoke much academic nonsense.”. I can only say that he spoke much actual nonsense. I am going to show that what the right hon. gentleman stated to this House was incorrect. He told the House that I had stated that Mr. Sturrock, of Johannesburg, had said that he was glad the trade barriers were being removed, and that Mr. Sturrock made that statement before the treaty had been published. The treaty appeared in the “Government Gazette” of Friday. 16th November, 1928, and that “Gazette” reaches Johannesburg on Friday afternoons. The statement I have referred to was made by Mr. Sturrock in an interview given to the “Star” on the 17th of November, so you will see that Mr. Sturrock had the full text of the treaty before him. The statement was also made that Mr. Sturrock had been misled by the official communique issued by the Government, which had appeared some weeks before. That is absolutely incorrect. This is the gentleman who talks about being fair. I will give the House Mr. Starrock’s own words. This is what he said—

Hon. members will see from this that Mr. Sturrock understood the treaty fully and correctly. Then there was also Mr. Victor Kent. This is what he says as president of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce—

I say that Mr. Sturrock at that time had the treaty before him, and what he said was absolutely correct in the light of the actual terms of the treaty. And so with all the other speakers. For instance, let me read what Mr. Henderson said on a first reading of the terms of the treaty—

So it will be seen that this point was clearly before the minds of these gentlemen at that time. Why does the right hon. gentleman opposite now say that Mr. Sturrock did not appreciate the position? Mr. Sturrock has never repudiated this statement. I will refer to his further statement presently. The right hon. gentleman added that Mr. Sturrock was misled by the communique, issued to the press. I am going to read that communique and I will show that there again the right hon. gentleman is altogether off the rails. This communique was communicated to the press, and appeared in “Die Burger” and the “Cape Times” of the 4th September, 1928. Here is the communique which the right hon. gentleman stigmatizes as incorrect—a very serious statement to make. There is always the old imputation of bad faith, and then he has the cheek to say that we are on the defence. Now for the communique—

That statement was in its spirit and in its letter a correct statement as regards all matters to which it refers, and I say that the statement of a leading Cape Town newspaper that this was intended to mislead, is mendacious, and that the statement of the right hon. gentleman that Mr. Sturrock was misled, and that he had not had the treaty before him is also incorrect. And then he talks about my wriggling. His whole record has been that of an arch-wriggler. He wriggled out of the four versions of his speech at Ermelo, and he had to get a specially-edited version. He gave a very lame explanation of his statement in his Zionist Hall speech: “If you sup with the devil you must have a long spoon.” As was pointed out yesterday, he mentioned a number of countries, and then he said: “But as to Germany.” Then I come to a question raised by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) as regards standardization. There is nothing in the point at all. The position is safeguarded in the treaty. I do not often refer with commendation to one of the leading newspapers of Cape Town, but I refer him to the “Cape Argus” of the 12th February, 1929, which deals with the supposed snag in a leading article, and which gives a very fair explanation of the whole thing. Wriggling and hairsplitting has been characteristic of this whole debate on the other side, purposely shutting their eyes to all the important points in connection with this treaty, and especially with regard to Article 8. Then I come to this amusing statement of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), that England takes seven times the amount of products that Germany takes from us, and that, therefore, we stand to lose seven times. What lovely logic.

I did not say it.

You gave the figures, and said we, therefore, lose seven times as much. It is only excelled by his very stupid statement that we have made provision in the treaty for German prison-made clothes. Now I come to this first charge of theirs—why was Germany chosen? Look at the “Cape Argus” of the 7th December, 1928; “Cheap goods of an enemy state,” referred to as such by Sir Arthur Duckham; two speeches by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) reported in the Cape Town papers during February, and both deliberate and malicious. The “Star” of Johannesburg of the 1st January, “The new German danger”; it is true it is not in connection with the treaty; it was in connection with iron and steel, but very closely akin. The “Sunday Times” and the “Rand Daily Mail” had to protest against the racialistic tendency of the criticisms on the German treaty—two of your own papers. Then we had the pathetically farcical and the farcically pathetic spectacle of member after member following in the lead of their leader, systematically in an organised way, in a palpably artificial way, and protesting their new love for Germany. “Thou dost protest too much.” We had the spectacle of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) claiming kinship with the Teutonic race, when only a few years ago they were stigmatized and rejected and ejected and interned and burnt out as “Huns.” The right hon. gentleman himself, by playing the role of lawyer instead of statesman, imposed upon them through his advice in the shape of reparations burdens heavy to be borne. I refer moreover to the “Natal Advertiser” and its leading article of the 19th December and the 11th January. We have the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), who, as a rule, is very fair, even in suite of what he had just previously stated, asking the question why this particular country should be chosen. What did he go on to suggest? Something sinister is always being suggested, always the idea of malafides runs throughout their speeches. He suggested that when I had, unfortunately, to visit Europe in 1926 in connection with the accident to my eye, I had, in some way got into touch with Germany, and prepared the ground for this treaty. That is the only fair construction I can place on the remarks of the hon. gentleman. I can state that, although I went to Leipzig for a day or two in connection with medical advice, I never directly or indirectly during my whole visit to Europe, discussed the question of a treaty with anybody. The hon. member suggested that we chose Germany because she was a big power, and she had to bell the cat. I will remind him of a proverb of his little country of origin and also my country of origin, of which I am very proud. “Hy heeft de klok horen luiden, maar weet niet waar de klepel hangt.” [He heard the bell ring, but couldn’t find the hammer.] We had the same sort of vague imputations, and they always run away from these imputations. They never materialize into something concrete. We had the same vague imputation from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that Mr. Gundelfinger was inspired by the Government or the Board of Trade and Industries. There is not a shadow of truth in that. When I contrast this short-sighted petty jingoism of the hon. member for Rondebosch with the far-sighted, broad-minded statesmanship of a man like the late Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, I see the illimitable difference between them. Our critics are willing to wound, but afraid to strike, and we always have from them these vague insinuations of bad faith. Even the hon. member opposite, who is always extremely courteous, and to whom I always listen with admiration, said the other night that he did not trust the Government. How then can hon. members opposite take it amiss when I refer to calumnies and to what their leading mouth-piece in the Cape Province said—that I was either incompetent and did not appreciate the true import of the treaty, or was an accomplice of Germany. I do not object to the first statement, but why these imputations of bad faith, these positive accusations? Another mendacious statement, which is on a par with the others, appeared the day before yesterday in a leading article in the chief Cape Town daily paper—the statement that I had said that this treaty was purely an accident. If these falsehoods can be uttered under the nose of everybody who is aware of the truth, and when the thing is hardly cold, what can we expect when a little time has elapsed? I never said anything of the kind, but that the fact that Germany was the first to get a treaty was a pure accident. Then we heard about voluntary preference, but the whole bottom was knocked out of that case by the frank admission of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that he and his friends here bought in the cheapest market. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said that we were following a policy of isolation. We used to be reproached for not looking over the boundaries of our country to the outside world, but now that we are doing that, the reproach is that we should not do what they desired us to do. Another statement the leader of the Opposition made was that the Prime Minister of Australia said that this was a very serious matter. What the Prime Minister of Australia really said was that it was not for him to comment on the action of a sister dominion. It was the correspondent of the “Cape Times” who said that this was regarded as a serious question, another terminological inexactitude of the leader of the Opposition, and I have exposed a good many of them this afternoon. Mr. Amery said on February 27th that the South African preference, which was greater than the preference Great Britain accorded South Africa, would continue. I believe the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said the figures I gave were not correct, but they were obtained from the British Board of Trade.

They have been questioned too.

I challenge hon. members to give a straight answer to this question. Sir Benjamin Morgan said that he desired free trade within the empire and tariffs against foreign countries. Do hon. members opposite subscribe to that? Where is there a single paper that ever supports us, not that I set any value on the support of any of these papers. The Government has to fix its policy, and its policy on this point has been fixed for years. The “Rand Daily Mail,” in its issue of November 28th of last year, says—

With regard to the Persian treaty, I can only repeat that what I read to the House is absolutely correct.

Can we see the treaty?

No, because it is attached to a document that is confidential.

But surely the treaty can be detached from that document.

I want to say this, that it has been brought to my notice that his Majesty’s British Government, although the words “most-favoured-nation treatment” occur and not the words “most-favoured-foreign-nation treatment,” contend it is competent to read the word “foreign” into it.

Why did you not put it in?

I read the clause word for word in the agreement now in force and the word “foreign” does not occur. I have all along admitted that, although Great Britain in her treaties has not imposed the absolute ring fence that hon. members want, she has referred to other countries as “most-favoured-foreign-nation.” I stated the other day, and I repeat, that if you analyse the Anglo-German treaty you will find out of 29 articles there are 17 that do not make any distinction between Germany as a foreign country, and England, or any other member of the British commonwealth, as a domestic country. I admit England has made treaties of this sort, and I told the House that in 1897 she deliberately denounced treaties with Belgium and Germany in order to make such provision. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Dncan) has raised the argument: “What is the value of a treaty that has to be terminated?” I have just given the instance where England terminated treaties in order to be able to insert the word “foreign” in future treaties and it gave rise to no difficulties. Yet you ask us, if we terminated the treaty afterwards, won’t we have difficulties? The idea of a treaty of hon. gentlemen over there is this—that we must limit another country to foreign-nation treatment, but we take from that country the full benefits of most-favoured-nation treatment. That is hardly a quid pro quo. It was said by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that we were afraid to lay on the Table communications between us and the other members of the commonwealth with regard to this treaty. Nothing of the kind. Hon. members must understand that in the nature of the case, these communications are always confidential, and that it is not a light thing, it is not a matter, of course, to ask any other Government within the empire: “May we publish this confidential correspondence?”

It is done every day.

You expose them to a false position, and you expose yourselves to a false position.

That is very likely.

I will tell hon. gentlemen what the position is, but I am not going to lay the correspondence on the Table, because that would be improper.

made a remark [inaudible].

Well, then if you don’t want to know it, I will refrain from giving it. I come to the great concern and apprehension of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) about men-of-war and Article 3 of the treaty. Let me tell him that men-of-war are entirely outside this treaty, and it is an accepted axiom of international law that, unless in a treaty of this sort specific provision is made for the entry of men-of-war, that entry is entirely at the discretion of the country concerned, so we can say to-morrow to Germany “We are not going to allow your men-of-war within a certain distance of pur harbours.” That is the simple answer to that, I am very much indebted to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), and I am glad to see the South African party has its jester.

Shame.

I apologize; I withdraw that. I am glad to see they have in their ranks an hon. gentleman who assumes the House in the way he did last night. He was kind enough to defend me and to say it had been suggested I was a rebel. I suppose I am considered a rebel in connection with this treaty, but there you have the admission out of the mouths of babes and sucklings; there you have the admission of the mentality of hon. gentlemen opposite when they regard this whole treaty as a rebellion against England. Merely to look for other markets is considered an act of rebellion towards the Mother Country. I come to the question of Australia. It was strenuously denied that Australia refused to take our mealies because of black labour. I would like hon. gentlemen to refer to the “Hansard” of Australia that was cited by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen). Very uncomplimentary things were said about South Africa. The fact is that Australia terminated the whole arrangement with us. The fact is further that the fluctuations in Australia in the rainfall are so great that the importation of mealies fluctuates with them. Let me give some figures. In 1913, Australia imported from us 10,000,000 lbs. of mealies; in 1915, 78,000 lbs.; in 1916, 41,000 lbs.; in 1918, only 5,000 lbs.; in 1919, 32,000 lbs.; in 1921, 307,000 lbs.; and in 1922, 51,000,000 lbs.; in 1923 it was 159,000,000 lbs.; in 1924, it was 4,000,000 lbs.; in 1925, 23,000,000 lbs.; and in 1926, 117,000,000 lbs.

What about 1928?

I have not 1928. They terminated the arrangement. In any case, they definitely adopted it as their policy that they would not support stuff grown by black labour. What about your sugar grown in Natal? Now I come to sugar, and I can only say, as to the observation of Sir Benjamin Morgan, he is personally interested in sugar refineries in England. That is all I have to say. I come to New Zealand, which was also raised by the hon. member. She produces what we produce— cheese, butter, oats, mealies, and so on—and it is very difficult, therefore, to trade under these circumstances. Then I want to repeat, because I think it ought to be repeated, because hon. members did not follow it so clearly, that as to the investment of trust moneys in colonial securities, the position is simply, firstly, that there is not sufficient scope in the United Kingdom for the investment of those moneys at a sufficiently high rate of interest; secondly, our securities are perfectly satisfactory from every point of view; and, thirdly, in any case, it is the duty of those who invest trust moneys to invest them safely. Therefore, I do not see the particular virtue of this argument, that it is of particular benefit to us to have the investment of this money. I do not think I need deal with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), except to say that all he could discover was a rolling stone that could gather moss. I want to deal with an aspect of the debate which I regard as a very undesirable one—the constant threat that, although the British Government as such had been correct in its conduct and would not retaliate, the British public would retaliate. I regard that entirely as a bogey, and I can only say that we can deal with other countries and the people of other countries on a basis of reasonableness, and I am not going to presume for a moment that the British public are going to act unreasonably. We are acting reasonably and in accordance with the principles of 1923, which, I understand, are still applicable, and we expect the people of England to do the same thing. The Government, and I personally, have not the least doubt that they will do the same. I repeat what I said previously, that as to these threats and references to retaliation, if they indicate, anything, it is that the Government has, taken a wise step in inaugurating a series of treaties with other countries, because if we are to be exposed to these threats and the realization of these threats and of retaliation that are being held out to us, the sooner we ensure our position in the world generally, the better. I do not attach any value to these threats, so far as England and her people are concerned. And then hon. members have the effrontry to say they are dealing with this treaty as good South Africans. The whole thing has been an election move, and has been engineered. We are quite prepared to abide by the verdict of; the people on this treaty, and on many of the other important measures with which this Government has dealt, and the solution of many great problems we have found in this country.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—62.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan. C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer. I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Vermoten, O. S.

Noes—51.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arrott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin. F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenlrays, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F, J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel; O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P,

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Hay, G. A.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Upon the Prime Minister proposing to move the adjournment of the House,

Before the motion moved by the Prime Minister for the adjournment is put, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to follow the ordinary rule and transmit this resolution as a message to the Senate for its concurrence. It seems to me to be a matter of extraordinary importance, and it has been the usual course in this House in similar cases to send a message to the Senate and ask for its concurrence.

This is a point on which the Government decided at once that we had merely to do with an administrative act, but the Government considered it of so much importance that they thought it advisable to lay the matter before the House of Assembly to make it possible for representatives of the people to signify disapproval of the treaty. I am not going to accept the view that where we have to do with a matter of an administrative nature the Government must necessarily bring it also before the Senate.

I should like to ask whether it is not competent for my motion to be taken on the motion for the adjournment of the House. I believe it is the practice in the British House of Commons, where the rules are silent, that a motion of this kind can be moved on a matter of importance upon a motion for the adjournment, and we follow the House of Commons’ practice where our rules are silent. This certainly seems to me to be a matter of extreme importance, and I think the House should have an opportunity of discussing it.

The right hon. member is raising a very important point of procedure, and one which is very difficult for me to decide. I should like to hear what hon. members may have to say on the point. Otherwise I must take time to consider it.

As a result of the vote that has just been taken, should not a message follow automatically from this House, asking the Senate for its concurrence, and if no such message is sent, could we not ask why and debate the whole question from that point of view?

That is another point. I think that in the discussion on the other treaty it was admitted that it does not necessarily follow that the confirmation of a treaty must be submitted to the Senate.

It was a matter of common cause that there was no necessity to submit the Kellogg Pact to either House. But this is quite a different matter, and the two questions do not stand on the same footing. You will appreciate that the machinery for the application of this treaty is actually provided for in the statute and in the treaty itself. Therefore no precedent can arise from the Kellogg treaty with regard to the ruling you have to give. It is an entirely different point whether automatically, on the adoption by this House of the motion that it has adopted, there should not at once be moved in this House a resolution transmitting the treaty to the Senate, and, in the absence of such resolution, may we not actually on the spot, before any motion for the adjournment is moved, draw attention to the absence of the motion, and debate the whole question?

That is a different point to that, raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

I think the only point of order raised was the one raised by the right hon. gentleman. When a motion has been carried, there is nothing before the House until the next thing is moved, and it usually has to be with notice. The point has been raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as to whether the procedure in this House has or has not conformed to the procedure of the House of Commons; that is to say, that on a motion of adjournment the opportunity is taken to raise matters of importance. I will relate my own experience, which you will find in the record, that very frequently in the first Parliament of the Union, knowing that procedure is adopted in the House of Commons, my friends and myself tried to have that procedure followed, but it was ruled that a motion for adjournment could not be used as a pretext for raising a discussion. It was also ruled that in any matter of that sort, your opportunity was either by way of motion on private members’ day, or when a money Bill came before the House. Otherwise, if it was a matter of urgency, your only other course was to move under the rules the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. I believe what I have said is a correct statement of what the ruling is that has been given by your pre decessors.

As far as I remember, the practice established has been that on the last day of a session of Parliament, it being the last day, any point can be raised, on the principle that the House does not meet again. I would submit that there is a great analogy between the position at the end of the session and the position now. We are now taking final leave of this treaty, as far as the House is concerned. I would like to know from you upon what other occasion we can specifically raise this question unless we raise it now. I submit that, owing to the importance of this question, you will allow me the same lattitude that is allowed at the end of a session. The hon. the Minister speaks about a money Bill. You cannot specifically raise such an important issue upon a money Bill, where you discuss various items of importance. I submit that this is the opportune time, before we take leave of this meeting, to discuss this very important point. My hon. friend has raised the question of the Kellogg treaty. The Kellogg treaty is on a different basis, I frankly admit, to this treaty. This treaty is a trade treaty, and there is provision made in the treaty itself that this treaty has to be approved by a competent legislative authority. The question is, what is the competent legislative authority. In the terms of the Act of Union, we only know one legislative authority, and that is the Parliament of the country, consisting of the King, the Senate and the House of Assembly. That is a most important constitutional point. I hope you will allow discussion, even if you are not quite clear in your mind on the point as to whether it should take place now.

The hon. member is now going into the merits of the case, and he is not discussing merely whether it shall be permitted or not. I object to his proceeding further.

Will the hon. member confine himself to a point of order.

I expected that the Deputy-Speaker of this House would try to assist us in this matter. I was only pleading with you that if you have any doubt in your mind, you should give members the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to discuss this very important question.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) expressed the expectation that I would assist the House in a matter like this. I will gladly try to do so. I want in the first place to point out to the House that we have not yet reached the end of the session. If that were so, then Mr. Speaker could give permission for a motion on the order paper, which in all probability would not be reached, to be debated on some relevant question or other before the House, as for instance the Estimates. Otherwise not. If the hon. member for Standerton wants to debate the question he has raised he must give notice of motion for the purpose, and if there is no time for it, obtain the desired information by means of questions after notice. To discuss other questions on a motion for the adjournment of the House is unprecedented. Otherwise an hon. member could rise and object to the adjournment of the House, because he has grievances about the fish industry or any other matter.

I understand naturally the difficulty of the point which has been raised by me, and as you do not wish to give a ruling at once on a point which is, of course, of great importance to the practice of this House, I do not want to argue the question on its merits whether this treaty should be sent to the Senate or not. I am simply now addressing myself to the question of procedure, and I put the question to you whether this important point cannot be discussed on the motion of the adjournment of the House, and you say you have difficulty in giving a ruling now, a difficulty which I appreciate. I appeal to the practice of the House of Commons, which we follow as a supplementary practice where our rules are silent; according to the House of Commons practice, undoubtedly a discussion like this would be allowed on a motion for the adjournment of the House. Perhaps another way can be found out of the difficulty—if we put a motion on the paper, will the Prime Minister give us time to discuss it? We are in this difficulty—the Government has taken all the time of the House and it is impossible for any member on this side to raise this matter, which is of the greatest constitutional importance. We must know what the relations of the two Houses are. It is right to the country and the House that an opportunity should be given for a debate on the question, and debate should not be smothered. We must clear up the position and know where we stand and what the functions of the two Houses are, and we must decide the matter after proper argument and consideration. I am prepared to put the motion on the Paper if the Prime Minister will give us time for its discussion. It will not be an unlimited debate and should be finished in an afternoon or evening. Certainly the matter should not be left in its present state of uncertainty.

There are a lot of other more important matters—matters material to the people—which I would like to bring up on a motion for the adjournment if such a thing is permissible. There are a number of motions on the Paper which we shall have no chance to discuss this session, which are far more important as affecting the life of the people than the point which has just been raised.

I may point out to the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) that I have no difficulty whatever in saying that a general discussion on any other matter except the procedure of Parliament would be out of order. The difficulty I have is whether this, as a question of procedure, can be discussed.

I cannot do as the right hon. gentleman suggests. I can quite understand that a motion would be put down asking that this House shall decide either all treaties, or that certain classes of treaties shall be approved of by both Houses of Parliament. But to come here on such an occasion to ask that we shall in a hurry decide whether this treaty has to go to the Senate will only leave us where we are to-day. It is leading to nothing. Either the position is correct, that it is a matter of Government administration for which the Government is responsible and which the Government can choose to lay before one or both Houses, or it is something which has to have the approval of both Houses to be valid. If the latter, my right hon. friend need not be afraid. If he wants the other decided, he should come with a proper motion, so that it can be thrashed out calmly and on its merits, but to do it on an occasion of this kind would lead nowhere, and it would give an opportunity for any member to bring forward matters on a motion for the adjournment.

It is quite clear that the practice of the Union House has been to confine discussion on the motion for the adjournment of the House to reasons for opposing the motion or to questions touching procedure or the conduct of the business of the House, and to disallow questions which can be raised upon financial measures or after notice. I do not feel that this is a matter which can be regarded as a question touching procedure or the conduct of the business of the House, and therefore do not think that the matter can be discussed on the motion for the adjournment. As to whether it can be raised in other ways, I am not prepared to give any opinion! at the present time.